DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) : I seek leave that not withstanding Standing Order 145(1)(b), the votes cast for each party on the second reading of this bill may include votes cast for the Ayes and Noes, and abstentions.

Dail Jones: I did not quite catch what the member said. I was engaged on something else, and it is obviously a very important issue.

DAVID BENSON-POPE: The leave is a consequence of the agreement at the Business Committee that allows a split vote by the National Party or any other party, should it wish to do so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Mr SPEAKER: As there is only a reply to come, and the person is not present, we come to the vote. The question is that this bill be now read a first time.

• Motion not agreed to.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : I move, That the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I am very pleased to speak to the first reading of this bill, and at the appropriate time I will move that it be referred to the Law and Order Committee for further deliberation.

The genesis of this bill partly stems from the tragic events that occurred when a police officer shot and killed Steven Wallace on the main street of Waitara in April 2000. What followed was extended purgatory not only for Steven Wallace’s family but also for the police officer involved.

I have lived in the United States, and have witnessed the social impacts of an armed police force there. I was close to two shootings. One incident involved an unarmed 18-year-old who was shot in the back while trying to evade his police escort in the crowded X-ray room of the hospital where I worked. The incident was avoidable and unnecessary. My experiences left me with huge respect for the conservative approach and extra risks taken by New Zealand’s generally unarmed police force.

This bill gives individual police officers who are involved in firearm incidents while carrying out their duty conditional name protection until the Police Complaints Authority investigation is completed. I believe that the legislation is now necessary after the High Court’s landmark decision on A Plaintiff v Over the last 60 years, there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in shootings while on duty. The court ruled that publication was allowed, and the , among others, published the officer’s name. In this bill, provided that the police officer meets certain conditions, name protection will last until either the Police Complaints Authority 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 interest is best served by the name of the officer being allowed to be published.

This bill covers only Police Complaints Authority investigations involving police use of firearms. Because of New Zealand’s conservative tradition of police not normally carrying or using firearms, their lives are often put in added danger. Although the High Court ruled that “… there can be no right of privacy in respect of an action by a public officer in the course of his public duties in a public street …”, and that therefore the officer should not receive special protection, this bill purports that New Zealand police take on extraordinary risk in the course of duty, and it is only natural justice that they and their families are not further penalised or endangered by having their names published, at least until the Police Complaints Authority has released its findings, or they are charged with an offence. In a small country like New Zealand, where police take a conservative approach to firearms, there is, consequently, far more media attention when police shootings occur than happens in many overseas jurisdictions. This makes the police and their families particularly vulnerable.

On 5 March 2003 the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General issued an opinion regarding the bill and its consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I quote: “The bill raises a prima facie issue with section 14 of the Bill of Rights. The proposed new section 19A provides for a bar on the publication in any report or account relating to the investigation of the name of any member of the police involved in a firearms incident, or any information likely to lead to the identification of the police officer or his or her family. We consider this clause serves the purpose of enabling the Police Complaints Authority to carry out a thorough and unhindered investigation into the incident. As this is an important and significant objective, and a number of protections are built into the bill to protect the right to freedom of expression, this prima facie inconsistency appears justifiable. Although we consider the issues in this bill to be finely balanced, we have concluded that the bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.”

My proposed amendment to the Police Complaints Authority Act does not represent a blanket escape clause for the police. If a High Court judge determines that the public interest is best served by the identity of the member of the police being published, name suppression would not apply. It is important that the facts surrounding an incident are accurately reported after rigorous investigation. That way, it is far less likely that a police officer or his or her family will be unfairly prejudiced in the heat and initial emotions that are generated at the time of a firearms incident.

Any judgment that a police officer makes is subject to review by his or her superiors, external legal experts, and, ultimately, by the courts, if necessary. Police are armed with batons, pepper spray, and, in some cases, firearms. All use of force must be reported and accounted for. Use of deadly force, whether or not resulting in a fatality, is always investigated and is always subject to close scrutiny by more than one agency.

Extensive psychological research has concluded that being involved in the use of deadly force is one of the most psychologically traumatic events any police officer can experience. Officers involved will often suffer prolonged post-traumatic stress disorder, require long-term counselling, and continue to experience after-effects for their whole lives.

There is almost always a public backlash when police use deadly force. Threats against police who have caused someone’s death or injury are an inevitable occurrence. If the officer’s identity were published, there would be a real chance of retaliation against either the officer or his or her family, or both, by criminals with a grudge against police, or by disgruntled members of the public, or by family or friends of the dead person. If an officer’s identify is publicly released in advance of a final decision on any criminal liability, it is probable that the officer will be forever associated with the event, however rightly and honourably the officer might have acted.

Recent events have shown that even if colleagues keep the officer’s identity closed, the media can become aware of it through other means, and will base the decision to publish on their own organisations’ priority, not on the well-being of the officer. In this bill, there is no question whatsoever of providing any police officer with an ability to hide from the consequences of his or her action. It is simply a question of society affording a degree of peace of mind to police officers that they will not be subjected to personal trial by media and public stigma, especially in advance of any conclusions as to liability.

I have had very strong support from my National Party colleagues on progressing this bill. The Police Association has been deeply concerned over the fact that not only its members are subjected to added ordeal by not having name protection, but also their families. In the Waitara situation the constable and his family literally had to move out of town and hide for a long period. While I acknowledge there is an important civil right for the media at issue, substantial harm can occur to police and their families when they themselves are not able to defend their position. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) : The Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill involves the serious issue of if, when, and in what circumstances the right of free expression and the principle of open justice should be abridged. Under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, everyone “has the right of freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” Equally, the principle of open justice requires the conducting of criminal proceedings in public, with the news media having the constitutional right to investigate and scrutinise the circumstances of cases, and report what happens in court proceedings. Both rights are crucial in a democratic society, but neither is an absolute right. Although the principles set out should certainly be the norm, there are circumstances in which exceptions can, and should, be made. Section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act explicitly states that freedoms can be subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be justified in a free and democratic society.

The issues that this bill responds to arose from the shooting in Waitara by a constable, whom the courts have subsequently found to have acted reasonably and in self-defence in the course of carrying out his public duties. Earlier, that same constable’s application for interim identity suppression had been declined in the case of A Plaintiff v . In that case, the High Court ruled that there was no legitimate privacy interest for a police officer carrying out a public duty, and in a public place. That seems to me a harsh judgment. An officer who, acting reasonably and in accordance with his public duties, takes the life of an offender, not only suffers the trauma of knowing that he has taken a human life but also has his name publicised throughout the media. Not only does that deny the officer and his family any right of privacy, but also it may subject the officer and his family to threats and harassment, and that, indeed, was the case in relation to that officer.

The media themselves have traditionally recognised the unfairness of this sort of situation. As a result, there is a longstanding convention amongst the major news media organisations that police officers involved in fatalities should have their names released only in exceptional circumstances. Generally, an officer’s name would be published only at the point at which disciplinary action was taken against him or her, or criminal charges were laid. I support that convention, and I believe that a police officer acting reasonably and in the line of duty is entitled to that protection unless and until there is sufficient evidence that the officer acted wrongly, and disciplinary action is taken or charges laid.

I had real concerns in the Waitara case when some media outlets chose to publish the name of the constable concerned without any evidence of wrongdoing on his part. The constable had already been forced to leave his home and the town that his family had lived in, because of threats to him arising out of the shooting. In 2001, in response to that situation, I asked the Ministry of Justice to prepare a proposal to provide name suppression in such circumstances, through legislation. I also made a point of meeting with a cross-section of media representatives in order to express my concerns and to indicate the policy response that I was considering by way of legislation. At that meeting, a clear undertaking was given by the media that the convention of not publishing an officer’s name unless the officer was charged or disciplined would continue to be upheld. The media now have the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to do that on a voluntary basis. I believe that that would be a better outcome than the Government imposing constraints on the media by way of statute. However, if that outcome does not eventuate, and the convention is again broken, the option remains for me to seek executive and parliamentary approval for a change to the law.

I support this bill going to a select committee, because I believe that it is valuable for the issues surrounding the suppression of a police officer’s name to be debated, and for submissions to be invited and considered before a select committee. However, I do not support this bill going beyond that point, not simply because at this stage it is premature to advance such legislation but also because, as a vehicle for law change, this bill has some fundamental flaws.

If legislation were to be required, it would take a different form, and the proposal that I have advanced to the Ministry of Justice would involve, in the first instance, automatic suppression of the name of a police officer involved in a fatal accident for up to 20 working-days. For suppression to continue after that point, the officer would have to apply for a court order. The victim’s family would have the right to be heard on the application, as would the police and anyone else, including the media, with a public interest. Under legislation, the court would be instructed to consider and give due weight to, firstly, the risk to the physical safety and security of the officer and his or her family; secondly, whether, without suppression, the officer and family were likely to suffer an unwarranted invasion of privacy; and, thirdly, the public interest in our upholding law and order by protecting the police in the lawful discharge of their duties. In the event that the application for suppression was granted, it would, and should, be subject to an ongoing right by interested parties to apply for review on the ground of changed circumstances, and would be compulsorily reviewed if the officer faced criminal or private prosecution or disciplinary proceedings.

That would be a preferable approach to the approach proposed by Dr Hutchison in this bill. The policy and drafting flaws of this bill mean that it would not achieve its stated purpose. Firstly, the bill does not make it clear at what point name suppression would come into effect. It leaves a gap in time, between the incident and when it was notified to the Police Complaints Authority by the Commissioner of Police, when the name could be published. That is an oversight. Secondly, the bill does not cover all cases of death or serious injury as a result of police involvement. It is not clear why shootings, for example, should be distinguished from cases where death is caused by the use of a carotid hold or pepper spray. Why should that be treated differently? It is also unclear that the Police Complaints Authority is the appropriate body to determine name suppression. The primary role of the authority is to receive and investigate complaints relating to police misconduct or neglect of duty. Weighing up factors relevant to the prohibition of a police officer’s identity being published is more appropriately, in my view, a function of the court. No good reason is given in the bill as to why that function should be carried out by the Police Complaints Authority instead.

Notwithstanding those flaws, this bill is a useful vehicle for allowing debate over the issues involved. I believe that those issues are serious and should be debated. For that reason, I support its referral to a select committee.

RON MARK (NZ First) : That speech sounded like one of those “dollar each way” speeches that one often hears from Government members. The last time I heard a speech like that on a member’s bill, we later found that the real reason the Government was not supporting that bill was that it wanted to kick the bill into touch so it could bring in a bill very similar, and accrue for itself all the public kudos for having made a sensible law change. I say to the Minister that if those concerns are legitimate, and if they are true concerns held by him and his Government, what is wrong with those issues being covered during the select committee phase and incorporated into Dr Paul Hutchison’s bill? Why do we have do go through this—

Hon Phil Goff: Because at the moment we have an agreement by the media not to publish. That is the agreement.

RON MARK: So now the media runs Parliament. We have an admission from the Minister that the media have decided, behind closed doors—all the people in the press gallery are nodding their heads—to do a deal with the Minister. Excuse me for suggesting it, but I thought the rules of this land were written here, not in private little chat and focus groups, orientation sessions, or backroom dealings. But then, I guess we should not be surprised because from 1984 to 1989 backroom dealings with certain sectors of people who funded the Labour Party, were the norm.

As a result, we saw the sell-off of State assets and the rest of that. It is funny, but here we are buying them back again. What does that tell us? We know that people who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I would simply say—

Clayton Cosgrove: Tell that to Winston.

