Little AndrewCONTEMPT OF COURT BILL Third Reading Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much and it is a great pleasure to speak to the House in this the third reading debate on the Contempt of Court Bill. This bill has had a very interesting passage and a very interesting set of origins. I think it pays to remind the House of the origins of the bill because during the course of the debate and the various stages of the bill some mythology has been built up around it. For those who say—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the Minister but you have to move the—Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Oh sorry Mr Speaker—I am obliged. I move That the Contempt of Court Bill be now read a third time. To continue where I left off I think it is very important to address some of the mythology that has built up around the bill. Let's remember that the Hon Chris Finlayson the former Attorney-General was deeply committed to codifying the rules and the law of contempt of court from his personal experience but also because he understood that in this day and age those rules should be clearly laid out clearly spelt out and easily accessible to those who participate in our court processes. So he sought to make sure that there was good work done. In the previous Government no doubt a former Minister of Justice—and I'm not sure which one—commissioned the Law Commission to have a look at the area and the Law Commission went one step further and not only did a report with some recommendations but it actually drafted legislation. It is true that part of the story of this bill is that the Hon Mr Finlayson strove to persuade his colleagues in the previous Government to introduce the legislation as a Government bill but he could not persuade his colleagues in that previous Government to do so. So he was compelled once in Opposition when that fortuitous circumstance arose to take the drafting and the work of the Law Commission and turn that into a member's bill. So this was a member's bill based on work of the Law Commission commissioned by the previous Government which had decided for whatever reason that it did not wish to legislate for this very important area of the law. I know that Mr Finlayson having not only been put in Opposition but having also had his member's bill drawn from the ballot—so lucky twice in that regard for the purposes of this legislation—was then very pleased for it to be picked up as a Government measure so that we could apply the full benefit of the State's resources in giving advice improving the drafting and getting it in the form that it is today. So that is the origin of it. I'm very pleased that through the examination by Parliament and certainly the Justice Committee and further debate by this House we have arrived at I think a very tidy piece of legislation. It achieves the original objective which was to modernise but also to codify the rules around contempt of court leaving of course those things that are not provided for within the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to determine otherwise. But this is a good bill. Contempt of court is a very important provision and a very important part of our administration of justice in this a country that observes and celebrates the rule of law. It makes rules to make sure there are strictures of the court around applying evidence—making sure for example that juries don't conduct their own independent investigations and that they rely solely on the evidence that is put before the court and properly examined there—and to make sure that those participating in court do not cause a disruption and of course the other part is making sure that those who might otherwise seek to undermine public confidence in our judiciary and in our court system are not allowed to do so. I know that that was a somewhat contentious part of the passage of this bill through Parliament because there are those or I should more accurately say there was one who thought that what was the old law of scandalising the court which is what we now provide for in what is currently clause 24A publishing a false statement about a judge or the court—they took the view that that wasn't needed. All that needed to happen was that there should be the ability to remove offending comments from any public record and that was all that was needed. Of course that assessment and that stance completely understated and underestimated the impact of very damaging but actually totally untruthful comments about judges and the courts they administer. Of course this House—certainly in the committee stage—had the benefit of an understanding of and was read passages from a very important case which is the case of Solicitor-General v Smith from 2004. I'm very thankful to my colleague Greg O'Connor for his exposition of that case and indeed the contributions I was able to bring to the debate in that regard because that case illustrates a very important point which is that the court is concerned about those who are either participating in the court process or standing outside it and disagreeing with what's happening and who would seek to undermine public confidence in that court process. It is not right that some people arrogate to themselves some sort of superior status and superior knowledge that makes them think that that is OK because that is what happened in that case. A person a Mr Smith—in fact it turns out it was a Dr Smith—made comments about a judge and a court and it happened to be the Family Court that that court described as derogatory. Frankly they were appalled by it and they had a number of other epithets that they applied to it. It was the classic case of somebody who had heard one side of an argument and decided that they knew what was best who went on a public campaign not just to criticise but to undermine that judge and that court. So it was very good that the Solicitor-General—and in fact it was a very rare event actually. We don't often get many contempt of court cases in this country. But the Solicitor-General of the day saw fit to prosecute that prosecution was upheld and the person who made those statements was found to be in the wrong and it is that stuff that is now encapsulated in this bill. As I said during the passage of the bill through this House there was an attempt to remove that. It's a very important part of the law of contempt of court and it's right that it should be properly provided for. It is now properly provided for along with the other aspects of contempt of court. That is there sitting in all its glory in the bill and following this third reading it will become the law. That will benefit everybody. It will benefit the courts it will benefit the judges and it will benefit the lawyers if only as they advise clients and family members of clients who come before the court because the reality is that in this day and age it is very easy for someone who is momentarily angered or frustrated by something that happens to them in court or from a judge to express that anger in most unfortunate and importunate terms on social media or otherwise on the internet and land themselves in a lot of trouble. Well there does have to be restraint—there does have to be restraint. Judges are not like any other citizens. They are not allowed to participate in public debate certainly about their courts and their work and the decisions that they make—in fact they're not meant to participate in much public debate at all. So when they come under attack they have no means of defence. Now other countries have dealt with this and I know that in the debates in the House people referred to what happens in the UK as if that somehow is the standard. What happens in the UK today is not the standard and not only is it not the standard; it is an exception and they now rue the day that they took away provisions for the old offence of scandalising the court or what we now say is making untruthful statements about a judge. In the UK now things are said about judges that make it very very difficult for judges to seek recourse. We had that gross display of contempt of court by the Daily Mail last year or a couple of years ago when the senior courts in the UK declared that the decision about legislation exiting Britain from the EU had to be passed by Parliament and the Daily Mail declared the judges who made that decision to be enemies of the State. Absolutely appalling—absolutely appalling—and in any other civilised country the Daily Mail would have been held in contempt of court. Well that can now happen in New Zealand because we cannot have the situation where our courts whose duty and responsibility it is to administer the law impartially and without fear or favour come under that sort of egregious indefensible attack. So I am very pleased that the bill is in this form. It is a very good bill. I'm very pleased with the work that all members of the House have done on it and I commend it to the House.