O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Mr Chair could I just speak please to Part 2 of this bill—the proposed new clause 24A Offence to publish false statement about Judge or court". This is the basis of Part 2. Particularly for those members opposite who may not be aware of the history of how we got here the Hon Christopher Finlayson who I think most of you will agree is an esteemed gentleman a smart gentleman and a wise gentleman and who was the Attorney-General in the previous Government actually brought this bill to the House as a member's bill. It was a good bill and as a result it was picked up by the Government and by the Minister and it went through. Surprisingly to this side of the House Mr Finlayson's wishes his desires and his dream were completely ignored and overridden by Dr Smith and we arrived at the situation where we are now where what was actually required was to relook and ensure that the intentions of a man as wise as the ex - Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson were actually honoured or certainly if not honoured were actually acknowledged. That is where we have arrived today. Can I just also say to those members opposite that I think this is very important: just in case you are caught up in the rhetoric of your colleague Dr Smith's statements in his media releases and on the Radio New Zealand programme were contemptuous. They went well beyond the fair and temperate. They were one-sided emotive and extreme in their language and were inflammatory and intimidatory in their effect. Dr Smith made the media releases—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! GREG O'CONNOR: —and gave the interview with the actual intention—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! That's not actually part of the bill OK? Giving a commentary on what other members are saying in the media is not actually addressing the bill. Unless you can tie them together which I haven't heard yet the member needs to address Part 2 of the bill. GREG O'CONNOR: If I may perhaps I should have said this at the beginning because Mr Chair I believe you were here when Dr Smith actually went through the circumstances of the case which he was using to justify his position. What he used was the case—this case that I'm reading from was the actual court case Solicitor-General v Smith. This is actually what the findings were—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We're actually not debating that. What we're debating is the content of Part 2 of the bill and so—[Interruption] Order! I'm trying to give a ruling here. So what I want you to do is that unless you can link what you're saying to the content of the bill you should leave that alone. GREG O'CONNOR: Thank you Mr Chair. Well what I will just perhaps say as someone who's been involved in law enforcement for some time is the one thing that I dealt with particularly even with criminals—or probably especially criminals—is that they needed to have a certain respect for the criminal justice system. They actually had a respect for judges because it was one part of their lives that was actually relatively ordered. It was a little bit like coming to this House and rightfully we have to keep to order. It is one place in their lives for many people where there is some order and where they actually do obey the rules of the court. It's incredibly important that we have that institution because those that are more likely to actually be part of pulling our society apart need that. So anything that damages that—and we're not talking about the individuals necessarily. We're actually talking about the estate; we're talking about the institution. So to be able to stand up and tell egregious outright lies about judges without challenge and certainly without the ability—Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To suggest that anyone in this House is lying is totally out of order and brings the House into disrepute—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I've been listening very carefully to what each member has been saying. Now I listened carefully to Greg O'Connor's contribution. He did not actually say any particular member of this House. He is sailing very close to the wind though—Mr O'Connor—and I'd encourage him to focus on Part 2 of the bill. So my ruling is that what he has said is not a direct accusation against any particular member. GREG O'CONNOR: Thank you Mr Chair. Certainly can I assure you I was talking about the general "who" not any individual was I actually discussing in relation—I'm talking about any individual anywhere who is able to make these statements which will cause the citizenry particularly those who spend more time in court than many others to lose faith in the court."