Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to speak. It'll come as no surprise to the committee that I disagree with the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He's got things completely wrong. He's not only got things wrong he's mis-stated the facts of the matter. So it is correct that in its current form this Part 1 clause 3(1)—and in particular paragraph (b)—refers to as one of the objectives of this bill maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judicial system.Dr Smith is very good at using language that actually doesn't explain and describe what actually happened. Ministers do not have the right to override select committee recommendations; it is wrong to say that. Dr Smith says it and one has to assume there's a level of mischief about it but it is wrong to say that. Ministers do not override recommendations of select committees. This House however in exercising its role and its function as part of the committee of the whole House is fully entitled to say We've seen the recommendations of the select committee. They've got it wrong." There is a very good reason why this House might want to say that in relation to the provision of what was described originally as "scandalising the court"—that is to say saying untrue things about judges—that is something that the House in this committee stage might want to review. That is simply this: there was one member on the committee who was vociferously opposed to that provision—a member who happens to have a conviction for contempt of court for just that thing. So there is a question about conflict of interest undeclared at the select committee on that issue. Nevertheless having seen the select committee's report back to the House and seen what the select committee has done Cabinet has reviewed it I've reviewed it the Attorney-General has reviewed it. We've looked at the UK experience and the UK is very clear—I met their new Attorney-General last week as well as their new Home Secretary. They have said that actually there is a problem in their contempt of court law at the moment. Judges are being absolutely slated—vicious vile untrue things being said about them. Not criticism of their decisions not criticism of their work but things like "This judge is corrupt." The only recourse they've got is to take defamation action to effectively appear in front of their fellow judges to get some sort of justice. It is bogging it right down. There is no real accountability for them. So having the ability for the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General who are both charged as part of their roles of protecting the reputation and the standing of judges against unjustified and untrue attacks is absolutely vital. This allows us to do that. Let's remember the origins of this bill. This started out as a Law Commission report with a draft piece of legislation that a former National MP the Hon Chris Finlayson picked up. It included the original clause that allowed for a criminal sanction against those who to a very high standard say untrue things about judges with a view to undermining confidence in the judicial system. The Hon Chris Finlayson was adamant on his considerations and his experience and he had an enormous amount of it that this was one thing that was needed to ensure to provide that limited level of protection for judges against the most egregious attacks on them as judges unrelated to the quality of their work.Cabinet made the judgment and I made the judgment that actually we should retain that in the bill. So I've now produced Supplementary Order Paper 289 to do that. This is all about achieving the objectives set out there in clause 3(1)(b) of maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judicial system. It is not possible to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judicial system if people who are aggrieved at what has happened to themselves in a court can make salacious and untrue remarks about a judge and there can be no effective recourse.So we've made the judgment that that provision must be retained and it is retained. It is totally consistent with that objective. It is totally consistent with the objective of the whole bill which is about effective remedies to ensure that those who breach the court's rules and those who seek to undermine the standing and efficacy of the courts and our judicial system should be met with an appropriate sanction.So that matter that that member has raised is fully answered in Supplementary Order Paper 289."