Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker and thanks to colleagues who have already spoken on this. I've been enjoying the debate so far—I suppose we can call it a debate notwithstanding that everyone seems broadly speaking in agreement. Obviously we've got colleagues from other parties yet to speak and we look forward to their contributions as well.At this the second reading I will focus my remarks on the report of the Justice Committee—as is traditional of course. I do want to pay tribute to them. I note that the chair of the select committee has made a contribution herself and other colleagues who were on that committee no doubt will do so as well. I myself am not a regular member of that committee but I do substitute myself on from time to time for items of particular interest and this was one that I happened to be involved in some of the consideration I think—although now I'm wondering if I'm recorded as such; I'm not so perhaps I didn't in fact play any kind of role whatsoever; maybe in my own mind. I'm sort of the most lame version of Walter Mitty ever—that I'm falsely claiming to have been involved in the consideration on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill. Dr Emily Henderson: You were there.CHRIS PENK: There we go. We've got a doughty member of the committee—Dr Emily Henderson no less—claiming for that committee that it is the best committee. I'll admit perhaps as much as that it might be the second-best committee; of course the Regulations Review Committee being the best. But I should probably turn at some point to the bill itself and more particularly the select committee's report thereon.The point is made in the report—and I think actually quite helpfully—that with a number of submitters two-thirds of the submitters having stated that the bill would be helpful to reduce the risk of harm to candidates this is particularly important in the case of local government elections. Of course we're talking about local government elections as opposed to central government elections. There are a couple of reasons that are given for that. I think it's probably fair to say that we don't want candidates for any kind of election to feel threatened. But in the case of local candidates the point was made that these people are living in a community that's very local. By its nature it tends to be a smaller geographical area than in the central government environment. So for people to put themselves forward for office and to feel threatened by actions in response to the publication of their home or business address is acutely felt for those people and that's something to which I think we should all feel very sympathetic.The other point is that local election candidates—and actually members too: those who have been duly elected—have less access to support and security than parliamentary candidates. I think again that's a worthwhile point that the select committee is right to have emphasised and I thank the submitters who gave their time and energy to submit as part of the process to share this kind of sentiment with us.The point was made too about the vulnerability of those who have until now been required to publish their address online and people who are living alone will feel this particularly keenly. Again I think that's a fair point. We don't want inadvertent discrimination against those who live alone or might have living arrangements that they consider to be less secure than others who might put themselves forward. We want to have an equalising effect not a discriminatory one. So we think that for people who want to put themselves forward for candidacy if we can remove the possibility of risk associated with publishing their address that's a good thing. Of course that's the whole point of the bill and I think it's worth emphasising that it's a straightforward bill it's pretty narrow in its scope but it's important none the less for all these reasons that we're bringing out by looking at the points that were made in the select committee process. Verbal abuse intimidation and physical assaults sadly are examples of the kind of behaviour to which some local government election candidates have been subject. Negative comments on social media—that's a problem in itself but that's not one I think that the bill seeks to address really because what we're doing is removing the physical address aspect. It will still be the case that local government candidates will be available to be contacted. The alternative means in the bill provided—whether that's email address or the other ones—doesn't stop the possibility of abuse and threats online and so on. Of course abuse and threats in an online environment are also problematic but in a slightly different way from those that relate to physical safety. So that's another story for another day. But suffice to say while the bill doesn't attempt really to solve that problem I think it's always worth putting on record that MPs and policy makers don't regard that kind of thing lightly. We should all continue to work as best we can to avoid or reduce that possibility as well balancing of course against the need for free speech. To the extent that free speech is made in good faith and isn't physically threatening or otherwise threatening—that's something that we always must hold dear in our hearts as policy makers—that balance must be maintained.Other points that were made in the select committee report I thought were helpful in relation to removing the discrimination if a person doesn't have a home address or has an unstable home. I presume that means in the sense of moving around a lot not necessarily that the house itself is unstable in a geological kind of way.Simon Watts: Well that could be the case.CHRIS PENK: Well my colleague and friend Simon Watts who's led the charge for us admirably on this side of the House points out that could actually be the case I suppose actually—and this is the point at which I realise I shouldn't be too light about the subject—for those who have a home address that might change due to the vagaries of the situation of movement—physical movement in the case of earthquakes; floods fires and famines etc. and other f" words that come to mind. You've got to be careful of course with "f" words that come to mind during a parliamentary debate but I think I'm on safe ground with this one so to speak. And also some candidates don't have the option of providing a business address. There's a degree of separation I suppose if a person's home is their castle. We feel strongly that they shouldn't have to put their home address for fear of intimidation and lack of privacy too. Then perhaps it's a little bit better to be able to provide a business address. That's probably fair enough as far as it goes but then again if a person can be stalked or harassed at their business address rather than their home address well that's not that great an improvement. So I think for that reason it's right that the select committee report has highlighted the fact that there is an inherent discrimination in the law currently whereby we might require the same thing of all candidates but with an unequal effect in terms of the effect that that has for people in the way that they might feel safe or otherwise.I did think it was useful and actually really helpful that the report talks about the fact that candidates do need to be accountable. I think it's entirely possible to make that point without saying "and therefore they should be subject to abuse." Of course—well hopefully—it's obvious to state that no one thinks that they should be but nevertheless there needs to be at least some measure of accountability and that's the reason presumably that the law has already and will remain in a position whereby some kind of contact address must be needed.It did occur to me actually that requiring candidates to be accountable—excuse me: contactable; same thing I guess at a certain level—is in the interest of the candidate themselves. An example might be that if a candidates sign appears to breach local bylaws and they could be challenged on that they might be given the opportunity if they can be contacted to make it compliant in some way—perhaps move it a bit down the road—rather than having it knocked down or removed by the council let alone people who think that it's a good idea to damage and deface signs. I don't think we should have any sympathy with that kind of lawlessness vigilante action etc. I don't have much patience with the idea that electors need the information about where a person lives because an accountable candidate is one who has nothing to hide. I think we've got to be careful about equating accountability with the idea that that means that some person's got to somehow be out there and be available for abuse of a physical or other nature. Again just to be clear we support the policy intent of the bill. It seems that the intent is matched in a way by removing those home and business addresses from the requirement and something useful is happening in that space. As my colleague and friend Simon Watts has said we do support the bill. There's much more detail in it—believe it or not—than I've managed to get to in this time. The good news is of course that there will be other opportunities for contribution on the bill later tonight. Simon Court: That's right Mr Penk.CHRIS PENK: So with the enthusiastic acclaim and the encouragement that I'm receiving across the House I will leave my contribution for now at that point. Thank you very much."