Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13423] 
Tuesday 24 August 2010 
( 
continued on Wednesday 25 August 2010 
) 
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the parts and clauses to be taken as one question this morning under the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: So you are seeking leave for there to be one debate and one question? 
JO GOODHEW 
: Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for there to be one question. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. 
Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Another member was on his feet last night and I was hoping that he would continue with the call because it was such an interesting contribution to the debate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Who was that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I cannot remember his surname so I cannot say—ha ha! Perhaps one of my colleagues could help me. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It wasn’t Maurice Williamson was it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No it was not. 
Seriously I do have a serious question to ask. One of my colleagues Raymond Huo made a contribution to the second reading debate last night. The point he was making was in relation to some concerns that had been raised by Chapman Tripp in the public arena prior to the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I alluded to this point myself in the first reading debate but I did so at the end of my contribution. I said that I would deal with it once we got to the Committee stage because as my colleague Raymond Huo pointed out—very well I thought—it is actually quite a tricky area. Let me just run back over the end point of my contribution on the first reading debate. 
I have here the Chapman Tripp publication  
Trans-Tasman integration: court proceedings and enforcement.  
It states: “The proposed recognition and enforcement of regulatory sanctions is perhaps the most controversial part of the regime. The proposed reforms partially displace 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.” The point that my colleague Raymond Huo made last night was that under the proposed reforms some of the Australian regulatory penalties imposed by courts can now be seen to be directly enforceable in New Zealand courts and vice versa in the same way civil judgments are. The point he was making—and this is the point elucidated in this commentary—is that regulatory regimes based around civil penalties and regulatory regimes based around criminal penalties are going to be treated differently under the new regime. For civil penalties there will basically be cross-border reach unless it is expressly excluded and that is dealt with in Subpart 7 of the bill which is the part of the bill that I would like the Minister to focus his attention on—clauses 68 and 69. These provisions refer back to Subpart 5 as well. For criminal penalties it will be where they are included in the regulatory reach. On the one hand if sanctions are framed as civil pecuniary penalties they will be directly enforceable unless specifically excluded by Order in Council—“a negative list” approach. Sanctions framed as “regulatory regime criminal fines” will be directly enforceable only if declared to be so by Order in Council—a “positive list” approach. It would be worthwhile to have on the record of the House why the distinction applies in this legislation. It would be an extremely useful contribution to an understanding around how this will work in practice. 
The reason I am asking for this is that Chapman Tripp basically said that it was not obvious that the difference in treatment was warranted because for some of the civil penalties versus criminal penalties arguments one will literally be dancing on the head of a pin. It used the example of a fine under section 40 of the Fair Trading Act which is a criminal penalty and a fine under section 80 of the Commerce Act which is a civil penalty. I think it is quite an interesting point and it would be really worthwhile if the Minster would contribute to our understanding of why there is the difference between the two regimes as they are being implemented in the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. 
It is quite an interesting argument and Chapman Tripp takes it a little bit further. The question is this: “As a matter of broader principle one might ask when and to what extent direct and mutual enforcement of the regulatory penalties is desirable.” So this is really the second issue—the first issue is the distinction between the civil and the criminal penalties. The point that Chapman Tripp went on to make is that “Where those court judgements relate to regulatory proceedings the domestic regulatory systems of both New Zealand and Australia will have a broader reach. But this does not ensure (or even seek to ensure) that the respective regulatory systems will promote the same policies or pull in the same direction.” So the point raised in this article is that there is “a risk of cross-cutting rather than more streamlined regulation in areas such as competition law securities regulation and consumer protection.” As I also said in the first reading debate on this bill it was in my role as the Minister of Commerce that I welcomed the introduction of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill on the basis that a lot of the work that would be seen to be able to be concluded under it would fall within the ambit of my concern in that area. 
But the point that Chapman Tripp makes in this article is that anecdotal evidence suggests “that New Zealand and Australian regulators are still a lot way from sharing a common mindset or working in a truly coordinated fashion. The New Zealand Commerce Commission is unlikely to accept arguments that a New Zealand penalty should be reduced to take account of penalties imposed in Australia in respect of the same or related conduct. Likewise for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Perhaps in time a regime of mutual enforceability will foster a joint approach by regulators in such situations. For now one can expect a somewhat imperfect overlap as the effects of closer coordination but not single-source regulation are felt.” I do not necessarily agree with Chapman Tripp on this point. I think that sometimes we leap to an end conclusion without seeing whether there are intermediate steps that we can take along the way and in many respects I prefer the graduated approach that this legislation seems to favour which is to have the mutual enforceability through the approach of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill rather than to have single set of regulation applying across the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the Commerce Commission and indeed the Securities Commission. 
We have moved a long way and as I also said in my first reading speech the mutual recognition of securities offerings and the sorts of advancements that were made under the previous Labour Government will benefit I think from the platform that this establishes. But I think it is worthwhile for the Government to place on record a response to this particular issue because it is one that commentators will continue to reflect on as the legislation comes into force. The legislation as a whole is legislation that we absolutely welcome. As I said in the first reading I was the Minister who was fortunate enough to be able to sign the original agreement on behalf of the New Zealand Government and that is something that obviously someone in my situation would regard as an absolute privilege to do. So we are very pleased that the Government has taken up legislative requirements to match the legislative requirements put in place in Australia. But those two issues I think are worthy of having a good statement on the record of this House. Those who are going to study the in-depth detail of this legislation and are going to implement it from time to time will want to see why the Government has chosen to split the approach on civil and criminal penalties. They will want to see how the new system is supposed to operate when in fact the regulators may be working under different rules. In many respects the blurring of the line between the two will certainly mean that people will see that one country’s own domestic circumstances will be imposing on those of the other. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As we have heard the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill seeks to integrate our own justice system further with that of Australia. As far as I can see it is the most far-reaching attempt to achieve that integration since the days of Geoffrey Palmer as he then was and the mutual recognition that was extended between the Federal Court of Australia and our High Court as to certain orders and judgments. So it is good to see a scheme that further extends that pioneering work which is over 20 years old. One might say that we have tarried a bit to get to the situation that we are in now but that we have come even as far as this is thanks in large part to the excellent work of Lianne Dalziel in the previous regime. It is great to see that that work is being continued. 
