Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I also rise in support of the earlier comments by my colleagues on the Privileges Committee and again I'd just like to acknowledge the way that people from different parties have come together and worked through something that's been quite difficult. We've been quite constructive and innovative in the way that we've done it and I think that actually that's something that gives a bit of hope for the way that our Parliament can function. None the less we were forced to deal with quite a difficult issue because on the one hand as other speakers have outlined this is a place of vigorous debate. New Zealanders have issues where they strongly disagree with each other and for most of human history most disagreements have been settled by might is right and violence. We have a unique system of Government or at least a very rare system of Government that hasn't existed for very long in the wider sweep of human history where we basically send some people to settle differences amongst different groups in the community by debate—using words not violence—under a quite arcane but quite useful set of rules to make laws and ultimately people respect the process enough so that for the most part people follow the laws that the Parliament makes and pay the taxes that it levies. That's quite an achievement. But the whole thing doesn't work if Parliament goes from being a place of reason and enlightened discussion using logic and facts and persuasion and appeals to people's better angels to try and get a consensus and it instead becomes a place where might is right and people stand over each other and use violence. So that was the basic problem that we had to overcome and the question was—[Interruption] My colleague and constituent Paul Goldsmith just said that it wasn't violence and I agree with him. But the question was whether there were aspects of this particular incident that were troubling because they would somehow impede the House or impede a member of the House from performing their duties and it was very difficult because on the one hand—as other members have said—because this place is really designed to resolve conflicts between different groups in society and we strongly disagree and do so peacefully there's often debate and behaviour that is unlike in any other workplace. It would be unacceptable in any other workplace and that's actually healthy for society to have this place as an outlet for those conflicts. The question is: where is the line crossed so that it becomes unacceptable even here? I think the committee through a useful debate—and it's reflected in the report—got to the point where it wasn't necessarily the fact that the actions were hostile or that they might be offensive or rude or they made someone feel uncomfortable necessarily. The two issues that the committee really centred on were that the person in this case—Shanan Halbert—was impeded in doing their duties. Specifically they couldn't leave the room for a couple of reasons. One was that they felt they were being physically obstructed and two was that they felt that way because in the words of the person who we took to do the inquiry they felt like they were being threatened by some of the words—for example the words stand up" were taken as an incitement to stand up and perhaps engage in a physical conflict. I think it's really important—and I think the committee's report does a good job—to be clear that the reason this is a contempt and it's totally unacceptable is because of those specific threatening behaviours and that physical blocking and impeding of a member from leaving the committee and being able to go and do their duty. It's important we recognise that because it means that in the future when somebody looks at this report from the Privileges Committee and perhaps a forthcoming decision for the House to endorse the committee in a potential censure that the Speaker may end up making people are clear that it's not because someone was hostile or because they were abrupt or rude or forceful—we need all of those things—but it's because they did things that were objectively threatening and because they did things that created a situation where the person got physically unable to leave the situation even though they wanted to and that is completely unacceptable. That undermines the purpose of our Parliament as a place where conflicts can be resolved peacefully. So I just wanted to get those comments on record. Certainly I share with Chris Bishop the will that Parliament is a place that people want to come to—a wide range of people want to come to—where they feel that they can contribute to New Zealand on behalf of the communities that send them here and feel that there's going to be more light than heat and that we leave New Zealand as a better place after our three or however many years of service. In order for Parliament to continue functioning it really needs to be able to keep doing that. Any actions such as those taken by Tim van de Molen unfortunately impede parliamentarians from being able to enjoy their job here and that's why I endorse this decision and report by the committee. Thank you Mr Speaker."