O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I refer to the title of this bill the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. The fact that the select committee has recommended it become simply the Contempt of Court Bill" really does underlie the discussions taking place and the necessity of this bill.Just before I go into the detail the people who appear before courts—so often they have come from disrupted lives. They have come from lives where there is very little order in their lives where there's very little else that they can rely on. It's very important that when they get to court—it's quite surprising over the years the number of people that appear to have very little control over anything in their lives but still manage to drag themselves along to court at 10 o'clock get themselves to court and even in a often drug-induced haze will often know when they're due next. I think it just is a part of their lives where there is actually some order. When they get there they actually like to think that everything is in order because often they know the system as well as anyone else; they've been there as often as anyone else in it. Just calling this the "Contempt of Court Bill"—and as we will go through some of the things that we're actually going to be rectifying with this bill or consolidating I think it's important underlying this that that's what we're doing here. We're making sure that the court remains somewhere where there's order in their lives where there's fairness and where everybody involved in the system understands the rules. That's why this is a very good piece of legislation.Things like limiting publication of trial-related information—that's incredibly important. For years you've seen people hiding behind the fact that it's now sub judice. That's often been an excuse for people simply not to discuss things they should have been without anyone really understanding what's sub judice. In my years I've never seen a case thrown out because of a breach of sub judice. Again it's something that simply becomes as I say a foil in many cases. So it's good that this limiting of the publication of trial-related information—it actually becomes defined as it is.Also the bill is prohibiting publication of certain criminal trial information. Again I've seen people who are involved in the system become quite outraged at some of the things they've seen in the paper "They can't do that. They're not allowed to do that." So again it's important that everybody understands the rules. Obviously with the media there are plenty of outs in here. Often information has been published before someone's actually been arrested before the trial process has begun. Sometimes it's quite unfair. No one expects the media to go and take everything down but what's important is they understand once procedures have started once we understand that someone is in the system that they cannot publish information that is going to affect the trial.As we go into the system preventing jurors from researching information—again so important that the jurors are making their decisions on the information that is before them. Otherwise you start relying on front pages of newspapers. You start relying particularly on the internet where there will be any number and variety of experts who will be opining on the incidents that may have occurred. So it is incredibly important that once the jury are locked into that system—while of course they will bring with them their life's experience; that's why they're jurors—they are making the decision based on what they're seeing there before them. Again it's just ensuring that the system is fair for all those involved and that the same system is preventing jurors from researching information. That's very much related to the fact that they can't go home when the court is recessed for the day and start making up their own minds because if they start doing that that's where you will get very clear breaches.And later on disclosing jury deliberations—I'd hate to see the situation we see in the United States where juries—the books are virtually written by the time the jury decision has been made and where being on a jury is often a stepping stone into a life of a celebrity. That is something we very much avoid and that's why disclosing of the jury deliberations is an offence and improper disclosure of jury deliberation is prohibited.So we go on to the last one—the most important one—the publication of false statements against judges or courts. In that case some of the discussion around select committee was that well judges if they don't like what's being said can actually take a case; they can sue—very highly unlikely. Why it's become important—it's not I don't believe that judges should be protected from the same criticisms as everyone else. Anything that is done in respect to that it's got to be about making sure the system works properly. This is again another one of those provisions that I believe will work towards making sure that everyone involved—the lawyers the judges the jurors and importantly those who are the clients of the court—all understand that we have a system. They mightn't like the result—they may not like the sanctions imposed on them but at least they walk away with a sense that they were treated fairly. So for that reason I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.Name changed to Contempt of Court Bill."