RON MARK: Tell that to Mike Moore, Phil Goff, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and a whole group of people who have been down this path before.

I would have thought that the bill would have a huge amount of sympathy from Parliament, because of the feelings that developed nationwide for the way in which Constable Abbott and his family were treated. It is all so ironic, is it not? Is it not funny that in a short space of time we can forget how we got to this situation? Let us not forget that the reason Constable Abbott came under such huge media pressure, the reason his family members were so affected that they were required to be moved to a secret location, the reason we ended up with a huge amount of debate in the streets, and the reason we are debating this issue in a member’s bill aimed at protecting law enforcement officers who find themselves in a similar position in future, is the very first reaction that came out of this Government’s mouth. Here is the irony: the people who supported Constable Abbott as a policeman going about his duty, were the members on the Opposition benches—

Hon Phil Goff: First of all you don’t want his name published, then you are the first member in the House to mention it.

RON MARK: Phil Goff feels it coming so he is chipping in already. He is trying to cut me off because he knows what I am about to say. [Interruption] He wants to pump it up, because everyone is listening. The reason he is chipping is that the people who leapt to the defence of Constable Abbott were the Opposition members in National, New Zealand First, and ACT. The very people who came in and assumed this policeman was a white guy and had committed a racist killing were the Government members themselves, and Helen Clark contributed to that media frenzy. I remind the Minister that the videotapes are in the archives of Television One. He should pull them out and watch them again.

Venom oozed out of this Government towards the police. The Government immediately assumed that the constable who shot Steven Wallace—and legitimately so—and killed him was a white policeman. On that basis we had all this rhetoric from the Government: “Oh, we’re going to have to look into this. It smacks of a race-based killing.” The Government was gobsmacked when it turned out he was a Māori, but it was too late. It had inflamed the anti-police feeling by not coming out firmly, categorically, definitively, definitely, and positively in support of the officer. It came out with that media frenzy and left a big, grey cloud out there.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) : I think this bill should go to the select committee, and there will be plenty to talk about at that committee, rather than what we have just heard when someone tried—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did the bell indicate the end of my speaking time or was it the 2-minute warning?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members’ bills have 5-minute speeches. It is the norm that the bell goes at 5 minutes. The member has had his time.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It would be good if Ron Mark took some notice beforehand, rather than interrupt a speech, but he does not always do his homework, as has become very obvious in this House, so many times, with some of his misguided questions.

The issues in this bill are a response to what happened in Waitara when a constable—in self-defence, as it is now very clear—shot and killed a young person. Of course members of the media are always interested in these sorts of happenings. They are always very keen, but, until this case, have always acted very responsibly. One media outlet was not so responsible, and I think that that was all about trying to sell papers. It was a case of a struggling weekly trying to sell papers. That then made it so difficult for the constable and his family. We have to remember that when people go out tonight to protect the citizens of a town, they have to have some level of comfort. It is all about people taking a responsible view.

One trouble about this bill—and I daresay it will be looked at by the select committee—is that it refers only to shooting. But there are many, many possibilities of how death can be caused by a police officer, in the execution of his or her duty. We are lucky in this country—very, very lucky—that we have a police force that is largely unarmed, and we do not have what we see on many television shows of shoot-outs between the baddies and the police. They just do not happen here. I think that the media deserve a second chance. They need to be able to prove that they will act responsibly. In the case of “Constable A” his family became victims, and when one’s family become victims, one has to ask whether that is a fair go on the people out there defending the rights of other New Zealanders.

This bill addresses that serious issue, although we must also be conscious of the right to freedom of expression. Having worked for a newspaper many, many years ago, I know just how carefully and how jealously newspapers want that right protected. I think that that is really important. The whole case of Steven Wallace and the shooting was a tragedy. It was a complete tragedy, and there are no winners in these sorts of things—no winners at all. The Wallace family is a family that is grieving, as is Constable A’s family, and, even more important, the big police family, because about 7,000 police feel for Constable A. They do not want to see themselves in the same position. They do not want to see their names blazoned across the papers because they were out there protecting us. That is something, really, that we as a Parliament must look at carefully. So this bill will, I daresay, go off to a select committee. People will discuss it and I hope that it is not used as a point-scoring debate.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : I rise for the ACT party to say, sorrowfully, that we cannot support this bill. It reflects the kind of opportunism and pitiful analysis that has scarred so much of our law, and this kind of response, although it is well meant, in effect has delivered over policemen—like the policeman we are so concerned about—to the threats of villains. The reason we are considering this bill is that villains no longer fear the law. Even policemen doing their duty can be harassed out of a town by a mob encouraged by the Prime Minister. In this country—

Hon Phil Goff: Oh, rubbish! Grow up.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mr Goff says: “Grow up.” Mr Goff made a speech in which we did not know till the very end whether he was for or against this bill. Mr Goff tried to curry favour by saying how sympathetic he was, and then by saying he would not support it. Mr Goff, of course, has to try to curry favour, because this bill arises purely because the Prime Minister stirred up the hatred of the community in Waitara against the police. The Prime Minister encouraged the people of this country to think there was some sort of racist cover-up, and the best reason for publishing the name of that policeman, and for getting rid of the miasma, the smog, of suspicion was the fact that the Government and the establishment looked as if they were trying to cover something up.

That is the reason ACT is tougher on crime than any of the other parties in this House, and it is the reason that ACT cannot support this bill. We believe that the law must prevail, not expediency, not threats, the fear of insult, or the fear of a family who thinks that if it foams at the mouth and runs wild it can encourage everyone else to terrorise anyone at all.

This bill would be utterly unnecessary if the Government were able to establish the kind of respect for the law, for justice, and for the police that any healthy society would expect. It is a problem only because of the loss of control. Criminals and their families should be in fear of the consequences that this policeman has had to suffer. This bill cements in a situation where society is on the run instead of the criminals. It cements that in by saying that even the police have to hide from the community. A policeman who is doing his duty—and who is wearing his number on his uniform, because Sir Robert Peel established so many years ago that the police ought to be identified, that we ought to know who they are, and that they should be citizens, doing what any other citizen could do on behalf of us all—should not be afraid when he or she exercises the right of self-defence. That, indeed, was the court’s outcome.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What about the family?

STEPHEN FRANKS: The family is in the same position. If the family of a policeman is scared when a policeman does what any citizen should be able to do, then we have lost the game. There is no point in putting a band-aid over it by telling the media that they cannot report it; if the families are scared in Waitara today, they will be scared tomorrow when the New Zealand Herald cannot publish, because everyone in Waitara will know who the policeman is. This will not protect a single policeman’s family. The villains will know who it was. What we should be doing is spending the time of this House debating proper remedies for those who threaten justice, and for those who threaten the agents of justice who are acting on behalf of us all in the street every day, as we have said.

We do not sacrifice one vital freedom because we are not prepared to protect an even more vital freedom, which is the freedom of every one of us from being afraid of threats from villains. We should not leave it to the experts. Police should have freedom from the insult of swaggering criminals, but the police are afraid to exercise powers because they believe the Government will not back them up. They had to face the Prime Minister bringing down condemnation on them, and they had to then get the Race Relations Conciliator down from Auckland to try to calm the situation down, because the Prime Minister had stirred up racial hatred.

Ron Mark: That’s exactly right.

STEPHEN FRANKS: That is exactly what happened. ACT cannot vote for secret justice. We do not believe in name suppression now, which we believe is used mainly to protect the powerful. We cannot vote for this bill.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Greens will oppose this bill because we cannot have two laws—one for the Police, and one for others. If there is special treatment for public officials, we will go down the path of two standards of justice, and the police are a category of public officials who have to have proper public accountability. I think it is particularly important in a democratic system for police to be fully accountable, and equal to every other member of the public, because of the powers that they have in our society. If we limit the justice applied to them, then, as we have seen overseas, we will be going down the track of more arbitrary application of those powers, possibly involving corruption.

We have an advantage in New Zealand at the present time in that our police force is one of the least corrupt in the world. I think it is wrong for Paul Hutchison to say that New Zealand is a special case, and that police lives are somehow in added danger because we have an unarmed police force. I think it is the opposite. Paul Hutchison went on to talk about the violence he had seen in America, and because the police are armed over there there is much more conflict, both in terms of criminals shooting police, and more violent actions taken by police against criminals—and often justly so. It is because we have a less violent scene here, and a better police force, without the same history of conscious murders by police of innocent citizens, that this proposed law change has gained some traction, contrary to the United States, where there was the Rodney King incident a few years ago. That involved the vicious beating of an innocent black person in Los Angeles by the police. It is quite clear that, in that situation, one needs to have all information available, and the names of the police officers involved in an extreme case like that should be out in the public space so that people can come forward with more information on those people who were later accused of the crime, and to overcome any corruption that does exist in police forces like that.

As I said, I cannot think of a Rodney King - type case here. The killings that have taken place here have not been of that conscious nature; they have been more accidental in their character. That is why we have a media convention in New Zealand not to publish the name of the police officer in such situations, because we do have respect for police officers when they accidentally commit such killings. However, there does need to be the potential for that openness to take place. In certain situations it can be useful for the name of a person who does the killing to be known, so that, just as with justice as a whole, witnesses can perhaps come forward with more information about the person or persons who did the killing, and I am referring there more to the Rodney King - type case than to any cases we have seen in New Zealand.

I think Phil Goff has referred to the particular provisions relating to the use of the Police Complaints Authority as the channel for restrictions on the publication of names, which is not appropriate in terms of the more neutral functions of the Police Complaints Authority. Moreover, the authority often has a very delayed reporting system. In my own case, I have been waiting for nearly 4 years for a result from the Police Complaints Authority. Should a name be protected for that length of time before there is any ruling under this bill by the Police Complaints Authority personnel? In other cases the Police Complaints Authority often waits for a coroner’s decision—as was the case in the Wallace case—and for other court cases to take place before it comes down with its own decision.

Other people have criticised the Wallace case, but I believe the way it evolved was a good example of our justice system. Private citizens did have the right to go through a court process, which I think was for the benefit of the whole community. As Stephen Franks said, the community knew who the police officer was—which was inevitable—and that may have assisted in taking that case to trial, in that the community would have known some of the background of that particular case.

I do think the police officer had some confusion as to the identity of the person who got shot, and the community helped to bring that to light.

• Debate interrupted.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) : I am pleased to stand in the first reading of this bill. Over the last 60 years, as we all know, there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in shootings while on duty. That convention has been observed by all and sundry. However, it has been thrown on its heels with the recent decision of A Plaintiff v in which the court ruled that publication of a certain police officer’s name was allowed. That ruling has now motivated my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison—I was going to say “the Hon”, but he is certainly an honourable member—to propose a bill now that brings legislative authority to the issue, which, as I say, for the last 60 years has been observed as a convention in the public domain.

Part of the rationale for this bill, as my colleague has already said, in a country as small as New Zealand, is the issue of the public backlash that is likely in a situation when an officer is involved in a fatal incident. Of course, that backlash is more likely now than it was 60 years ago, as television brings into our living rooms nightly even the smallest detail of events that occur in the country on a daily basis.

The bill gives individual police officers, who are involved in firearms incidents while carrying out their duties, conditional name protection—until the proposed Police Complaints Authority investigation can be completed. I do stress that this is conditional name protection, and of course that is as it should be. We must never forget that they are public officers carrying out public duties in the public domain. But in any particular incident, while activity surrounding that incident is going on, it seems that the public interest would not be diminished at all by the fact that under this legislation we would have statutory proposal for conditional name protection. I want to stress that point. It is conditional protection only, as I say, until the Police Complaints Authority investigation has been completed, the officer is charged with a crime related to the investigation, the Police Complaints Authority permits the naming of the officer, or a High Court judge rules that it is in the public interest for the officer to be named.

