Ardern Jacinda: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13586] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I state for the record my disappointment that during this debate the Sentencing Council has not been mentioned because I always find it to be a key part of any discussion by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I also begin my remarks by acknowledging the chair of the select committee Chester Borrows. It has already been mentioned in the House that Chester Borrows deals with a diverse select committee which has robust debate within it. 
Although some of the difficult members have been named tonight I have to say that Lynne Pillay is not one of them. She is a picture of politeness she has an inquisitorial mind and having been a select committee chair herself she knows the difficulties of managing a select committee. But it would be remiss of me in this debate not to mention Paul Quinn as my colleague Simon Bridges has because Mr Quinn always makes a robust contribution. If Chester is to offer courses in the noble art of modulation I say for the record that I will offer courses on the art of using one’s inside voice. Paul Quinn has never mastered the art of the inside voice in the select committee nor has he mastered it in the House. I think that all the members in this place would benefit from the use of the inside voice not only in terms of tone and volume but also perhaps in terms of the art of thinking before one speaks. 
I acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. In his defence I would ask who needs modulation when one has mastered the art of the personal attack. I know that Minister Finlayson would like to claim that he never makes things personal but he is so good at it that sometimes we do not even know that it is happening. I also acknowledge the fact that he has worked for a number of years on this legislation. I will go over a little bit of the history of this bill in my remarks but before I move on from my notes of thanks I also acknowledge the work of the officials. At every point during the discussion on this bill whenever we raised the need to go back for instance and look at some additional jurisdictions to see whether we were in keeping with what was happening overseas the officials were always more than willing to bring forth not only what we asked for but also more again. I want to thank them for their assistance. 
To go back briefly to some of the history of this legislation I start with the Law Commission report which is really where it all began. There were reports in 1988 2000 and 2007 but this was probably the one that substantively triggered the work that we see before us now. It was the Labour Government at that time that asked for a substantive review by the Law Commission as we did with many other more controversial errors than this. One that may spring to mind is the Law Commission’s extensive work on alcohol reform a piece of work that is the most comprehensive work we have seen in this House probably in our lifetimes no matter what age members in this House may be. It traverses every element of our alcohol legislation. I note for the record that it is a shame that not all of those recommendations were put before a select committee for it to decide on. 
Going back to the Law Commission report it is one of many that Labour instigated. In December 2007 it became the basis for which a draft bill was sent to stakeholders for consultation but that was not the end of it. There was a reference group and I think that Minister Finlayson may have referred to it. It was set up in 2008 and was chaired by Justice Blanchard. It included representatives from the New Zealand Law Society the Bar Association the Ministry of Justice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. As Minister Finlayson acknowledged the goodwill of the Minister of Justice at that time the Hon Annette King meant that she included Chris Finlayson himself who at that time was an Opposition MP in that reference group. I think that that again demonstrates that limitation legislation is incredibly important within our justice system. It sets the boundaries and it seeks out the balance between giving certainty to defendants in access to justice for claimants. I think that that is a particular area that goes beyond political boundaries and that was acknowledged by Annette King. I acknowledge her in this final reading. 
In this final reading I will go over some less controversial elements of the bill that we did not touch on in the Committee stage but that were picked up on in the discussion in the select committee. That means that they were slightly more substantive. I believe that we have talked a bit about equitable claims. The committee recommended inserting new clause 8A into the bill to clarify that the court will not be prevented from applying statutory limitation provisions to equitable claims for which no limitation defence is set out in this bill already. There is a limitation there that exists for the court so an element of discretion applies. 
We have already discussed at some great length one of the areas and this is a significant one where disputes still lie around longstop periods. I think that it was the right thing to do for the Hon David Parker to put up an amendment to try to bring consistency between what is in the bill and the Building Act. It was disappointing that the Government chose not to adopt that amendment. Only time will tell as to whether we will see people’s access to justice limited by the fact that the Government has chosen not to adopt this element of consistency which we advocated for. In particular there will be areas—Auckland probably most significantly so—affected by the leaking building phenomena. I remember distinctly when it arose. Maurice Williamson himself will be the one who ultimately will have to relook at cases if we find that the limitations that have been set are not working. Again only time will tell but for the record I say that Labour believes in consistency in setting a 15-year longstop period in limitations and in the Building Act. 
There was not much discussion from my recollection on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. From memory the select committee only very briefly looked at claims under that Act and whether they should be subject to discretion similar to the discretion that we looked at in terms of time-barred claims for sexual abuse of a minor. We decided against including discretion in that area. Again we were erring on the side of certainty in that regard. 
Defamation is another area that I recall us touching on a lot in the discussion but it is worth flagging again that there was discussion on it. We heard concerns that the late knowledge period for defamation is 3 years as set out in the bill as it was introduced and given to us. Anomalies might arise so our recommendation was that the late knowledge period should be shortened to 2 years. I think that that is in keeping with the types of claims we are likely to see under that heading. We have already discussed claims of sexual and non-sexual abuse of a child and I touched on the claims of gradual process disease or infection. I wish to flag that it was Labour that pushed quite hard that the exception for the gradual process claim be inserted into the bill and I am proud that we did that. I still have ongoing concerns around the interaction between accident compensation and the limitation requirements predominantly because of the changes in policy and practice we have seen within accident compensation. Any constituency member of this House will know those all too well. 
The final amendment is on actions based on acts or omissions around the late knowledge exception. I believe that my time is about to expire so I will not dwell on that. This was a useful discussion with good cooperation between the members of the select committee. It is an important bill. 
Hone Harawira 
: Fabulous speech. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I call that a standing ovation from Hone Harawira as he is literally standing whilst applauding. I note for the record and for some viewers who gave me feedback that I need to reduce my airline-type gesturing that I hope they saw some improvement in that last address. Kia ora koutou.