O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Mr Speaker. Often when we stand up in the House to speak on bills we are speaking about what may happen. We are seeking to put a bill through that will when it becomes law fix something we know in the future might happen. That's not the case with this bill. With this bill we know exactly why it is that it needs fixing. I listened to the contribution by the member opposite—Mr Chris Penk—and I noticed that he was supporting the bill. I sat here thinking that perhaps there'd been a change in their attitude. He was very reasonable as he went through each of the parts of the bill until rather surprisingly he came to the last one minute and 30 seconds where he then chose to address the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289 the very excellent SOP relating to an offence of prohibiting the publication of false statements about a judge or court. It's a little disappointing because that side of the House are very aware of previous debates that have taken place here and aware that of one of their own members Dr Nick Smith was convicted of an offence very close to what this offence is. Just to give some idea so we know what we're talking about the judgment at the time was Solicitor-General v Smith in the High Court at Wellington on 2 April 2004. Justice Wild said that Dr Smith's statements and comments had gone well beyond the fair and temperate with the intention of placing pressure on one of the parties to a proceeding in the Family Court." and in doing so had undermined public confidence in the Family Court. The contempts had been serious and Dr Smith had failed to express any regret for his actions: "Throughout right up to this hearing today Dr Smith's approach has been belligerent and confrontational particularly towards the litigant the caregiver. [He] has expressed no remorse for his actions. His comments demonstrate an unwillingness to accept the important values at issue in this proceeding." There are several other statements I could make. During the course of this conversation Dr Smith asked the caregiver—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to interrupt the member. This is the third reading of the bill in front of the House as accepted by the committee of the whole House. What you're reading out is not part of that bill. So if you can link that to the actual bill then have a go but speak to the bill. GREG O'CONNOR: Thank you Mr Speaker because your last point was exactly my point. I am linking this. This is not in the concept; this is a bill that we actually need because where we have individuals—whether they are in this House or anywhere—who as a result of their actions undermine the court that is what this bill is about because the law reform is not about defending judges at all. I know previously I've been someone who has somewhat cast aspersions on some of the decisions by the court. That's not actually what it's about. What it is about actually is telling falsehoods about judges—telling lies about judges. This is not about ensuring that no one can criticise judges and no one can say they disagree with a judgment. That's not what it's about. What it's about is actually someone who tells untruths. I've found in my experience that those who are users of the court system many of whom have been going to court since they were in Youth Court going through the system—while they might be in many aspects of their life out of control the one part of their lives often that they have some respect for is actually the court system. They will turn up. Often their lives will be in disarray in many places but generally they will make it to court and when they get into court they have certain expectations. They actually do behave. It's probably the one place in their lives that they do behave. So that's why it's incredibly important that we have one aspect of their lives that actually has some modicum of control and has some modicum of respect. Mr Mark Mitchell on the other side is an ex-police officer an ex-dog handler and he will know this. He will know that even some police officers who may for different reasons or witnesses for other reasons and other people who might have their own views on the world—when they get into that court system the justice system generally there is an expectation and a belief and generally a practice that everyone will actually be part of and will respect the system and that's what this bill is about. That's why it's so important and that's what I attempted to do in bringing up the actions of someone as an example of what happens when people lose faith in the system. The disagreeing with the SOP that the Minister's brought here—that is not exactly the same SOP that we had at select committee. It is a very refined defined offence. It's simply about ensuring we're talking about falsehoods about prohibiting the publication of false statements about a judge of the court—false statements and that's very important. Dr Smith is here. He talked about the fact that the Australians had done away with this. That's actually not correct. The Australians do actually have such an offence. It hasn't been abolished in Australia. It's not a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at all—the Auditor-General has concluded otherwise. Again that's just some shall we say aspects of this bill that have been brought up in this House that were actually not correct. So it's important that we do actually correct those. This is not about the protecting the niceties of the judges. This is not about respecting the feelings of the judges and that's a very important factor. This is about preserving the respect and making sure that the ultimate court in the land—that the ultimate place where people can take their disputes—is respected. If someone who does disagree—and I notice Dr Smith's here. I've spoken about individuals. We all have individuals who will never accept a finding—who are actually in full belief that if they believe it it is right—and I'd say Dr Smith is one of those people from the way he behaved in this case which was that nothing anyone did and nothing anyone said was going to change his mind. I think we all have people—I'll say to those in the Opposition—like that who turn up at our electorate offices. It doesn't matter what anyone says: they are right and anyone who gets in their way—they'll never accept any answer than the one that they believe they've arrived at. This bill is about ensuring that when we're confronted with an individual like that ultimately the court has to have the sanctions. The judges can be criticised. There's a Judicial Conduct Commissioner if the judges are out of control. There is a system there to ensure that there is an ultimate sanction against judges who perhaps do get it wrong or judges who need to be disciplined in some way. What this is about is ensuring that when there is actually someone who stands up and basically tells untruths because they don't accept the finding of the court or if they basically tell lies about the court then there is a sanction. There are those who will say "Well the judges they can sue." Well no that doesn't happen and it's not going to happen and it's not something that any judge is going to be able to do. So that is why the insertion of a provision similar to that which went through the select committee and has been reinserted as an SOP by the Minister is an excellent idea fully supported on this side of the House. As I say I'm disappointed. I hope that those opposite who are going to be opposed to this—for example if they were looking for an example of why we need this they should read the judgment in Solicitor-General v Smith. I challenge those opposite to actually read that judgment and you will understand why it is folly to be opposing this provision. In the short time left to me I would just like to go back to also remind those opposite that probably the finest Attorney-General that they've had the Hon Christopher Finlayson actually brought this. I'm reminded by the previous speaker that this was actually a provision brought to this House by that learned gentleman. The minute the seat that he was sitting in—it wasn't even cold before they were immediately opposing it leaving the Hon Christopher Finlayson out to dry. Well this is one of those situations that should defy any political divide. This is one time where we as lawmakers in this House should get together. We should look at exactly what this provision is and this provision is a very good provision which is designed to ensure that all those who are users or observers or beneficiaries of the court system—to ensure that the ultimate system where we take our disputes the ultimate place the ultimate forum for that receives respect and that the judges who are making the decisions are not subject to lies. Thank you Mr Speaker."