Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on behalf of Jonathan Young in this reply. It is an opportunity just to correct some of the terminological inexactitude that has been heard in this House from members opposite. First of all this bill does not prevent protest. It does not prevent freedom of expression. It does not even prevent freedom of access—particularly because this is about council-owned land—to make such a protest. It's quite interesting listening to the parties opposite particularly the red and the green parties which clearly evidence in what they say that when they think of rights human rights with respect to these activities the only rights they consider are the rights of protesters. The rights of other law-abiding citizens to go about their lives and also to have access to those public spaces to use those amenities and not to have their rights unduly impeded is not something that is considered at all by the members opposite. That's a real shame because while we absolutely support the right of freedom of expression like any right it is balanced by the rights for all New Zealanders not a particular group. There was a point made that apparently the law already covers this stuff. It would be wonderful if in practice it did but both the inaction and previous statements by the police show evidence that they themselves are concerned about the powers and how they should exercise them under the current law particularly when it comes to the removal of temporary structures that have been erected as part of that protest action. So the law needs clarification at least and this amendment bill is one way and a good way in fact to do that. The other point that Mr Mark made about the very honourable quite frankly Christopher Finlayson in his previous role of Attorney-General and his commentary on this bill—a couple of points. First of all the bill has got to go up before the Attorney-General gives a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act finding on it so you can't do it before the bill goes up. Secondly while he did in fact find at the time that he couldn't justify under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the arbitrary power of arrest he pointed out that it was a very simple means and amendment to address that and the select committee could do just that. The second point which is absolutely relevant to the arguments that have been made about the right of protesters for their freedom of speech is in that opinion he states very clearly that the removal of the property does not significantly inhibit the expression of the protesters. So permitting the police to remove temporary structures that have been erected for five days or more does not inhibit that freedom of expression—a very clear statement from the Attorney-General. So those that have stood in this House trying to say that his findings somehow completely undermine the value of this member's bill are simply incorrect.The bill simply seeks to ensure that there is a balance in the execution of responsibilities by councils to be able to not only permit and support the freedom of expression of people and protest but also to acknowledge that they have a duty to care for the rights of other citizens who are not participating in the process and that it's important that they are able to strike an adequate balance and to have the authority to execute upon that balance. This is a very good member's bill. I commend Jonathan Young for bringing it to the House. There is still time for members opposite to reconsider and to give their support for this to go to a select committee where it can be properly scrutinised where elements such as those the Attorney-General raised can be looked at and addressed so a bill that is in an even better shape could be returned to the House for consideration in a second reading debate. I call on members of both sides of the House to do that. I commend this bill to the House.