I shall look at the regulatory impact statement in the legislation and then ask the Minister in the chair a couple of questions. I can see that he is intensely engaged in this debate! It would be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on the questions I have for him; perhaps the answers lie on his iPad which he is studying so assiduously. The regulatory impact statement weighs up four options. One is keeping the status quo— 
Paul Quinn 
: Looking at the bill. Get with the programme Charles—the bill is on the iPad. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Now we have the usual excellent quality contribution from Mr Quinn in the Committee stage! He is a learned figure in the Parliament on these matters so I hope he will keep chipping in! As he will know the regulatory impact statement suggests that there were four options to proceed with: we could keep the status quo which we clearly have not decided to do; we could amend existing legislation; we could implement changes modelled on another supranational project of note in the world at the moment the European Union with its integration of justice systems; or we could implement the changes outlined in this bill. The regulatory impact statement concluded given the needs that it outlined that the changes suggested in the bill are the best response to our needs. 
As well as identifying the problems within our current regime the statement gives a wider context as to why the bill’s reforms are needed. It notes the increase that has occurred in the movement of people between Australia and New Zealand the movement of assets and services between the two countries and the subsequent increase in cross-border disputes involving individuals or businesses based in both countries. 
We have always assumed in this Parliament I think that this is an inevitable process—that there is an ever-greater prospect of integration between Australia and New Zealand—but history of course shows that that is not the case. We need only look at the politics that were played with the trans-Tasman therapeutic regime in the last Parliament and now we have the prospect of a conservative Government if it comes to power in Australia having promised to look again at the ability of people to move freely between Australia and New Zealand for residential and working purposes. That would be a retrograde step; it would be a terrible thing if that agreement were altered if the special purpose visa that New Zealanders have for going to Australia as of right and Australians have for coming here were to be abolished. I certainly hope that Mr Abbott does not have the opportunity to get his hands on that agreement which I think has been a great thing for the two countries. I think it is unusual that Mr Key rang Mr Abbott on the weekend and left him a message but did not ring the Prime Minister of Australia to congratulate her on her campaign. But let us hope that this does not presage a change in the trend that we have seen so far of greater integration between the countries. 
Paul Quinn 
: You give her a ring Charles. Say you’re speaking on behalf of the nation. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well I think it would be better to hear me speaking on behalf of the country than Mr Quinn because at least people would be able to understand what I was saying. 
In terms of what our needs are in the regulatory impact statement there are a number of problems that people currently run into. I ask Minister Williamson whether he is confident that those problems will be fully addressed by the legislation. The first problem is where a defendant does not submit to the jurisdiction of an Australian court. At the moment the resulting judgment may not be fully enforceable in New Zealand. 
There is another issue—final money judgments are the only things at the moment that are enforceable across the Tasman. There is no ability to get interim relief particularly in a commercial sense. One cannot apply for the freezing of assets to preserve the position of the parties in litigation when proceedings are based in the other country decisions of the tribunals of one country cannot be enforced in the other with any great ease and the rules to determine which country’s courts should decide a dispute are based in private international law. The same rules apply there as apply to say a dispute involving New Zealand on the one hand and Bolivia Zimbabwe or some other country on the other hand that we do not have any particular affinity with as far as legal systems are concerned. Clearly that is not a desirable state of affairs. Also civil pecuniary fines as Lianne Dalziel said imposed in one country are not enforceable in the other. The same situation applies to criminal fines so the inability to have that mutual level of enforcement lets certain regulatory offences continue to undermine trans-Tasman markets ultimately to the detriment of both Australia and New Zealand. Obviously it is desirable to have the same set of general rules applicable in both places. 
Obviously there will be some administrative costs involved in implementing those reforms; the statement recognises that. But it concludes that those will be outweighed by the many reduced regulatory costs to businesses and to people doing their activities on a trans-Tasman basis and because of better enforcement there will also be in the end lower costs. There will be other substantial benefits as other members have outlined. They include more efficient court proceedings and more effective remedies. The bill will also play a crucial part in the success of the furthering of closer economic relations and single economic market initiatives like streamlined trans-Tasman insolvency procedures which is obviously a good thing and the mutual recognition of financial intermediaries. So we should all hope that this integration process continue rather than grinding to a halt or hitting some speed bumps because of the internal politics in Australia I have referred to. I think one speaker on the opposite side last night noted that New Zealand has been the overwhelming beneficiary of these integration moves so certainly it is in our interests to enact this legislation. 
But I would like the Minister to consider in particular clause 51(1) of the legislation under which the Governor-General by Order in Council can declare certain tribunals of a state or a territory of Australia to be a tribunal to which the subpart applies. That is a way in which the executive can extend the application or the intended application of the legislation. I would be interested to know what types of tribunal the Government has in contemplation if it has any at all as far as that power is concerned. It seems to me that if the full purpose and effect of the legislation is to be realised then the sorts of tribunals that are contemplated by that clause will be quite wide; we will see a large number of Australian administrative tribunals gazetted by the Governor-General under that clause and we will see the ability to have a wide range of orders mutually enforced because hopefully we will see under the reciprocal provisions in Australia a similarly broad approach to New Zealand tribunals. That would be a good thing. As I said it would be useful to hear from the Minister in the chair whether there has been some thought on that issue or whether we will be looking at just another hiatus of 20 years before we take the next logical step toward integrating our legal systems. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill which we are debating under urgency. I note that most of the bills before the House are non-controversial. That is what we know and love about Maurice Williamson the Minister in the chair; “Mr Non-controversial” is what we often call him. When we consider some of the legislation that has gone through the House in very recent times it is a pleasure to speak to a bill that adds value. I understand that my colleague Brendon Burns will take a call on the bill after me and that is really good too. 
The bill and the equivalent Australian legislation will integrate our countries’ civil justice systems to simplify the resolution of legal disputes with a trans-Tasman aspect. The bill resulted if we are being really honest from work started by Helen Clark in 2003. I would like to speak briefly about the background. The Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement was established by Helen Clark and John Howard in 2003. It reported back in December 2006 and made a range of recommendations that included the use of video technology to allow witnesses to appear while overseas and an increase in the types of judgments that could be enforced in each country. The agreement produced was signed in 2008 by Labour’s previous speaker Lianne Dalziel as Minister of Commerce and Robert McClelland the Australian Attorney-General. The agreement went to the Law and Order Committee and the unanimous recommendation from that committee was that the agreement was the best way forward. 
