Blumsky Mark: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Blumsky Mark: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2550] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 Yet again I follow some very learned legal colleagues from the National Party. I suggest to members however that my background in footwear retailing and my current ownership of 10 years of my lingerie business has also given me a background similar to that of Dr Worth. In fact I can share with members many Italian words also—words such as Amalfi Botticelli and Elle MacPherson— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That is not Italian. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: I know it is not Italian but I know many Italian men who wish she was Italian. In my background I probably have more knowledge and skills in legal matters than those that we saw from the Minister for Courts in his gripping speech when he introduced this bill for its third reading tonight. In fact if I keep talking on these legal bills I am sure that some members in this House will actually believe that the Blumsky household has two lawyers. 
I see my new pen pal David Benson-Pope is over there in the House and I acknowledge him. Can I thank him for his lovely letter the other day so personal and so very signed. Can I suggest to him that a Minister on top of his game would do better things than write me love letters as he did. But I do look forward to his Christmas card which I am sure I will get because I am on his “most favourite persons” database. 
This is a very serious but simple bill and National supports it. Is it important that the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 are authoritative and without peer? To quote a press release from 30 September 2001: “The argument of counsel and Privy Council cases is to be reported in the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
(NZLR) 
 from now on. This will give a major boost to their authority and standing”. That was a press release from the managing director of LexisNexis reinforcing the importance of the authoritative volumes the New Zealand Law Society put out. 
Should the Law Society produce those reports? Of course it should. To quote from another fine journal the  
New Zealand Law Journal 
 of February 2005: “The difficulty for publishers and clients alike is that the New Zealand legal profession is small but diverse … What role does the New Zealand Law Society play in this? As it states in s 4 of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 one function of the NZLS is (e) To promote opportunities for the acquisition and diffusion of legal knowledge … A guiding hand at least; an informed voice for the legal profession at best the New Zealand Law Society should ensure that issues … are identified and debated.” So without doubt the New Zealand Law Society is the exact perfect authority to produce those fine volumes. 
How important are those reports; will they get referred to; and are they to be used? Lawyers in practice lawyers in commerce lawyers in intellectual property—I put that in for my wife—judges law librarians New Zealand agencies overseas local bodies the Ministry of Justice main Government agencies—those people and organisations need to see how law develops and to find out just what the distinguishing facts behind the decisions were. They are very important documents indeed. 
It was with surprise that I saw that the Greens in the first reading debate of March 2005 totally agreed with our position on this bill. I quote Nandor Tanczos’ speech from  
Hansard 
: “… I have to say that in my view it is important that in relation to judicial decisions and the importance of implications for the wider society there be a clearly authorised publication that can accurately report the courts’ decisions.” We agree with him on that point but we do not agree with the next section of his speech where he spoke about the fact that he liked the provision on the Supreme Court in the bill. We do not. It is a pity that when the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act came into being in 1938 there was no mention of the Supreme Court. Legislation introduced in 2002 ended 160 years of New Zealanders’ rights to appeal to the Privy Council which was a major constitutional change. The Government made that change and many are uneasy about that and about the arrogance this Government showed when it made that decision. 
We are supportive of the bill. We believe that it is important that the Supreme Court is now added to the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
. We also totally endorse the provision in clause 3 that refers to the need for there to be other publications that can print some of the material if the New Zealand law report is delayed overdue or too costly. That will keep some pressure on the need for them to deliver and deliver true. We support the bill and I look forward to seeing it go through.