Parker David: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9707] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel has already said on Labour’s behalf we intend to support this measure. 
The bill’s background is well set out in the regulatory impact statement where the linkages between New Zealand and Australia are set out. It is probably worth repeating some of those facts to the House: “in 2006 over 900000 Australians visited New Zealand and well over 1 000 000 New Zealanders visited Australia … in the year to June 2006 exports of goods from Australia to New Zealand came to NZ$7641 million and from New Zealand to Australia to NZ$6806 million:”. Those two figures were for the export of goods. In terms of services services from New Zealand to Australia were $2.3 billion and from Australia to New Zealand they were $3.5 billion. As well as that there were very significant investments: about $68 billion of Australian investments in New Zealand and about $25 billion of New Zealand investments in Australia. 
The first point to make in respect of those trade figures is rather tangential to this bill. It is that there is a trade imbalance with Australia which reflects the fact that the Australians have a more successful economy than ours. In my view this reflects a fundamental difference between savings and investment policy on either side of the Tasman. Australia has long had a very good savings record; it does it through workplace savings for superannuation. Australians have had workplace savings for superannuation on a compulsory basis now for a couple of decades. In contrast New Zealand has not despite the good efforts of Sir Roger Douglas—back under the Kirk Government—in designing a suitable scheme which was then trashed by Mr Muldoon in order to buy his way into success in the election in 1972 or 1975. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: 1975. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It was the 1975 election; I thank Sir Roger for that. Since that time New Zealand has not really caught up with Australia in terms of savings and investment. That is probably the main underlying reason why Australia has a trade surplus with New Zealand: it has deeper investment markets and it has more money to invest in productive enterprise and to spend on the purchase of New Zealand businesses than we have to spend on the purchase of theirs. As a consequence we suffer in comparison with Australia. 
This measure is good but it causes me to reflect on some of the things that this Government is not doing in terms of bridging this gap between Australia and New Zealand. The Government says that one of its driving ambitions is to close the gap between New Zealand and Australia but these regulatory measures do not actually cut the mustard. They are good things to do and I do not disapprove of their being done; indeed this bill is a result of work initiated by the Hon Lianne Dalziel under a Labour-led Government. But the underlying reality is that the Government is not improving New Zealand’s saving and investment record in any material way. Indeed it has done some things to its disadvantage. 
It has missed opportunities to make fundamental changes to the economy. It had a good considered report from a tax working group. Commissioning that report was wise on the part of the Government but when it got it it just picked out the eyes that National would ordinarily pick out of any such policy. It did what it always does. It will end up increasing the relative tax burden of low and middle income people to the benefit of higher-income people who will get most of the tax breaks. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to come back to the subject. This bill is about trans-Tasman proceedings not solely about New Zealand. I ask the member to bring his debate back to that subject. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming back to the bill I say that that is the reason why the regulatory impact statement records such a gap in the export of goods from Australia to New Zealand compared with the smaller amount we export to Australia and why we have a trade balance. 
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill obviously does some sensible things. Firstly at the moment a judgment in an Australian court for anything other than a sum of money cannot automatically be enforced in New Zealand. This bill fixes that by saying that if there is an appropriate judgment in an Australian court then it can be enforced in New Zealand—whether it is a simple judgment on a debt or it arises from some other cause of action such as breach of contract tort or whatever cause. Secondly it says that proceedings commenced in an Australian jurisdiction can be served here. Thirdly it says that where Australian proceedings are afoot in Australia interim relief can sometimes be granted in New Zealand under those proceedings. So if there is an Australian proceeding where assets sitting in New Zealand might be at risk and there is some desire to get some interim injunctive relief to stop the disposal of those assets that sort of thing could occur. Someone could come to the New Zealand courts and say on the basis of those Australian proceedings that those assets ought not to be shuffled out of New Zealand to some other jurisdiction—and out of the jurisdiction of any court to attach—should the court action in Australia be successful. There are some areas where interim relief cannot be granted. I am not 100 percent sure of the meaning of those clauses but I will be interested to better understand the detail of those provisions at select committee where I am sure they will be clarified. 
In terms of choice of jurisdiction there are protections in this bill to make sure that people do not just choose the jurisdiction they think will be best for their case in terms of the differences in the law between Australia and New Zealand rather than choosing the proper and best court depending on the background to the case. There is ability here for the court to say that the case should not be heard in its jurisdiction and a stay of proceedings can be applied for in a New Zealand civil proceeding if the court is convinced that Australia is the more appropriate forum for the hearing of that dispute. 
Another provision is that the courts can now enforce contractual agreements between the parties as to their court of choice. When parties enter into a commercial arrangement they can agree in advance what court will resolve their disputes. It can be quite common for a New Zealand business doing business with an Australian-based company to agree in their contract that the contract disputes will be determined in Australia according to Australian law or in New Zealand according to New Zealand law. In either case those agreements will now be able to be enforced. In the case of an agreement to litigate in New Zealand it would be enforced by this legislation and a New Zealand court; in respect of agreements to litigate in Australia the companion legislation which will be passing through the Australian legislature will have a similar effect. 
Another important change made by the bill is the facilitation of remote appearances and the remote giving of evidence on both sides of the Tasman. It will be made easier which is appropriate. We had a discussion earlier in the day about its being more appropriate in respect of civil proceedings than in respect of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings the defendant has the right to see the witnesses and to test their evidence in a way that is more important given the risk to their liberty if they are convicted of a crime than the less important considerations of personal liberty that arise in respect of civil proceedings which this bill deals with. 
Another part of this bill gives force to various tribunal findings which will now be able to be enforced in New Zealand. In other words some of the ways in which judgments can be forced will apply to decisions not just of Australian courts but also of certain other listed tribunals. That too is appropriate. 
As Lianne Dalziel said this bill has a good regulatory impact statement. I must say I find it beneficial that it is included in the bill. Although in a perfect world we would have a lot more time to prepare before we speak on these debates on occasion we come here without having had the opportunity to download the regulatory impact statement. I think it is useful for members and it aids the integrity of the regulatory impact statement process if the regulatory impact statement is included in the bill rather than put in some other document. It enables people who are interested in those matters to have easy access to them so that they can assess for themselves whether the proposed regulatory move is justified. In this case I think the regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this new regulation giving power to enforce judgments arising from Australian courts and making— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member’s time has expired.