In terms of the bill itself we know that it reduces the cost and complexity of litigation and provides better remedies. The bill will certainly enhance the very good relationship that we have with Australia even though it is absolutely romping ahead of us economically in the job stakes and in supporting people through a recession. In fact that country has barely felt the recession as opposed to this country. I am hoping that through this bill and the work that will happen across the Tasman this Government will be able to draw on some policies that will enhance New Zealand’s economy which is in a dreadful state. 
Hon Member 
: They’ve got none of their own. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Government has none of its own as my colleague said. Perhaps its members will learn from our neighbours a way to support people in work rather than—[ 
Interruption 
]—exactly having a plan. 
I commend the Law and Order Committee which looked at a number of amendments to the bill. They included refining applications for stays of proceedings and giving New Zealand courts the power to declare jurisdiction. It also looked at the procedural rules of the courts and wanted “to allow rules prescribing things required or necessary for implementing the bill to be made using any powers given by any Act to make procedural rules for a court or tribunal.” Very sensible work was done by the Law and Order Committee which was quite an achievement given that the chair is not always up there in terms of achievement—would that be a fair comment? 
Paul Quinn 
: What? Say that again! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not talking about the Justice and Electoral Committee; I am certainly not talking about that select committee. I know that Brendon Burns will take a call so I will note just a couple more issues. One was the serving of initiating documents in Australia. In terms of the defendant’s address for service some really sensible work was done to ensure that it was the most efficient possible. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and to note that this is a continuation and an enhancement of the process of the closer economic relationship with Australia which I have to acknowledge began under a National Government in the late 1970s and early 1980s under the Hon Hugh Templeton. It got support from the Labour leader Bill Rowling at that time and took off and it was a very appropriate and timely move for this country. It acknowledges the strength and depth of our relationship with Australia and this bill continues to acknowledge that which is important. 
I think it is also important that we have some complementarities where possible in the judicial systems of Australia and New Zealand and this bill endeavours to implement some of those. It is important to have those complementarities because the capacity of New Zealanders to travel to Australia and of Australians to come to New Zealand is ever-increasing. Obviously our court systems have to acknowledge the fact that people are not always domiciled in one country; they can live in one country and cross to the other and court proceedings can take place in one country or the other. This bill effectively allows some sort of acknowledgment that there are issues that need to be resolved in courts across the two countries. 
But there are still some gaps that I will allude to and I have a constituent who is facing one at the moment. My constituent has had to return to Australia to face proceedings in Australia’s equivalent of our Family Court in relation to a custody case. It is a very distressing and harrowing case because this poor young woman has been forced to go back to Australia by the father of her child under circumstances that suggested that the father wanted to have ongoing contact with the child. She has now been back in Australia for some 9 months but the father has not made any contact. In fact I understand that he is on the run from the police in two states of Australia. I acknowledge the intervention last week of the Minister of Justice Simon Power who has asked his officials to investigate and who has also asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide whatever assistance it can to this poor young constituent of mine. She is faced with the ongoing demands and delays of a court system of which she has no knowledge no power and in her view no real authority to try to expedite proceedings. 
This bill does not extend to those issues; it is more related to the business community and those sorts of relationships but that case is a signal of the need for real complementarities between the justice systems of our two countries. We are a very movable nation and our affairs are often interwoven with Australian affairs. Our business and family relationships are increasingly taking us back and forward across the Tasman and this bill is an attempt to expedite those issues. 
The bill of course began under Helen Clark’s leadership. It has come through Parliament—it has been through the select committee process—and it will reduce some of the complexities and costs that are in place in trans-Tasman litigation and provide better remedies. It is therefore a very sensible measure. Through facilitating the effective resolution of trans-Tasman disputes this bill will foster those ever-increasing economic relationships with Australia and New Zealand. That is important. It will simplify proceedings within our courts and the enforcement of judgments. That is very sensible. We have had a significant increase in the movement of people assets and services across the Tasman; obviously they will be subject to disputes from time to time. Therefore it is important that we have this arrangement which is perhaps internationally one of the best arrangements between any two sovereign States with separate legal systems. We still retain our entire independence in respect of our judicial system but obviously we want to try to ensure that there are as few impediments as possible to the process of justice whether people are on this side of the Tasman or the other. 
The Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement has worked through these issues. The group was set up by Helen Clark and John Howard back in 2003. It has brought forward the proposals that are now enmeshed in this bill. It is appropriate that we now see this bill passed and move towards that closer integration of the New Zealand and Australian civil justice systems so that we can continue to develop and foster the closer economic relationship that began even before the time of the Hon Maurice Williamson in this House. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 160 in the name of the Hon Simon Power be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is an important milestone in the creation of a comprehensive new regime to deal with court proceedings and regulatory enforcement across the Tasman. It implements in New Zealand the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement which was signed in 2008. Together with its Australian equivalent also called the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act this bill will streamline the resolution of disputes with connections to both New Zealand and Australia. 
As personal and business connections between countries increase the activities of individuals and businesses are increasingly likely to be affected by more than one legal system. Uncertainty about which court will hear a dispute or whether a person will be able to enforce a judgment in another country causes difficulties for both individuals and business. Addressing those issues between New Zealand and Australia is obviously a key plank in progress towards a single economic market. 
This level of cooperation between two countries on cross-border civil justice issues may be unparalleled anywhere in the world. If it proves successful it may even be looked at as a model of what can be achieved between jurisdictions. The high level of confidence each country has in the other’s legal system—and regulatory system by the way—and our common legal heritage has allowed us to push the boundaries. Most countries do not for example enforce another country’s penal laws. The two pieces of legislation will make an exception to that general rule and allow certain criminal fines imposed under one regulatory regime to be enforced in another in the same way as a civil judgment debt. Criminal fines play an important role in encouraging compliance with regulatory regimes. Improved enforcement of regulatory regimes that affect the integrity effectiveness and efficiency of trans-Tasman markets will deliver benefits to both countries. 
