Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I welcome this debate because it goes to the core of the values we have about freedom of speech and it's interesting the numbers of members of Parliament that supported me at the time when a previous Labour Government took the very unfortunate step of prosecuting an Opposition member of Parliament for highlighting a constituency issue which resulted in significant family law reform in that individual case. But I personally want to highlight the misgivings—Greg O'Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That's blatantly false that a Government can take a prosecution. I think it's something that really—the member needs to be very careful in accusing a Government now or in the past of taking a prosecution. The prosecution was taken by the authorities of the day. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No it's a debating point. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you Mr Chairman. I want to read the submissions that the select committee heard on this point to make plain that this is far more than just my view. I want to point out that the United Kingdom where we inherited the law of penalty and criminal offence of scandalising the court repealed it in 2013. So why do we want to retain a law that we inherited from the UK that they have got rid of? Why is it that we must have this law to protect the integrity of the courts when great free democracies like the United States of America do not need this law of making it a criminal offence to criticise the courts to maintain the effectiveness of the judiciary? But I want to read for Greg O'Connor what the New Zealand Law Society said and I'll read it quote for quote in the submission: We believe that the clause is dangerous and it will interfere with the citizens' rights of free speech." When the Law Society says to the Parliament that our law is dangerous does that somehow make me some sort of radical for saying that we should listen to that view? Can I quote another organisation: Transparency International New Zealand. Now I've heard many speeches from members opposite that they want to have a transparent—in fact we're told that they're going to be the most open transparent Government ever and yet Transparency International New Zealand submitted how important it was that people did not have the fear of criminal prosecution if they raise questions about the integrity of our court system. Then I could quote the many submissions we heard at the select committee from—guess who?—the media. Now I'm one of those that believe in free press. We heard from six different respected media organisations who also advocated that New Zealand should be able to enjoy the same freedoms that are available for speech in the United Kingdom and in the United States in this fair country of New Zealand. But here's the process point. The select committee heard the submissions. The select committee unanimously said that we do not need this contempt this criminal offence to maintain the integrity of the court system. And what the Minister has done is said "I don't give a hoot what the select committee decided. I don't care a hoot if they heard all this evidence from university academics from organisations like the Law Society." They say "Cabinet rules. We are now with this SOP going to overrule the unanimous recommendation of the select committee on the repeal of contempt." I also want to challenge the Minister in his view about what his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289 does. He says that this provision is solely about protecting members of the judiciary from the outrageous comments which we see on the net and I have to say that members of Parliament get those sorts of criticisms—it goes a little bit with those that are in authority. But let's hear what the SOP says. Is this provision of criminality for criticism limited to just a judge? No. The member's SOP says "publishes a false statement about a Judge or [the] court;"—whether it's the judge or the court. Here's what else: if a person makes a public statement that undermines "public confidence in the independence integrity impartiality or authority of the judiciary" or if they make a statement that "could undermine public confidence in the … judiciary"—and remember these are criminal offences. So we should not be surprised when we read a submission from the Law Society that says that those phrases are so wide that a person who for instance says "Well I think Arthur Allan Thomas is innocent."—is that bringing into disrepute the respect for the court? My view is that actually that's a really important freedom that people will be able to express. If we look at the Law Society—[Minister Little shakes his head] Well the Minister in the chair is saying that the Law Society's wrong. Is that correct? Is he disputing the submission that their view is that this is a very wide provision that he is wanting to introduce in making a criminality—a crime? What the select committee said was "Look we are prepared to provide a take-down notice mechanism."—that is if the courts believe that there is a statement that someone is making and that statement might be able to be removed. I remind the Parliament that that is going further than the rights that many others in authority have and I want Parliament to consider what the original basis for the crime of scandalising the court was. It was in the days when judges were seen as super-beings when we felt that we somehow had to put them up on a pedestal. Now it's strange to me to be arguing with the Labour Party that we want to live in a society where there's one set of rules for everybody because what is common to the submission from the New Zealand Law Society what is in the submission from Transparency International and what is consistent in the submissions that we heard from academics from a number of universities is that the protections that go for judges should be no greater than what there is for a member of Parliament for what there is for a chief executive of a Government department or for what there is for any other individual. Why does this Parliament want to say "Oh you're allowed to freely criticise people but not these ones."? Is that healthy for a liberal democracy? The point that I finally wish to make in respect of that freedom of speech and the importance of it is this point: why should New Zealand have a lesser level of freedom of speech than any other liberal democracy? That's what the Minister is proposing with his SOP. Is there evidence in the United States that somehow their administration of justice their court system is compromised? There was a very—well the member Mr Greg O'Connor laughs. Can I draw to his attention a very important ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It said this—and these are very wise words—"The respect for the courts will come from the quality of its judgments not by silencing its critics." Hon Stuart Nash: It's not silencing its critics. It's stopping fake news. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's what the Supreme Court of the United States says and I think—well Mr Stuart Nash the Minister of Police interjects. My question for him is: why is it that in the United States and the United Kingdom it is not necessary for the administration of justice to make criminals of people for free speech but in New Zealand it will be? Now if the member wants to put a case for changing our defamation law or other laws such as our telecommunications laws around things and apply it equally to everybody that's fine. What I object to and what I think is bad law is to put judges on a pedestal and somehow pretend that they need a level of protection that doesn't apply to anybody else. Our courts and our judges deserve the same level of scrutiny and New Zealanders deserve the same levels of free speech that operate in other liberal democracies."