Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I was just reflecting as the member was speaking—in a sense for Louisa Wall—that any member of Parliament who's been around a little while will have on occasion a sense of ambivalence around journalists. You know we will from time to time have stories we think are somewhat unfair or don't quite characterise things in quite the way they perhaps could. But of course the role of a journalist in bringing forward the truth investigating significant matters and holding the powerful to account is incredibly important and is as Ginny Andersen said an integral part of a liberal democratic society like New Zealand's. Actually it's even more important I would argue in many other countries where they don't have our democratic tradition.But the point to make is simply that yep what members of Parliament do is significant and what journalists do is also significant. All it's just reflecting of course is that members of Parliament in this House we have privileges. We have the privilege not recklessly or wantonly but to speak truth to power and say things in this House without fear of defamation proceedings for example. And that's because of the importance of being able to speak out from time to time and really just to say it again the same is true for journalists. There'll be times where they also should have privileges so that they can do their job fearlessly not recklessly but fearlessly and hold power to account and speak truth to power.I'd just reflect while I'm speaking generally about journalists that of course we know whenever we watch international news or read international newspapers about the prosecutions persecutions in some cases deaths that befall journalists for doing their jobs. That of course is awful. We condemn it and we stand up in favour of freedom for journalists to go about their significant jobs and play the significant part they play in societies around the world.National's going to support this bill at first reading. As with every member's bill today its intentions are good and there does seem to be a sense of a legislative gap here—as presented in the bill and its explanatory note—that's right to fill. It does seem is what I'm saying that it's right to fill the legislative gap that is done so by this bill.The bill does I think two or three things. It amends the definition of a journalist in the Evidence Act so that it explicitly includes investigative journalists based on the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization—that is UNESCO's—position that investigative journalism crucially contributes to freedom of expression and media development. It also addresses questions that have arisen from a court decision by Justice Winkelmann Chief Justice by clarifying that books written by investigative journalists are covered by journalistic privilege not just the media articles that journalists write. And thirdly it amends the Search and Surveillance Act to ensure that journalists' sources are clearly protected in relation to production orders and police searches. It inserts clear requirements on police in these circumstances to ensure that protections are understood and upheld.National will be interested in the submissions. On a bill like this one would expect there to be some very interesting submissions from the Press Gallery from various other journalistic entities and organisations individual journalists and also just the wider civil society that come along and give a view. I don't think that all those submissions will speak as one. I think there will be different views or shades at least of views presented.So in sum National supports this bill at first reading. I do though just want to make mention of one caveat that National has. It's questionable and I think some of my colleagues would say it's doubtful that journalistic privilege should apply where the material in question is obtained by a crime. That may be the case in relation to a theft. I'm interested in the arguments we might hear at select committee but it does seem to me that that's a reasonably common-sense position that I'm taking. The bill doesn't have an exemption or a carve-out in that instance and I think that would be an important thing in this bill and potentially important to secure National's continued support for the bill.I note that other privileges of all manner when it comes to the evidence and search and surveillance and other criminal or associated laws they often also have carve-outs. When we think of the privilege from defamation proceedings in this House—that has been whittled away at over the years. There have been new aspects to that made. When I think of—and it's been some time I accept since I've looked at these areas but if I look at the priest confessor confessional situation that's not absolute. There are other areas where the privileges are—Dr Duncan Webb: Husband and wife.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Husband and wife; that's exactly right. You're taking me back to law school Dr Webb; it's been a while. I don't think any of those issues were ever once in my several years as a prosecutor actual live cases. I doubt whether I ever had a priest telling me that they weren't going to—actually possibly in the cases of spouses I must say. But anyway I digress. So I'm simply making the point that we do think actually there probably is a caveat here that should apply in relation to this well-intentioned law.I'd also just make the point more generally on this area of law that look the journalistic privilege was last strengthened by the last National-led Government in 2012—in fact by the Hon Judith Collins as justice Minister—and that was through the 2012 search and surveillance law. And I would note in relation to that whilst I have said that I tend to accept there's a gap here that this bill could profitably fill that the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice both did say in 2017 that actually this area of law after they'd reviewed it was working generally pretty well. I simply say that because I wouldn't want to be standing here or give the impression that somehow I think we're in a terrible position that there's urgent need for reform and that what has been and what continues to be the law today in this area of journalistic privilege is somehow incredibly short and unjust. I don't think that. I think what is true though is there is a legislative gap we can fill and that's why we're supporting this bill at first reading because the rights of journalists and the ability for journalists to do their job fearfully—fearlessly I should say—is critically important. With those comments I conclude my remarks.