The sort of regulatory regimes this legislation will apply to include New Zealand’s Commerce Act and the Australian Trade Practices Act. The benefits of this new regime will span the range of interactions New Zealand has with Australia and its legal system. Those who will benefit extend from individuals involved in family proceedings and consumer disputes to major New Zealand corporations operating in Australia. 
Processes for effective and efficient resolution of disputes are essential to support the closer economic relations agreement and the initiatives that sit under it. We want New Zealand businesses to be able to operate in Australia and deal with Australian businesses with confidence. Businesses need to know that if a dispute arises it can be heard by the court most appropriate to hear it or by the court they agreed would hear it. Businesses need to know that they can readily obtain interim relief such as a freezing order if they need it and they need to know that if they obtain a final judgment it can be enforced effectively even if other parties’ assets are located in Australia. 
After the passage of this bill the New Zealand and Australian Governments will continue to work closely together to make the necessary supporting regulations and to bring the arrangements into force at the earliest opportunity. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too am very pleased to see the final reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. The bill certainly has generated a lot of work between the two countries and the agreement was able to be signed on the anniversary of the signing of the Closer Economic Relations agreement which saw the original agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement signed. I made the point during the first reading that I was the one who had had the privilege of signing that agreement on behalf of the New Zealand Government and it certainly was a privilege to do so because the steps that we were taking as two countries were quite ground-breaking steps. We had confidence in each other’s judicial and regulatory institutions in order to sign off on such a significant piece of work. The legislation itself follows on from not only the signing of that agreement but also the significant amount of work undertaken by the working group represented very well on both sides of the Tasman which preceded the agreement. 
I found an article that was written at the time of the signing of the treaty by the Australian Attorney-General Robert McClelland and me back in 2008. This particular article said that the signing of that treaty once its advent was implemented by legislation “would make life a lot easier for businesses which now face a time-consuming and expensive process when dealing with trans-Tasman legal issues. Under the existing law fines and civil penalties imposed by New Zealand courts cannot be enforced in Australia and vice versa. Prosecutions under Australian law cannot be brought in New Zealand and vice versa. Criminal proceedings initiated in one jurisdiction probably cannot be served in the other although no one is absolutely sure about this but civil penalty proceedings in most cases can be. Orders made under regulatory laws in one country are not applicable in the other. What all this means is the moves made over the past 25 years towards trans-Tasman harmonisation of competition consumer and other laws meet an abrupt brick wall when parties seek to utilise the enforcement might of the courts.” It is that “abrupt brick wall” that we are breaking down with the legislation we are passing today. I think it will be of significant benefit to businesses and individuals on both sides of the Tasman. 
I also reflected during the Committee stage on a contribution made by the law firm Chapman Tripp in relation to concerns it had raised in respect of the potential departure from the longstanding rule that domestic courts do not enforce penal laws of foreign States because to do so is contrary to the principles of independent sovereignty. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction on behalf of the Minister of Justice for addressing that issue in his third reading speech. Unfortunately he did not manage to do it during the Committee stage but he touched on it in his third reading speech. He might not have been aware that he was doing that but he answered the question about the significance of that change and why the Government had chosen to go down the pathway of breaking with an element of tradition in that regard. However he did not manage to really explain it to the House so perhaps the next speaker for the Government might like to put on the record of the House why there is a difference between civil pecuniary penalties and criminal penalties. 
The example that is used in this particular article by Chapman Tripp which I think is worth raising again and which I hope the Government responds to is that the distinction between civil and criminal penalties may amount to nothing more than what I described in the Committee stage as dancing on the head of a pin. The example that Chapman Tripp gives is “a fine under section 40 of the Fair Trading Act is a criminal penalty and a fine under section 80 of the Commerce Act is a civil penalty.” I ask why one is an “opt-in” and the other an “opt-out”. That is a very simple question and I can see that the next speaker for the Government Chester Borrows is really excited about the opportunity to be able to respond to that question. He looks set to explain to the House why it was decided that we would have on the civil penalty side a “negative list” approach—that is the penalties will be directly enforceable unless specifically excluded by Order in Council—and that the regulatory regime on criminal fines would be directly enforceable only if declared to be so by Order in Council which is the “positive list” approach. I am looking forward to quite a major contribution to the advancement of the law by the Government stating for the record why there is a difference between the two approaches. I can see that the member opposite is looking forward to taking up that opportunity. 
The other question I asked the Minister during the Committee stage was about the differences in law on both sides of the Tasman. It was the question of whether the regulatory regimes because there are some nuanced differences in some instances but major differences in others between some of our competition laws in particular would have a situation where the de facto operation of this arrangement would mean that the Australian law would apply in New Zealand and vice versa. I think that is a really good point to raise and as I said in the Committee stage I do not necessarily agree with the proposition that Chapman Tripp put forward in the article I have here. Personally I think there are reasons for having different approaches on regulatory regimes and sometimes a stepping stone towards a more coordinated and mutual regime is having the enforcement recognition that we have under this Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I am not completely struck by the argument but I would like the Government to put on the record why it has adopted this particular approach so that those who take a great interest in these matters can understand. 
I am sure members of the legal profession who will utilise this legislation at some stage in the future will look back at the contribution of various members to this debate and I know they will look most interestedly at Chester Borrows’ contribution— 
Charles Chauvel 
: And the courts. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —and the courts may look as well—because if there is any doubt about the law they will look at the history behind this bill and at the Government’s thinking. Chester Borrows as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee is all over the detail of this legislation and will be able to explain to us such issues as for example whether “The New Zealand Commerce Commission is unlikely to accept arguments that a New Zealand penalty should be reduced to take account of penalties imposed in Australia in respect of the same or related conduct. Likewise for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.” Was that at the forefront of the Government’s mind in its thinking around the adoption of the particular form of legislation? We also heard in the Committee stage about the changes that were made by the select committee. It adopted a purpose clause in line with the Australian legislation that has been recently passed. I commend the select committee for its excellent work and that is why I am looking forward to the contribution from the chair of the select committee in that regard. 
