Chauvel Charles: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5385] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The previous speakers are right—limitation periods do matter and they matter not only to lawyers but to ordinary people. I have just been reading an excellent history of the recent Supreme Court appointments in the United States and some of the important cases that have been decided by the justices on the wafer-thin margins between the conservative and the liberal wings of the court. One case that really captures the attention is the case of  
Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Inc 
. It was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States came to decide in the spring of 2007. The dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg in that case is very interesting. Professor Ginsburg when she was practising represented many women who had been discriminated against in the workplace. The relevant part of the US law required individuals in that category to file their cases within 180 days of the “alleged unlawful employment practice”. For years and years the American courts ruled that that meant that as long as the woman brought a suit within 180 days of receiving the last pay cheque from the workplace that had engaged in the alleged discrimination and then proved her case she could get compensation for the entire period over which she had suffered say a discriminatory underpayment. But reflecting the change in ideological composition on the court in the latter part of this decade in 2007 the Supreme Court or at least the five very conservative justices who had become by then the majority on that court overturned that rule of long standing and said that plaintiffs could be compensated only for discrimination that happened within the 6-month statute of limitations. Justice Ginsburg’s reasons for her opinion are worth a read. She says “this court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination”. The judge knew very well that that would be a problem for future cases. She said that women cannot possibly know within 180 days that they might be paid less than men. The judge said that Ledbetter’s “initial readiness to give her employer the benefit of the doubt should not preclude her from later challenging the then current and continuing payment of a wage depressed on account of her sex.” 
I think that shows that limitation periods are not just abstract arcane concepts to delight and fascinate lawyers; they matter to ordinary people in the real world. Limitation periods can mean the difference in any case between recovering damages for having suffered a legal wrong or not recovering damages. 
The Attorney-General on his introduction of the bill said that the previous Minister of Justice Mrs King during her term in office should have been concentrating on introducing legislation to repeal the partial defence of provocation and should have been progressing this legislation rather than preoccupying herself as he said with the Electoral Finance Bill. Let us set the record straight first on provocation. We might as well have the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth before the House. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: For new members to hear. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is right; new members might want to know this. In fact anybody who has not read the Law Commission’s report on provocation might want to know the truth of the matter here. The Law Commission said two things. First it said that the partial defence of provocation should go because it is archaic outdated and a relic of a former time. In fact it dates to the time when we had the death penalty and was a way for juries to avoid bestowing the ultimate punishment on somebody if he or she had lashed out in the moment rather than having engaged in a premeditated crime. The defence of provocation is a product of its time. It has not really had any relevance to New Zealand since the 1960s. The Law Commission said it should go but it said at the same time that there should be some recognition in the law of New Zealand that there is a difference between lashing out in the moment and premeditating a cold calculated crime of violence like murder. The Law Commission’s recommendation was that the Sentencing Council should be asked to produce a sentencing guideline to guide the judges as to the difference and how their practice should differ in dealing with the different types of offence. 
It is a matter of record that the Sentencing Council was still being established late last year. It did not have time to prepare any sentencing guidelines. One of the first things the incoming Government did was abolish the council. So it has not been possible—it certainly was not possible for the previous Minister of Justice—to implement the Law Commission’s report. As the House knows I am delighted to see Simon Power tabling legislation today that will do part of what the Law Commission said should happen. I am delighted that it is in identical terms to the bill I drafted for our justice spokesperson Lianne Dalziel. But we should recognise that there was another aspect to the Law Commission’s report and that—and that alone—is the only reason why the outgoing Government did not act to put its recommendations in place. 
I think the less said about the Electoral Finance Act the better but if members opposite want to revive that debate then we can recall the reasons for the legislation and the need for it prior to an election. No one on this side of the House ever wants to see an attempt to steal an election again. The Electoral Finance Act is a good thing. It was very important to legislate to prevent the sort of practices that new members might not remember but that some of us remember very well from the 2005 election. I am simply signalling to members opposite that if their Attorney-General and others want to revive that debate we are very happy to have it and to remind the public why some form of legislative redress was required for the sorts of practices we saw from the National Party and its allies in the 2005 election. 
Anyway I will get back to the text of the bill. Although the Attorney-General does not have it in him to be generous about terribly many people I will try to be generous to him about his contribution in this matter. He was one of the people as a representative of the profession who had a close interest in the Limitation Bill over a number of years. I would say that he has contributed constructively to the debate over the need for new limitation legislation. It is also appropriate—and I am a little sad that the Attorney-General did not do this—to acknowledge some of the other people who have been involved in the construction of the bill: the Hon Justice Blanchard who chaired the 2008 reference group that led to the particular legislation we are considering now; the Parliamentary Counsel Office; the New Zealand Law Society; the Bar Association; the Ministry of Justice; Christopher Corry; and law commissioners John Burrows and George Tanner. They are all people from the profession and from elsewhere many of whom— 
Paul Quinn 
: Doing their job. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Quinn just said “Doing their job.” He does not understand. He has heckled like this before about people who have agreed to be appointed to public bodies and who are paid quite a lot less for that than they would earn in their ordinary professions. But they give up their time none the less to contribute to our law being better. I think they deserve respect not mocking from members opposite. 
Paul Quinn 
: I’m not mocking them; I’m mocking you. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member saying “mocking you” is the immediate point of order. The other thing is that when a member is making a serious speech on a legal bill and is showing respect to learned members of the judiciary it behoves Parliament to have a slightly higher standard than it generally does. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think there is only one standard in this House regardless of the bill. I am sure others want to think there are differing standards but I think there is just one. I say to the members that saying “you” in terms such as “you do this” or “you do that” is inappropriate. The Speaker does not do any of those things. The Speaker does not mock people. Can we just come back to the bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The only other point I will make that I think is of relevance is that there have been three reports from the Law Commission on limitation. Again it is a shame that the Attorney-General was not a little fairer in his introductory remarks about where responsibility lies for not progressing these reports. The first report came out in 1988 and recommended reform and the second one came out in 2000. In the 12 intervening years we all know who was in Government for most of that time when no reform was progressing. To somehow lay the burden for not producing any new limitation legislation at the foot of the Labour Party for all time is grossly unfair and inaccurate and it really does not wash. As the shadow Attorney-General David Parker said Labour supports the bill. It is timely. It is the product of careful thought by the Law Commission. We respect the Law Commission and during our last term in office implemented a large number of measures that originated from the commission. The bill is a good one and I commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next speaker I say now that I should have said in response to the Hon Trevor Mallard that one would hope that this House continues to strain for the highest possible standard on every occasion not just on some.