Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I am really pleased to take a call on this bill because it is actually a practically important bill. Let me say immediately we are not talking about anything to do with public international law—the sorts of disputes that often occur between States as to boundaries and so on—that needs to be determined in the International Court of Justice. No we are talking about private international law or what was often called when Mr Denis O'Rourke and I were at university the conflict of laws—what happens when legal systems collide. A couple may have been married in England they come back to New Zealand and they seek to divorce or maybe they got married in Saudi Arabia and they come back and seek a divorce in New Zealand. Is it possible to seek a divorce in New Zealand? What is the law that would govern the determination of that particular relationship? So they are the sorts of issues that arise in the conflict of laws. Custody disputes where children are taken out of the jurisdiction and family disputes are very common in the conflict of laws. I recall when I first studied the subject there were about eight students in the class but now because of growing interactions between States and the frequency of these sorts of problems more and more students are studying this area and it is very important. This is a hugely significant and practical question therefore. It is not some airy-fairy academic subject and as Mr David Bennett said in his excellent speech it is something that has engaged a number of foreign jurisdictions including Canada and more recently Australia. Basically when there is a clash between legal systems if there is litigation with a foreign component two questions arise. The first question is: where should the case be litigated? Take my example of a cause of action that may have arisen partly in New Zealand and partly in Saudi Arabia. The issue would be well should the case be determined in Saudi Arabia or should it be heard in New Zealand? If it is heard in New Zealand the New Zealand party will be very much happier than if it is heard in Saudi Arabia because the New Zealand party will understand the court system and the way in which you go about preparing a case in New Zealand in those sorts of matters. So that is what is called the forum conveniens to determine the dispute.The second issue that arises is: what is the law to be applied in those circumstances? Take my hypothetical—is it going to be the law of Saudi Arabia or the law of New Zealand? If it is litigated in New Zealand but the law is that of Saudi Arabia then it gets rather complex because the person who seeks to rely on Saudi Arabian law has to prove Saudi Arabian law as a fact. So you can see there are all sorts of complexities that begin to creep into the litigation and often this area of the law suffers from what could be called satellite litigation where instead of getting on with the substance of the dispute people are spending all their time in court determining these sorts of matters.So the first question as I said is: where should the case be heard? The second question that often arises is: what is the law to be applied? In the law of contract it is normally spelt out in the contract so it is no big deal. Normally the contract will say that all matters arising for dispute shall be governed by New Zealand law or English law. It becomes much harder when one is dealing with the law of tort and as Mr Bennett said there are various types of torts. There are negligence and defamation—negligence and defamation would be the most common ones I guess. But then you get into this difficult question of what the law is that governs the particular resolution of the allegation of negligence and that is where we get to this legislation.Mr Bennett has rightly pointed to a number of old cases the most famous one being Phillips v Eyre where the double actionability rule was propounded if you like and it has been most recently applied in New Zealand in a case called Baxter v RMC Group plc. The purpose of this bill is to simplify the law abolish the double actionability rule and introduce new rules as Mr Bennett has spelt out in his speech.So it is a very interesting area of the law. I am pleased the Labour Party is supporting it. It is as Chapman Tripp said a no-frills" piece of legislation. Some members' bills seek to change the world. This does not do anything other than clarify an important area of the law. It is a brilliant effort on the part of Mr Bennett and I commend him for his hard work."