I believe that the necessary protection of the public good—the public interest—in ensuring that it has purview over public officers carrying out their duties in public places is still maintained. That is important because one does need this balance between public interest and private interest to be struck in any activities of public officers. I think the necessary safeguard is there; the protection is conditional only.

The incident that gave rise to the case that went before the courts showed us in a fairly descriptive manner why this legislation is necessary. I commend my colleague for bringing the proposal to the House, and I commend those who will support it and who will see the common sense in this matter. I stress once more that this is conditional protection only, and in that sense it provides a proper safeguard and a proper balance between public and private interests.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) : I will not take too long, but I would first like to acknowledge the author of this bill. Members’ day is good evidence that individual members of the Parliament, through the members’ ballot system, do have an opportunity to introduce legislation and have it considered by the House, which then determines whether it should go on to a select committee. In this case, as I am sure everyone will be aware, this side of the House will be supporting this bill going to the select committee.

The bill attempts to address the serious issue of when, and under what circumstances, the right of free expression and the principle of open justice should be a bridge. As we are well aware, the catalyst for this bill—and for the discussion that will be held in the select committee—was the tragic circumstances that arose from the shooting of Mr Wallace in Waitara by a constable whom the courts have subsequently found to have acted reasonably and in self-defence in the course of carrying out his public duties. I note that the Minister’s speech, which I think deserves some emphasis, made the point that in a general historical circumstance an officer’s name would be published only at the point at which disciplinary action was taken against him or her, or when criminal charges were laid. The Minister strongly supports that convention and believes that a police officer acting reasonably and in the line of duty is entitled to that protection, unless and until there is sufficient evidence that he or she acted wrongly, to the extent that disciplinary action is taken against him or her

In respect of the Wallace case, the Minister stated his real concerns about some media outlets choosing to publish the name of the constable without there being any evidence of his wrongdoing, particularly when he had already been forced to leave his home in the town where his family lived because of threats against him arising out of the shooting. I note the Minister’s request to Ministry of Justice officials to consider a proposal to provide name suppression in these circumstances. I would think that a select committee analysis of this bill will make a good contribution to the debate of the public interest being served in terms of the issue about at what point and in what circumstance one releases the name of, in this case, an alleged offender. What we saw in this case was a very unsatisfactory situation of trial through the media. Although, understandably, some attention was given to the terrible tragedy and pain to the family of the victim of the shooting, I cannot begin to imagine the absolute pain and anguish that was visited upon that policeman’s family. This situation potentially, dare I say it, faces members of the New Zealand Police Force every day, every hour, and every minute. They do not have to travel too much of a journey before they can be cast in that set of very unfortunate circumstances.

So, without further ado, I lend my support to this bill going to the select committee. Clearly, as previous speakers have outlined, that does not guarantee that Government members on that committee will support the bill in its present form. Indeed, some believe there are a few flaws in it. However, we believe that it will serve as a very useful and very constructive vehicle for debate over the issues. For that reason, the Government supports the bill going to the select committee.

Just in the spirit of being magnanimous, which of course I always am, I acknowledge my colleague Dr Hutchison—in the sense that he is a Waikato member of Parliament—for his work on this bill and for introducing it. Hopefully we will have some very useful hearings and debate in the select committee around this very important issue.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) : I also wish to acknowledge the work of Paul Hutchison in bringing this bill to the House’s attention. United Future will be supporting this member’s bill to select committee, with caution, to consider an amendment that will allow for conditional name protection when police officers are involved in a Police Complaints Authority investigation that involves a firearms incident, while on duty.

This bill outlines that the Police Complaints Authority will have the discretion to prohibit the publication of a police officer’s identity when an investigation is taking place. The bill does not require that the names and identities of officers continue to be protected after the Police Complaints Authority has released its findings, or if the officer is charged with an offence. We note the bill allows this protection to be forfeited in certain circumstances. United Future supports the proposal that, in some instances, name protections may, and should, be revoked. We believe this helps the credibility of the Police Complaints Authority, and it acknowledges that every case and investigation will be different. It will help ensure public confidence that all investigations will have a transparent process. The bill provides that name protection may be revoked only by the Police Complaints Authority, or a High Court judge, or when an officer is charged with an offence related to the investigation.

What this bill has not detailed is the certain conditions that need to be met in order for an officer to be eligible for name protection in the first place. We consider that the criteria for name protection are an important and essential part of the bill. The criteria need to be outlined and included to make the bill transparent and accountable. United Future will support this bill to the select committee, because we want to deliberate on the details of these conditions. We will want to identify exactly what these conditions are, when they are administered, and who will be eligible for this protection. We will want the opportunity to consider public submissions. United Future will be looking to provide an assurance to police that justice will also be served to them if they are involved in a firearms incident. We consider that name protection gives officers and their families the right to innocence until proven otherwise.

In recent police history, the Waitara shooting—which has been mentioned by other members—became a very well-known case. As a result of a fatal shooting by a police officer, New Zealand experienced its first private prosecution of a police officer for murder. This officer, without name suppression—he was initially known as constable A—became known as Constable Keith Abbott. His family bore an incredible hardship during the trials. With their identity known and well published in Waitara, and nationally, they were persecuted and threatened. His wife had to leave her job as a nurse, their kids had to leave their primary school and kindergarten, and they were under protective custody. Eventually, they left Waitara, losing $15,000 on their house, and moved to an undisclosed location. This is not right. An officer’s family is not meant to suffer when he acts in the line of duty. The magnitude of the suffering was made more apparent when Judge Chambers indicated to the court the suffering the family had endured.

We support the member’s bill, which wants to ensure that these circumstances do not happen again. We also want to avoid an increase in private prosecutions of police officers. This bill and subsequent submissions are a positive way to deliberate and consider this further. United Future agrees that public confidence should not hinge on the naming of the police officer in any investigation. We believe the system needs to have credibility, and we believe that the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill is already addressing this issue. With increasing confidence in the system, the public may draw less on the need to identify and avenge an officer who is being investigated and more on the actions of the offender.

We support this bill’s referral to a select committee and look forward to the discussion and debate.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : I do wish to thank my National Party colleagues for recognising the importance of this bill and for giving me advice and support, and I also wish to thank other parliamentary colleagues from the Labour Party, United Future, New Zealand First, and the Progressive Coalition for seeing fit to support the bill being at least referred to the select committee. I also thank all colleagues for their thoughtful arguments, and am pleased and somewhat relieved to see the level of support this bill has engendered. I also thank the Police Association—in particular, Mr Greg O’Connor—for his helpful input and the background research.

The general public and the media are not required to put themselves in dangerous situations as part of the course of their duty. In the case of the media, I acknowledge they do put themselves from time to time in dangerous situations, but that is not a requirement. There is a real added risk in a small country like New Zealand that police officers, and their families, could be endangered if their names are published in relation to an incident. That was clearly illustrated at Waitara. That family literally was forced into hiding for many months.

Some time ago Stephen Franks of ACT wrote: “If anyone is proposing changes that would, in an unhappy future, hide some secret police execution squads, ACT will ensure it doesn’t get an easy ride in Parliament.” He said: “The remedy is to regain control of the streets and reinstall respect for the law generally.” That aim is valid, and has been attempted for the last 160 years in New Zealand. [Interruption] But there is no silver bullet with regard to law and order, and I put to Mr Franks the analysis of Judge Becroft from the Youth Court that breaking cycles of disadvantage and early intervention are absolutely parts of the jigsaw puzzle. They are absolutely vital to ensure that we do have control on the streets, and, indeed, reinstall respect for the law generally. I would debate that issue with the member for ever.

I note that both the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon George Hawkins queried why this bill confines itself to police shootings. I believe that the Hon George Hawkins answered that question when he said how lucky we are to have a largely unarmed police force in New Zealand. It is that fact that makes the responsibilities and dangers of the New Zealand police absolutely different from other jobs. To Keith Locke I reiterate that police officers take on quite different roles from the rest of the public. It is because of those different roles, and the consequences that stem from them, that this bill is introduced.

Clearly, the civil rights issues around this bill are most important. It is reassuring that the Ministry of Justice concluded its scrutiny of this bill in the following way. It stated: “Although we consider the issues in this bill to be finely balanced, we have concluded that the bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.” Furthermore, it went on to state: “We consider the bill also serves a significant and important objective by preserving the integrity of the investigation by the Police Complaints Authority. Restrictions on the coverage of the incidents will provide the authority with an opportunity to conduct its investigation into firearms incidents unhindered by heightened media interest created by the public disclosure of the officer’s identity. Clearly, the personal safety of police officers and their families is also an important objective.”

I once again thank my parliamentary colleagues for their thoughtful consideration of this bill, and would be very pleased for their support for it to go into the select committee process.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I move, That the Death with Dignity Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time it is my intention to move that this bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. At this moment, though, I want to start by telling the House what this bill is not about. It is not about euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, painful disease. There is no mention in that definition of who will administer it, and no mention of whether the patient wants it, requests it, or is even aware that it is happening. This bill is not about any of that.

This bill is about voluntary euthanasia. There is a world of difference between the two. This bill is about me being able to make a decision for myself—not my wife, not my doctor, not my family, not the hospital; nobody but me being able to make a decision for myself. Equally so, it is about every adult New Zealander being able to make a decision for himself or herself—nobody else; just the individual adult New Zealander. But there are two provisos. Firstly, the individual must be of sound mind and be able to make a rational, easily understood decision. Secondly, he or she must be terminally and/or incurably ill. Those are the two provisos before somone can make that decision.

The people we are talking about may be few in number, but they could well be experiencing much pain—much pain at a very vulnerable stage in their lives. Equally so, they could have lost most of their independence and be on the verge of losing it all. Or they could be in the category where the pain is controlled, but their bodies are disintegrating before their very eyes. So what do they have to do? Under this bill they have to get a medical practitioner’s agreement that they are in such a condition. Then they have to get the agreement of a second medical practitioner who agrees fully with the first diagnosis. Then they have to get the agreement of a psychiatrist to say that they are of sound mind and not suffering from a mental illness, like depression, and that they are capable of making a rational decision about their own future. Finally, they have to see a counsellor, whose responsibility is to outline the full implications of their request, so that he or she can ensure that patients know what they are requesting to happen. Under this bill the medical practitioners, in particular, have to ask patients whether they have consulted their family. That is mandatory. It is not mandatory, for very good reasons, that patients have to consult their family.

So if that is whom we are talking about, how many people are we talking about? The state of Oregon in the USA has had similar legislation for 5 years, and in that 5 years 128 people have taken advantage of death with dignity. One hundred and ninety-eight applied, but only 128 went through with it—that is, 60-odd percent. That tells me that for 30-odd percent the stress was removed from them, and that that was sufficient. Oregon is a state with a population of about 3.5 million people. We have 4 million people, so we can expect somewhere around 30 people per year to want to take advantage of this legislation.

What is this legislation? First and foremost, it stipulates the criteria a patient must go through—that is, the two doctors, a psychiatrist, and a counsellor. That is a very important part of this bill. Secondly, the bill provides for an advance directive, whereby fit and able people can make their views known in writing. So should they become inflicted with some dreadful disease and not be capable of making a decision, they could have made the decision beforehand. If they are injured in a car crash or contract Alzheimer’s disease or some sort of illness, so that they cannot make a decision, then the decision that they made some years before—or some time before—must be accepted. That is the second important aspect of this bill. The third important aspect is that I am not asking anybody here in the House to make the final decision. This bill, should it pass all stages, will go before the public of New Zealand, so that the public can make the decision by means of a binding referendum. That is what New Zealanders want on this type of issue. It is controversial but it is also sensitive, and it is very, very delicate.

