Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I have an intense interest in this bill. I must say I am truly delighted by the changes that are proposed in contempt law but also the select committee process that saw a very significant change from the original law. One of the most important rights is the issue of freedom of speech. In this bill we're trying to navigate this line between enabling our courts to be able to fairly get on and administer justice while at the same time ensuring that we are able to have freedom of expression. This debate's particularly important with the debate about hate speech and its bounds and where Parliament might go in future. I'm delighted that this Parliament has to date been going down a road of strengthening the rights of freedom of speech. We recently passed a bill to repeal the crime of blasphemy. Now when this bill was introduced it effectively codified the common law that it was a criminal offence to criticise the courts. Now the reason that's such an interesting issue is the difference of culture that we have inherited from Britain as compared with countries like the United States. There's a very famous ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States and that is that respect for the courts will not come about by silencing its critics but indeed by the quality of its judgments. That is a long-held view that I have had and that is why I took particular difficulty with clause 24 of this bill as introduced. Clause 24 of this bill would have made it a crime with a term of imprisonment of up to two years if someone criticised our courts. Now I actually think we have incredibly good courts. I actually think the vast range of judgments that are made by each level of our court system is actually pretty good. But the courts are human they make mistakes and they need to be able to be criticised so that we as parliamentarians are able to view that debate and make reform in our law to make our justice system even better. Now it is a matter of fact and we tested the boundaries between the courts and Parliament in the very development of this law. There was a strong wish from those on the judicial bench that it remain a criminal offence to criticise the judges or the court system. While I respect their view in my view judges should not be on a pedestal and should not have some absolute protection to people being able to express a view and I think the place we got to in the Justice Committee was very good. It's interesting to note that the United Kingdom which was the original source of the common law regarding contempt repealed scandalising of the court as a crime back in 2013. The Canadians also did it this decade.Now I've had a few days on select committees. I have to say the big surprise for me in the Justice Committee was this. Myself and my colleagues Chris Penk and Chris Bishop were concerned about the freedom of speech issues around this. We wrote a minority view—we took the minority view because at that point the Government had dug in and said that it wanted to stick with clause 24 as it was and remain it as a crime—and I nearly choked on my coffee when the Government members on the committee said they would not accept a minority view. I said Well sorry. The Speaker has quite rightly made it plain that a minority view should be able to be delivered." What surprised me is that they said "We're not wanting to accept your view as a minority one we want to adopt it as a committee." I could have cheered for joy for this long battle for freedom of speech that has existed in the United States since 1814—that now in 2019 we are to extend the bounds of free speech and make it quite lawful for people in New Zealand to be able to criticise court judgments and to express an honest opinion.I actually think that the view we got to on the committee is really pragmatic. I do accept that sometimes you hear ravings on the internet of people on their Facebook posts saying things that are entirely inappropriate and defamatory of judges. What we have provided for in clause 25 of this bill is the provision for an application to be able to be made to the High Court for such material to be taken down and I think that is a good practical way in which we can recognise the practicality that it is pretty hard for a judge on the bench—whether it be of the District Court the High Court the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal—to be able to take a defamation action against some person that said something that's highly provocative untrue or defamatory on a website. It enables that material to be taken down while at the same time making it plain that we are going to uphold the freedoms of speech.The really interesting part is going to be the debate from here in respect of where we go on the bounds of free speech. I'm very concerned by some of the comments that have been made by members of the Government that actually want to head in the opposite direction that actually want to constrain and create criminal offences. I want to say how proud I was of my new parliamentary colleague Paulo Garcia today in wanting to champion the cause of free speech. We in this Parliament should be able to say "I don't agree with you but I absolutely defend your right to say it." That is where this bill actually is—Hon David Parker: Well we can.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —a very significant step forward. Actually Mr Parker we are actually repealing the last criminal offence—Hon David Parker: In this House we can.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that's related to common law. The member says that within this House you can but within this House Mr Parker there are rules—Hon David Parker: You just said we can't.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No but where Mr Parker who interjects is incorrect the Standing Orders are very clear that there needs to be respect within this Parliament about the probity between Parliament and the courts. If I as a member wanted to get up and criticise a judge the Speaker would quite rightly pull me up and say that's breaching that probity and that reinforces the value of what is being done with this bill.Finally I want to deal with the provisions as they relate more generally to the processes of the courts publication and in respect of the internet. Again the select committee and this bill are a good step forward in modernising our justice laws recognising the fact that we're not just talking about printed material—as was the case when contempt originally developed—and making it fit for purpose so that our courts can get on and do their job and do so with some discipline and process but also that important step forward for the freedom of speech."