Chauvel Charles: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13425] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As we have heard the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill seeks to integrate our own justice system further with that of Australia. As far as I can see it is the most far-reaching attempt to achieve that integration since the days of Geoffrey Palmer as he then was and the mutual recognition that was extended between the Federal Court of Australia and our High Court as to certain orders and judgments. So it is good to see a scheme that further extends that pioneering work which is over 20 years old. One might say that we have tarried a bit to get to the situation that we are in now but that we have come even as far as this is thanks in large part to the excellent work of Lianne Dalziel in the previous regime. It is great to see that that work is being continued. 
I shall look at the regulatory impact statement in the legislation and then ask the Minister in the chair a couple of questions. I can see that he is intensely engaged in this debate! It would be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on the questions I have for him; perhaps the answers lie on his iPad which he is studying so assiduously. The regulatory impact statement weighs up four options. One is keeping the status quo— 
Paul Quinn 
: Looking at the bill. Get with the programme Charles—the bill is on the iPad. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Now we have the usual excellent quality contribution from Mr Quinn in the Committee stage! He is a learned figure in the Parliament on these matters so I hope he will keep chipping in! As he will know the regulatory impact statement suggests that there were four options to proceed with: we could keep the status quo which we clearly have not decided to do; we could amend existing legislation; we could implement changes modelled on another supranational project of note in the world at the moment the European Union with its integration of justice systems; or we could implement the changes outlined in this bill. The regulatory impact statement concluded given the needs that it outlined that the changes suggested in the bill are the best response to our needs. 
As well as identifying the problems within our current regime the statement gives a wider context as to why the bill’s reforms are needed. It notes the increase that has occurred in the movement of people between Australia and New Zealand the movement of assets and services between the two countries and the subsequent increase in cross-border disputes involving individuals or businesses based in both countries. 
We have always assumed in this Parliament I think that this is an inevitable process—that there is an ever-greater prospect of integration between Australia and New Zealand—but history of course shows that that is not the case. We need only look at the politics that were played with the trans-Tasman therapeutic regime in the last Parliament and now we have the prospect of a conservative Government if it comes to power in Australia having promised to look again at the ability of people to move freely between Australia and New Zealand for residential and working purposes. That would be a retrograde step; it would be a terrible thing if that agreement were altered if the special purpose visa that New Zealanders have for going to Australia as of right and Australians have for coming here were to be abolished. I certainly hope that Mr Abbott does not have the opportunity to get his hands on that agreement which I think has been a great thing for the two countries. I think it is unusual that Mr Key rang Mr Abbott on the weekend and left him a message but did not ring the Prime Minister of Australia to congratulate her on her campaign. But let us hope that this does not presage a change in the trend that we have seen so far of greater integration between the countries. 
Paul Quinn 
: You give her a ring Charles. Say you’re speaking on behalf of the nation. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well I think it would be better to hear me speaking on behalf of the country than Mr Quinn because at least people would be able to understand what I was saying. 
In terms of what our needs are in the regulatory impact statement there are a number of problems that people currently run into. I ask Minister Williamson whether he is confident that those problems will be fully addressed by the legislation. The first problem is where a defendant does not submit to the jurisdiction of an Australian court. At the moment the resulting judgment may not be fully enforceable in New Zealand. 
There is another issue—final money judgments are the only things at the moment that are enforceable across the Tasman. There is no ability to get interim relief particularly in a commercial sense. One cannot apply for the freezing of assets to preserve the position of the parties in litigation when proceedings are based in the other country decisions of the tribunals of one country cannot be enforced in the other with any great ease and the rules to determine which country’s courts should decide a dispute are based in private international law. The same rules apply there as apply to say a dispute involving New Zealand on the one hand and Bolivia Zimbabwe or some other country on the other hand that we do not have any particular affinity with as far as legal systems are concerned. Clearly that is not a desirable state of affairs. Also civil pecuniary fines as Lianne Dalziel said imposed in one country are not enforceable in the other. The same situation applies to criminal fines so the inability to have that mutual level of enforcement lets certain regulatory offences continue to undermine trans-Tasman markets ultimately to the detriment of both Australia and New Zealand. Obviously it is desirable to have the same set of general rules applicable in both places. 
Obviously there will be some administrative costs involved in implementing those reforms; the statement recognises that. But it concludes that those will be outweighed by the many reduced regulatory costs to businesses and to people doing their activities on a trans-Tasman basis and because of better enforcement there will also be in the end lower costs. There will be other substantial benefits as other members have outlined. They include more efficient court proceedings and more effective remedies. The bill will also play a crucial part in the success of the furthering of closer economic relations and single economic market initiatives like streamlined trans-Tasman insolvency procedures which is obviously a good thing and the mutual recognition of financial intermediaries. So we should all hope that this integration process continue rather than grinding to a halt or hitting some speed bumps because of the internal politics in Australia I have referred to. I think one speaker on the opposite side last night noted that New Zealand has been the overwhelming beneficiary of these integration moves so certainly it is in our interests to enact this legislation. 
But I would like the Minister to consider in particular clause 51(1) of the legislation under which the Governor-General by Order in Council can declare certain tribunals of a state or a territory of Australia to be a tribunal to which the subpart applies. That is a way in which the executive can extend the application or the intended application of the legislation. I would be interested to know what types of tribunal the Government has in contemplation if it has any at all as far as that power is concerned. It seems to me that if the full purpose and effect of the legislation is to be realised then the sorts of tribunals that are contemplated by that clause will be quite wide; we will see a large number of Australian administrative tribunals gazetted by the Governor-General under that clause and we will see the ability to have a wide range of orders mutually enforced because hopefully we will see under the reciprocal provisions in Australia a similarly broad approach to New Zealand tribunals. That would be a good thing. As I said it would be useful to hear from the Minister in the chair whether there has been some thought on that issue or whether we will be looking at just another hiatus of 20 years before we take the next logical step toward integrating our legal systems.