Little AndrewCONTEMPT OF COURT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 6 August. Part 2 Provisions to promote and facilitate administration of justice (continued)Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chairman. It's a great pleasure to be back. We were talking because we're on Part 2 of the bill about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289 in my name that adds back in a provision that was in the original bill which is the—to use an old phrase—scandalising the court provision but we now call it something else which is about—Chris Penk: Publish a false statement. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —publishing false statements—thank you Mr Penk. I thought it would be useful for the House to know that New Zealand courts have considered the issue of contempt of court in relation to the publishing of false statements and inflammatory statements. I want to read some quotes out to the committee because I think they do encapsulate very precisely exactly what we're trying to get to with this SOP. These quotes all come from a case called Solicitor-General v Smith and one of the comments that the court made was actually to explain why contempt of court as a provision as a proceeding is important. Actually this is in sentencing notes in relation to following the trial in relation to the three defendants to the trial. They pointed out The purpose of the law of contempt is to protect the court's ability fairly and effectively to administer justice to and for all New Zealanders." That came on the factual basis of this case where a number of parties and one in particular had made some comments that were described by the court as inflammatory and intended to intimidate. The purpose of that is the court was concerned that these statements were made with a view to undermining public confidence in the court thereby discouraging others from using the court. The court was the Family Court and it's interesting: in the actual decision of the court the court drew on an English authority and when they talked about statements made publicly designed to undermine public confidence in the court they talked about the effect of that as undermining the due administration of justice. They said that there are three requirements for the due administration of justice. One is unhindered access to courts for the determination of disputes; secondly people must be able to rely on the courts as free from bias against any party and making their decisions based only on the facts in front of them and from evidence properly adduced; and thirdly people must be able to rely on there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Effectively what the court is saying is that those who take the law into their own hands and think that they are higher than the law and who make comments that are deliberately intended to undermine the authority of the court—which is what the SOP is about—by making false statements are effectively usurping the role of the courts and in a country where the rule of law is absolutely vital that is unconscionable it's wrong and there must be a proper sanction against it. So that case of Solicitor-General v Smith laid that out very clearly. We don't have many convictions in this country for contempt of court in relation to statements made by people intended to undermine the authority of the court. But that was one and actually the Smith referred to of course was none other than the Hon Dr Nick Smith who made those statements and was convicted as a result. Those actions that were taken by the defendant in that case undermined the rule of law in New Zealand and I think members of this House are entitled to look to that member when he makes these highfalutin statements of principle and of constitutionality in the parliamentary process and know that he doesn't actually believe them. He actually undermines the rule of law and he has a conviction to show for it. That is why this SOP this amendment to the bill is so important because it is about sheeting home the importance of the judiciary of the administration of law and that for those who for whatever reason seek to undermine it by making false statements about judges or the courts and seek to undermine public confidence in the courts there should be a sanction against them. The SOP is very clear. There is a threshold to meet. This is not about any criticism made and so respect for section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the protection of the freedom of expression is absolutely taken account of. We have to remember too about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that it also includes section 5 which is about justified limitations. The courts have accepted even in the face of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that convicting people for making statements intended to undermine the authority of the court is a justified limitation on the freedom of expression and so we don't have the sort of wild west mentality when it comes to our court system our judiciary and the administration of justice. It must be protected. Its integrity must be protected and for people who think that it's OK to take the law into their own hands—people like the Hon Dr Nick Smith who think they can take the law into their own hands and pronounce about cases undermine parties to cases undermine judges undermine the system undermine confidence in the system—we have to have an effective sanction against that. That is why we have this SOP and that is why the members on the Government side will be supporting it because that is ensuring that we have a justice system that is impartial that is fearless and that cannot be usurped and undermined by any other citizen or including someone in as privileged position as an MP that they cannot be undermined in the discharge of their duties."