Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As the promoter of this bill, I have agreed with the Justice and Electoral Committee that the bill not proceed. However, I do wish to explain why. For over 60 years there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in fatal firearm incidents while on duty. That convention was broken 3 years ago after the High Court ruled that the publication was allowed of the name of the officer who shot Steven Wallace on a street in Waitara. The police officer involved literally had to go into hiding with his family for 6 months for fear of retribution, and that situation motivated me to introduce a member’s bill to allow temporary name suppression of police involved in fatal shootings. Not only did that shooting cause huge media interest but it resulted in lengthy legal proceedings, including a private prosecution brought by the deceased’s family against the constable.

The bill was supported by National, Labour, New Zealand First, and United Future through its first reading in Parliament. The bill received five public submissions, of which two supported the bill and two opposed the bill, and the New Zealand Law Society expressed technical changes.

The Commonwealth Press Union is the organisation representing the interests of newspaper editors and publishers in New Zealand on press-freedom matters. That union and John Rowan QC, the lawyer who took the private prosecution for the Wallace family, opposed the bill. The Commonwealth Press Union submitted: “Initial police action to suppress Constable Abbott’s identity was based on uncorroborated belief that the New Zealand Herald intended to identify.” There had been suggestions that the shooting had been racially initiated, and the newspaper had reason to believe that the police officer was himself of Māori descent. Subsequent to the High Court hearing that allowed publication, it was the National Business Review and the Waikato Times that published the name. The Commonwealth Press Union further submitted: “In a free and open society the media must have the ability to inquire into the validity of the cause of lethal force by an employee of the State, and to do so independent of any State agency that may inquire into the circumstances. Automatic name suppression would hamper legitimate media inquiries, even if there was no intention of publishing the officer’s name, unless to do so was in the public interest.”

The submission from the New Zealand Police Association was understandably strongly supportive of the bill and in line with the initial motivation I had for introducing the name protection legislation. The Police Association submitted that the protection provided by anonymity, where police officers are found to have been acting lawfully and in the execution of their duty, is as important for the safety of the officer and his or her family as any other protection provided by the State. The association argued further: “Police officers are public officials doing a public job, often in dangerous and difficult situations. Until such time as it is proven that an officer’s actions were unlawful, the law should provide for their personal, physical, and emotional safety, and that of their families, by giving them the protection of anonymity.”

The Waikato Times was noted to have a far more fundamental view. It stated: “An open court is one of the foundations of a judicial system. It means that the public had a right to know who was appearing before the courts. It demonstrates all citizens are equal before the law. If there are extenuating circumstances that could be grounds for suppression then there are processes available.”

The select committee, having heard those competing views, requested that the Commonwealth Press Union return for further questioning. It was that exchange that persuaded me to support dropping the bill. I was very impressed that the Commonwealth Press Union members were highly concerned at the breach of the long-standing convention, and were very willing to reach a constructive alternative to a further law being introduced. Somewhat to my amazement, it was revealed that the convention not to publish the name of an officer involved in a fatal shooting had never been written down, although it had been informally reaffirmed after 60 years in 2002, after external discussions between the Minister of Justice and a wide number of television, radio, and print media representatives.

At the select committee, an assurance was given by the chair of the Commonwealth Press Union, Mr Gavin Ellis, that he would seek to have the matter of the convention put into writing, perhaps with a code of conduct, at the next meeting of the Press Freedom Committee. I understand that that particular committee has now changed its name. He noted that the Commonwealth Press Union does not control its members and that it is important that editors can exercise their own judgment, common sense, and consciences.

The select committee, in its conclusions, said: “We would also like to issue a firm warning to the media that any further transgression from this convention may result in legislative intervention from Parliament.” I personally felt that it was not necessary to issue such a warning. In fact, on balance, I was satisfied that dropping my proposed bill without incurring further expense was potentially a win-win solution, where no extra law is passed, where press freedom is maintained, and where the Commonwealth Press Union has reaffirmed the desire to exercise great responsibility towards the police and their families.

This matter has had a very good airing, and I appreciate the very clear, competent, and expressive report presented to the House just now by Dr Paul Hutchison, which has made me much better informed on the issue than I was a little while ago. Clearly, he has had a good look at the whole issue and has decided not to proceed with the matter.

It is very difficult for a member of Parliament to change his or her mind, and it shows a greater level of understanding, achievement and ability on the part of the member to be able to do so, having heard all the submissions. It is something one wishes this minority Government would do from time to time on bills that go before select committees, when they receive submissions indicating that legislation is absolutely wrong but push ahead with it regardless.

I would like to congratulate Dr Hutchison on the work he has done on this issue, and on the manner in which he has presented it to the House. New Zealand First will be supporting the motion before the House.

