Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Allow me to begin by congratulating the member who has resumed her seat Louisa Wall not only on having had the bill passed excuse me pulled"—I'm ahead of myself on that front—as she has proven so adept at over the years in this House but on her contribution to kick off this the second reading that I thought was very thoughtful engaging and indeed compelling. A couple of points within that that she's highlighted for further consideration of the House at future stages such as the committee stage the National Party will go away and consider in good faith. I'm not authorised to muse on those to the extent of indicating how we might view those possible further amendments. But I can confirm before proceeding any further that National does continue to support the bill. That will be no surprise given that we supported it at the first reading and our members in the Justice Committee have engaged in a way that I think the member has acknowledged shows that we are committed to improving—and I say that respectfully improving—the bill that had originally come to this House certainly understanding and agreeing with the intent behind it. So there is no problem there.For me tonight it's probably helpful just to set out a few of the key issues and put on record from the National Party perspective ways that we think this is a useful addition to the law. We also believe that it is an evolution of the law. It reflects an updating of the law since the passing of the Harmful Digital Communications Act originally—some six years ago I believe. I think I'm right in saying it was before my time in this House but that was the Minister of Justice then the Hon Judith Collins. Since that time it's appropriate that our law changes and evolves as society does. And also in relation to technological change it's appropriate that we keep up to date with that. So I found the discussion by the member Louisa Wall in relation to deep fakes really fascinating interesting timely. And so I look forward to having that conversation further in this House in a no doubt robust but always reasonable fashion of course.Just to put on record a couple of the aspects that our members have found very persuasive; one is around consent. Some notes associated with the bill talk about the consent needing to be given voluntarily. In a way that's a tautology. Of course consent has to be voluntary or it's not real consent at all. But I think there is certainly some merit to what the select committee had concluded about the desirability of having a notion of consent that was already existing in the law in the common law. But having said that I think that the member makes a good case about the threshold of express consent given the particular nature of the circumstances in which such recordings might be made in the first place. So I won't get into any further detail on that but suffice to say obviously it's the case that if a person doesn't consent doesn't agree with the sharing of a recording that is intimate in nature then that is of course going to cause harm to them in a way that the law should recognise but not tolerate.We've obviously considered ways in which the act of sharing a person's intimate details in this way can have a negative impact on them. It can for the reason of others reacting to that perhaps in a way that could be characterised as bullying or shaming and so forth. But of course it's equally the case—and I believe that the select committee heard evidence along these lines—that a person themselves might feel a sense of shame or regret or otherwise in an internal response that is not fair and not reasonable for any human being to suffer. So for that reason and the associated mental health implications we of course support the intent of the bill and as I say the detail of it as well.I'll conclude by just acknowledging a point that was made about the fact of a breach of trust being involved. I think that's an element that while we wouldn't say is an aggravating factor in the technical sense of that phrase from a sentencing point of view I think is a key element in what the member is trying to get to here which is to acknowledge the seriousness of a harm that occurs in a context where people should feel protected should not feel exposed. And it's appropriate that the law recognises and does its best to protect against that kind of harm.So on that note just to confirm clarify National does continue to support this bill. We look forward to further discussions throughout the House and acknowledge the intent and the spirit in which it's been brought in the debate so far."