Dalziel Lianne: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9704] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will support the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. Obviously I have been involved in this legislation for quite some time. I was originally involved as the Associate Minister of Justice in 2003 and was instrumental in establishing the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. So it was certainly very satisfying to be able to sign the agreement on behalf of the New Zealand Government back in 2008. I think it was a very good occasion and I really enjoyed it. I recall Justice French hosting the occasion at the Christchurch High Court. It is the only time I have sat on the bench and I have to say the view is good from up there but I would not really like to be a judge. It is probably an experience that I will park as a happy memory rather than something that I would be ambitious to achieve in a future legal career. 
The preamble to the agreement is worth recording. I will not read it into the record but I will summarise its main features. First of all it acknowledges our longstanding friendship close historic political and economic relationship and of course the Closer Economic Relations agreement itself. I think it is worth noting for the record that it is this weekend when we celebrate I think the 27th anniversary of the signing of CER on 28 March 1983. It is quite a substantial event that is coming up. I am aware of that date because when I signed the agreement on behalf of New Zealand we were in the 25th anniversary year of CER. We are now 2 years down the track. I think it is quite significant that we are very close to the actual date of the anniversary of the signing of CER back in 1983. 
The second thing the preamble does is acknowledge each other’s confidence in the other’s judicial and regulatory institutions. I think that is quite a powerful expression. It enables both jurisdictions to essentially give up something in order to know that they will be in a good strong position regardless of on which side of the Tasman Sea a particular action is being mounted. The third thing is that it affirms the shared commitment to appropriate and effective resolution of trans-Tasman civil disputes and increased regulatory cooperation. Of course that is a major platform of the Single Economic Market (SEM) agenda which I had much involvement in myself as Minister of Commerce in the previous Government. Finally it agrees to build on the existing cooperative regime regulating the taking of evidence and associated court procedures in order to further streamline aspects of civil court proceedings and regulatory enforcement and reduce unnecessary procedural and regulatory business in the conduct of litigation. There is a long list of things that the agreement does but in essence it simplifies the trans-Tasman service of court proceedings and enforcements of judgments it expands the range of enforceable judgments and it improves regulatory enforcement of civil pecuniary penalties and certain criminal regulatory fines. 
I congratulate the Government on retaining the regulatory impact statement within the explanatory note of the bill. I know that the Government has made a decision to take the regulatory impact statements out of printed bills and have them available only on the Treasury website. I state again for the record that I think that is a mistake. It is incredibly useful for MPs in the House to be able to pick up the bill off the Table of the House and see the process that the Government has gone through in a quality regulatory impact-analysis way. I really do reinforce how worthwhile they are and this bill is a very good case in point. 
This bill has an excellent regulatory impact statement within it. The reason I say that is that it does exactly what a regulatory impact statement should do—it states the public policy objectives of the legislation up front. We have a very clear statement of what the legislation is designed to achieve. It states: “The public policy objective for trans-Tasman court proceedings is to achieve closer integration between the New Zealand and Australian civil justice systems in order to—make resolution of civil dispute with a trans-Tasman element simpler less costly and more efficient; and make any remedies more effective; and support the success of the trade relationship between New Zealand and Australia.” Within those three short statements we have encapsulated the public policy objective of the legislation. Then it goes on to state a further objective which is “to improve the enforcement of various regulatory regimes in which both countries have a strong mutual interest”. It talks about reducing incentives for people to move themselves or their assets to the other country to put them beyond reach of a regulatory regime and to avoid enforcement gaps that would otherwise exist. We all know examples of people who have gone to Australia in order to avoid obligations that they have in New Zealand. This obviously is a public policy statement of some merit and something that all sides of the House can support. 
The next element of a regulatory impact statement is to set out all of the options. This bill does that. It actually sets out four options not just one or two. Firstly it starts with the status quo and in doing that it identifies the flaws of the current arrangements. Secondly it talks about strengthening the existing legislation which is the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 and its Australian counterpart the Foreign Judgments Act 1991. But as the regulatory impact statement spells out that is only a partial solution. It would not be in the interest of good governance to pick that up as an option. The third option is legislation based on the Brussels model which is about easing the enforcement of civil judgments between EU member States and it talks about mirror legislation being required in Australia. Again that has some limitations and it has been identified and spelt out in the regulatory impact statement of the bill. Where more than one court has jurisdiction priority is decided by a first-to-file rule. What we are adopting between Australia and New Zealand is a give-way rule. That has considerable merit I think over the first-to-file rule because we know that there are limitations with that first-to-file rule from time to time. 
The preferred option option 4 which is set out in the regulatory impact statement is this bill the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. It is based on the agreement that I signed back in 2008 with the Hon Robert McClelland the Attorney-General of Australia. I think this is an excellent example of why regulatory impact statements should be included with bills that are tabled in the House. I know that I could have gone to the website and downloaded the regulatory impact statement if it had not been printed in here—that is exactly what I had to do for the next bill we will be debating on the Order Paper the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. That is one of the most important bills on financial regulation that this House will deal with this year and it does not have a regulatory impact statement with it. I will certainly come back to that when we get to that bill. 
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill on the other hand has an excellent summary of how the Government came to the conclusion that it was good for New Zealand. It is good for Australia but most importantly it is good for the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. It reduces compliance costs for business. I think that when all of those boxes have been ticked it has to be a step in the right direction. Labour will be supporting the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I certainly commend it to the House. I am really disappointed that I will not be on the Justice and Electoral Committee which will consider it in detail but I am sure those who have that privilege and advantage will feel that they are doing a worthy exercise on behalf of the House as a whole.