Turei Metiria: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13563] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will address the Limitation Bill on behalf of my colleague Kennedy Graham. The purpose of this bill is to encourage claimants to make claims for monetary or other relief without undue delay by providing defendants with defences to stale claims. The bill would repeal and replace the Limitation Act 1950 and it is intended to implement the Law Commission’s recommendation to replace the current Act with a modern regime. Such a regime would encourage claimants to make claims without undue delay and would protect defendants from the unjust pursuit of stale claims. 
In essence three principal changes are envisaged in this bill. The bill would clarify a claim affected by limitation provisions; it would clarify the commencement of limitation periods and any exceptions or modifications; and it would address the unfairness that under the current law a limitation period may end before a claimant even knows that something is wrong. 
The Green Party supports the broad thrust of this bill and will vote for it. Many initiatives in it will improve matters. We agree with the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee pertaining to clarifying several definitions especially extending the definition of “Disputes Tribunal” defining the terms “trust” and “trustee” and clarifying the date for the filing of a claim. More important perhaps we support the committee’s recommendation pertaining to the claims filed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Clause 11 defined a “money claim” as a claim for monetary relief at common law in equity or under an enactment. That would have included a claim for monetary relief in respect of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The committee was concerned that the bill would apply a limitation period to claims for monetary relief for a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Such claims if time-barred should be subject to discretion. The inclusion of such rights claims in the new limitation regime reflects the recommendations of the Law Commission. It is consistent with international human rights law. A reasonable limitation period needs to apply to such claims. Defendants need certainty as to whether their actions might be challengeable so we are pleased with the recommendation on that matter. There is also the issue of late knowledge. There are certain legal complications attached to this but it was clear that a fraudulent action by another party was one reason that a claim acquired late knowledge and that this should be included as a qualifying factor. 
The main point of debate in the select committee concerned monetary claims filed after the applicable period. There was a range of views over the merit of the longstop period as defined in clause 10(3)(b). There were suggestions that the 15-year limitation period should be reduced to align it with the 10-year limitation period prescribed in the Building Act. The Law Commission concluded after much deliberation that a 15-year longstop period struck the appropriate balance between justice for claimants and certainty for defendants. The argument for retaining the 10-year period for defective building claims was the complexity caused by the number of parties that might be involved and by the length of time during which the memory of events becomes less reliable. The Green Party shares the view of Labour that these issues are similar for other causes of action. There is no good reason in our view for having a shorter longstop limitation period for building cases. It is an odd jurisprudence that would limit legal redress to the subjectivity of personal memory faculties. Having the same longstop period for all claims is more appropriate. 
This is just a short call. The Green Party is satisfied that this bill will improve the law as it relates to the complex area of claims. We are happy to support the bill and we look forward to its further progress through the House.