Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Look I wasn't going to take a call on this bill but I did want to point out and lay out for the record the excellent process that has been gone through on the bill. I am one member who struggled with the proposal as it was first put forward by my colleague and friend Louisa Wall at first reading primarily because of the reasons that have been ventilated by others around freedom of expression. And in the last Parliament I was a member who essentially supported the removal of the safe areas from the abortion legislation as it was going through the Parliament because I'm a very strong supporter of free speech and freedom of expression and I believe strongly in some ways that it's the paramount right in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Many other rights in our constitution and in our political framework flow from the intrinsic ability to express oneself not just in this Parliament but around the country. It is in some ways the paramount right in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.So I was very concerned about—well I was concerned about the proposal as it was initially drafted. I voted for this bill at first reading to send it to a committee so we could try and fix some of those issues and see whether or not we could find a balance between protecting the rights of people who wish to protest and express their views around abortion which is a highly charged emotive issue—fortunately we don't have the same litigious culture and the same venomous culture around the debate around abortion in New Zealand that they have in the United States for example. But there are people in New Zealand with strongly held moral religious political social views around abortion and their rights have to be respected.Equally people who wish to procure an abortion—women who want to access abortion services and health services— have a right to do so unimpeded from emotional harm and distress. So the question before the Parliament has been: what is the appropriate balance to protect in so far as it's possible to do so the rights of both groups of people? The bill as it was initially drafted I think everyone will acknowledge needed some work and so I voted for the bill at first reading to send it to the Health Committee—which I sat on briefly; I won't admit to the House that I was super-involved in the committee's deliberations because there had been a few other things on. I enjoyed sitting on the Health Committee for some time while we considered the bill. I have to say it was an extremely good process because what we did as a committee was we took the report of the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and we said to the officials You've got to fix the bill. We've got to bring this bill into line so that the Attorney-General doesn't have a problem with it."And I'll tell you what's really interesting: section 7 reports are probably too often ignored by Parliament. Members will know that the Attorney-General is required to make a report if he thinks a bill before the Parliament including members' bills are unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And quite often committees say "Oh well you know that just the view of the Attorney-General; that's all very interesting thanks very much for that but we'll just charge on anyway." And Governments too to be fair—it's not just an issue to do with committees; it's Governments. And the Health Committee did the opposite. The Health Committee took the report seriously and I believe it will go down in the record books as a paradigmatic example of how to take rights seriously and also how to balance rights seriously—excellent work done by the committee.So we went through that long process we heard all the submissions and what we've done is made some changes that other members have ventilated to the House around the bill. And then what we did was quite interesting: in order to give members comfort that what they were doing was now voting for a bill that was New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - consistent—so a bill that was no longer inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—we wrote to the Attorney-General and we said "It would be really good if you wrote back to the House"—essentially—"and said that you no longer have any concerns with the bill."And again this is something—I don't believe this has happened before right? I actually think I'm right in saying—I meant to check with the Parliamentary Library before I came down. But I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying and I'll correct the record if I'm not that this is the first time where a negative section 7 report has been presented that says the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the committee has fixed the bill and then the Attorney-General has written to the Parliament to say "I'm now happy with the bill." I think I'm right in saying that. And so no doubt there'll be New Zealand Law Journal articles and Law Review articles by learned scholars written about this. I'm sure Sir Geoffrey Palmer's watching extremely excited that his baby the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has had its jurisprudence further advanced and I look forward to his correspondence on the matter but I think I'm right in saying that it's the first time and that's a good thing because what's happened here is that the Attorney-General is now advising the Parliament that he is happy with the bill as it's been amended by the committee.I know there are members in the Parliament who are voting and I'm one of them but there are other members including me who are voting for the bill now because they are happy and comfortable with the bill because it is now consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and they've got the judgment of the chief legal officer of the Crown and the Government who says so and has written to Parliament to say so. Now reasonable people can disagree; there may well be colleagues who disagree on the conclusion that the Attorney-General has drawn and that's completely fine and I respect that—reasonable people can have different views about limitations on rights—but it is significant that the Attorney-General has written to the Parliament and said "I am now comfortable with this and therefore in my considered opinion it is no longer inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act." I for one am much more comfortable voting for the bill because the Attorney-General has done that. So I want to commend the committee which I am no longer a member of for its prescience or far-sightedness in writing to the Attorney-General and I want to commend the Attorney General the Hon David Parker for taking the step that he has done.Just very briefly the particular substantive amendments that have been made according to the Attorney-General "There [is now] little prospect that communication from support persons or service providers would be criminalised … and have [their] appropriate exemptions built in."—that's new section 13A(1)(c)(i) and (ii). And the most critical thing for me is engaging in protest in new section 13A is narrower than the previous phrase. So the previous phrase was "communicating with"; it's now "engage in protests" which means that activities that are not regarded as protest such as people engaging in silent prayer will not risk being criminalised. Now again reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not that's an appropriate thing to do—I respect everyone's views on that—but I think there would be broad consensus that we don't want that behaviour banned.So the Attorney-General says that while the bill will still limit freedom of expression in a safe area it would do so in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. And that's what the New Zealand Bill of Rights is all about. People often say well everything breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Almost anything Governments do is an intrusion on some right; the question is whether or not it's a justified limit and whether or not it's a proportionate limit and whether or not you can actually do it in the least rights-intrusive way possible.So I just wanted to take—it was intended to be a brief call but it hasn't been a brief call. But I did just want to take a call to lay out what I think is a very important process and I hope that in the future when it comes to dealing with contentious issues of freedom of speech and actually significant intrusions on rights generally other committees will do what the Health Committee has done alongside the Attorney-General and engage in a very robust dialogue back and forth to try and make sure that bills are as least rights-intrusive as possible. And with that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."