Dalziel Lianne: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13412] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 My involvement in the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill which we have before the House dates back to 2003 when I was an Associate Minister of Justice and was instrumental in establishing the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. That is where the whole process began. It is therefore particularly satisfying that I am able to contribute to the final set of legislative steps that need to be taken for it to be enacted. 
There obviously has been a lot of water under the bridge since 2003. It was just a matter of luck or chance that I was able to step in for the Attorney-General at the time and sign the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. I have even brought a copy of it down to the House because it does have my signature on it—and I am kind of proud of that—on behalf of the Government of New Zealand. The Attorney-General of Australia at the time Robert McClelland signed for the Government of Australia. 
Charles Chauvel 
: He still is. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He still is the Attorney-General at this stage. 
The reason I mention that is that I had the wonderful opportunity of being at the signing ceremony which was conducted at the High Court in Christchurch which of course is my home town. There are not going to be many opportunities in my life to sit on the bench of the High Court but I had the opportunity on that occasion and it was a great honour to be able to do that. 
I think it is worthwhile reading out the preamble to the agreement that we signed that day because the preamble encapsulates the essence of the legislation that we have before the House and that will conclude its stages while the House is in urgency. “The Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia … Conscious of their long-standing friendship and close historic political and economic relationship; Recognising the development of that relationship through the framework established by the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement done at Canberra on 28 March 1983 and subsequent arrangements and agreements developed within that framework of which this Agreement forms a part; Acknowledging each Party’s confidence in the judicial and regulatory institutions of the other Party; Affirming their shared commitment to appropriate and effective resolution of trans-Tasman civil disputes and increased regulatory cooperation; Desiring therefore to establish a new trans-Tasman regime building on the existing cooperative regime covering the taking of evidence and associated court procedures to further streamline aspects of civil court proceedings and regulatory enforcement and reduce unnecessary procedural and regulatory barriers to the conduct of litigation; Have agreed as follows:”. And there follow the pages of the agreement including the articles that have now been translated into the legislative form before the House. 
What we have seen happen over the period I have mentioned from 2003 to 2010 has been a significant step because there has been willingness on both sides of the Tasman to place trust in each other’s judicial and regulatory processes. I think that is absolutely fundamental to the development of the single economic market that the Attorney-General spoke about. The proposals in that agreement took the innovation and cooperation that had already existed with the CER to a new level and I think it has established itself as a very important fundamental from a civil justice perspective as it will improve the resolution of legal disputes that involve parties and/or assets on either side of the Tasman. 
Looking at the magnitude of the problem I reflect back on the regulatory impact statement. Tragically in a way this was one of the last pieces of legislation to be tabled in this House that had the regulatory impact statement included in the explanatory note. The useful thing about having this information at hand when we are debating legislation is that it states the problem that the legislation is designed to address. I think it is instructive to look at what that actually means in the context of this legislation. Here we have a statement of the magnitude of the increase in the movement of people assets and services between New Zealand and Australia and I think those figures are worth recalling for the record. In 2006 over 900000 Australians visited New Zealand and well over 1 million New Zealanders visited Australia almost 450000 New Zealanders live in Australia and around 60000 Australians live in New Zealand. In the year ended June 2006—it is a little out of date now—goods exported from Australia to New Zealand came to NZ$7.641 million and goods exported from New Zealand to Australia came to NZ$6.806 million. In the year ended September 2006 New Zealand exports of services to Australia came to NZ$2.387 million and Australian exports to New Zealand came to NZ$3.588 million. As at 31 March 2006 total Australian investment in New Zealand was in the region of NZ$68 billion and total New Zealand investment in Australia was in the region of NZ$25 billion. 
The point is made in the regulatory impact statement that “This leads inevitably to a greater number of disputes involving individuals or businesses with a cross-border element. Under the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Agreement (CER) and the work around achieving a Single Economic Market with Australia (SEM) each country also has a significant interest in the effectiveness of existing regulatory regimes such as the Commerce and Securities Acts and their Australian equivalents to ensure that limits to the reach of each country’s regulatory system are not exploited and that consumers have effective redress.” I think the fact that the regulatory impact statement actually mentions the importance of ensuring that the reach of each country’s regulatory system is not exploited points out the reality of the situation. We have to rely on one or the other because there can be an element of regulatory arbitrage to avoid the enforcement of proceedings in one jurisdiction by simply removing oneself to the other and expecting the matter to be addressed in that context. 
When I signed the agreement on behalf of the New Zealand Government I commented that in my role as Minister of Commerce I could see some very broad benefits in the approach that was being adopted. As well as facilitating the effective resolution of legal disputes the arrangements for regulatory enforcement are very important in that CER context and will certainly support the then recently implemented arrangements for trans-Tasman securities offerings the operation of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement and future coordination initiatives. So the agreement not only deals with current situations in terms of proceedings on both sides of the Tasman but is a good platform for other initiatives taken under the umbrella of the CER and single economic market agenda. 
The last thing I will mention is that although I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee that considered the bill it is clear from the report back from the select committee that it undertook quite detailed analysis of the legislation picked up some of the issues that the Attorney-General mentioned in his comments in the House and considerably improved aspects of the bill in order to address concerns raised in submissions. One of the concerns which had been previously raised by way of public comment on the legislation was about the proposed recognition and enforcement of regulatory sanctions. They had been identified as potentially the most controversial part of the regime. The argument was that they partially displaced the longstanding rule that domestic courts do not enforce penal as opposed to compensatory laws of foreign States because to do so is contrary to the principles of independent sovereignty. But given that that is rather a big issue I might leave it to the Committee stage.