Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. It's an interesting bill to have been part of on the committee and to hear the full variety of submissions that we heard on this issue. To make a broad generalisation if I may it's a balance—getting that balance right in terms of ensuring that the rights of everybody are represented in a fair way but also enabling a level of free speech. In that we want to make sure that that is not preventing the right to a fair trial and the ability for justice to be carried through.At a time when social media is more active than it has ever been before it's appropriate for this legislation to be modernised and consolidated to reflect the changed environment in which we are operating. We only have to cast our minds back over the past few months when there have been several instances when the process of justice has potentially been jeopardised whether it be by a jury or members of the public putting forward either photographs or comments on issues that are currently before the courts. So it's required as essential to make sure that our legislation keeps up with the technological changes that we are facing as a country and that we make sure that we protect the rights of every New Zealander to have a fair trial.It was good to hear the 62 submissions that we did have on this bill. I'd just like to note that 37 of those were from the general public. It was good to hear not only from the legal profession and from those representing media views but also from New Zealanders coming forward with their views. I'm going to outline three key issues that were brought up through that submission process and to summarise those. The first one was concerns raised about the scope and the workability of automatic suppression orders and automatic suppression provisions temporary suppression orders and takedown orders. Those questions were raised in due course of the submissions that came forward. The second key issue that I've noted that came through the submissions process was the application of the bill to the Employment Court and to a lesser degree other specialist courts—how that would apply in those jurisdictions. The third issue is the significant technical issues relating to the scope of enforcement of a court order provision and that is particularly relevant to the point I've already raised in relation to social media and how you monitor that on an ongoing basis.The bill replaces the contempt of court for disobeying the court orders with a new statutory enforcement process for addressing breaches of court order. The key areas that I'd like to touch on in terms of where this bill goes and why it's required I'll go through relatively briefly. It is important to note that contempt of court is an important area to get right that we want to make sure people are clear about what is the issue we're talking about so that we have an understanding of what it is. Contempt just to be clear is for example a juror doing their own research which could jeopardise the outcome of a trial or it can be an MP or a member of the public making comments on something that is currently before the courts. So we want to make sure that we've got the rights of those people who are before the courts getting a fair carriage of justice and that the pathway through the court system is protected as far as possible.New Zealand currently has a mix of common law or case law and statute law and those are in a number of different places. This legislation updates what we're doing and consolidates that legislation into one place. This bill addresses in statute five areas of contempt. The first is the publication of contempt—it replaces the common law with a clearer statutory offence. The offence would prevent publication of information that interferes with a fair trial and in terms of that there is a penalty of up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to $25000. The offence is supported with a suppression order and takedown orders as well for online material.The second area that this bill addresses is for disruptive behaviour in the courtroom and that's very important as well for the carriage of justice. A new standardised procedure is introduced and the bill also introduces safeguards—safeguards for someone who has been cited and is being disruptive—including the opportunity to obtain a legal representative whether or not that's happened. Then tied to that there are also fines for that disruptive behaviour.Thirdly for contempt for jurors—this is an important area as well—a new offence is established and created where a member of the jury as mentioned investigates or interferes into those deliberations by doing their own research. For noncompliance with court orders where there's been a clear order by the court and that has been breached a new enforcement provision is now created also by this bill.Finally for untrue allegations or accusations against judges or courts a person would commit an offence if they published a false allegation or accusation against a judge or a court. There is a real risk that that publication could undermine public confidence in the independence integrity or impartiality of the judiciary or a court. So those important areas are outlined there.As has already been mentioned tonight the Hon Christopher Finlayson drafted this bill as a member's bill which has been carried over and I think that goes to show the wealth of knowledge that he brought to this Parliament during the time he was here and how helpful he was as a member on the committee to progress this legislation. As well as the work done by the Hon Christopher Finlayson also the Law Commission has done a significant amount of work. This bill identifies three areas particularly responding to the Law Commission's concerns that have been raised. First the bill will ensure that law of contempt is accessible to those it affects. Currently the law is not accessible because it is found partly in a number of different Acts of Parliament and also partly in common law.Secondly this bill will ensure that the law is clear and easy to understand and that's really important given as I've mentioned the number of public submissions that were made on this issue. The law is currently not clear to New Zealanders because courts are still developing the boundaries especially the line between contempt and freedom of expression.Thirdly this bill will make the law of contempt workable. In several significant respects the law is not working as it should do and the law of contempt was developed prior to the internet age and this enables a modernisation of the law to respond to the new situations that we are dealing with with the quick rate that things can be put up and taken down on various social media platforms.I'd like to conclude by thanking the officials who have done a considerable amount of work in getting this piece of legislation to where it is today. I would like to say that this bill reported back provides the necessary support for the administration of justice by the courts and that is fundamental to our rights as New Zealanders. It modernises and codifies the law of contempt of court and it brings the law of contempt of court together in one statute and makes it far more accessible. I commend this bill to the House.