Blumsky Mark: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2473] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 Wild horses could not keep me away from the Chamber tonight. To be able to speak to the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill is the highlight of my so far short parliamentary career. 
This is my first legal bill. My colleagues Mr Richard Worth Chris Finlayson Wayne Mapp and Kate Wilkinson are very articulate and knowledgable and have shown it. They can speak on legal matters at great length. A small bill like this generates hours of discussion from them and I suppose they get used to doing that when they charge by the hour as they would have done in the past. I have some claim to legal fame however. I am married to a lawyer and have undertaken pillow talk to prepare for my speech tonight. So I want to thank my colleagues for their fine speeches on the second reading of the bill because they gave me a great heads-up on the substance and issues surrounding it. 
I am pleased to stand here tonight and say that National does support this bill. Unfortunately in my short time here in the House that has hardly ever been the case. In fact the other day we could not even agree on a debate to debate the introduction of a bill. That was a bill we had not even seen. It was a pity because the bill was on local government and it was important to me but it made local government look like a real afterthought. Debating a bill we had not seen was like doing a book review off the back page or like doing a TV review off the trailer—an example of very poor Government. But let us go back to the matter at hand. 
National supports the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill and rightly so. The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act came into being in 1938 and in 68 years do not things change? After that 68 years we now have the Supreme Court which has been added to the list of courts the council has the primary right to publish decisions from. Gosh in 1938 there was no mention in the Act of a Supreme Court because at that time people did not think or could not even believe that New Zealand would lose access to the Privy Council and end up with a Supreme Court. In fact if people had been asked in the year 2002 when the Supreme Court legislation was introduced they would have said no—no to the fact that the Government was ending 160 years of New Zealanders’ rights to appeal to the Privy Council. There was great unease about that major constitutional change and great unease that such a change was taking place so easily. It was a tragedy. 
I can now also understand the importance of having a complete reporting body. There is a danger that if this work were split into multiple parts there would be multiple publications. A complete picture and understanding of the whole is important. New Zealand needs the  
New Zealand Law Reports  
to be authoritative. Lawyers refer to these reports. They want to see how law develops and to find out just what the distinguishing facts behind decisions were. So it is important that the whole is kept as a complete picture. 
As mentioned in clause 3 I also see a real benefit in the authorisation of publication in other specialist law reports or other occasionally produced publications. In 1972 there were two volumes of reports; now there are four each year—plenty of reading. But sometimes information and interpretations are needed earlier than those four volumes of the  
New Zealand Law Reports  
can deliver them. So I do see a role for other publications to deliver the information in a speedier form. 
I also like especially the provision in this bill whereby the New Zealand Law Society may authorise alternative persons firms or companies to publish reports if the council fails to publish its reports within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. Is it not important that even the  
New Zealand Law Reports  
has a pressure on performance? 
I note that the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee on 17 May 2005 and that there was one submission. Not too many wanted to argue on this one. It was hard work for the committee to come to a consideration—not! 
Gosh it is very different from the bills I have that are in front of the select committee I am on now like the Manukau City Council’s double act on prostitution reform and graffiti. The reading of the graffiti legislation one would suggest by definition would not be quite as legally challenging but if one could manage to read the graffiti I am sure it would be just as worthwhile. 
I commend to members the continued passage of this amazingly important bill.