Tanczos Nandor: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20626] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I will begin by making the Green position clear which is that we are supporting this bill just so there is no confusion about that. I would like to address some of the comments made by Mr Franks. I listened with a great deal of interest to his speech before the dinner break and I think he made a number of interesting and useful points that are actually worth giving some consideration to. I was not quite so interested in his speech after the dinner break because it was a bit of a stained fag-end of it but I think he did raise some important points about monopolies and the development of a statutory monopoly. 
The Greens are generally opposed to monopolies which is one of the reasons we express such concern about corporate capitalism which is all about of course creating monopolies. We listened to Mr Franks’ speech with some interest to see whether there were points so important that it would change our view of the bill. But I have to say that in my view in relation to judicial decisions and the implications for the wider society it is important for there be a clearly authorised publication that can accurately report the courts’ decisions. I think really quite simply that is what this is about. Both the current status quo and this amendment are simply extending those provisions. 
Mr Franks questioned whether this would mean that the standard media would not be able to report on courts. He talked about the  
National Business Review 
 I think it was and its cynical view of the judiciary. Of course that is fine. People are free to choose whatever propaganda they wish to read. I do not mean that in a derogatory way to the  
National Business Review. 
 As far as I am concerned all media is propaganda and people choose which flavour they are going to follow whether it is the  
New Zealand Herald  
whether it is 
al-Jazeera 
  
Television One 
 Scoop  
the 
 Dominion Post  
Indymedia 
or the 
Guerrilla News Network. 
People are free to choose their sources of information and that is quite right. And of course literate people in particular will mix it up on the basis that the more varied the sources of information and the more varied the sources of propaganda the broader and possibly more accurate picture that they will have. 
But I have to say that I would not personally rely on any of those publications I have mentioned to give an accurate picture of a judicial decision by the Supreme Court on an issue of public interest and debate that people get passionate about. I would be very interested in their interpretations their views and their analyses but I would not rely on it as an accurate report. I would want to have something that was more reliable. That is why I think that in this area of reporting judicial decisions it is important that there is clearly an authorised publication that people can rely on to accurately report the judicial proceedings. That is not to say that no other media should or could not report or comment on those decisions. I do not think that that is what this bill is at all intended to achieve. 
If we go to the “General policy statement” in the bill which is a good indication it states: “The New Zealand Council of Law Reporting is responsible for producing an official series of reports of the key judgments of the higher courts in New Zealand. The New Zealand Law Reports provide the authoritative set of reports of key judgments of New Zealand’s higher courts—”. It further states: “The law reports assist judges lawyers and the public in gaining access to key court judgments.” That is really what this bill is about. It is very simple. We do not need to get too worked up about it but that is really what it is about. If we go to the actual wording in the bill clause 3 “Functions of the Council” talks about the restrictions on publishing a series of reports. It does not say “report” it says a “series of reports.” I think that is quite important because clearly it is not intending to cover a one-off article or even perhaps a regular article. It is a series of reports. I think that is the key to this whole thing. Now it may be that we need to explore what that means. Is that sufficiently defined to ensure that it cannot capture the kinds of reporting that we would not want it to do? 
I think that we can resolve these questions. It is really about simply extending the provisions that already exist in law in relation to the higher courts to our Supreme Court. I am very pleased that it does that because the decisions of the Supreme Court are of course extremely important. This is our highest appellate court so it is important that its decisions are publicly available in a way that people can rely on. And of course it is good because those decisions of the Supreme Court are of a very high quality and of an enormous precedent value. 
I have to say that one of the things I am extremely proud of during my time in this House is the opportunity to support the establishment of the Supreme Court. I think it was a major progression for New Zealand. It was an excellent step. It was something that was not before its time at all and I am very proud that the Green Party played a key role in the passage of that legislation. I think the Supreme Court has already shown itself to be both independent and rigorous in its findings. The whole country noted with some irony that the first case heard by the court was the case brought by the Hon Richard Prebble and the ACT party. That was a cause of some humour around the country. Another key decision in that court has been in relation to Ahmed Zaoui. That decision demonstrated that this country upholds the rule of law and basic human rights. 
So I am pleased that the Supreme Court has by the decisions it has made proved the virtue of the position of those of us who supported its establishment. I am very proud of the Green Party’s support for that and I am pleased to see this bill which will now provide for the authoritative publication and reporting of its decisions.