I thought I would close with reference to David Goddard QC whom I know my colleague Charles Chauvel mentioned in his first reading speech. This is also mentioned in the article I referred to at the beginning of my contribution. David Goddard was a member of the trans-Tasman working group and he described the changes as the minimum level of coordination required to achieve the goals of reducing the cost of trans-Tasman dispute resolution and enhancing the effectiveness of regulatory regimes. He concluded that the significance of the reforms should not be underestimated as they represented the furthest-reaching such proposals between any two sovereign States with separate legal systems. That is an incredible endorsement of what we are able to achieve in Government and what this Government has been able to put in legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is an unusual situation when both sides of the House find themselves in agreement on legislation and in agreement on anything I guess. So that is if nothing else cause for us all to reconsider our positions. The work that was done within the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill was very strong. A magnanimous gesture was made across the House in accepting that both sides would be looking again at their positions. 
A very insightful question was asked by the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel. I understand that there is an arrangement as far as recovery of criminal debts by way of trans-Tasman fines is concerned but I am sure that any lack of clarity will be cleared up by the erudite Minister of Justice when he speaks in the “fourth reading” of this bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Members on this side have been pleased to support the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill through all its stages in Parliament because we think it is a good bill. It reflects as has been noted the very hard work of the previous Labour Government and in particular that of my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was Minister of Commerce at the time that the agreement the legislation is based on was reached. 
This is legislation that truly benefits business. As far as this Government’s record is concerned the simple re-enactment or continuation of the enactment of legislation largely originated by Lianne Dalziel when she was either Associate Minister of Justice or Minister of Commerce has constituted all of its meaningful pro-business law reform agenda. It is worth noting that that is actually the case. For all the rhetoric for all the dog whistling about laws to extend the fire-at-will period to all businesses and the like that sort of legislation will not make a difference to business in reality; the substantive reform the pro-business law reform programme is a continuation of the work of my colleague. I want to put that on the record of the House fairly and squarely. 
The other matter that I want to refer to up front is the inappropriateness of this legislation going through the House under urgency. There is no justification whatsoever for doing that. Although there is multiparty agreement on the appropriateness of the legislation and its importance and certainly members on this side are pleased to see the legislation finally being progressed the procedure adopted here is an embarrassment. The Minister in the chair during the Committee of the whole House the Attorney-General clearly had had the job foisted on him. He did not know the answers to questions on the Government’s programme to allow the Governor-General through clause 51 to extend the Act to certain tribunals and courts in Australia. He simply did not know the answers to significant questions. The Committee should have heard those answers and they should have been placed on the record. 
I do not blame the Minister for that. He did a good job in the circumstances. But he did have officials present so he could have asked them a couple of questions so that he could enlighten the Committee on what the Government intended by further extending the scope of the bill—which clearly is a good thing. That is what happens when legislation is rushed through under urgency when the responsible Minister is not available to sit in the chair during the Committee stage and we have two substitute Ministers in the chair. They are simply not in a position to address the important questions. I would have hoped that on a measure as important as this—particularly when the Minister for Building and Construction who gave the third reading speech in the House today claims to be very pro-business—we might see a slightly more respectful process in this House. Unfortunately under this Government that is a vain hope. 
Simon Bridges 
: Speaking of vain. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is an interesting interjection from a member opposite who is not known for his humility let it be said. 
It is true that it is good that the bill will allow a broader range of judgments to be registered and enforced between Australia and New Zealand. It will allow court appearances by video link between the two countries and it will allow the enforcement of regulatory regimes supporting trans-Tasman markets. All of this will make the doing of business and the resolution of disputes across the Tasman far simpler and more affordable. 
When I was working in the Sydney office of my old law firm one of the constant frustrations for businesses and individuals doing business across the Tasman was that the integrated single economic market was going along apace and people were very much in favour of it but when a legal dispute occurred between people based in say South Australia and New Zealand there was no effective way of enforcing the judgment unless it was a dispute that could be resolved in the Federal Court of Australia on the one hand and the High Court of New Zealand on the other. Then a reciprocal enforcement procedure was introduced thanks to work done by Geoffrey Palmer back in 1989-90 I think when there were amendments to the High Court Rules and the rules of court of the Federal Court of Australia. If one was lucky enough to have a dispute case brought in the Federal Court on a federal matter in Australia one could achieve some sort of mutual enforcement. But if the dispute was in a state court or in any other court in the federal regime one was essentially prejudiced. We are fixing that finally. That is a desirable outcome and that is why Labour substantially supports the bill. 
On the issue of economic catch-up with Australia which is a mantra we hear a lot in this House and outside it these days we need more of this sort of legislation to fix the real productivity issues that occur as roadblocks to trans-Tasman business. As I say I would like to see more of this sort of substantive reform; reform that is well-thought-through and evidence-based reform of the kind that was advanced so strongly by Lianne Dalziel and Michael Cullen in the previous Government rather than dog-whistle slogans about increasing productivity and trying to catch up with Australia which unfortunately is the record so far of members opposite. 
I will give an example of how the measures in this legislation are positive. An Australian-based company—“S”—is offering investment schemes to New Zealanders. It is registered as an overseas company in New Zealand and it has appointed somebody to handle its legal proceedings here. It makes a misleading statement in one of its documents. “S” is prosecuted under the Securities Act resulting in the imposition of a fine by the court. Well under the current system because “S” could withdraw all its assets from New Zealand and move them back to Australia to evade enforcement it is not possible to enforce any fine. That is a waste of legal costs for all involved and in fact people do not even bother with legal action in these circumstances and there is no accountability under the laws of New Zealand and that has a detrimental effect on respect for the legal system. Under the legislation proposed our Securities Act would be more enforceable in Australia. The fine against the company would be as enforceable there as it would have been if a civil judgment had been made in a New Zealand court. That has to be a good thing and it is something that certainly ought to be supported across the House. 
