Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Chair—to the relief of us all. Just for the sake of the record I'll start by reiterating the National Party's support for Part 2 of the bill as it was reported back by the Justice Committee and indeed the remainder of the bill to which we'll get no doubt in due course. In that sense our position is exactly the same as the Labour members of the select committee then if not now. The Labour members of the committee I think actually took a very sensible approach to this and I thank them for it whereby after some interesting discussion about the balance of various rights involved they—including one Mr Greg O'Connor—saw fit to agree with our position and where we landed on the bill as adopted by the Government but originally put forward by the Hon Christopher Finlayson. So it was that Part 2 as reported back to the House by the select committee did not contain an offence provision of the kind that's now being effectively reintroduced by way of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289. So I do wonder what might have changed in the mind of Mr Greg O'Connor but in any case that's for his conscience and not ours. The Minister has touched on the issue of balancing rights. I mean it's a reasonable approach to talk about the different rights involved. We're not comfortable with where that balance has been struck or is proposed to be struck by way of the SOP—so acknowledging the right to freedom of expression under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act on the one hand; the reputation of the judiciary against unfair criticism on the other. Our view is that it's not a justifiable limitation in a free and democratic society to adopt the words of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the test that it itself would apply to be criminalising free speech as a matter of first resort—as a matter of first resort as I say—as distinct from what is actually already still allowed in the bill as reported back from the select committee whereby a take-down notice can be ordered and if an individual fails to comply with that then that in itself could be criminalised as a contempt of court for failure to comply with such order. That seems to us the better place to strike the balance. Minister Little has talked about outrageous false statements that are made against judges and no doubt such things are made from time to time. I say in jest obviously he would be aware as we all are in this House that some pretty outrageous things are said about MPs and even by MPs from time to time and I think that we shouldn't be too precious in a free and democratic society—again to use that language from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—about the way that we respond to such comments by members of the public but also the fourth estate as Dr Smith has alluded to. On the subject of what a false statement might be I think it's worth noting that it's actually not necessarily a straightforward matter to determine in any given case what is the objective truth. For example it might be—and I'll resist the temptation to use any causes célèbres in terms of cases in which the verdict has effectively been overturned but we can all bring those to mind. We could say at one point Person Y is innocent. That person didn't commit the crime of which he has been already convicted." That would be a false statement—that would be a false statement arguably that actually if you look at the elements of the offence in the SOP would be something that could undermine public confidence in the independence because how could it lock up an innocent man for 20 years for example? There could be a real risk that such a statement could undermine public confidence and so forth. That at that moment in time is a false statement because if the court convicts someone of a multiple murder then whether or not they actually did it it is a false statement to suggest that they didn't because the court has said that they did and so as far as the law is concerned they did do that thing. So a couple of other points I'd make in relation to individual citizens being able to make such criticism—sure but also academics who we need to be able to criticise the court system. It might be in any individual situation that they might get something wrong or it might be determined that they might make a false statement—for example it might be that an academic or a politician says that courts have slower processing times and that might be true if we look at some courts but not others and so forth. So again it's not always a straightforward matter to determine what is a false statement what is fake news and so on. So in my remaining time if I could just take a couple more seconds over the break I have two questions for the Minister: one is that I seek that he acknowledge for the record—[Bell rung] Mr Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Penk. CHRIS PENK: Thank you sir—just to complete my two questions to the Minister. Will he please acknowledge for the record at least for the sake of clarity and posterity that there is a take-down mechanism in the bill as reported back from the select committee such that criminalisation at first resort need not be considered necessary? I accept he might make a judgment that that's so but nevertheless will he acknowledge that such a mechanism does exist and is available? Second are there any comments he would make in relation to parliamentary privilege and whether that might apply to statements that will be subject to SOP 289 if it should pass into law?"