I believe that everybody who has led a decent, law-abiding life is entitled, when their time has come, to die with dignity—to die in the comfort of their friends and family, and not to die a suffering, lingering death. That means not only being pain free but also dying in a peaceful and dignified manner. Currently, the medical profession will tell us that it cannot address the concerns of everybody. In a letter it produced the hospice association, which opposes this bill, stated: “However, when the storm calms”—that is, this debate—“the fact remains that pain and physical symptoms can be treated adequately by hospice specialists for the vast majority of patients.” This bill is to help the people who are not embraced by those words “vast majority”. Principally, this bill is aimed at assisting those folk. I am a firm believer in the hospice movement. I believe it does a great job, and I have the utmost admiration for the people who work in the industry. I support the industry being funded exceedingly well. I do not see this bill as being in conflict with the hospice movement but as compatible with it.

Another concern that comes up from time to time is that voluntary euthanasia will lead to euthanasia. There is no will for euthanasia—I outlined right at the beginning of my speech what euthanasia is all about. There is no will amongst the public, amongst politicians, or in the political world to introduce euthanasia, and the protections in this bill for the patient are pretty stringent. If they not stringent enough, then the select committee can make them tighter.

Finally, I would like to address a concern that I wrestled with for a long time: is this bill compatible with Christian beliefs? I pride myself, if that is the right word, on being a man who has lived his life with Christian values.I found out I was a Christian when I was an 18-year-old cadet in the British merchant navy, in a storm in the North Atlantic. It was a huge storm, with waves as big as one could imagine—probably bigger than this Parliament House—and the ship started to break up. I found out then that I believed in God. So it was important to me that this bill was compatible with those beliefs, and I believe that it is. I am conscious that the apostle Paul once said “And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” In the modern Bible that word “charity” is changed to love. When asked what were the most important commandments, Jesus said the first two: love your God, and love your neighbour as you love yourself. I say to people with Christian beliefs that they can support this bill. I ask them please not to let their faith blind their compassion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) : I rise to oppose this bill, accepting the modus operandi and integrity of its parliamentary proponent. I oppose this bill for a simple reason: one of the strongest presumptions in our law is the presumption against taking a life. Our own Crimes Act makes it quite clear that the taking of a life is culpable—that is, if one takes a life, that is examinable by the rest of the community as to its purpose and intent. We as lawmakers have for the whole life of this Parliament now set a high threshold around the taking of life. I oppose this bill because it lowers that threshold. I do not believe that the proponents of it have mounted anything like a strong enough case that the threshold around the assumption against taking a life should be lowered.

The effect of our law, in the case of those people who find themselves in extreme circumstances, is predictable and straightforward. If one is involved in taking a life, then the circumstances of that will be examined. It will be in the hands of the Crown as a prosecutor, the police, the courts, and ultimately, juries made up of New Zealanders, to then dispense justice. As we look back through the occasions on which that has happened, at the cases that are commonly discussed in respect of voluntary euthanasia, we find that juries of our peers do make decisions according to reasons that they give as mercy, justice, compassion, and forgiveness. So it is not the case that our system of law is unable to distinguish one intent from another when it comes to taking a life. It is able to make those distinctions. It is able to determine whether compassion and mercy were involved, or revenge and hatred. That is why we should not lower the threshold against the taking of a human life, and that is the fundamental basis of my opposition to this legislation.

The bill sets out a process by which we can validate the taking of a life. I have to say that no process is good enough to be free from the pressures, the envies, and the hatreds to which any human being can be prey. No process is good enough to be free from that, and if the House wants to look to a process that it has tried to construct in the past to achieve those ends, then it can look at the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act, because it has a remarkably similar process to this one. It includes experts, doctors, consultants, and references to mental health, and everyone knows that it has become a conveyor belt to abortion. MPs need to keep in mind that if that is the track record of this Parliament’s capacity to devise a process to protect the vulnerable, then we have failed utterly. As a Parliament we just simply turn our faces from the failure of that legislation, because it has now become a social norm that abortion is acceptable. That is 25 years on from when the legislation was passed, and I say we could stand here in 25 years’ time and say exactly the same thing about the process in this bill.

I shall comment on a couple of aspects of the bill. The first is the use of the term “incurably ill”. I can remember a chilling moment in the last debate on television about euthanasia when one of the proponents of the bill, Michael Laws, a former MP, was asked about the case of a dreadfully handicapped 14-year-old child and whether his legislation would include that child, to which he answered truthfully “yes”. At that moment he lost the debate. “Incurably ill” in this bill “means a medical condition which is generally accepted by the medical profession as seriously impairing the person’s quality of life”—how subjective is that—“and unlikely to be capable of cure, either at the present time or in the reasonable future”.

I have sat as a constituency MP recently with the parents of severely autistic children. If one wants to hear heart-ripping stories of the sadness and destruction of quality of life, then one should listen to those parents. Any medical practitioner would find it almost impossible to say that a seriously autistic 14-year-old of the type that I have been dealing with lately has not had a seriously impaired quality of life, and, as much to the point, has not seriously impaired the quality of life of the people who love and care for him or her. Those children are certainly not capable of being cured. So this is not a bill whose scope is limited to the aged or the terminally ill in their later years.

This bill, in terms of the definition of “incurably ill”—the term used in the bill; the definition I have quoted from the bill—includes anyone who has a seriously impaired quality of life, and who may not be able to be cured. I say to this Parliament that if we go down that track we make the most vulnerable people in our community even more vulnerable, not because they are being put under pressure to take part in death with dignity, but simply because we have made that possible. How will they feel? What protection will the most vulnerable people in our community believe they have, if we make it possible that two medical professionals, a counsellor, and a family can say to them that they have a seriously impaired quality of life? Do we imagine that pressure will never come on them? Of course it will! The vulnerability is not just about the process of making the decision, but about the ripple effect this legislation will create simply because it makes death with dignity possible.

I turn to the term “informed decision”. What is an informed decision from a person whose judgment, by definition, is impaired by incurable illness or pain, or by the fact that he or she is close to death’s door and is causing real distress to the people around him or her? This bill is a comfort for the living, not a ticket for those who want to die—because that is always how the argument arises. Someone says “It is because I feel distressed that I want death with dignity—because it gives me discomfort to watch the pain.” Well, pain is part of life, and watching it is part of our humanity. Many of us have become more human for watching it, whether or not we liked doing that.

This bill is about comfort for the living. Let us not pretend it is about the dignity of those who have gone, because they have gone and we have different views about where they have gone to, depending on our beliefs. I do not think it is a duty of this Parliament to remove the basic presumption against taking a life, in order to give comfort to those who encounter the very human experience of watching suffering.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) : I did not come to the House to speak on this bill, but I am going to take the opportunity to do that, given that I am here and that I feel quite strongly about it. I firstly acknowledge the integrity and the intent of this bill from Mr Peter Brown, someone who in my view has respect in this House from all parties. He has put this bill forward through personal beliefs—for what he believes are good intentions. I stand up as someone who has stated publicly that I oppose the bill. I oppose it on a couple of basically simple assumptions, I guess.

I will go back to the first one, and that is that Parliament provides a very complex process to give us comprehensive, complicated, but, hopefully, consistent law that does everything we can to protect life—human life, animal life, and vegetable life through conservation measures. Parliament spends a lot of time debating and arguing to preserve life in all its forms. I cannot understand that we can, as humans, make a judgment on when someone else should terminate that life. We do so for animals and we do so for vegetables, but when it comes to human beings I think we, thankfully, appreciate that that is a call that is very, very hard to make.

While Mr Brown is putting up a proposal that says we are allowing self-determination for when one should end his or her life, in the end the ending of someone’s life—for the most part, just about every time—will depend upon assistance or judgment or influence by other people. We have different experiences in our lives—that is why we have different opinions on things. I am just a simple farmer. I have had a lot to do with death and euthanising animals. If one spends enough time around a farm one appreciates that even in the lowest moments of an animal’s life, there is somehow some inner strength, an inner determination, that drives animals to live, that drives beings to live. If members have tried to destroy perhaps even the life of a plant, sometimes they would be amazed—

Stephen Franks: A possum!

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —a possum—at the resilience of the plant, but especially of the animal, to want to live, to remain alive. But there is something that I cannot quite understand. While as a farmer I have had different experiences in life, I was at one time working in a mine when unfortunately someone thought it wise to end his own life by pouring petrol over himself. I came along about half a minute after that horrible event. A person had put out the fire, but we had in front of us a person who was dying, and we were doing our best to try to keep that person alive. I will remember every detail until the day I die, and I am sure many of us can share an experience like that. The inner being of that person was something that lived right until the final moment, making noises, groaning, wanting to live, wanting to express some inner feeling about wanting to remain a being.

There are many people who suffer, and, like many people, we have seen those around us suffer with cancer and go through different forms of treatment. Some people, through the action of doctors, take chemotherapy and are pushed to the limits of life to kill the unwanted cells, and then brought back to life through other drugs, it is hoped allowing just the life of the good cells and allowing the destructive cancer cells to be destroyed once and for all.

Through all those processes people go through highs and lows and go through different forms of suffering to be at a stage in their own lives where, perhaps, given the choice, they might choose to end their own lives. Perhaps, given the choice, relatives might think it best that those people no longer live.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : We are hearing tonight Parliament at its best, because we have a very fine bill put up by Mr Peter Brown. Whether one is for it or against it, Mr Brown’s motives are honest and true. We have heard two very good speeches tonight against the bill. I want to speak in favour of Mr Brown’s bill, as a matter of principle and as a matter of personal experience. The principle is this. I believe that we, not the State, do own our own body and our life. I believe that if we choose to we can end our life. It is obviously the most drastic decision that a person can take, but one can do that. I believe that it is an affront to deny people who want to end their life the dignity of ending it in a way that is humane.

That is what our current law does. Of course we have to have a sharp line between suicide and murder, and this bill has that. That is why I support the bill. I ask members at least to send it to a select committee and hear what the people have to say.

I want to raise a memory of a man whom many members knew—Martin Hames, who died last year on 8 August. If Mr Brown’s bill had been the law, Martin Hames would still be with us, I am sure. He would not have needed to take his own life, as he did. He had Huntington’s disease. He discovered in 1979 that his mother had it. He did not marry, because he had a 50 percent chance of getting it, and he was diagnosed with Huntington’s disease. He had watched his mother die a terrible death—a death where one loses one’s mind and loses control, to the extent that one cannot swallow.

Martin Hames loved life. He loved independence. He could not stand the thought of ending without the ability to swallow. Last year he prepared everything. He swallowed a whole lot of pills and he passed out. He had bought new pyjamas, and he had a note pinned to his chest saying “Please do not resuscitate”. The ambulance came, and they resuscitated him. He came to in hospital, and they said to Martin Hames that he had septicaemia in his legs and they wanted to take them off. He said: “What would happen if you don’t take my legs off?”, and they said: “You will die.” He said: “Well, good, because I have Huntington’s disease.”