At the moment as I have said only final money judgments can be enforced on a trans-Tasman basis. There is no ability to get interim relief. The decisions of the tribunals of one country cannot be enforced in the other and even though the Minister could not tell us which tribunals the Governor-General will extend the legislation to we can assume that there will be such tribunals. The rules to determine which countries’ courts will decide a matter are confusing and neither civil pecuniary fines nor criminal fines can be enforced in a country other than the one they were imposed in. These are the sorts of real barriers to productivity that exist these are the sorts of problems that ought to be addressed but instead we see this Government trying to remove the rights of people to fairness at work. It says that that is the way to achieve better productivity on this side of the Tasman. Well we know that is nonsense. We know that the way to get proper productivity and proper business law reform to the benefit of our nation is to advance bills like this. It is a shame that this one is being done through urgency without the responsible Minister present to tell us the answers to some important questions. Lianne Dalziel has posed them I have tried to pose some of them and we have not heard answers so we are not in the best space possible. None the less the bill is finally going through and that is something we should be pleased about. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak on the third reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I spoke yesterday about the broader Australian relationship that this bill is a marker of and a facilitator of if you like in that it enables us to keep pace with the ever-closening relationships business deals and so on between us and Australia. I want to hone in not in particular detail on some of the things that this worthy bill does in particular on the area of service. Service of proceedings is perhaps something that most people will not think twice about. In fact it is a very interesting area practically speaking in principle and conceptually. As a law clerk and first-year solicitor I well remember having to serve proceedings by dumping them on people’s doorsteps and the like. I was the principal debt collector for State Insurance in the firm I worked for dealing with car accidents. Some of these cases went across the Tasman—and I am sure it is even more the case now than it was in 2000 and 2001—because people leave the country they move over there and the like. I can remember the kerfuffle that one would have in trying to serve these people and deal with things effectively and then if one got judgment in enforcing that judgment across the Tasman which is another practical part of this bill. 
The bill simplifies arrangements and the processes that we have with Australia in relation to service and in relation to enforcement of judgments. I have talked about some pretty simple examples—you know someone crashes a car and they then take off to Australia. But of course we know that this will be just as important—probably more so—in very complex large business transactions where we as a country and Australia as a country have every interest in keeping the relationships going and deepening those business relationships so that both sides of the Tasman can become more prosperous. Perhaps at first blush this is not the most exciting bill but it is a very worthy bill and it is a marker of the ever-closer relations and mutual success we have with our trans-Tasman partner Australia. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatau. Morena ki a tatau i tenei ata. I thought it would be appropriate to provide the Maori Party perspective on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and say from the outset that we are supportive of its intent. My job is to raise a couple of the issues that were raised through the submissions provided to the Justice and Electoral Committee and give some overview from our perspective. 
The passage of people across the Tasman is a phenomenon that appears to have also included Maori in its wake. In 2006 a report namely  
Maori in Australia: Nga Maori i Te Ao Moemoea 
 predicted that between 115000 and 125000 Maori are living in Australia. We in the Maori Party have been over to Australia having been asked by whanau members here to make contact with Maori there and we can see the full extent of the challenges our people face in trying to maintain Maori cultural practices and in nurturing their sense of Maori identity in Ahitereiria te whenua moemoea. Despite the best attempts and efforts of whanau to bring loved ones home it is fair to conclude that a significant number of Maori will continue to call Australia their home away from home. 
This bill recognises therefore that there has been a significant increase in the movement of people assets and services between New Zealand and Australia. Almost 450000 New Zealanders live in Australia and I am told that about 60000 Australians live in New Zealand. 
Given the fact that Maori have been attracted across the Ditch to Te Ao Moemoea it was somewhat of a surprise that there were no submissions whatsoever from iwi during the select committee process. Mind you the select committee received a grand total of three submissions only I am told from interested groups and individuals. However one person by the name of Siaosi Tofi raised the concern that the bill will affect Maori interests and unfairly disadvantage Maori. Siaosi asked that the select committee investigate properly the potential effect of this legislation on Maori and its implications for them. In particular the submitter was concerned that Australian judges might decide civil disputes concerning Maori land or cultural and intellectual property. 
The impact of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was also mentioned. As members will be aware the New Zealand Government has recently expressed its support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Australian Government expressed its support for it in April 2009. The question that Siaosi Tofi asked was: “Might there be a situation where the trans Tasman agreement and this bill come into direct conflict with the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to which NZ is a signatory?”. The Ministry of Justice I am pleased to say addressed the concerns raised by Siaosi. Clause 24 of the bill and section 19 of the Australian Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act adopt a common forum or give-way rule as between Australia and New Zealand. This should ensure that where the New Zealand court is more appropriate to determine a proceeding that proceeding will be heard here and not in Australia. This will assist New Zealand - based litigants including Maori. Although the range of enforceable Australian judgements is being expanded this will not have an adverse effect on the issue of Maori land. 
Nevertheless despite the submission of Siaosi Tofi this bill is primarily focused on the challenges posed by trans-Tasman trade relationships. The level of investment in goods and services brings about a greater number of disputes involving individuals or businesses with a cross-border element. This bill aims therefore for the dispute resolution processes to be cheaper more efficient and less complicated. This bill is supposedly intended to deliver tangible benefits to individuals and businesses in New Zealand and Ahitereiria. We therefore support it here at its third reading. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill. As I said earlier today it is good to see a bill that adds value before the House because certainly that has not been the case with much of the legislation we have seen over the last week or two or indeed since National came into Government. But I will get back to this bill. 
I will go through the history of the bill because it does show a commitment. It shows the commitment of two nations working together for what will only enhance legal proceedings and civil justice systems in both countries. The Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement was established back in 2003 by the Prime Minister Helen Clark and of course the Prime Minister of Australia John Howard so we see there that it was certainly non-partisan and that two nations two Governments were working together for the greater good. That working group reported back in December 2006 and made many many recommendations which included the use of video technology to allow witnesses to appear while overseas and an increase in the types of judgments that could be enforced in each country. 
The agreement was signed in Christchurch by Lianne Dalziel and by Robert McClelland Australia’s Attorney-General and that happened in July 2008. I think it is quite significant that it happened in Christchurch which of course is Lianne Dalziel’s home town because she had put so much time and energy into this work. It was very fitting that Lianne had the opportunity to do that; I know that for her it was a very important part of her role at that time. 
That agreement which I have to say that I was mistaken about—which was pretty ridiculous because I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee—was covered by the Law and Order Committee. When the committee looked at the agreement it looked at the number of benefits that would flow by simplifying trans-Tasman court proceedings by expanding the range of enforceable judgments by improving the enforcement between Australia and New Zealand by supporting the success of the trans-Tasman relationship and by avoiding the incentive—and I think this is really important—for people to move themselves or their assets to another country in order to put themselves out of the range of accountability. That is really a large part of the justice measures we have seen from this mutual cooperation—there is no other way to put it—of the Trans Tasman Proceedings Bill. 
