Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20620] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 What foolishness is this? The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill has a report-back date of October 2005 when we all know that Parliament will not be in session in October 2005. It is an impossibility. The last date that this Parliament can sit is September. So what is the serious intent behind this bill? It is not certain that it will be carried forward. This is on one view of it an important bill but the Minister starts off by telling us that it will be reported back after a date when Parliament will simply not be sitting. 
I start by commenting that I think it is a sadness when we come to legislation of this type if we look at the three Ministers responsible for justice issues in this present and dying Government—the Labour Government—we see they are Minister Barker a trade union official; Minister Goff a political scientist— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No he’s not. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Well he asserts he is. And there is Minister Cullen an economics teacher. Some may not judge this to be a bowel-gripping topic. I doubt in fact that Minister Barker would include the  
New Zealand Law Reports  
as part of his holiday reading—I would be pleasantly surprised if he did—but this legislation is important because we need in place a consistent system of law reporting as part of the pivotal element of access to justice. 
It is as he has said a bill that has relatively minor impact; it is all about the reporting of Supreme Court decisions under the rubric of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting. 
It is relevant to reflect just for a moment on what our history of law reporting in New Zealand has been. The current  
New Zealand Law Reports  
started in 1881 but in history complete sets have been deemed to start in 1861 with a number of prior series. I apologise for reminding the Minister of this because I am sure he studied the history of law reports prior to the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 in anticipation of giving his important speech. 
But we did have in the period from 1861 until 1872 the Macassey reports a publication called the  
New Zealand Jurist 
 the  
New Zealand Jurist Reports (New Series) 
 and the reports running in the 1878 and 1880s period of Ollivier Bell and Fitzgerald; then we grandly moved to the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
. 
I would also like to comment on what might be the essence of a good law report. Of course as the Minister would know if he ever looked a law report is in two parts. First there is a headnote which is a summary of the facts and the important principles then the body of the judgment follows. Probably the father of law reports as we know them today was W T S Daniel QC. He wrote a book called the  
History and Origin of the Law Reports 
 primarily to deal with the ills that had arisen in the system of law reporting and to produce a more suitable one. 
In 1863 in England he proposed a Council of Law Reporting to act gratuitously and be responsible for the appointment of editors and reporters to undertake the management and direction of the printing and sale of reports. His plans were approved on 25 February 1865 so law reports as we know them now can go back to that date when the reporters began their work in Westminster Hall which was the home of the superior courts in Lincoln’s Inn Old Hall and in the Rolls in Chancery Lane. 
He made some comments that are probably worth repeating on what the criteria for law reporting are. It should not be the case—and it is not the case in New Zealand—that all cases are reported in the official reports. Some are deemed unworthy of reporting. I would say that many are deemed unworthy of reporting because they do not hit a series of parameters that in my view should be found to exist in every case. 
The first rule is that all cases that introduce or appear to introduce a new principle or a new rule should be reported—no one would doubt that. Secondly all cases that materially modify an existing principle or rule should also be reported. In a third category all cases that settle or materially tend to settle a question upon which the law is doubtful should be reported and finally we should report all cases that for any reason are peculiarly instructive. 
Why someone would offer to be responsible for the reporting of the numerous cases of the various courts is frankly beyond me. It involves thousands of hours of reading and of reflecting on what the key points of the case might be or—as Mr Franks and I were taught in law school—on what the  
ratio decidendi 
 of the case is and what should be more junkily classified as obiter dicta. But it is really important that reports should be accurate they should contain everything material and useful and they should be as concise as is consistent with those objectives. 
In the bill reference is made to a new task that the Law Society has been asked to accept through the new section 12(6) proposed to be inserted into the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act by clause 3. It provides that the Chief Justice of New Zealand can authorise the alternative publication of decisions of the Supreme Court after consulting the society. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: She by herself. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Why she by herself as my friend Dr Mapp says should have the power to break a monopoly is not at all clear to me but it is like so many things with this Government that are so unclear. Presumably the Chief Justice sought to arrogate for herself this power so that she might draw extra remuneration from the already heady pay she receives so that she could win in this publication role a greater amount of money. 
Those are the issues that I sought to deal with. National will support this bill but of course it will never be passed because this bill will never see the light of day in this Parliament. We are actually involved in a complete farce.