Smith NickCONTEMPT OF COURT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I'm pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Contempt of Court Bill partly to draw attention to the really important reforms around freedom of expression. We in the National Party believe that actually the ability for people to be able to speak freely and to be able to enjoy those most basic of rights to be able to criticise public institutions is quite crucial. Now I want to draw your attention to the provisions in Part 1 around enhancing public respect for our judicial systems because an extraordinary thing has happened in the select committee process. During the select committee of this bill we came to an agreement unanimously that we wanted to enhance freedom of speech—that we wanted to follow the example of repealing the crime of contempt that is present and was repealed in 2013 in the UK and is a basic right in Canada and the United States. But incredibly we now have the Minister overriding the decisions of the select committee. The reason it's relevant to Part 1 of the bill is this issue of how we maintain and enhance public confidence in our judicial system. There was a fascinating ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States when this very issue was tested in respect of the freedom of speech issues. The Supreme Court of the US made a in my view wonderfully powerful statement and it was this: We enhance the respect for our courts and our judicial system not by silencing its critics but by the quality of its judgments." I want to draw to members opposite that that is the conclusion the select committee came to. Yet we now have the Government doing not what the UK has done not enjoying the rights that are available in Australia the United States or Canada but the Government re-criminalising people who may which to criticise decisions of the courts. So the question I have for the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little is: how are we intending to advance the purposes of this Act of which the select committee quite rightly said a key purpose is to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judicial system—something that we on this side totally respect but equally believe that that is best maintained by maintaining freedom of speech? Also for the Minister to give some explanation as to why in his view we enhance public confidence in the judicial system by taking a different approach to that which is taken in other free and liberal countries like the UK like Australia like Canada and like the US. Why do we want New Zealanders to have fewer rights in respect of freedom of speech than people in those other countries have and how does it relate to the purposes of this Act of maintaining and enhancing public respect of the law? How can we say that we are reforming the law of contempt as provided for in clause 3(1) if the Government is intending to change the select committee report and to re-criminalise the issue of people who may criticise decisions of the court? I think that this bill as reported back from the select committee was a very substantive and significant improvement in the freedoms of speech that New Zealanders enjoy. I am quite surprised and taken aback that the Minister has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that undermines what's provided for in clause 3 around enhancing and improving public confidence in the judicial system. I really challenge the Minister to say why it is possible that the UK has repealed contempt of court as a criminal offence. How come the judicial systems of the United States and of Canada have proven that they are quite able to do their affairs and to maintain their judicial system without a criminal offence of contempt? Why most importantly is he overriding the decision of the select committee?"