Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1772] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am sorry that I am unable to please my friend Mr Fairbrother by cutting the debate short at this stage because there are probably five people in New Zealand who have a deep and abiding interest in law reporting and regretfully I am one of those people. So I want to say something about the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting which I served on from 1988 to about 1996. It is an interesting body. The Attorney-General is a member. I recall that in 1990 after National won office Paul East turned up to his first meeting as Attorney-General. I think it was the first time in about 30 years that an Attorney-General had attended a meeting of the Council of Law Reporting but I do commend to Mr Parker at least one attendance during his term at the meetings of the council. I am sure he will find it a riveting experience. 
 The Solicitor-General is also a member. A judge of the High Court is ordinarily the chair of the committee and nominees of the Law Society turn up as well. In its quiet unassuming way the Council of Law Reporting has been doing its job very well over the years. Indeed the bill seeks to amend the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act which is probably one of the oldest pieces of legislation on the statute book at the present time. 
As various speakers have said its primary task is to publish the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 and that is a task that has grown over the years with the increase in the number of cases before our courts probably reflecting that we have become a more litigious society and that regrettably with the word processor and dictaphones and so on judgments have become much longer than in the past. The Council of Law Reporting used to authorise the publication of one volume of statutes and that practice continued until about 1972. Then in 1973 two volumes were published and there were two volumes until the early 1990s when there were three volumes. I have no doubt that before too long there will probably be a need for a fourth volume especially as Dr Mapp says with the development of the Supreme Court and the increased number of judgments that will come from that third tier of appeal. 
A number of distinguished New Zealanders have served as editors of the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 over the years. One such person is the late Rt Hon Frank O’Flynn who during the time between losing the Kapiti seat in 1975 and taking over Gerald O’Brien’s seat in Island Bay in 1978 served as editor of the law reports. Perhaps Mr O’Flynn was a little too busy at the time because if one looks for example at the 1977 law reports one will see a very large number of extremely long cases. I think it is fair to say that the law reports got a little behind at that time. Another great New Zealander who served as editor of the law reports for many years and did a great job was the late Maurice O’Brien QC. 
As the general policy statement of the bill states it is extremely important that we have an official series of reports. According to the explanatory note of the bill: “The law reports assist judges lawyers and the public in gaining access to key court judgments.” The essence of the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 is that there is a selection process and only the key judgments that help inform the judges the lawyers and the public will be published. I know that at one stage when Sir Geoffrey Palmer was Attorney-General he thought that everything should be reported but I do not think that would be a particularly wise idea. The essence of selection is extremely important. 
While I was on the council the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 were put in electronic form and there is increasing recourse to access to that form of report. During the time I was on the council and indeed for most of the period of the history of the Council of Law Reporting the council has delegated the actual task of preparing the reports to Butterworths more lately known as LexisNexis. 
So with those preliminary views in mind I turn to the functions of the council. As Mr Fairbrother said the bill is quite simple legislation because it seeks to amend section 12 of the substantive Act by permitting the council to take steps to publish reports of decisions of the Supreme Court. So the first point about clause 3—and no objection could be taken to it—is that the council continues to have primary responsibility for publishing the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 and for publishing reports of Supreme Court judgments. Any body that is currently publishing Supreme Court judgments without the consent of the Law Society will have to get that consent. I do not think many companies would come within that category. A couple of specialist reports may have occasionally published Supreme Court judgments and maybe they will have to go back and get ex post facto consent. 
Under clause 5 the Law Society can give its consent to other organisations or companies to publish reports on two grounds. The first is if the council has failed to publish or arrange to publish adequate reports within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. I do not think that will ever be a problem with the council. The second ground is if the Law Society considers it appropriate to grant consent for a particular decision to be published in a particular publication. From time to time the Law Society will give consent for the publication of specialist law reports in special circumstances—for example the  
Criminal Reports of New Zealand 
 or the  
Procedure Reports of New Zealand 
 which are a specialist set of law reports dealing with procedural judgments of the various courts of New Zealand. 
I note with interest section 12(6) inserted by clause 3 which provides that the Chief Justice may after consultation with the Law Society authorise a person other than the council to publish reports of decisions of the Supreme Court. I personally hope that does not happen. I do not think New Zealand needs another set of reports. The critical thing for judges and practitioners is that the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 should be up to date and published in a timely fashion. I note what Dr Mapp said—that in some jurisdictions such as in England there are specialist reports series for appellate courts. The appeal cases in England for example deal with decisions of the Court of Appeal the House of Lords and the Privy Council. It is too soon to say whether we need a specialist set of appellate reports for the Supreme Court. That will probably be dependent on the amount of cases that it generates. My tentative view is that it will probably not be needed here for a number of years. But I do not know that it would necessarily be a good thing if the Chief Justice started authorising persons or companies other than the council to start publishing reports of the decisions of the Supreme Court. 
So as Mr Fairbrother quite fairly says this is a simple mechanical piece of legislation. It is appropriate to note the work that the council has done in a quiet unobtrusive way over many years and the importance of the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
. The law reports will be enhanced by the addition of decisions of the Supreme Court of New Zealand which has now been going for almost 2 years. The reports that it has dealt with in the 2 years of its existence have been very interesting and very important indeed. So National supports the bill.