Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little and his colleague Greg O'Connor raised the issue of my own experience around contempt law. I'm going to share it with the committee because it's absolutely relevant to this part.I had a constituent a husband and wife that came to see me in the early 2000s who had lost all access to their son. They hadn't seen when they came to see me their son for two years. They'd never done anything wrong. They'd never been investigated by Child Youth and Family Service and they were desperate to see their child. And when I looked into the processes that had occurred around the Family Court I was appalled. It was a Māori family and when I read the reports that said Oh well they're a Māori family so they're all different and they won't feel the same loss that other New Zealanders might have from their child." I was appalled. And as a diligent constituency—Greg O'Connor: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just wonder—this is sounding like a plea in mitigation—if it is appropriate that such a plea in mitigation be heard in these circumstances. Some guidance please Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I really appreciate the advice. Thank you.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason it was so important was that actually the law was not working. The law was grossly unfair and actually by New Zealanders having a debate about our court system failing a family we actually were able to repair the law. In fact two years later the Parliament made a decision that we would amend the law to make it absolutely plain that that situation would never again occur in New Zealand.And so my plea is this. There is an absolutely proper process that goes on in this Parliament. We try to write the very best laws we can. We then look at examples in our community and make judgments about where the law's working well and where it is not.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you do a passing reference to the part we're debating—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes absolutely—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —quite soon?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —because this goes to the heart. This goes to the heart of the issue of contempt and whether people when they criticise the courts and their decisions should be charged with a criminal offence. And the Minister in the chair has said "Oh this only happens if it is extravagant outrageous criticism of judges." Well that's not true. I invite people to look back at the record and to see exactly when Michael Cullen—the Attorney-General a member of the Government—chose to send the toughest prosecutors in the land against an Opposition member of Parliament. So the issue at stake here is the issue of: do we want to create a criminal offence of contempt for when people have genuine concerns that our courts are not working that our judges have made a fatal error? And look my experience is not the only one. Should people who champion the cause of—whether it be David Bain or whether it be Arthur Allan Thomas the courts sometimes make mistakes. And it is fundamental in a free democracy that people are able to express views about that and they are not threatened—they are not threatened—with a crime of contempt. And so I say to Mr Greg O'Connor opposite: I know the Minister in the chair is not a constituency MP. He's never been able to win a constituency. He would not understand the importance of constituents who sometimes come in your door and you are the last point of call. You are the only place where they might be able to get justice and for Parliament to say that—whether it be a MP or whether it be a private citizen that's able to say "Actually the court system is not working. The law is wrong. There has been a mistake."—and to be able to express that and debate that is absolutely essential for a free society and for this Parliament to actually be able to do its job of being constantly able to amend and reform the law. And so that's where I bring us back to the very provisions of Part 1 and ask the committee to reconsider. If you really want to protect the integrity and enhance public confidence in our system why do we disagree with the US Supreme Court which so wisely said the respect for the judiciary will be made by the quality of its judgments and not making criminals of those who question the decisions that it's made? Why is it that we in New Zealand when the UK has repealed it where Canada where the US and where Australia do not have a criminal offence in this area—why do members of this Government want to reduce the freedoms of speech that are available in those other jurisdictions and stop the proper process by which people can question the effectiveness of any State institution and have that proper debate and why are they overruling the recommendations of the select committee?"