Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's great to take an opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Contempt of Court Bill. Considering that we've been discussing tonight the proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled today it's important that we recap on the main issues that have been raised by the members opposite. As a member of the Justice Committee I think it's incredibly important to understand what actually is being discussed here. So Supplementary Order Paper 289 reinserts an offence of publishing false statements about a judge or a court. I think what has been alleged by those members opposite is that it is somehow an impediment on freedom of speech whereas we believe—this side believes and the Government believes—that in fact it does exactly the opposite: it protects those important institutions such as the carriage of justice and the ability for those issues to see the true light of day. There is a real concern that some of the issues that have been brought to this House tonight come from a history where the member raising them has personal experience in this area and that's always an incredibly dangerous area to go into because it's important to understand issues from where they are looked at not from your own personal point of view. I feel that this debate is being tainted by one particular member's prior experience particularly in front of the New Zealand courts and in front of the High Court in particular. So I want to point out that the Hon Chris Finlayson who has a good reputation within this House of understanding the law brought this issue to the House and in a very good sense had brought this idea here. What I haven't heard tonight—what I have not heard tonight—is why that position has been reneged. Why has that position been turned around upon by those members opposite? From all I can hear tonight it's that one particular member's personal circumstances have called for the National Party to take a complete U-turn on their previous position on this particular issue. I say that is not good law that is not good governance and that is not impartiality—and in fact that argument that has been put forward tonight confirms the very purpose of this particular SOP which is to have impartiality and not be influenced by someone's particular circumstances. So in fact the member concerned is actually an argument against his very own case and I find that sad in the face of trying to increase justice within New Zealand. So what we have not heard from the members opposite tonight is why we have seen opposition to what a good member who in the past had a very strong career in terms of being Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations as well—Chris Finlayson—had as a good idea that we need this. We need an extra offence in there to make sure that there are repercussions for anyone who does take the name of a judge or a court and uses that erroneously or to lie about those issues. We have not heard at all as to where this would be a problem in terms of where we're moving to with this bill. In particular we need to take notice of the fact that there is a changed environment that we're operating in. That in particular is social media when there is live commentary on cases that are before the courts. It is incredibly important that there is an ability to move and to make sure that members of the public are clearly aware that making comments on the carriage of justice can actually have a direct impact on the outcome of those court decisions. That is a situation that we need to protect and that is exactly what this Supplementary Order Paper does. It speaks to the fact that having contempt of court or a false statement rather than an untrue allegation—that there needs to be that mental element. There needs to be a clear intent to try and say a statement that will influence the outcome and the carriage of justice. That's why I have a real problem with the member opposite standing up and advocating on behalf of the National Party when in the past there was a clear purpose to interfere with the administration of justice in that member's past. So to then stand up—[Time expired]