I want to correct what I said earlier. I mistakenly made a remark that was perhaps not very complimentary in terms of the chairing of the committee. I acknowledge Chester Borrows although at times I certainly do not agree with some of his views and certainly do not lately when looking at his and his party’s views on dealing to employees and taking away employment rights in New Zealand—and indeed human rights if we look at the 90-day “Sack at Will Act” that will be extended to cover all employers in New Zealand. Such things certainly do not bring about a feeling of warmth or working together from this side of the House. I was very disappointed in Chester’s speaking out about that at that stage but certainly with this bill he chaired the select committee very well. 
I know that a number of amendments were recommended by the select committee. As Simon—what is Simon’s other name? 
Moana Mackey 
: Bridges. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As Simon Bridges—affectionately known to everyone as Clark Kent— 
Moana Mackey 
: Or Gok Wan. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or Gok Wan—said it was not the most exciting— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: That’s way too flattering. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: People are saying that Gok Wan is way cooler than Simon Bridges but that is not the point; I think he is making an honest attempt to look cool and trendy and we should acknowledge that. But as Simon Bridges said the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill is probably not the most exciting bill that we have had before the select committee but the committee is hard-working—well most of the members are pretty hard-working; certainly the Labour members are—and the bill is important. It is a very very important bill and it enhances the relationship that we have with Australia. 
I will perhaps again go through a couple of the amendments that the select committee made. There were not many submissions to the select committee but the submissions that were made and the feedback the select committee received were very very productive and helpful. I certainly think that there was a will from everybody on the select committee that this bill needed to be brought forward in the best way possible to enhance our relationship with Australia and to see that people were held accountable and could not simply use a move to Australia to avoid that accountability. Of course people are moving to Australia in droves under this Government even though the Government said they would not. Most people do not go to Australia to avoid accountability; they go to Australia because this Government has not created any jobs or invested in any training here— 
Moana Mackey 
: Or increased wages. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or increased wages—despite all the rhetoric and despite all the promises. Although the majority of people are going to Australia especially now because there is no hope of them getting support for their families they are probably going for a quality early childhood education as well as we see that being denigrated here. Of course many other things are causing concern for New Zealanders and persuading them to go across the Tasman. But a small number would travel to Australia to avoid being accountable for any misdemeanours they have done in New Zealand and of course both sides of the House find that totally unacceptable as indeed did Helen Clark and John Howard when they started the working group that led to this bill. That is why it is good for everyone to acknowledge the work that was done in the earlier days—not in the hugely early days but certainly in the earlier days—and also the work whereby this bill is now coming into effect. 
I think it is worth acknowledging some of the work that the select committee did. I also acknowledge the very hard-working staff of the select committee; they do a fantastic job. We have a really really good clerk and support people. I also acknowledge the officials who gave us very good advice. That was very much appreciated not only by the chair but by all members of the committee. Having the ability to send back to the House a very comprehensive report that certainly improves the bill can happen only when we have the support of good select committee staff and of course of advisers working as a team alongside the members of the committee. In this instance that was certainly the case. 
Some of the improvements that the select committee recommended were about applications for a stay of proceedings the power of the New Zealand court to decline jurisdiction the procedural rules of the court the service of initiating documents in Australia and the defendant’s address for service. As the bill was introduced it did not expressly allow for a defendant’s address for service to be changed to another address in either Australia or New Zealand. I am pleased to say that that action is now able to happen under the bill because issues were raised canvassed and improved during the select committee process. There are also issues around the power of an Australian court or tribunal in New Zealand to permit an Australian court or tribunal to exercise— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Kia tatou hoki huri noa i to tatou Whare. I am pleased to stand and take a call on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. As previous speakers have noted—or as I at least would like to characterise it—this bill puts into civil and technical jurisprudential language the common-sense relationship that New Zealand is interested in securing stabilising and sustaining with Australia. 
We have long been committed to a single economic market between our two countries. In fact that commitment was the subject of our Prime Minister’s state of the nation speech earlier this year and it has continued to be demonstrated by a number of bills and other work that our National-led Government is doing. The trans-Tasman relationship is extremely important to New Zealand in many dimensions. 
This bill places on a very sound and comprehensive platform the civil jurisdiction between our two countries. It enhances international legal cooperation which is a vital part of the Government’s broader economic agenda. As we all know businesses require certainty in the way that they carry out their business. The role that the law and civil jurisdiction plays is a critical part of that certainty. This bill as speakers have discussed provides that certainty. 
Australia is often the first stop for New Zealand businesses looking to expand offshore and to develop overseas markets but getting to grips with different federal and state legislatures can be rather complex and difficult. This bill provides for the establishment of one seamless set of rules that will allow businesses whether they are geographically located here in New Zealand or in Australia to be able to be confident that they understand what their liabilities are and what remedies may be available to them in the conduct of their business. 
The bill is an important step towards closer cooperation and integration of the Australian and New Zealand civil justice systems and it enhances the legal cooperation between our two countries. It shows that we have greater confidence in each other not only at a business level but also in terms of the judicial and regulatory institutions that operate between our two countries. 
Mr Bridges spoke about his example of someone who flees his or her responsibilities here in New Zealand. In the past that person has been able to seek protection if not invisibility by relocating him or herself to Australia. At that particular level of criminal malfeasance that will no longer be possible at least in the civil sense. 
My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell talked about the many many Maori who have relocated to Australia and set up successful businesses there. One often wishes they would come home to New Zealand and contribute the business nous that they have established. This bill provides a platform to ensure that those businesses continue to flourish and that the across-the-Tasman relationship that goes on every day as Maori seek to cement and continue their whakapapa ties with New Zealand is supported by this legislative context as well. 
There will no longer be any possibility of avoidance between our two jurisdictions of Australia and New Zealand. That gives comfort not only to businesses but to travellers on both sides of the Tasman. Since the Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement was signed 26 years ago when many of us in the House were but 5 or 6 years old—no no—but since the agreement was signed 26 years ago— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Oh now. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Obviously I was not able to get that one past my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell but the rest of the House seems to agree on the lack of ageing amongst many of us here. Since the agreement was signed a generation ago many other steps have been put in place to secure the relationship between Australia and New Zealand and the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill is yet another example of that. 
