Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe Te Kōata o Te Ārepa ā tēnā tātau Te Whare.[Acknowledgments to you the Prism of the Alpha and salutations to us the House.]This is my first speech in the 52nd Parliament sir so I wanted to as is customary congratulate you on your appointment and your fellow presiding officers for their appointments. I look forward to participating in the work of this 52nd Parliament. Can I also offer my congratulations to all returning members and new members. I think from what I've observed I've really enjoyed this debate thus far because we've heard some outstanding contributions from new members—on all sides but in particular Dr Duncan Webb Liz Craig Priyanca. I'm very proud to be standing on this side of the House among such really capable colleagues.I've got lots to say about this bill. In fact I had the honour of giving a speech at rather short notice on the second reading of this bill. I had a quick glance over the Hansard—Chris Bishop: That's never a good idea.RINO TIRIKATENE: It's never a good idea yes. I thought back in hindsight Hmm?" I was able to read contributions from Jono Naylor who was a great member of the last Parliament about his exploits with his reggae band with a potential tort in Jamaica and the harm that may have been inflicted on Jamaicans by some cultural misappropriation from such a performance. So yeah I was stretching things. But I think that is exactly what tort is all about. It's about judge-made law that has been created by the doctrines and the pronouncements that have come through the courts that we have also inherited here in Aotearoa. Inevitably there are disputes that arise when actions are committed across jurisdictions. I guess in its most simple form that's what this bill is seeking to simplify by ensuring that some archaic rules such as double actionability have been abolished.On that note I do want to acknowledge the sponsors of this bill. I thought this bill was a bit of a step beyond David Bennett when it was first introduced into the House and now we know—I do acknowledge Sarah Dowie the local member there in Invercargill who has ably taken on this bill right to its third reading but it was revealed to us earlier in the debate that none other than the Hon Christopher Finlayson was indeed the true legal brains behind this bill. And here we are at its third reading.I do acknowledge and respect the legal skills—I guess the legal mind—of an eminent parliamentarian and jurist and practitioner such as Mr Finlayson but I must say we have Dr Duncan Webb. I must say that he can match Mr Finlayson toe to toe on any discussions or debate around legal matters. I really enjoyed the contributions from both because I could sense the legal whizzing like two tops spinning in terms of their contributions around knowledge of the law and the knowledge of torts like—what was it entrapment? No enticement—and other ah—Hon Ruth Dyson: Interesting.RINO TIRIKATENE: —interesting torts that had been established by the courts. So much so I can just imagine the chargeable hours that would have been racked up by such legal minds whirring as they were in consideration and analysis of this bill. That is one aspect of this bill that I'm sure will be welcomed by the legal community: the fact that there's always something to explain to clients and to add into any advice that they give.One aspect I think that is contained in the bill that I guess overrides everything—and it is provided in the bill—is the fact that clients can put it in writing. Once it's in writing there's a contract—it's an agreement. So it is conceivable that two parties or more can in fact anticipate that there may be a tortious claim that one or other may have in the future and they can actually stipulate within the contract itself how they will deal with that claim and what applicable law will apply. Any decent lawyer I guess would always instruct their clients to put it in writing and I guess that's the key aspect from this.When tortious claims in actions are conducted is where there is harm that's been caused where there hasn't been an agreement between parties. It's civil wrongs that have been committed from one party to another. That's why we are bringing clarity to the situation where a tortious act is committed in an overseas jurisdiction—between New Zealand's jurisdiction and somewhere else wherever that act has been committed.I did mention in my last contribution on this bill some examples of what might be included within its ambit. Now sure I think the Jamaican reggae example might have been a stretch too far but I think we can just look around the House and look at recent legal actions that have taken place. In short adjusting some of the facts you might be able to create a tort maybe in some of them. Just by way of example I think Mr Wood gave the example of Eminem. Maybe he could be claiming that there was a tortious wrong—that he feels aggrieved in such a way that there was a tort committed by stealing and using his intellectual property or his music to promote an election broadcast.I think in my last speech I also used the example of the tort of invasion of privacy. We've heard about certain cases around surveillance or eavesdropping in on people—staff members—and I guess the aggrieved party may if they have a good lawyer think they might be able to extend the case to some sort of civil action as well which might create a tortious action.Likewise—oh I guess case in point: we have the Rt Hon Winston Peters taking a privacy action against members opposite for—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member needs to come back to the bill.RINO TIRIKATENE: Oh sir I am very much addressing the bill because I'm talking about potential tortious actions. I'm just giving those as an example of if one party is in another jurisdiction for instance and it then comes to the point of which law applies. We are now enacting legislation that simplifies this area—simplifies what would be vexed legal issues by making it very clear that in general the place-of-wrongdoing rule will apply through the abolishment of the double actionability rule.I commend this bill to the House. I think there's a lot that we can learn through it and I'm sure that it will be of benefit to disputing parties in the future. Kia ora tātou."