Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise with some energy on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill which is a member's bill of course at this stage in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC. I acknowledge the member for his hard work on that bill and indeed many other items of work in his time as a Minister in the previous National Government.We've heard a number of different reasons that this law is very timely and indeed the importance of the law of contempt in general. I'd like to focus in my contribution on the one that has already been outlined by Christopher Finlayson namely the one to ensure that jurors decide cases only on lawfully admitted evidence and not things outside that realm.So it seems to me worthwhile to take a moment to consider the role that jurors within juries in our criminal justice and indeed civil justice systems play. They are laypersons of course invariably and that's a design not an accident of our system—or a feature rather than a bug I suppose you might say. They're very much a part of the administration of justice and yet of course they're not permanent members but are chosen specifically because they can contribute in a way that reflects their ordinary nature—I suppose you might say—with no patronising intent behind that phrase.So providing direction in the form of this bill which brings together a number of elements is for the benefit of jurors essentially because it enables them to understand their obligations but also for the benefit of the actors within the justice system whether on the prosecution side or defendants or others as the case may be and also for the benefit of the system more generally—the rule of law you might say. So it seems to me very important that we have this part of our system as a very robust and clear part of the system.I mention clarity because the accessibility of the law currently is not. I suppose we might say that it's difficult to access because it is existing in various different places including statute common law and of course the Netflix series Suits. This point was made to me by my lecturer in criminal law—albeit without the reference to the more recent television show—Associate Professor Bernard Brown and I'd like to acknowledge his contribution to jurisprudence as well as various other legal academics and of course jurists over the ages.So talking to the provisions of the bill as they relate to juries—Subpart 4 for anyone following along at home and I know they will be. First an offence is created for jury members to investigate or research a case. So in essence during the period of the trial it will be an offence for a juror to intentionally research or investigate information relevant to the case or I suppose we could say information that they consider to be relevant to the case in the ordinary sense of that phrase albeit that of course in the context of a jury trial the only information that is or should be relevant to the case is that which is presented to the court in accordance with the rules of the court and the Evidence Act and so forth.Another offence that is created or rather codified to the extent that the legislation merely confirms various common law provisions is that of disclosing jury deliberations. It is an offence under clause 20 of this bill if a person intentionally discloses solicits or obtains information about statements made during the course of the trial in essence. It's worth noting I think that this offence would be committed by a person who sought to obtain that information and not merely just a juror himself or herself who would be part of that act.So it seems to me that between that and the other offence which I'll skip over very lightly in the interests of time which is the disclosure of jury deliberations following a trial we have a very good suite of provisions that will protect the role of the jurors and maintain it to a proper ambit during a trial.