On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to endorse what the previous speaker said. I would also like to congratulate Paul Hutchison on the serious way he has gone about this bill, and the Law and Order Committee on the work it did in dealing with a real problem, but dealing with it in a way that does not undermine our justice system and press freedom.

I think that the underlying principle is that we cannot have two laws in this country—one for the police and one for other citizens. Of course we can do things, as the Commonwealth Press Union does and as most media outlets do, and operate in a responsible way, recognising the difficult task the police have, recognising that they often have to deal with violent situations where accidents can happen, and recognising that we should act in a way that does not cause police officers unnecessary embarrassment, either for themselves or for their families, and lead to consequences that are unnecessary and bad for them. I think we operate with that understanding, but at the end of the day there cannot be two systems, particularly when what is involved are very difficult firearm incidents that cause a lot of emotion in the community. Often it is difficult for communities and the rest of the country to work out where the blame lies.

We saw that in the Wallace case where there was quite a division of opinion in the community, and that was reflected right through to the court process. It was resolved through the legal system, and I think that all parties learnt something from the whole process—one system operating for all, including the police in that case. Of course, such a process can cause hurt, and the publicity around the case can cause hurt. It is the same with other defendants, particularly those who are found to be not guilty in the end. They often feel a lot of hurt, and their families feel hurt for the suffering they have had in the process—a process during which their names have been blackened, to some extent.

But sometimes the convention of protecting the name of the person has to be departed from in some cases, because if there is real information that perhaps a police officer was involved in some wrongdoing or criminal activity in an incident involving a firearm, the case may have to go to trial. On some occasions it is actually in the interests of justice that the name of the officer is known. If we look at other cases we see that it is often the public nature of our criminal justice system, and the name of the alleged offender being known, that help to resolve whether that person is guilty.

I was out on the steps of Parliament at 1 o’clock this afternoon, helping to receive a petition on the Scott Watson case. I want to use that as an illustration, in that Scott Watson’s name being known in the lead-up to his trial while the police investigation was going on did help the police to gather more evidence in the case. After seeing his picture, people who knew Scott Watson came forward with information on his character, on what else he had done, and on what else had happened on the night of the sad case of the disappearance of two young people. The name of the alleged offender being known actually helped that case.

Going beyond that, there is a little bit of a turn-round to the other way at the present time and more people are coming forward. Some of the witnesses who were involved in the prosecution are now coming forward and saying: “Hold on, our evidence was misused.”, “There was evidence that wasn’t used.”, and “You seem to have the wrong person.”, etc. Because the process was public, first, it helped the police to convict Scott Watson and, second, it may at the end of the day help him to get off. That is the way the justice system works.

I understand that on occasion the police can get upset, and rightly so, if the name of a police officer goes out into the media unnecessarily. Of course, there is always a tendency in any social group, including the police, to protect one’s own. The police will tend to interpret the actions of one of their fellow officers in a more positive light than would others, maybe. There will be a public debate on that, as there was in the Wallace case, but it is sometimes in the interests of justice for the name to come out at a certain point.

The bill relates to protecting the name of a person during the hearings or proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority, which generally goes into action on such incidents. One problem with that, in my experience, is that the proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority can be very drawn out and can actually prevent justice from taking place, at the end of the day. In my case, I put in a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority in 1999 on the issue of police actions during protests against a visiting Chinese dignitary. There is indication that I will get a result, but over 4½ years later the complaint is still being processed. So if one talks about a criminal justice system involving a police officer having to wait for more than 4½ years before anything proceeds in that officer’s case, and before there is any reference to the officer concerned in the media, then one is putting a big restraint on the possibility of justice operating.

On behalf of the Green Party then, I support this bill not proceeding any further, and I do commend members of Parliament, the select committee, and Mr Hutchison for the way in which the matter has been dealt with.

I wish to take a call on behalf of United Future to make a few comments on the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison, and I thank him for bringing this very important issue to light. Although I understand that the bill will be discharged, I think it has achieved quite a number of goals and I thank Paul Hutchison for that.

The first goal, of course, is that when we ask the police to do the job on our behalf to protect us and support the law, very often they are put in the firing line. In this particular case, the public identification of Constable Abbott did a huge disservice to him, and to his family as well. The media convention not to name police was very definitely broken in that instance.

The only reasonable response to that is to turn the media convention into enforceable legislation. It would have been regrettable to have to do that, because the ability for the media to scrutinise is a right that we all must uphold and value. If nothing else, what Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment bill sought to do, and in fact did, was clarify that convention. From now on there will not be a newspaper in this country that has not been put on notice. If newspapers flaunt the convention, there will be a legislative response.

For that alone, credit must be given to Paul Hutchison for putting this bill forward. I thank him and the other members of the Law and Order Committee for looking into this amendment bill, and for getting a very good result at the end of the day.

Motion not agreed to.