Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I thank the honourable member who has just taken his seat the Hon Christopher Finlayson who is the sponsor of this bill at this stage for his typically very erudite summary and adumbration of the legislation that he has brought to this House. I have to say that actually when told of the story of the judge who ordered the hanging of an offender from the same gibbet upon which his severed arm was attached I did quickly consult the legislation to make sure that that member had not put that penalty in the bill itself—knowing the seriousness with which he takes the question of scandalising courts and the need to protect judges!We follow the very fundamental principle that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done and it is on the basis of that principle that our judicial system—like those in other Westminster countries—has built up a number of very important rules and principles. We have very formal rules for the administration of justice. They are very strict rules. They provide for transparency. Court must be in the open and we have a press bench there for the many many citizens who never get to go to court to see justice being administered and we have accountability for our court system through the appeals process which itself is very robust. Contempt of court or actions that constitute the contempt of court are actions that undermine the integrity of the court system and are therefore to be taken very seriously and to be properly provided for.As the honourable member who has just spoken said contempt happens when there are breaches of orders of the court including interlocutory orders or orders during the course of the conduct of a trial when the court is disrupted and prevented from administering the law dispassionately and without fear or favour. Contempt happens when jurors act outside their duties and obligations to the court and of course when there are malicious accusations against judges either in court or outside court. These are all very real things which our judicial system must be protected against. The courts need to be able to respond effectively to those threats to their effective administration of justice and I think we all understand that. The current law of contempt as the bill acknowledges in its preface notes is covered in statutes and there is a lot of common law associated with it.The Law Commission following a reference by the previous Government helpfully studied the law of contempt and all of the origins of it and attempted to bring cohesion to it in their draft bill attached to their report. The Law Commission reported last year and the Government responded as the Government is required to do to tabled reports. The Government said in its response in about June last year that it agreed that the law of contempt requires modernisation and clarification and that it would give further consideration to the report's recommendations.However we characterise it through the effluxion of time nothing happened and you know for the great good fortune of both the Law Commission and the honourable member Chris Finlayson his Government was booted out of office. It allowed him to then put the draft bill into the ballot. In a further stroke of good luck his bill was drawn from the ballot and the House is now left to consider it without the benefit of the Ministry of Justice—which I know that Minister loves so passionately—having given its due consideration to the bill. But be that as it may we now have the bill in front of the House.I have said to that member that I agree with him. This is an area that ought to take the Government's attention and energies and efforts and subject to Cabinet approval I have indicated to the member that the Government will not only support the bill but is likely to adopt it so that we can give it the resources and further consideration that it certainly deserves.I want to touch on three issues; one slightly more comprehensively than the other two. The first is of course it deals with suppression orders that judges must deal with from time to time. Suppression orders of course go against the fundamental principle of the openness of justice and the transparency of justice but they are often needed to ensure a fair trial—that somebody is not unduly saddled with negative connotations or a negative stigma because of the yet unproven allegations that they face—and that is the right thing to do. But we do have to make sure that the correct balance has been struck between the needs of freedom of speech—the basic New Zealand Bill of Rights Act freedom that every citizen has—and the need for judges to protect the effectiveness of the administration of justice. We have to get that balance right.The second area that the bill deals with that I think will require the select committee's very close attention is that relating to juror misconduct. Of course we need jurors to do their job to consider just the evidence that they have heard in court and the instructions that they have heard from the presiding judge and the guidance that counsel have provided as well. I do wonder however whether the penalties provided in the draft bill go beyond what is needed to ensure better discipline amongst jurors given that for most of them they are there largely on a voluntary basis and the reimbursement they get for their lost income is very very slight and we do not want to create a disincentive for jurors to take up that very important citizen's role.I regard the role of jurors and the place of jurors as highly valued in our judicial system—predominantly in the criminal jurisdiction because that's where they apply but as I had experience of more recently the one remaining civil area in which jurors get to play a role is in defamation of course and it is their judgment that is very useful I think to the court.The third point—and I think the honourable member Chris Finlayson touched on it—is the scandalising of the court the making of malicious allegations about judges whether in court or usually outside of court and of course social media has now allowed dreadful allegations to be made about judges before anybody gets to respond. Of course the problem with judges is that they have only one arena in which they can defend themselves and that is their court. They cannot enter public debate and they cannot parade themselves and take on an army of PR personnel to protect their reputations so it is right that we ensure that the law of contempt provides proper protection for judges and their reputation. But again I do wonder whether prison for up to two years or a $50000 fine for a citizen who has made allegations about a judge that may not be justified is perhaps going a little too far and whether there are other measures that could be used to restrain those who are malicious in their statements about judges. So there is that.The final point I want to touch on and I would be the last to want to lecture Mr Finlayson because he is a most erudite member of the members opposite—in fact I would say the only erudite member of members opposite—but I am going to give him a little lesson that relates to schedule 2 of the bill. It is the part of schedule 2 that deals with an amendment to the Employment Relations Act and it is that part of the Act that declares that the Employment Court is to be considered as equivalent in rank to the District Court. In that provision alone the Law Commission—who I understand drafted that part of the bill—and the member who is now sponsoring it are defying 150 years or thereabouts of history.Let me give him the history of the current Employment Court that had as its most recent predecessor the Labour Court in the 1987 legislation and before that the Arbitration Court that was provided for in the 1973 legislation and legislation that came through in I think the 1950s that ultimately traces its way back to the 1893 legislation that set up the original Arbitration Court. The original Arbitration Court—and indeed right through its history down to the advent of the Labour Court in 1987—was staffed by judges from what was then the Supreme Court now equivalent to the High Court. In fact it was regarded as a great privilege for the senior puisne judge of the then Supreme Court and subsequently the High Court to be on the Arbitration Court.The Arbitration Court sadly fell into disgrace in 1968 with its zero general wage order but its reputation was re-established subsequently certainly in the Labour Court and in the Employment Court. One of the reasons why I think the Government should take over the bill is to ensure that that historical anomaly is properly corrected and the proper stages of the Employment Court are preserved and left intact.That aside I think this bill is well worth the consideration and the effort of this House now and I look forward to the submissions to the select committee on it.