They gave him some pain relief and pushed him off to the side in Wellington Hospital, and he spent the day dying. I dreaded going to see Martin Hames and saying goodbye to a very special friend, but one of the greatest things I have ever done is seeing a man dying with dignity. He told me, when I went in there, and he told all his friends—from Treasury, from Michael Cullen’s office, people from across the political spectrum who had worked with him, and from the National Party—that he was having a good death. He used to call me “Boss”, and he said: “I’m having a good death, Boss, because I didn’t think I’d get the opportunity to say goodbye to all my friends.” He had that chance.

We all went in there and, rather than feeling sad, I felt great to see a man who could face his death with such generosity and love of life and friends, and who had been dealt a cruel hand but was not complaining. Martin slipped away that night.

He had written a great book called The Crisis in New Zealand Schools, and he was well on the way to having written a second book, on the Treaty of Waitangi , which would have benefited us all. But he never got to finish it. We do not know whether Martin could have lived for another 10 years, working and writing, because he had to take his own life before it was taken from him.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want to say that there is to be no comment from the gallery. This is a Parliament, and only members of Parliament may debate.

MIKE WARD (Green) : While I will largely speak in favour of the Death with Dignity Bill, I want to make it clear that the Greens do not have a party position. Views range from the strongly supportive, to the belief that it is inherently and ethically wrong to kill another human being, even for the alleviation of suffering as this bill proposes. Some believe that the prohibition on the intentional killing of another person is the cornerstone of our ethical, moral, and medical codes, as well as of our law and social relationships, and that it would be dangerous to weaken our prohibition on intentional killing, or weaken the fundamental moral, ethical, and legal values that underpin that prohibition. They believe that it would undermine our respect for the sanctity of life and blur the line between lawful and unlawful death.

While acknowledging that people yearn for a peaceful and easy death without prolonged suffering, and want to be able to decide on the manner of their death, they believe that those arguments are not sufficient reason to weaken society’s prohibition on intentional killing, especially when palliative care has advanced to the point where the vast majority of people do not need to suffer unbearably, and when patients can already decline lifesaving treatments if they wish. They point out that inquiries into voluntary euthanasia in the United Kingdom, Canada, New York, and Tasmania all reached the conclusion that it was not possible to frame adequate safeguards against non-voluntary euthanasia in law, and decided against voluntary euthanasia.

I share the belief that life is important, but it is interesting that we tolerate the debilitating effects on the quality of life of poverty, loneliness, and disability, yet should someone look like dying, we start to take care. We must ensure appropriate palliative care, but we should take all other possible steps to ensure that people want to go on living. But if, in spite of all our efforts, a person still wishes to die, the issue is whether that person should be able to choose to die. If we believe that there are any circumstances where that is a reasonable choice, we must make it possible for people to make the decision and carry out their wishes, supported by the medical profession and the people they care about. As the law stands, deciding to die, and involving anyone else in the process—that is, having someone else help a person to die, having friends and family around as that person dies, and having someone knowingly provide the means for a person to die—subjects helpers and witnesses to the likelihood of criminal action.

As the law stands, people are unlikely to seek the kind of counselling that might persuade them that they have other choices. They are unlikely to discuss their plans with family or friends, because of the legal and emotional trauma and the risks that involving others may pose. As the law stands, even if a person is able to take his or her own life, dying must be a lonely prospect. It is unlikely to be death with dignity. Families in these circumstances are deprived, perhaps, of the opportunity to make their farewells, and left with the thought that maybe there was something more they could have done or circumstances they could have avoided.

There are risks. Some of the risks exist now. As the law stands, people may choose to die, simply because their care is inadequate. Bringing the issue out into the open and discussing it is likely to draw attention to their needs and ensure that the pain is controlled, etc. If taking one’s own life becomes possible, will the elderly feel obliged not to become a burden on their families, and shuffle off before their time? I cannot deny that that is a concern, but it is not a new concern. It is an indictment on where we have come to as a society that our elderly should ever feel that they are a waste of space and a burden. If folk who feel like that and are contemplating ending their own lives have their motives subjected to the scrutiny that this bill provides and have their concerns allayed, that will have been a worthy outcome.

This bill is about voluntary euthanasia, and putting in place the independent safeguards necessary to protect both the dying and their families. I suspect that most people will continue to cling to life with all the tenacity that human beings have always exhibited, but perhaps it is time to acknowledge that life is a terminal condition, and time that we put as much attention, compassion, and energy into the quality of our dying as we do into keeping people alive long after they have ceased to value the quality of that living.

This is one of those issues on which it is appropriate to have a decision by referendum, but that does not negate the role of Parliament or the public through the select committee process to frame legislation that addresses the fears and concerns of the proponents, as well as the opponents, of voluntary euthanasia. How and when we die is an uncomfortable issue for most of us, but that should not undermine our compassion for those who have accepted their own mortality and who would choose to die with dignity in the presence of the people they care about.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I rise to speak on the Death with Dignity Bill. I cannot say those words without my mind immediately going to the little nun from Albania who devoted her life to taking the dying from the filth and squalor of the streets of Calcutta into a specially prepared home where they were lovingly washed, clothed, and cared for until the last moment of their lives. As the news of her work spread throughout India and then throughout the world, Mother Teresa was asked repeatedly why she had made the decision to undertake such work. Her reply was simply that it was so that those people could die with the dignity that should be accorded to all human beings. Can any of us forget her passing, just a few weeks after the funeral of Princess Diana, when monarchs, presidents, and prime ministers came to a funeral organised by the world’s second-most populated nation to honour one of the great saints of our age.

I can say without fear of contradiction that if Mother Teresa were here tonight, it would be to plead with us not to vote for this bill; for, in spite of its title, the truth is that this bill does not point the way towards death with dignity, but to physician-assisted suicide. A similar plea would be made to us by the thousands of doctors, nurses, and helpers who make up the worldwide hospice movement. They, too, have devoted their lives to the palliative ongoing medical care of those whose conditions mean that they are approaching the end of their lives. I know that to be true, for I have received many letters from them, couched in the most moving terms, asking me to vote against this bill.

Indeed, this bill is a contradiction of all that they stand for. They tell me that they employ their expertise in ensuring that people are able to die with dignity. They tell me of the enormous progress they have made in controlling pain, and ask us to give our support to their attempts to kill the pain—not, by deliberate action, to kill the patient.

History will also be our judge tonight. Three and a half millennia have passed since this world received the gift of the Ten Commandments through the Jews. One of those commandments states, simply: “You shall not kill.” This bill breaks that commandment. Two and a half millennia have passed since the emergence of the Hippocratic oath, which specifically states: “I will use no medicine to kill my patients, even if requested to do so.” This bill breaks that oath.

The importance of the Hippocratic oath cannot be overstated. It was the gift of the Greeks to civilisation. It set the physician aside as a person whose sole vocation was to heal, and never to kill. Prior to that, what in those days were called witchdoctors had carried within them the power to heal and to dispatch, so that they were regarded with a mixture of awe and fear but never with trust. The Hippocratic oath changed all that, and it is fundamental to the trust and esteem in which we hold the medical profession today. That trust will be breached and lost for ever should this bill become law. People, and particularly the elderly, will once again begin to fear the doctor.

This bill is dressed up in attractive and emotional clothes. The reality, however, is set out in clause 4, which authorises a medical practitioner to “assist” a person to end his or her life by “the administration of a substance to the patient”—in other words, a lethal injection or similar.

The New Zealand Medical Association strongly opposes this bill. According to both Paul Rishworth, co-author of the book The New Zealand Bill of Rights, and to the Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson, this bill is contrary to the right not to be deprived of life, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. On behalf of all those I have mentioned, and of the many other thousands of New Zealanders of like mind, I, too, now tonight enter my plea in this Parliament for members to vote against this bill.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) : It is with pride that I take a call on this member’s bill, which I intend to support going through to a select committee. From thereon I am torn, but I believe that this bill deserves the dignity of at least being debated. I believe that this country is ready to have this full debate, and for the bill to have the scrutiny of the select committee process to proceed, so that, maybe, once and for all, we could settle this matter in a fully discussed way—albeit I understand we could dispatch it from this House tonight, never to be seen again for many, many years.

I also acknowledge Peter Brown for his courage, commitment, and what I believe to be humane intent in bringing this bill forward toward the House. It takes a great deal of courage to deal with a matter as profound as this, and, considering we have recently had a conscience debate issue, I would have to say that between that matter and this one, this, of course, is the more profound at the end of the day. It is not often that anyone would like to be given the opportunity to decide whether he or she wishes—and excuse the expression if I offend anyone—to play God in these matters. I am sure they are matters that will be traversed if this bill is successful in going through to the select committee.

Knowing that there are many people on both sides of the argument who have much to say, I believe that the country is mature enough, in the social and moral advances it has made so far, to be given the respect to be able to join in this debate, rather than for the debate to be the personal preserve of those of us who sit in this House. For example, I am looking forward to hearing from the palliative care sector, and from the medical sector. I know they have a lot of stuff out there now, but I really want to hear more. I also look forward to hearing from those who are in full support of the bill already—right through to the conclusion of this bill being successful—who will promote it as a humane issue.

In conclusion, I add the very important point that Mr Brown made in his speech, which was that this is not euthanasia; this is voluntary euthanasia. I would like to think that, as a person who I believe is humanitarian in my approach to life, and who indeed believes in human rights, I might have the personal choice to make my own decision about those matters when the time comes. However, that may not be the case for everybody, and I have heard some very good points made already this evening in that regard. But we will not get to the bottom of this, really, until we have a full and open public debate.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : My mum and dad got engaged immediately prior to my dad going off to 5 years of active service in World War II. When he returned they got married, and over the years five little Donnellys came out. But at the wedding was a mate of my dad’s who had gone through the same years of service in the same arena of war as my dad had, and he became more or less like an uncle to us children. As a young child I can remember my mother telling us of the awful experiences he had had to encounter during the war. He told my mother of the nightmares he still had as a result of those experiences—ex-servicemen do not often talk to people other than ex-servicemen about those things. They were experiences of having his men, on more than one occasion, trapped under burning tanks, with no possibility of escape but facing an agonising last few hours—minutes, whatever it was to be—of life as they pleaded with him, their officer, basically, to shoot them. My dad’s friend had reacted to their pleas. He had shot his men. I can still remember reflecting on this story of the dilemma that had been faced by a man, who, as I say, had become like an uncle to us children. The question I asked myself then, and the question I ask myself now, is: did he do the right thing in shooting those men, his friends, under those circumstances? Every time I have come to the only possible conclusion: yes, he did.

I ask Bill English, who said we should just sit and watch those people suffering, whether he believes that my dad’s friend should have watched his men suffer all the way to their deaths. People may ask what that has to do with this bill. It has everything to do with this bill, because this bill is about people caught in exactly the same situation, with no hope of being saved, doomed to a torturous, agonising demise, and pleading for someone to bring the suffering to a close. People will say that a different morality prevailed during the war. I dispute that. Rules may change, but the moral principles do not. After all, war is a human construct, and to those who come to this issue with an absolutist, moralist viewpoint, I ask why would the Omnipotence—whatever that Omnipotence may be—presuppose a differential morality around a human construct, when, presumably, the Omnipotence existed before humanity.

I have a fundamental suspicion about absolute laws of morality, because it would seem that, when they are applied rigidly, around the fringes we inevitably end up with injustices. We have only to reflect on the hundreds of millions who have died over the centuries in wars over absolute commitment to religions that uphold the sanctity of human life. Because of my upbringing—and it was the same upbringing as that of Damien O’Connor and Bill English—I have a strong belief in the sanctity of human life. But I do not have that to such an absolute extreme that would condemn my father’s friend. I say that laws that force people to undergo horrendous suffering and indignity do not uphold the sanctity of human life. They are the very antithesis of that principle.

