Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The part I always enjoy with my debates with the Minister of Justice is every time I put him under a bit of pressure whether it's dodgy electoral laws or this he goes for attacking the person rather than addressing the issues. So let's go through the claims the Minister made. The Minister claims that the Supplementary Order Paper around the crime of being critical of the courts is radically different from the bill that's introduced. I've gone through the wording and I challenge him to do likewise and line up the words of the original bill of which the Law Society Transparency International and academics from a number of universities—he has changed less than 10 percent of the words. It's a very minor change. The concerns that were made by the Law Society Transparency International and others are identical. Hon Tracey Martin: Change one word a whole sentence changes. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now I've got a question for the member opposite who seems to be interjecting. Here's my question and we've had no explanation: why did Greg O'Connor why did Duncan Webb and why did Ginny Andersen agree to remove these provisions and now change their minds? Have we heard a single contribution from Mr O'Connor? Why did you vote for these provisions being removed? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I didn't actually vote. I wasn't at the committee. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I asked Mr Greg O'Connor—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry you said you". That means the Speaker or the Chair of the committee. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well yes I understand that Madam Chair. My question for Mr Greg O'Connor is: why did you vote for the removal of the provisions that the Minister is now wanting to reinsert? Can any member on the Government benches give an explanation as to why they voted for the select committee report that removed the crime of criticising the court and judges? Well it's a reasonable question because what actually happened is that the select committee heard strong submissions and the select committee changed the bill. Now members of the Labour Party are wont to criticise and have read and quoted from a court case around contempt that I was involved in. Let me say this to the committee: I am proud to this day that I stood up for that family and that constituent because what occurred to them was an injustice. What occurred to them was a mother and father lost their son. They lost their son. Just as members opposite on other issues may take pride in standing up for injustice I absolutely stand up for what I did at that time. I make absolutely no apologies. Here's what's more important: as a consequence of highlighting the injustice that that family faced the Government of the day changed our family law for the better so that that injustice could never be committed again. I'm proud of the law reform that resulted as a consequence of that case. Frankly Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little I take pride in that conviction for standing up against wrong and if any member of the House questions me I would love you to make a phone call to the family that were affected. I would love you to talk to the family that were affected and for you to put hand on heart and to say what happened to them in our Family Court system was fair. It was interesting at the time. I said I was happy to have a by-election in my electorate and do you know what Labour said? "Oh we've done some polling—90 percent of his constituents in Nelson think he did the right thing. We don't want to have a by-election." That was the ultimate test. Greg O'Connor: Made up—made up. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well actually they were the comments that were made by the Prime Minister at the time as to why there should not have been a by-election. So this is a very serious issue. The question that has not been addressed by the Minister in the chair is why it is that in a country like the United States they do not need to have a criminal offence the judges do not need to have protections beyond those of our defamation law. If the Minister wanted to propose reforms for those to make them work more effectively I actually think there's quite a good case for how defamation law in New Zealand does not work well but there is no argument for maintaining a criminal offence for people that in good faith criticise and challenge the performance of our courts and our judiciary."