Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. Allow me to start by addressing a point that the Minister made I think well—I'll take a step back. The Minister explained clearly that the Minister cannot direct a select committee and that's true as far as it goes. But it's also true that the Minister doesn't sit on the select committee. The Minister isn't and in this case wasn't aware of all the deliberation and discussion. For him to misrepresent the situation as took place in the select committee without having been present and therefore fully aware of it I think is unfortunate to say the least. I refer in particular to his characterisation of the what he calls conflict of interest" in relation to my colleague and friend the Hon Dr Nick Smith.First it was not only one member of the committee who found for sound policy reasons—about which we can have a reasonable discussion surely soon—that it is objectionable to restrict free speech in this way. There are other alternatives for dealing with that inherent conflict in that balance of rights question. But it wasn't only one member; it was at least two and in fact I'm pleased to say many more members of the committee and in fact I'm pleased to say ultimately to the credit of the Labour members of the committee that they too agreed with where we the National Party members wished to land on that. The report of the select committee makes it very clear that it's not a minority view or even technically a National Party member view—four-four split committee as it was—but in fact a unanimous decision. So that's the first point.The second in relation to the alleged conflict of interest is that Dr Smith's matter is not a matter currently before the court so there's no personal interest in that sense of a vested interest in him having a view on this. He has a policy interest in it sure but we all have at least some connection with various matters that come before select committees and the House. For example an easy illustration is we all pay income tax—or at least we should—and so we all have a technical conflict of interest in relation to taxation matters. So I don't need to probably belabour that point terribly far except to say that I think it's pretty poor form to be alleging a conflict of interest for an historical matter and one that the Minister has said was not declared; in fact this matter was discussed at the select committee. If the Minister had been there he would have known that. Of course he wasn't there—quite rightly he wasn't there—because that as he has explained himself—Greg O'Connor: Refused to be conflicted out Mr Penk.CHRIS PENK: Mr O'Connor—Hon Members: Take a call.CHRIS PENK: Well I look forward to Mr O'Connor taking a call on exactly that point. There was no good reason for Dr Smith—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Perhaps if the member addressed the part that we're discussing it might help.CHRIS PENK: Thank you Madam Chair. I'm certainly happy to address not only the part but also the points that the Minister has made in presumably addressing the part as well.So addressing the part of the bill in so far as it sets out the purpose of the bill the language is very much around of course quite rightly wishing to protect the integrity of the judicial system. There's some very good work that has taken place throughout the bill including in this part to do exactly that. But to characterise the only option to do that in the case of the reputation of the judicial system as being either defamation or the offence provision that was originally in there and is now effectively sought to be reinserted is actually simply not accurate. In fact the bill itself contains a take-down order mechanism whereby the High Court can order that material that meets the threshold can be the subject of a take-down order. Of course if that order is disobeyed then that in itself is a contempt of court and can be dealt with very harshly indeed and I would say quite rightly so.So there are other options. To suggest that there is no alternative to this seems to me perhaps quite a miss on the part of the Minister. I presume he's aware of that provision in the bill. So I'm surprised that he doesn't mention it in his dissertation on the relative merits of defamation only versus the effectively reinstated position.I've got more to say on that but seeing as that deals quite specifically with a clause in Part 2 I'll save my comments to that part of the debate very shortly."