I had long been persuaded that the answer to the suffering of people with terminal illness was better palliative care. Upholding the sanctity of human life demands that we provide the best possible level of palliative care. I have little time for Michael Laws, but I can understand his bitterness towards those who voted against his bill and then did nothing to raise the level of palliative care in this country. In fact, many of them allowed the resourcing of palliative care to be diminished. No one who works in the area of palliative care, however, has been able to provide me with an assurance that even with the best treatment we are able to provide we can ensure that such care will catch all circumstances. There are still some who are doomed to an undignified, agonising death, and it is for those people that I will be voting for this bill to go to the select committee. If, through the select committee process, I can be convinced that palliative care can catch all, I will reconsider my position.

I commit myself at this point in time simply to vote for the bill to go through to the select committee. That is the right place for the issue about palliative care to be vigorously scrutinised in a balanced, public debate. It is also the place where the regulations to ensure that the law does not spread its intended coverage are robust and tight. We hear evidence from the Netherlands, and we want to make sure that that scenario will not be able to be repeated in New Zealand, if what we hear is true. I hope that I do not have to draw people’s attention to the fact that it will go to a binding referendum.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) : I think that I, more than anybody else in this House, have had more experience with people when it comes to death and dying. As a nurse, as a doctor, and especially as a geriatrician who worked in the hospice movement, I dealt with death and dying every day of the week, and I cannot support this bill. There are people who are admitted to hospices who say: “I want to die.”, but what they are saying is: “I want the nausea to go away. I want the pain to go away.” When one treats them, they want to continue to live.

As a geriatrician I dealt every day with people who felt they were a burden to their family. I dealt with elder abuse, and I dealt with people who were slowly dying—and a slow death is never easy. But I remember when my own father died of cancer, and my favourite aunty. When I look back at the days I spent at my father’s bedside, I see them as being probably some of the best days. I spoke to my father probably more in the last 2 weeks of his life than I had in the 20 years before, and I value that immensely.

We must remember that this bill is about active euthanasia. This is about actively taking a person’s life. It is not about passive euthanasia. We heard about Martin Hames, who made the choice not to have treatment and die—that is passive euthanasia, and it happens every day in our hospitals and in our homes, when people say: “I do not want to be treated any more. I do not want the antibiotics. I do not want the operation. I want you to let me die.” That is passive euthanasia, and it happens. This is not passive euthanasia; this is active euthanasia. It is about actively taking a person’s life.

It is a doctor’s ethical responsibility to save life, not to take it. The Hippocratic oath reinforces that. To ask somebody else to take a life is a line we should not cross with regard to active euthanasia. Euthanasia is described in the dictionary as the act or practice of killing someone who has an incurable disease or injury, or assisting that person to die. How does one define “incurable illness”? How does one define an advance directive? Advance directives are very dangerous. When does somebody lose his or her mind? When is the actual day when somebody no longer recognises his or her family? I have dealt with people with dementia for years. One day they may recognise their family, and the next day they are not so good. When is the day one is going to kill them? That is an extremely hard decision. It is easy to think about this bill in terms that do not come down to the practical realities of what one is doing.

When Michael Laws first put up his bill in the 1990s I, like many people, thought: “Well, maybe there is justification in this.”, but when we look at the issues, and at what we are actually doing here, and at the line we are crossing, we see that the answer has to be emphatically no. Members have heard the arguments about the slippery slope, and they have validity. When it is acceptable for a doctor to take a life, one is crossing a line. When it is acceptable to say, “This person no longer knows who they are. This person left an advance directive. This elderly person has said to me that they want to die.”, one crosses a line.

Does the line of incurable illness include mental health? Does that include somebody who is severely depressed, but who can become well again with appropriate treatment? If it does, this bill should never go any further than this House tonight. One has to think about what it would be like to hold the hand of one’s mother or father and watch them being given a lethal injection, and think about how one would feel for the years ahead. The price is too high for this bill to proceed.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (NZ National—Pakuranga) : I think I am probably the longest serving of all the MPs here tonight, other than you, Mr Speaker, and I have been through a number of conscience votes. I have always been on the libertarian side, and I will be again tonight, by supporting this bill. But I have some questions that I want answered, which are to do with whether this legislation can be abused. If it can be, how do we tighten it to make sure that it cannot be, because my rights finish at the end of my nose, and do not go further into other people’s purview.

I think that the concept of somebody wanting to terminate his or her own life because of incurable agony, and the pain and suffering that is going to go on for a limited time before he or she finally dies, is a perfectly legitimate issue over which an individual should have a right to make a decision. But I think there are some issues about both overt and even covert pressures that may come on a person.

There are clearly the covert issues of elderly people, who are suffering and in pain, going towards the end of their lives and worrying about whether they are eating up the assets of their children, to whom they would like to leave some inheritance. Even though the kids may not be placing that pressure on them, it may finally get to them, and they might say: “Look, I know I could hang on for some time. I can bear the pain, and the morphine is keeping me OK, but I’m going to whittle away my kids’ inheritance to a point where it’s nothing, so I’m best to trundle off.” I would like to know that we can make sure that that process could not happen. I would also like to make sure that the overt pressure that can be put on somebody—with people saying things like, “Come on, it’s time you got out of here because you’re just suffering, and we would like to get the inheritance.”, or whatever—could not happen.

But, having said all that, I believe that this is a question about the principle of an individual’s right to choose. I have been involved with some family members who have been in excruciating pain, and who have had all the palliative care one could possibly offer. They have been doped to the eyeballs with morphine and other things, and still, only weeks from death, they have been just screaming out for it to be ended. Members should think about that, and think about it for themselves. I am happy to put my hand up right now for that right to choose if I were in that situation of excruciating pain, knowing there was an end coming. That is not what Dr Lynda Scott was talking about—she spoke about someone who might have a mental illness that could be cured—because that is not right. I agree with her on that. But people who are going to die—and a lot of those cases are very clearly identifiable—and who will last for only a certain amount of time, should have a right to say what they want.

So I will be voting for the first reading of this bill, and then spending quite a lot of time listening to the debate, as I think every member of this House should. This is bigger than any of the conscience votes that I have faced before—selling wine in supermarkets, homosexual law reform, or anything else. This is much bigger. This is something that goes right to the heart of what we, as humans, believe we really are, and what makes a society decent, or not. As long as I am convinced, through a fairly elongated process and then through a referendum, that there are the necessary protections and safeguards in the bill, and that we watch it carefully as it goes through, I will probably be persuaded to support it right to the end. I will not give that commitment yet; I will certainly listen to the debate.

One thing I want to raise with members of this Parliament tonight is the fact that this sort of stuff goes on now, and if members do not think that it does, they have to be living in cloud cuckoo land. If members talk quietly and privately to some medical practitioners, those practitioners will say that they have allowed people to just slip away, or even assisted that in a non-acknowledged, “nod, nod, wink, wink” way, because it was the time that the person, who was going through simply excruciating agony and pain, wanted to go. I would want to know that that option existed for every human being. I can tell members that my mum and dad, who are still alive and in their 80s, have said that that is what they would want if they ever got to a position where they were in shocking agony and pain—and what a ghastly decision it would be for an individual to make. What a shockingly ghastly decision that would be! But, if in the end the proper processes were there—with medical practitioners making the right interventions—and if we had put the necessary safeguards in place, there is one fundamental freedom that we should always protect for an individual. It is the right to make that final decision. I will be voting for this first reading.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I would like to start my reply by addressing a few of the queries. With regard to the query raised by Gordon Copeland about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I have to say that the Ministry of Justice advised the Attorney-General that there may be some conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in one aspect of the bill. The emphasis is on the word “may”. I sought a legal opinion, and I am told that that is not true. With lawyers, I am meeting the honourable member, Margaret Wilson, tomorrow afternoon to discuss it. I believe that my case is a good deal stronger than the Ministry of Justice’s case.

I respect what Maurice Williamson said—I thought he hit the nail right on the head. It is happening now, and there are some hard questions to be answered. I want them answered as well, and I hope the bill addresses those questions, but I respect the abilities of the select committee to address them in more thorough detail than I have done. I want to point out that if we do not pass this legislation, the people we are talking about will not just sit down and suffer in silence. Many of them might, but some of them will go out and commit suicide and die in a horrible, undignified manner. That will happen if they cannot get the friendly doctor who will help them out of their situation that the Hon Maurice Williamson referred to. It is happening now to some degree, and probably more than we actually think.

All the recent polls taken in this country show a high level of public support for this legislation, ranging from 62 percent to 82 percent. One poll conducted by Massey University showed 73 percent support for this sort of legislation. This is a controversial issue, a delicate issue, and a sensitive issue, but the public have a right to talk about it. In an hour and five minutes we cannot possibly condemn the public to silence. It will not go away. I ask members to please send the bill to select committee. Please let the folk we are talking about, and the people who are concerned for them, have their say. I am on the side of the suffering. I will leave it to others to say, “let them suffer.”

Sending this bill to the select committee is not binding on any member. Any member can change his or her mind later on. It is simply democracy in action—letting the public have a say about a controversial, delicate, sensitive issue. That is all the public wants at this stage, and I think that is a reasonable request. I urge all members to find compassion in their hearts—to the degree that they want to let the people that this bill will embrace talk to the select committee, make a submission, and discuss this issue publicly and openly. That is what I am asking at this point in time. I am not asking people to put a stake in the sand and say that they are with this bill for ever. I am—I believe that something has to be done for these folk. I have looked at the issue and wrestled with my conscience for quite some time, but I am asking members to think now of these people in a friendly and compassionate way, to allow them to come to the select committee and make their views, and the opposing views, known.

I want to conclude by saying to the Hon. Bill English that this bill is not about children, at all. It is only for adults. If the bill needs to be tightened up to say that, then so be it.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are all the microphones still live?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: If that is the case, I suggest that we have to have silence in the House. I suggest that members who are interested in this bill stay and sit in their seats, and those who are not interested in it leave; otherwise, it is a hopeless situation for the member who has been called to speak on an important bill, and is entitled to be heard properly.

Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the member. I have said I have called for an investigation into this. It will be reported to me at 9 a.m. I am very, very angry indeed. This is a fault that should not have occurred, but the member is perfectly correct. From now on there will be no interjection whatsoever, because every member has the right to be heard.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really have to ask that it be more than that. A United Future member is holding a conversation, and, obviously, is not listening to you, because every word that she has just said has gone over the air. For members’ own protection, members who are going to sit in the House should be silent until all the microphones are no longer live; otherwise, some member will be extremely embarrassed to discover that his or her conversation has been broadcast.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly correct, and from now on until the end of the evening there will be absolutely no interjection.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : I move, That the At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee.

Nearly 10 years ago, as a journalist I stumbled into an area of crime about which I had very little knowledge. It was a crime that was protected by a cone of silence. It was criminal offending that, if it occurred on the other side of the world, in a country like Belgium, where little girls were locked in a basement for days to be sexually abused and die, the newspapers here would be filled with horrifying reports and photographs, but if it happened next door, in New Zealand suburbia, we would turn our heads the other way and would not want to know. I was writing a book called Keeping Kids Safe, and I had commissioned a press agency to clip from the national newspapers any stories relating to accidents that children had suffered. I tossed these clippings into boxes roughly filed in alphabetical order. Then in 1996 I decided to put the book together. I discovered that the box marked “S”, for sexual abuse, had increased to several boxes.