There has been good progress on the single economic market between Australia and New Zealand. We have worked towards and are making good progress on a single cross-border insolvency proceeding. Another key area is in progress on the alignment of accounting standards for profit entities the establishment of an accounting and auditing standard and the establishment of infrastructure that will mirror that of Australia so that we will have not only a happy legal fraternity but also an equally happy accountancy fraternity as those professionals see that significant legislation incorporated into the relationship between New Zealand and Australia. Another key area is in the potential for mutual recognition of auditors and financial advisers. 
So as we can see we are steadily and incrementally putting in place a strong foundation for professional relationships between Australia and New Zealand. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill is yet another example of that. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill. I have to say that with bills like this one often sees a select committee at its best. It is simply a matter of making sure that we have got all of the nuts and bolts worked out. This bill has traversed both a Labour Government and now a National Government. I point out that a piece of work like this bill has not come together simply in the past 12 or even 24 months. In fact this bill results from a work programme that really if we went back to its foundations we would find began under Helen Clark. I think that that was in 2003 in conjunction with John Howard—how things can change—and eventually through an agreement signed by Lianne Dalziel in 2008. I think that was an appropriate commentary on where we are currently with our closer economic agreement with Australia and how that is now becoming incorporated into so many pieces of our legislation and our legal framework as New Zealand’s ties with Australia become closer and the borders between the two become weaker and weaker. 
The Minister has already pointed out that the primary aim which is to simplify the resolution of legal disputes that traverse across trans-Tasman boundaries is essentially to try to reduce the cost and complexity of trans-Tasman litigation and I think that is something very few people would hold any objection to. But I also point out that in the wider context of New Zealand’s closer legal relationship with Australia and both countries’ attempts to streamline and create greater efficiencies in acknowledgment of the globalisation we are all now subject to we still maintain obviously our own sovereignty and our own right to make decisions that reflect the New Zealand context when it comes to our legal obligations in consulting with our Australian counterparts under various treaties. 
That was probably demonstrated most recently in the decision that the Minister for Food Safety made around folate. The food safety legislation sets out that the Minister is obliged to consult with his or her Australian counterparts to ensure that we comply with our agreements in that area—because again that is another area where we try to streamline. The Minister demonstrated that New Zealand can make its own decisions. Labour would argue that she made absolutely the wrong decision and an abhorrent one at that to decide not to introduce folate into bread and we will suffer the consequences of that but it probably again demonstrates the point that New Zealand still maintains a level of sovereignty over those mutual agreements and treaties. I do not think that it was the best way to prove that point and we will continue to suffer for that. But it is just an example that I thought would be timely to raise. 
I will go over some of the points in the bill that demonstrate how we have maintained the balance in ensuring the key elements of our justice system are maintained in the way that this legislation will work. Nonetheless it is a significant piece of work. David Goddard QC who was originally a member of the trans-Tasman working group said that these are the furthest-reaching proposals between two sovereign States with separate legal systems. So let us be under no illusion; they are significant. A lot of work has gone into them. 
The working group reported in 2006 and amongst its recommendations it delved into how New Zealand and Australia would apply differing rules around video technology. Since those recommendations have been made we have introduced earlier this year our own legislation on the use of audiovisual link technology in courts. I think we got the balance right eventually. Members will recall that there was a considerable stoush in this House over whether the extension of the use of audiovisual link technology had gone too far but I am very pleased a compromise was reached and I think we got the right outcome. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It wasn’t a stoush; it was a good debate. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I accept I say to the Minister that “stoush” may be too strong a word and I acknowledge the fact that he made a considerable concession from his perspective and I appreciate that. I think the words we use in this House are “robust debate”. In respect of audiovisual link technology in this particular bill the select committee made it clear that the Courts (Remote Participation) Act will not apply to remote appearances made under this bill. In fact the trans-Tasman evidence regime will operate in parallel and will not override or be subject to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It was important given the fact that the select committee had dealt with those pieces of legislation that it ensured there was clarity around that. 
But what are the main provisions of the bill? Essentially they can be drilled down into seven parts and I want to traverse some of those briefly. The first is that when civil proceedings are commenced in New Zealand the bill provides that an initiating document for proceedings may be served in Australia as well. There are three exceptions to this but each of those is reasonable. Some other members of the House have already talked about the kinds of circumstances that might arise from civil litigation for instance over the sale of a house etc. where the seller may have moved overseas. This now means that if those civil proceedings related to New Zealand began there that initiating document then can still be served to an individual based in Australia. I think members would have to acknowledge that that can be commonplace now given the state of movement between our two countries. 
The second key point in the legislation is that a defendant in civil proceedings can apply to have the proceedings heard in an Australian court with certain criteria met. That was one of the changes that the select committee made. We wanted to make sure that the bill was consistent over where proceedings were heard. We wanted to make sure that a person served in Australia for New Zealand proceedings can apply for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the matter should be dealt with by an Australian court. That was about ensuring consistency with the other subparts in the bill. 
The third key point relates directly to the provision that a party to proceedings commenced in an Australian court may apply for interim relief in a New Zealand court. The fourth is around remote appearances and remote evidence which is covered by the Evidence Act and I have already clarified the hierarchy of legislation in that regard. Then the fifth is the recognition of enforcement in New Zealand of specified Australian judgments. This is quite an important piece of the bill; it provides for the enforcement of Australian judgments in New Zealand and goes beyond just final monetary judgments. There was some discussion in the select committee about how this related to guardianship. We had some very important technical submissions around this and I thank those submitters who made those contributions to this bill. 
Those probably cover the most significant parts of the bill. It was obvious when the select committee was hearing evidence on this bill and considering it in detail that at the same time officials were working alongside Australian counterparts to make sure we had married up both pieces of legislation accurately. So a lot of the changes made at select committee probably bear out that we were at that point in the process. 
In conclusion I think that this demonstrates an important piece of work that shows that we do have to acknowledge the greater transience between Australia and New Zealand. Family relationships and legal relationships cut across the borders of Australia and New Zealand more and more and our legal systems need to demonstrate that. But at the same time we need to make the decisions that are right for us as a country. 
Bill read a third time.