Police privacy bill to be aired

By VERNON SMALL deputy political editor

A move to curb the media's right to name police officers involved in serious firearms incidents is expected to win initial cross-party support, but is unlikely to make it into law.

National's Paul Hutchison, who has sponsored the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill, said restrictions were necessary after the High Court ruled that the name of Constable Keith Abbott, who shot and killed Steven Wallace in Waitara in April 2000, could be published.

The Herald, which took the case in May 2000, did not publish Constable Abbott's name until October 2001 after two High Court judges ruled he should not have name suppression.

But it was published by the National Business Review and others after the initial ruling.

Dr Hutchison said there had been a 60-year convention of not naming police involved in shootings while on duty. Officers and their families could be endangered by name publication.

The bill, which was set down for its first reading last night, applies only to Police Complaints Authority investigations. The House rose before it was debated.

It would prevent publication until:

* The authority's investigation is completed, or

* The officer is charged with a crime related to the investigation, or

* The authority permits publication, or

* A High Court judge rules that the public is best served by allowing the name to be published.

* Media that breached the ban would face fines of up to $20,000.

Dr Hutchison said he expected cross-party support for the bill to go to a select committee for consideration. He had not yet sought support beyond that stage, and he expected the Government to introduce its own measure.

But Justice Minister Phil Goff said he had drafted a law last year but after a meeting with media representatives had put it on the backburner. He would not introduce it while the convention of not routinely naming police officers was observed.

"It is far better than imposing statutory name suppression ... that the convention be observed freely and willingly by the media."

But Labour would vote to send the bill to a select committee, so a public debate could be held.

"I would have to persuaded that something had changed since March last year that would warrant altering the understanding I have with the wider media," said Mr Goff.

Dr Hutchison's bill was drawn from a ballot of members' bills last December, one day after the end of a private prosecution which found Constable Abbott not guilty of murdering Mr Wallace.

Police Association president Greg O'Connor said the Abbott case had made it clear a law change was needed.

But the chairman of the press freedom committee of the Commonwealth Press Union, Gavin Ellis, said there was no compelling reason for a law change. The committee has representatives from print and electronic media.

Mr Ellis said Mr Goff appeared to accept that the media generally acted responsibly, so there was no need to legislate.

It would be dangerous to allow the court to rule on the public interest issue, because that would substitute a judge's view for an essential liberty, said Mr Ellis.