Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I acknowledge you and I also acknowledge the Minister Andrew Little who's responded to various points. I think that some of the points I would disagree with but as part of the broader context of the debate it is at least heartening that he has addressed some of the good-faith objections on this side.I wish to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 58 in the name of my colleague Dr Nick Smith. It's with some trepidation that I follow his act in terms of talking about some of the issues but to do so I think is very important because it follows on neatly from the point about the justiciability as the Minister has noted—the ability in other words of the courts but also the desirability or otherwise of the courts examining the issues at stake and the actions that might be taken under this bill. It's almost a truism to note that words matter. Well words matter in terms of what has been said by members of Parliament that might lead them to being dismissed but also the words of the SOP itself matter.With that in mind I intend to go through and discuss some of the particular legal niceties of this proposal that Dr Nick Smith is making. It seems to me that he's doing so for three reasons essentially. One is actually to protect the courts. It's to protect the courts from criticism that would otherwise be legitimately levelled at them that they are interfering with another branch of government in a way that is unconstitutional and against the rule of law.It's to protect as well the constitution itself. This whole notion that we have a separation of powers—that Parliament makes laws and the courts apply them—is to be protected at all costs. So if we're going to ask the courts to make determinations on the proceedings of this place then we must give them the ability to do so clearly such that they will have a defence against criticism for what would otherwise be interference.Third and finally I believe it's protecting the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is not one that we support—at least not in the way that the Government is proposing it. But again I repeat my earlier comment that if we're going to have this piece of legislation passed then at least the procedures can be tidied up in a such a way as to make it less unsafe than it currently is.Just to use an example of how a judicial review proceeding might activate the provisions of the SOP; a caucus vote must surely be able to be subject to judicial review because like any other procedure by a reasonable decision-maker" the principles of natural justice must apply. So for example if a caucus vote that resulted in a two-thirds decision to expel a member was taken without that member himself or herself having had the right to be heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice then that would be a ground I would have thought—and the law I'm pretty sure is on my side very clearly—for administrative or judicial review.So the wording of the SOP then to insert new clause 5A to insert new section 59A talks about parliamentary privilege. The meaning of privilege indeed the derivation of privilege is important. The root of the word goes to aspects such as secrecy or the inviolability of information being held. So it's the proceedings of Parliament that are privileged—that are held not secret in strict terms but really essentially as the intellectual property if you will of Parliament and not of the courts—that we need effectively to unpack if we are to say to the courts that they are to have the power to determine whether things in this Parliament have been done correctly.The wording of this SOP then begins with "In proceedings in a court or tribunal". Now it might be redundant to talk about a tribunal—invariably it would be a court; I presume the High Court with its inherent jurisdiction to conduct judicial review that would examine such matters. But for the sake of good drafting for the sake of completeness we're talking about the proceedings of a court or tribunal. A number of different types of proceedings of Parliament are set out and that's really important because without the clarity of what is included in that we might say for example that the proceedings of Parliament are what we are actively engaged in right now—debates in the debating chamber. However it's clear from the way that the SOP is drafted that it's not only in the House but also committee—[Time expired]"