Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill in this first reading and I'd like to start by thanking the Hon Chris Finlayson. I think that he is an excellent shadow Attorney-General. He was an excellent Attorney-General when it was a National-led Government and I think that his ideas are in fact very handy to the legal profession and law students around New Zealand. I'm not sure whether the Hon Chris Finlayson has been called a handyman before but certainly there are a raft of bills and legislation that he has come up with that have looked to simplify the law to codify the law and to put in place pragmatic solutions to make the interpretation of law better in New Zealand and this is no exception obviously.This is of course about the law of contempt. This bill is about upholding judicial process but it brings together a raft of rules and laws relating to the law of contempt that are scattered around various other Acts—very piecemeal. It brings them together so that they can be modernised and easily understood and easily found and easily interpreted. So I congratulate the member on bringing this bill together. It's long overdue. It's something that is supported of course by the Law Society and it's wonderful—well hopefully it will go through its first reading and be further tested at select committee.So in particular I wanted to focus on the modernisation of the law of contempt in relation to the digital age. Of course going to court used to be this mysterious mystical type of process but with the digital age everything is demystified and that includes the court. It means that information travels fast and without thinking information can be placed on the internet whether it be via Twitter or Instagram or Facebook without any thought and without any thought to ramifications. Of course the law of contempt is there to ensure that a defendant has a fair trial and has a fair go because let's face it when it comes to criminal proceedings if you are facing that burden as a defendant you want to make sure that you are treated fairly and that the rule of law is upheld.So it comes down to two parts in this bill: Subpart 2 with regard to the publication of criminal trial information and also Subpart 4 relating to the responsibilities surrounding jurors. That is about the publication of information that can occur over the internet. Now I think everybody in this House has probably been subject to armchair warriors that sit behind their computers and fire off bits of information that are untested and can quite frankly be very hurtful at the end of the day and that is a serious thing when we're talking about criminal trials.Part 2 deals with publications relating to a defendant's past and whether or not that could potentially affect a trial and whether that defendant would get a fair go if that information is publicly out there. Then of course as I've mentioned with regard to Subpart 4 the ability for jurors to go online and research a defendant's history or engage in public discussion about a defendant's history or about the case—obviously that is prohibited. I acknowledge the previous speakers in that we need to strike a balance between allowing people to talk freely and talk about matters that are of interest to the public but ultimately the rule of law must be protected and the judiciary and the judiciary's proceedings must be protected to give people a fair go when they are facing criminal allegations. So that will be tested at select committee and I welcome that discussion as we move forward.