Ardern Jacinda: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5395] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on the Limitation Bill. I intend to speak on some of the substantive matters in it; to my disappointment not all of my colleagues from across the House have done the same. In fact I was somewhat disappointed on hearing the majority of my colleague Simon Bridges’ speech; I expected a little more from Mr Bridges as a lawyer particularly in terms of his level of analysis and particularly given that he seems if his pace is anything to go by to be paid by the word. Perhaps he will do more next time. I was pleased to hear also the speech from Minister Finlayson in particular when he gave us an education on his great knowledge of Latin. I find it particularly ironic when we are talking about the simplification of a bill to hear such a large amount of Latin in one speech. I enjoyed it none the less although I have to say that Mr Guy seemed somewhat confused through most of the speech. 
But I will go back to the bill. As my colleagues have pointed out this bill has been in the pipeline since 2007. In fact it was in the pipeline well before that. As I believe Mr Chauvel pointed out there have been three Law Commission reports on the subject since the 1980s. Based on that fact it is somewhat disingenuous for anyone from across the House to say that one particular party is to blame for the length of time that this bill has taken to come before us. Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s words probably reflect the general feeling across the House towards the substance of this bill: “It has been a long and tortuous journey to reform the limitation law of New Zealand”. That long and tortuous journey has continued while both sides of the House have been in Government so I think we should be clear that this has been a lengthy journey and it is not useful to place blame on either side of the House. 
 This bill amends the Limitation Act 1950 although the explanatory note of the bill states that that Act closely mirrors the UK Limitation Act 1939. So perhaps we are going back to some issues from well before 1950. 
Members have talked about the importance of this bill and the substance contained within it but I want to focus on a particular section of the bill today. In the explanatory note reference is made to the exceptions for when particular sets of limitations apply. One of the exceptions is based on age—the age of majority. It is clearly set out in the explanatory note that the old law stated that if a claimant “is under 20 years” then quickly followed on with “or of unsound mind” certain exceptions existed. That aspect of the law has changed quite significantly in the new bill we are discussing. I want to spend some time talking about that change because I think it is significant and goes beyond just this bill itself. 
Let us reflect on the relevant provision which is clause 42. The explanatory note states in relation to clause 42: “If at the close of the start date of a claim’s primary period longstop period or Part 3 period the claimant was younger than 18 years old the period does not start to run until the day after the date on which the claimant becomes 18 years of age.” Then it goes directly on to suggest how this is different from the current law: “By contrast current law … deems an infant (that is under section 4(2) of the Age of Majority Act 1970 a person younger than 20 years old)) to be under a disability.” So it can be seen that we are doing two things here. We are modernising the law to reflect the fact that people under the age of 20 are deemed to be an adolescent or a child and not necessarily to be under a disability and I think it also simplifies the law. 
But we see that the outcome is different from what the Law Commission recommended during its review. The Law Commission said in paragraph 151 of its report relating specifically to the issue of minority: “NZLC R6 recommended an extension of time which can be expressed as deferring the start date until the date the plaintiff obtains majority.” majority again being set out in the Age of Majority Act 1970 as being 20 years of age. “NZLC R61 recommended no change to the present law namely that time does not start running against a minor until majority so that the cause of action does not accrue until the disability period has ended.” Of course “disability period” means if one is under 20 until one reaches that age. Paragraph 152 of the report states: “It is recommended that the recommendation in NZLC R6 be adopted in the case of minority. It is recommended the start date be the date majority is attained.” Let us be clear here: the New Zealand Law Commission said that for the sake of consistency in our law we should refer back to the Age of Majority Act 1970 which says that the age of majority is 20. That was the recommendation from the New Zealand Law Commission. This bill has instead said explicitly that the age of majority should be 18. 
In order to be clear I think it helps to go to the clause itself rather than read the explanatory note. Clause 42 states: “If the claimant proves that at the close of the start date of a claim’s primary period longstop period or Part 3 period the claimant was younger than 18 years old the period does not start to run until the day after the date on which the claimant becomes 18 years of age.” Clearly we have strayed from cross-referencing to the Age of Majority Act and saying that 20 years is the point at which these limitations will kick in. Instead we have said they will kick in at 18 years. That difference is significant for several reasons the main one being the consistency issue. In New Zealand legislation we have consistently moved around the point at which we consider a young person to be an adult in the eyes of the law. Contract law refers to the Age of Majority Act 1970 and it is clear that it is 20; it is quite clear for that legal purpose. One would have thought that if under 20 one cannot enter into a contract yet the Limitation Act applies when one is 18 then we have again created an inconsistency in law. 
Where are these other inconsistencies? I am keen to review some of them because I think we will come up against this issue time and time again. Currently the Social Services Committee is looking at youth justice law and it has highlighted the fact that we consider a person to be young if that person is aged 17 years or under—not 18 years. Again we have created an inconsistency and it also flies in the face of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which sets out clearly that the expectations on the New Zealand Government is that it treats a young person as young at 18 years or under. This issue exists not just in our youth justice system where we now have 17 as the cut-off age; it is my understanding that we may look again at the drinking age. Currently it sits at 18 but debate exists on whether it should be moved up to 20. The age of voting is 18. Under the domestic violence law one is considered a child until age 17. Depending on where one’s parents sit on the issue of marriage one can be married at 16 years. 
It is high time that we in this House made a decision as to at what point a young person is a young person and at what point he or she is an adult. The Government has clearly flagged here by setting aside the recommendation of the New Zealand Law Commission that it thinks that point is age 18. If that is the case that age should apply in our youth justice system as well. If that is the case it should apply in the way we treat our alcohol legislation. If it is not the case then is 20 the age for everything? I think there is a very clear principle here: we have to decide when we want to treat children as children and adults as adults. If we are going to put contractual obligations on people at 20 years and everything else at 18 years I think there is an inaccuracy that needs to be rectified. 
I look forward to having a little more discussion on this issue at the select committee which I am privileged to be a part of. I also look forward to having this debate in the House because I think it is time we had it. I assure members that I will be bringing up this very issue again when the youth justice bills come before the House.