Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Listen I just want to respond to some of the comments and questions posed by members of the Opposition. I just want to return to the comments made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He did a very sneaky thing which was when he kind of read the provisions of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and then referred to submissions made to the Justice Committee which were submissions about a completely different provision. This SOP is different to the provision that appeared in the original bill. This is very much focused on false statements. It's not the broad old-fashioned scandalising the court provision. I think it's very important that if we're going to have an honest debate about these things we actually need to focus on what is in front of us and not refer to comments made by august organisations like the Law Society about something completely different. Both Dr Smith and Mr Penk made comments about Look you know we must have freedom of speech and judges can just be like the rest of us." I look particularly to the likes of Mr Penk and actually Mr Macindoe who are members of the profession. I look at them as Dr Smith is speaking and I look at them. They know what I am thinking. They know that I am thinking of them. They know better. So let's be very clear about the status of judges because they are not like an MP who has the privilege of coming to this House with full parliamentary privilege and saying what they like and knowing they cannot be touched in a sense. Judges have one forum in which they can express their views and that is their courtroom. Judges cannot participate in a public debate and if they come under attack by somebody saying that you know a case that a judge is dealing with is leading to somebody stealing a child that judge can't respond. That judge can administer justice in their court but they can't respond. They can't defend their reputation. When somebody says something that the High Court in contempt proceedings subsequently finds to be effectively over the top—"intimidatory" was the language used—how does the judge respond to that? So the contempt of court proceeding as provided for in this SOP is absolutely vital. Mr Penk made the point about "Well you know outrageous things are said about judges but they're said about MPs as well." MPs have way more opportunities and privilege to respond to attacks on them than judges do. Now Mr Penk knows that well and truly and so does Mr Macindoe and they know the important principle about judges not participating in public debate in order to preserve their impartiality. It's interesting that one of the comments made by the judges in the Solicitor-General v Smith case—in paragraph 85 of the substantive judgment they said "The offence of 'scandalising' "—as it used to be known—"exists to protect the Court not the dignity of its Judges. It guards the institution not the individuals." Now Mr Penk gave the example: "Well what if somebody says after a conviction has been entered 'The person is innocent.'?" Well that's fine. That's not attacking the integrity of the court system. That's not done in a way calculated to undermine confidence in the court. If the person had said—Chris Penk: Well if you're locking up an innocent man it's pretty bad. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Indeed innocence campaigners up and down the country have been doing that for years. If they said that "The person is innocent because the judge is corrupt." that is something completely different and that does attract the attention and the sanction of this provision. Mr Penk raised two points he wanted me to respond to. One is about the take-down mechanism. The take-down mechanism remains. It is in clause 25 of the bill and it is there but it doesn't deal with the person who in a calculated way seeks to undermine public confidence in the court by making untrue statements about a judge. I know Dr Smith seemed to get confused about the judge judiciary and the court. When you stand in front of a judge you are standing in front of the court. When you stand in front of the court you are standing in front of a judge. The second point that Mr Penk made was about parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege isn't affected by the SOP. The Parliament recognises—and members will know that if they traduce the standard principle in this Parliament of comity between the Parliament and the judiciary actually the Chairs and Speakers will place limits on how far members can go before they encroach upon the proper place of the courts. This provision is a reasonable very narrow very safe provision. It does not compromise freedom of speech rights as has been suggested at least by Dr Smith and Dr Smith will well know that in the UK it is a major problem now. Judges have no real protection and many are complaining about it. This provision is about ensuring that the public confidence in the judiciary is not compromised by those—the narcissists and pathological people and others—who would go around attacking our courts."