As I went through these clippings my horror increased as I realised that the same names had kept reappearing over those past 6 years. I knew, as a parent, that if I saw a name in the newspaper 1 year, I would not recognise that name 2 years later, when that person had been released from jail and gone back into a job where he or she had easy access to children and was trusted. If members read a name in the newspaper today, the name of someone convicted of an indecent assault on a young child, do they expect to remember that person’s name in 3 or 4 years time? Sex offenders are not just grubby old men in raincoats loitering in parks, around the swings and slides. They run scout and cub groups. They are church leaders, schoolteachers, justices of the peace—pillars of the community. They organise youth groups, and they take children away on camps. They join computer clubs, and they take young members home on the pretext of playing computer games. They know where to find young children who are vulnerable, often lonely, and too trusting.

I did further research and I discovered that rapists, not just paedophiles, were repeat offenders, and were getting off far too lightly in terms of sentences, and were then being let loose on an unsuspecting community. I could not let this matter rest, and I published the 1996 Paedophile and Sex Offender Index. I naively thought I would get just a few snotty reviews from the civil liberties brigade. I had no inkling of the torrent of abuse that would descend on me from almost every area of New Zealand society. I was sued, and I was accused of driving sex offenders to suicide. I received death threats. I had to hire security guards to follow my youngest child home from school when I could not collect her.

My critics seemed to believe that the perpetrators of these crimes were just poor, misguided souls who sometimes wandered on to the wrong side of the law, but who merely needed a little bit of counselling and understanding. I believe that it is this attitude that has allowed paedophiles, rapists, and sex molesters to carry on with their behaviour with little fear of being caught. There are no excuses for this behaviour. There is no room in my heart for these people. To express any form of sympathy for them makes a mockery of what I feel for their victims. Offenders are not victims, and they should not be considered as such when they appear before the court. Today, the victims are the people whom the justice system should be protecting. Every time we lock our doors at night, walk our children to school, worry when they are late returning home from sports practice, or enrol in self-defence classes, to a certain extent we become victims ourselves.

Members might ask why I embarked on, and continued, this project, which at times made me feel like the most hated woman in New Zealand. Why did I keep fronting up to interviews and talkback programmes, when I was accused of self-promotion? It was because I had had such a flood of feedback from men, women, and children who had been victims of sex crimes, and who had finally found someone who was prepared to stand up and say that we are not doing enough to protect people from sex offenders.

If people want to take out a mortgage, buy something on hire purchase, or borrow money, they have to submit to a credit check to make sure they can be trusted with other people’s money. Every day Baycorp runs something like 15,000 such checks through its system. Why can we not have such a system for those who want to be trusted with other people’s children? When Kate Alkema was murdered on the Hutt River bank, the police investigating the crime estimated that there had been something like 60 sex attacks in that area in the past 2 years. If 60 swimmers had got into difficulty at a beach in a 2-year time-span, there would be signs everywhere warning the public about dangerous tidal rips. Why can we not give women information about sex offenders, so that they can try to keep themselves more safe? If members knew that a repeat dangerous offender, like Taffy Hotene, had been released on parole in their neighbourhood, would they let their young daughters walk home in the dark from a bus stop? Kylie Jones’ family in Auckland was not allowed this information, because Taffy Hotene’s right to privacy was considered more important than Kylie Jones’ right to life. Every time I hear of a rape or a murder my blood runs cold, because so often the name of the accused is someone who is in my book or in my records.

So what will my bill do? Well, it is only one facet, but a major part none the less, of a strategy that I believe this Parliament needs to implement to protect the community from sex offenders. The bill as it stands is sparsely written, and deliberately so, because I think it is important that the public do have their input into, and their say on, this legislation. In essence, the purpose of this bill is to establish a registry of persons who have been convicted of sexual offences, and to include mechanisms to keep the registry up to date so that the police have reliable information available to them at all times on the whereabouts of sex offenders. Despite what many people believe—and someone even came to me today to state this—the police currently do not have access to a national database of sex offenders. It is very ad hoc, and at times has even been as hit and miss as someone just walking past the senior sergeant’s door, hearing a name being spoken from within his office, and recognising that name as someone who had been locked up or arrested several years ago and had got out again.

A fundamental principle underpinning this bill is that protection of the privacy of sex offenders must give way to protection of the public from such offending. In other words, the community’s interests come first. I believe that the bill maintains a balance between these competing concerns, because it does not apply to offences and offenders in the distant past. As the bill is drafted at the moment, it does not go as far back as I would like, but I have deliberately had a bill drafted that is not too extreme, so that, hopefully, it will not be voted down in the early stages, and so that people can have more input at a select committee. The bill strictly limits access to the registry. This database should be seen as a crime-fighting and law enforcement tool. There are strict penalties for misuse of information, and offenders can access their own files to correct erroneous information.

I believe that this is legislation whose time has come. The climate has changed considerably since I published my book in 1996. I believe that the New Zealand public is ready for this law.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) : The Government has foreshadowed major changes in dealing with child sex offenders, and it will support this bill going to the Law and Order Committee as one aspect of a series of measures that are necessary to minimise the risk of sexual offending, particularly offending by paedophiles against children.

This bill proposes a registry so that police have reliable information on the whereabouts of sex offenders. I think the outstanding feature of the register is that it requires those who are categorised or covered by the bill to regularly update the police on addresses. I think, however, that the important decision made by the author of the bill, Deborah Coddington, is that this register ought to be available for the purposes of policing, and available to relevant agencies, but not publicly available, which would allow the names and addresses of sex offenders to be published with wider public access. I think there is a very good reason for doing that. Where the names and addresses of such offenders are known, it does tend to promote vigilantism, and is counterproductive to working to prevent reoffending by sexual offenders, because the most likely way of promoting further offending is to drive those offenders underground and out of contact with the control and support mechanisms—the supervision mechanisms—that are necessary to keep them from reoffending. So I welcome Deborah Coddington’s acknowledgement of the need to avoid those particular outcomes.

We certainly do need a proper database for those who are serious and recidivist sex offenders. The police currently collate such information in collaboration with other agencies, but it is fair to say it is not systematised, and there is room for improvement in practice. Indeed, in acknowledgment of that, a pilot scheme was started at the beginning of this month in Dunedin, where there is interagency management of child sex offenders during their parole and supervision period. There is collaboration between the various bodies and full sharing of information. I expect that that pilot programme will be successful, and if successful it will be rolled out across the country. That will considerably improve the management of sex offenders in the community.

Up-to-date information about known offenders and where they live, however, is, by itself, of somewhat limited use. It may help the police to solve crimes more quickly, and it is worthwhile for that reason alone, but what it does not do is act to prevent future offending. Prevention requires the active management of sex offenders in the community, and that means a combination of controls such as supervision and court-reporting requirements, and availability of, and support in undertaking, regular counselling and relapse prevention programmes. That is why the Government is now working on ensuring the maximum effectiveness of the police database, as part of a wider package of measures to ensure that the risk posed by recidivist offenders is actually minimised.

I think one can properly categorise sex offenders into various tiers of risk. The top tier—the worst offenders—are much more likely today to receive preventive detention. The circumstances in which preventive detention can be imposed by a judge were significantly extended in the Sentencing Act passed last year. Preventive detention is a penalty that is a lifelong sentence. It is a sentence that now applies from a younger age, to a much wider range of offences, and without the need for an offender to have previous serious offences in order for that sentence to apply to an individual who has offended seriously. It allows for any offenders, if and when they are ever released back into the community, literally to be controlled for the rest of their natural life through reporting and supervision, and allows for the possibility of recall if behaviour indicates that the offender is at risk of reoffending. It is a draconian sentence. It is a sentence, however, that gives full control, and gives priority to the safety of the community where that very clearly is justified.

Currently, however, there is no active management regime for the second tier of sex offenders. These people are also habitual offenders, and, under the principle that when one has served one’s time, that is the end of one’s sentence, there is too little attention given to the identifiable likelihood that those individuals will go on to offend again, if they are not managed appropriately in the community. The register does not, on its own, address that gap. That is why the Government has proposed an extended management regime that would allow authorities to exert control and monitoring over that tier of offenders for up to 10 years after their release from prison. The legislation will be introduced before the end of the year, and I hope the select committee will consider that bill alongside Deborah Coddington’s bill. This is a radical change in control and supervision of offenders. It is, however, a change that has been implemented recently in the United Kingdom and in Canada, and I believe that it is a change that is merited because, again, priority must be placed on protection of the community from people who are known as habitual offenders.

Those offenders who are subject to preventive detention, therefore, or subject to the new, proposed extended supervision regime, would be required to keep their whereabouts notified to relevant agencies. That would be a standard condition of their release. This bill’s provision for collecting and maintaining up-to-date information, therefore, would not be relevant to those two groups of the most serious offenders, because that information would already be routinely required. A register, however, may be useful in implementing similar tracking requirements on the next tier of sex offenders. My view, at this point, is that it ought to apply to relatively serious or recidivist offenders, but not to offending that is minor or that is deemed to be one-off offending.

In considering the establishment of any registry, a key issue is balancing the benefits that the registry may deliver, in terms of crime prevention and crime resolution, with what the registry may involve in terms of the resources required to put it together. Costs would depend on how a registry was implemented, and how accessible it needed to be and to whom. This bill, as the author has indicated, is not prescriptive in this regard, and I think that is a sensible approach, but the select committee will have to give some consideration to what the implications for various agencies’ information systems might be.

Sex offenders, and, in particular, child sex offenders, have an appalling effect on their victims. They cause traumas that blight the lives of children for years to come. We need to consider today regimes that address and minimise that offending far more effectively than we have done in the past. Tougher sentences to deal with the worst offenders are now available, and, as we saw in the sentencing of Nicholas Reekie, are being used. But sanctions imposed after the offence has been committed are less valuable than measures that are effective in preventing offending. Cooperation and information sharing between agencies are essential to the proper management of those at risk of offending, and we have begun that process. Extended supervision of those who have offended and are at risk of doing so again is essential, and the Government will act in an unprecedented way to ensure that happens. A register of offenders, to ensure an effective and up-to-date database, could also be an important aspect of management and control, and for this reason the Government will support the referral of this bill to the select committee. I look forward to the consideration of the bill alongside the legislation proposed by the Government, which will be in this House before the end of the year.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) : The National Party supports this bill going to the Law and Order Committee, and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Deborah Coddington on the bill and on the drafting of it.

There is no excuse for rape. There is no excuse for rapists continuing to prey on the vulnerable, and genuinely destroying the lives of people for whom there can never be any true redress. Unlike property crimes, unlike a lot of crimes that, as a lawyer, I have seen in my practice, there can be no insurance against rape. No amount of money can compensate a rape victim, and I hazard to state there would be very few rape victims who are not, on a daily basis, reminded of the crime committed against them. They will never go away. Unfortunately, we live in a society where there are, in fact, rapists—sexual offenders we call them now, but they are rapists—people who abuse children, who abuse the elderly, and who abuse others. These people are almost always likely to be recidivists. I am sorry if that offends the civil libertarians here, but those people almost always will be recidivists. It takes a certain mindset to commit that sort of offence against another human being.

