Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak on this the Courts Matters Bill at the committee stage concentrating on Part 1 of course of that legislation. Just as a general remark that does pertain to Part 1 courts of law in our system of justice are very important places. They are places where procedures are important. Dr Duncan Webb: Ha!CHRIS PENK: It's important for the administration of justice—Dr Duncan Webb credits me with a pun that I did not actually intend to make I think in relation to procedures or perhaps even proceedings—but the detail is important. The devil is in the detail and in the way that justice is administered and done and must be seen to be done too. Security aspects are important and it's the Courts Security Act that Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill will amend. You will have heard already colleagues on this side of the Chamber say that we continue to support this bill. I say continue" because previous readings and indeed the formulation of the legislation in the first place did come from this side of the House. So we're happy to continue with that including that in relation to Part 1 improving security procedures for our courts is a very worthwhile task indeed. I'm struck looking at the names of the different clauses within Part 1 by how important the issues are that we are considering before us. So they are not to be taken lightly but are also important to clarify so that justice can be administered as described. The meaning of "court" and "courtroom" has been dealt with very elegantly already in the debate so far and I'll return to that only if time allows at the end. But looking to the importance of the issues that we're discussing words such as "removal" "disposal" "seize" "detain" "pursue" "force" and "police" all give helpful indication I think of the sorts of issues that we are considering here in the administration of justice in relation to security. So for example new section 15A relates to the "Removal or disposal of alcohol" section 16 is replaced—talking about the ability to seize detected items—and so on. More particularly in Part 1 which is as I say amending the Courts Security Act 1999 the power of court security officers is extended such that entry can be denied and we can have the removal and detention of people who possess illegal drugs or who act threateningly or abusively or commit minor crimes on court premises. This of course goes to the significance of that definition of what it is to have a court or a courtroom and that can actually include not only the building in which the court services themselves are carried out or provided but also the surrounding areas that it might be relevant for a pursuit to take place perhaps if a person is in the court with some sort of nefarious intent or illegal possessions and so forth. I wasn't privileged enough to be on the Justice Committee that considered this bill and has now reported it back but I do understand from reading submissions that some interesting commentary was provided on this issue by the various submitters including the Auckland District Law Society and the Law Society of New Zealand as a whole. Various issues were discussed around how tightly or how clearly that should be defined—what a court is exactly for the purposes of the court security officers having jurisdiction to apprehend those who would do harm and interfere with the criminal justice system or in fact the justice system in general and not necessarily the criminal jurisdiction. Similarly as to the geographical influence of the officers so too the time after the proceedings. So the time of court proceedings includes not only what we would think of as the proceedings proper but also some time shortly thereafter. Admittedly that is not as clear as for example having exactly one hour as the definition as I think the Auckland District Law Society proposed but the Justice Committee thought in its wisdom that it would be best to allow some measure of flexibility so that all the situations where that's appropriate to apply could enjoy the benefit of that provision. I think that's sensible. On the side of the House we think that's sensible too and accordingly we continue to support Part 1 and indeed all of this legislation. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to."