Swarbrick Chlöe; Dean JacquiCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to start my contribution today by acknowledging Dr James McDowall as other members across the Chamber have for the good luck and good fortune of having his bill drawn. I do however hate to inform him that the Greens will not be voting for his bill which I'll of course address in the next five minutes—Simeon Brown: Cancel culture Chlöe!CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —if you'd like to listen Simeon Brown.So I never thought that I would see the day that the ACT Party thought that more cumbersome and complicated bureaucracy would somehow be a solution to a problem let alone a hyped-up problem that we actually already have the legislative infrastructure to fix if we are to pay true heed to the noted purpose of this legislation.So let's be really really clear. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 14 says—and I quote—Everyone has the right to freedom of expression including the freedom to seek receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." Of course per section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act this right applies to our universities and to our tertiary institutions. Section 5 of that same legislation the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 belies—and I quote—"Justified limitations" that is subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. What that means for anyone who is listening to this debate tonight—Simeon Brown: Oh they all just turned off.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: And I really would invite some meaningful contributions here not just those of purported absolutism and really blurring the lines about what we're actually discussing in this legislation Mr Brown. What it means is that when these rights as outlined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rub up against each other—such as for example freedom of movement freedom from discrimination or the likes of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure—we in this Chamber choose how to balance those rights and those in State institutions and those responsible for provision of those campuses in these institutions to which this bill seeks to prescribe how they could balance and actually not balance because it is absolutely about absolutism. There are very recent examples of how we go about trying to balance those rights as prescribed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act beyond actually those of COVID-19 and the many COVID orders through this House. In fact I'd refer many members—particularly those from the National Party who I'm sure will soon stand up and lambast this contribution—to speak to the fact that for example they with the then Attorney-General declaring it an unjust inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act made the decision in the last National Government to deny the rights of prisoners to vote. That is a denial of a right as prescribed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and something which those on the side of this House who are now seeking to prescribe absolutism to the freedom of expression are saying shouldn't be balanced. Every day there are balancing acts that need to occur with these rights that law cannot be too prescriptive in. In a free and democratic society in which we have the opportunity to debate it is in fact necessary. And I'd actually like to acknowledge the fact that ACT themselves acknowledged this when they voted with most of us in this House—not those who have been really barracking the rest of us throughout the rest of the contributions in this debate but ACT acknowledged along with most of us that safe zones around abortion clinics are an appropriate balance of the rights to protect those who are going in to get access to those abortions against the rights of those who are seeking to harass those in the vicinity of those abortion clinics.This bill does away with that balance quite explicitly in fact by requiring universities to discard any considerations of the health and safety for workers visitors and students to give privilege to whoever wants to come on to a campus and say whatever they want to say. Of course that could just be spoken word poetry or it could be to blurt out incessant white noise or it could be to recruit members for a violent and perhaps bloody coup like you know as acknowledged today and the ACT Party's Tauranga candidate seemed to so flippantly endorse.Your right to freedom of speech is not a shield. You can say whatever you want to say Mr Speaker or other members of this Chamber but it does not entitle you to protection from the consequences of it nor does it entitle you to a platform. Perversely this bill would also seek to remove the freedom of speech of those who oppose the statements of those who are coming on to these campuses to spread their own. The Green Party cannot support this bill in good conscience. It's far too complicated unwieldy and does not achieve the purpose as outlined.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! There's a lot of noise in this House. And whilst the last speaker had a very loud voice this speaker doesn't."