Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I do just want to pick up on the gratuitous insults that Mr Ball just made in regards to the Hon Amy Adams who was the former Minister of Justice. Hardly working or working hard?" is what he put to the House as a question. Well the rich irony of a member of a Government party that has spent the last six months setting up working-groups to create legislation and things for them to do—the deep irony of hearing something from Mr Ball about that.The reality is Amy Adams did an outstanding job as Minister of Justice. In fact this Privacy Bill that we're debating like many of the bills that we've spent the spent the last six months debating originated from its time in the last Government's legislative process. You can't get around to everything; it was a very busy and active Government as my colleague Gerry Brownlee knows. Amy Adams did an outstanding job.So this bill I think is going to receive the unanimous support of the House and it's going to go to the Justice Committee. There's a bit of a saying being developed in the Parliament: if you want something done give it to the Justice Committee. In fact the only thing this new Government seems to be able to do is to give it to the Justice Committee. We've got the Legislation Bill; we've got the Arbitration Amendment Bill which I know my colleague Andrew Bayly's very interested in; we've got the Trusts Bill—we're reforming the law of trusts and I see a beaming Raymond Huo over the other side of the House; he's looking forward to shepherding that one through. We've got domestic violence law reform; we've got court consent to minors getting married; we've got the Crimes Amendment Bill; we're going to get rid of blasphemous libel; we've got the End of Life Choice Bill—30000 submissions on that—and of course we've got the inquiry into the general election. So we're a pretty busy committee—and Madam Assistant Speaker is giving me the flick to move on.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is any of that Government work?CHRIS BISHOP: Some of that is Government work. Gerry Brownlee asks "Is that Government work?" Some of it is Government work; most of it's the previous Government's work.Privacy is one of those things where anyone who's studied law—particularly in the last 15 years—has sort of come to have a love-hate relationship with it because it's sort of like the new black. It's the thing that every law student and every developing lawyer comes to study particularly Hosking v Runting. I think Maggie Barry my colleague made mention of Mr Hosking. I know members opposite in this House love Mr Hosking. But of course Mike Hosking has made an interesting contribution to New Zealand in a number of respects mainly in the broadcasting realm—Hon Gerry Brownlee: And accurate.CHRIS BISHOP: —and "accurate" says Gerry Brownlee—and mainly in the news media realm. He's most recently made a contribution to the auto-repair industry as I understand it so that's good for the Mercedes-Benz dealerships in Auckland. But particularly in the legal sense Mike Hosking has made an outstanding contribution in developing the tort of privacy and developing the rules around the unreasonable interference of people's "private facts"—as they're known in the legal parlance—and the interference with them and the publication in an offensive or unreasonable way. Mike Hosking sued a photographer called Simon Runting after Runting had taken photographs of his children I believe—Dr Shane Reti: That's right the twins.CHRIS BISHOP: —that's right; "twins" says Shane Reti—Chlöe Swarbrick: Newmarket in Auckland.CHRIS BISHOP: —on a public street in Newmarket I think—Chlöe Swarbrick's rohe in Newmarket. The question before the court was: is it a breach of privacy to take a photograph of someone's children in a public place? The court decided that there was a tort but that it was not a breach of privacy.One of the things that I'm going to be interested to look at in the select committee is how this Act interfaces with that tort and how the Act covers some of the things that have been developed through the tort—so things in public and private facts. We have a very technical piece of legislation that's going to deal with a lot of the technological changes that have come about in the last 25 years and that is very important because the Act was passed in 1993. I think that Darroch Ball in one of the more worthy contributions to the debate said "Well no one had cellphones back in 1993." I didn't get my first cellphone until 2001.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Winston had one.CHRIS BISHOP: "Winston had one" says Mr Brownlee. He probably had one of those big bricks. But very few members had cellphones. So things have changed now with Facebook and Uber and the tech economy and the rise of the gig economy and things like that so it's very worthwhile. So that's why the review has been very thorough-going. The Law Commission's been involved—it's highly appropriate on things like this and we're going to examine the bill at the committee and make the changes.I've got to say we're doing a lot of bills on the Justice Committee at the moment that have been through that Law Commission process but it is still very helpful to have that oversight of the Justice Committee. It's still very very helpful because despite the fact that I think 80 organisations have been consulted on in the development of this there are always going to be mistakes in the drafting. We're going to pick them up.Look this is fundamentally a good bill. It's a sound proposition that we update our privacy laws for the 21st century. We'll look forward to examining it in the very very hard-working Justice Committee in due course."