I welcome the fact that we will be looking at this issue. I am almost certain this bill will pass through to the select committee. I hope that it will not, as a bill, become watered down by concern for those who are, in fact, rapists, recidivists—the sorts of people whom none of us would wish to have living anywhere near us. As a mother, I can say that the greatest fear for most parents would be that their child was the victim of a sex offence. It would, for many people, be worse than death, and that is because of the inhumanity it displays. People like Jules Mikus prey on women; they, prey on women with young children. Yes, we now find that he himself, as a child, was the victim of a sex offence by his own father. Of course, sex offences that are just left to rot like that will often have a bad result further on down the track. What actually happens in cases like his is that very, very innocent, young lives are destroyed, and no amount of work that this Parliament can do will ever bring back their innocence. It is a shame, and a shocking, shocking situation.

I welcome the comments from the Minister of Justice about the work of the police under this bill. I am concerned, however, that our police are already under-resourced and will not have the resources actually to follow up on this work. I fear that the concerns expressed by Deborah Coddington and others in relation to this bill will come to pass—that is, that the police will be asked to keep registers, but will instead spend a tremendous amount of time, as they do now, pulling drivers over for faulty backing lights and faulty brake lights. I fear that they will not be given the resources or the power actually to do their job. That is a concern, and I hope the select committee is able, when it looks at this bill, to make recommendations accordingly. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : New Zealand First will support this bill going to the Law and Order Committee. The idea of doing something to ensure that we can keep track of sex offenders when they finally come out of prison is a very good one. As the previous speaker has said, those of us who practise law and who come across sex offenders realise that once people are sex offenders they almost certainly continue to be so. It seems to be something in their system.

One of the saddest aspects of sex offending is that it is sometimes encouraged by other members of the family. The worst case I had was a case where a stepfather had interfered with a child, and his wife and his stepmother both criticised the child for telling the school that she had been interfered with. The grandmother had been interfered with, the mother had been interfered with, and they felt that it was part of tradition that the child also be interfered with. That was no excuse, of course. Strangely, the probation officer thought the defendant should be released on probation, but I started my submission by suggesting that the sentence should be at least 5 years, which Justice Thomas, as it happened, agreed with. We have to be realistic sometimes. It is strange how probation officers can see cases like this and somehow feel that people like that offender should be excused because of the situation in the family. We almost wonder whether we can ever resolve sex offending, when sometimes victims from the past, like the grandmother, virtually encourage it, and castigate new victims for revealing what is happening to them. It is a dreadful situation.

Time and time again, when one appears in court for sex offenders, one knows that they will go to jail, obviously, but one also knows that nothing is going to happen in jail to stop them from being sex offenders when they come out. It is a terribly hopeless feeling when, as counsel, one knows that something should be done, and the judges know that something should be done, to try to get rid of the problem of sex offending, but, ultimately, all that we can possibly do as a society is to have something like the Sex Offenders Registry Bill so that at least we have a warning as to where these people are. In a way, it is just a cheap way for Parliament to try to resolve the problem. The problem ought to be resolved before the event. But once the event has happened, something should happen in the jail system to try to have this problem reduced, and something should be done in the sex offender’s family so that when the sex offender is released he—and it is usually a he—does not go into an environment where sex offending is par for the course. It is a tragedy that there are sections of our society where we see that happen. People often say that lawyers do not know what is happening in society, but lawyers really go down to the bottom of the barrel many times, and there would be many lawyers with stories worse than the one I have just recounted.

It is interesting to see that Australia also is setting up a paedophile register. That worthy journal the Cairns Post, of Friday, 4 July 2003, indicated that the Australian justice system is setting up a register: “Ministers meeting in Melbourne pledge to develop complementary legislation for the registry of convicted paedophiles. The Federal Justice Minister, Chris Ellison, welcomed the agreement.” I look forward to there being cooperation between New Zealand and the Australian states to make sure that people who offend here do not feel they have a safe haven in Australia to go to, and vice versa. Australian sex offenders should know that the Australian registry is available in New Zealand, if possible, so that Australians do not come over here and start conducting their dreadful behaviour in New Zealand.

As I said, New Zealand First supports this legislation going to the select committee.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) : On behalf of United Future, I welcome the introduction of this bill, and commend Deborah Coddington for bringing it to the House. Along with other legislation, like the Victims’ Rights Act, we are now seeing a tide turning and a shift to a new paradigm—a paradigm where victims are now able to start putting forward legislation to protect themselves, and this bill forms another part of that. I do not wish to name some of the paedophiles and sex offenders. It would be a roll-call of evil, and they should not be given the spotlight, which is something I am sure they enjoy secretly and quietly.

Sex offenders are not just criminals in the normal sense. They are not like burglars or any other form of criminal. They have an ingrained characteristic that cannot be taken out, any more than axle grease can be taken out of a baked cake. As such, they constitute a threat and a continuing threat to the public—to the vulnerable, the innocent, and the children.

The Sex Offenders Registry Bill has as its purpose: “to establish a registry of sex offenders to assist the police in their investigations of sex offences, to reduce sexual offending, and thereby contribute to public safety.” It is a noble purpose, and if it does no more than just place a database in the hands of the police so they are able to access the information, it will do a lot.

Although I understand the sparseness of the bill, and the intent of that, I believe that we must strengthen it through the select committee process. In particular, I think that clause 5, which deals with people who have been convicted of two or more sexual offences, needs to be broadened. We need to look at the pattern of offending. We need to look at the risk of reoffending by these individuals, and at added safety, if parole should ever be applicable to them.

Also, when it is time to look at the ability of the sex offenders registry to do what it is supposed to do, we should perhaps think about widening the scope of the legislation to allow accessibility to those most at risk. It is a way of warning them about the predators in their immediate vicinity. I am suggesting that schools, kindergartens, and day-care centres have access. I suggest that those who are most vulnerable have access to information to help protect them. It is right, of course, that the police should be the first repository of this sort of information so that they may act on it, but I think that, as has already been stated, people who have children would like to know what precautions they ought to be able to take if there is an offender in the nearby vicinity, in the vicinity of a nearby school, and so on. People who have children and who live near where offenders are residing also have reason to be forewarned so that they may be able to help protect their children.

On behalf of United Future, I thoroughly commend the introduction of this bill. I look forward to its introduction to a select committee and to being able to work with Deborah Coddington, to strengthen the bill, and to invite public submissions. I am sure the public will see in this bill another branch towards victims being allowed to protect themselves, whereas in the past legislation has failed to do that.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Sex Offenders Registry Bill, and to inform the House that the Green Party will be supporting this bill to a select committee. Like all members in this House, Green members are concerned about crimes of rape and sexual violence, and we find them abhorrent.

I have to say though that we support the bill with some sense of caution. There are a number of issues that we think need to be seriously addressed in the select committee, and we hope that the committee will take them very seriously. The Minister of Justice has already referred to some of the dangers inherent in such a register in terms of the dangers of vigilantism and the possible detrimental effect it could have on rehabilitation. I say that not from some ideological point of view, but because I think it is the concern of all of us to reduce reoffending and the number of victims in the future. It means that we have to take very seriously the question of how we promote rehabilitation very seriously.

The Minister also mentioned that the register on its own was of fairly limited use, and we think that is the case. The police already have access to a certain amount of information through parole records and their own records, so we are not clear how useful this register will be. We look forward to hearing the police submission at the select committee, so that the details of how it will work can be worked through.

The Greens also have a number of real concerns about the specifics of the bill. I would like to foreshadow to the House that we may not be able to support the bill through subsequent readings if some of those concerns cannot be addressed by the select committee. We have concerns about who the bill applies to. First, let us remember that this bill does not just talk about the Mikuses, the Reekies, and such people. It covers offences like incest between a brother and sister, whether of whole or half-blood. That is not to say that we support incest—we certainly do not—but I am not sure that those are the kinds of offences that Deborah Coddington was intending to cover with the registry. I understood it to be concerned with serious sexual offences.

Of course, section 136 of the Crimes Act talks about conspiracy to induce sexual intercourse, and anyone “who conspires with any other person by a false representation … to induce any woman or girl to have sexual intercourse with any male who is not her husband.” That could cover quite a large host of things, and again while I am not saying that those are acceptable behaviours—they certainly are not—I am not sure that those are the kinds of things that Deborah Coddington wanted to cover. I think that the committee needs to look at those things quite seriously.

We also have concerns about who the bill applies to in terms of including people who have not been convicted of an offence, but who have admitted an offence while being questioned by the police and have been cautioned. Again, there are questions about the seriousness of the offence and how likely people are to reoffend. Also, there is the power the police have to bargain an admission when they are in a position of power. So I think that those things need to be looked at. It is our belief that that particular part of the bill contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and we think the select committee needs to look at that.

I guess our concern is that the bill represents a very blanket approach. Marc Alexander talks about the need to look at patterns of offending in people, and I think that is true. The bill is a fairly blunt instrument, and in that sense it may not fulfil the hopes of its author, although I understand very clearly the very real considerations that have driven Deborah Coddington to put the bill forward.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : I want to express the support of Deborah Coddington’s ACT colleagues for this bill. We believe she is doing what she came to Parliament to do. It is what she said she would do to achieve the changes directly that she was crusading for as a journalist—throwing sunlight into dark corners and trying to make sure that there is more sunlight in a lot more young lives.

We are against name suppression. We believe that it shelters the well-connected, that it does not contribute to upholding the law, and that it does not uphold our traditions of open courts and transparent justice. Convictions are in open court. If a reporter is present at a sentencing, it can be recorded and reported for ever, but if the justice establishment gets away with that formal process and a conviction is not reported, the system clams up thereafter to protect the guilty. There is no right to a criminal record, even though every entry in it might have been delivered in open court. So ACT has reservations. We are concerned that this bill is not reopening justice, it is not Megan’s Law, and it does not supplant Deborah Coddington’s book. It really helps the police and law enforcement only, because only officials approved by the Minister are able to have access to this register.

Why then do we support the bill when it is so limited? Why do we run the risk of exhausting Parliament’s ration of attention to this issue? Because it is a start—it is better than where we are now, and it might take New Zealand society back in a more healthy direction. It is a hesitant recognition that all of the social work, all of the counselling, all of the insiders’ claims of “Just leave it to us, we know what we’re doing”, and all of the official resources will not restore the assumption of trust that New Zealanders had in their fellow New Zealanders. Trust will not be restored until the community as a whole has active, informed confidence that the entire community shares the abhorrence of crime, and of this particular kind of crime. We need to tell offenders that it is not condoned.

Those offenders nurse some very strange delusions. One paedophile, whose parole application I had to think about earlier this week, said that he was just expressing his affection for the 6-year-old boy he had anally violated. This register says to those offenders: “Don’t delude yourself. Society is not secretly condoning your vice by giving you secrecy. Justice will be open.” Although this bill is only a start, ACT is delighted to be able to support it.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : I thank all parties for supporting this bill. Believe me, there are hundreds and hundreds of people out there who will be thanking them, too. I especially want to thank the Hon Phil Goff, who, I believe, has done a huge amount as Minister of Justice to move towards protecting people in society from sex offenders. This is only the first stage of the bill, and I hope that it continues on a steady, strong passage through the House.

I want to conclude with another aspect to the advantages of this bill. When similar legislation was passed in Ontario, Canada, in the year 2000, I was emailed by a recidivist sex offender there who told me that he was one of the first people to register on its registry because he was sick of going to jail. He could not trust himself not to reoffend, but he finally felt that he could get on with his life. He knew that people were watching over his shoulder all the time, and that was a huge deterrent to his reoffending. I keep in touch with him, and to date he has not reoffended.

On the issue of various degrees of offending mentioned by Nandor Tanczos, all I can say is that to victims of sex abuse, they are all serious. I recommend that this bill be referred to a select committee.

• Bill read a first time, and referred to the Law and Order Committee., referred to the Law and Order Committee