Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. It was an interesting second reading debate actually on this issue. I was particularly enamoured with what the member Rino Tirikatene had to say because he devoted so much of his speech to talking about me that it was just you know kind of quite flattering really. Obviously at this Committee stage I want to limit this contribution to the issues contained within Part 1 that being the preliminary provisions.It has been an interesting learning curve for a number of us actually even getting our heads around what torts actually are—for those of us who are not legally trained. Clearly what has really been going on is that with this double actionability there needed to be some revision because it was becoming increasingly difficult obviously for people to be able to take action for things that had happened outside of New Zealand.I think the interpretation of this is clearly very important. If we look under clause 3B it is important that we get absolute clarity on what we are talking about in terms of the jurisdiction that is in play. It would be quite easy for two New Zealanders who might have been overseas for something to occur overseas and for them to then try to say that there had been a tortious act committed but actually it might be contravening New Zealand law but not necessarily the laws of the country in which they were at the time. So there would be some confusion I think about whether or not a claim could be made. What we have now is that actually it is important that in clause 3B we get this term applicable law" meaning "the law to be used for determining issues relating to tort". And of course the applicable law in this instance is that jurisdiction in which the action or the injury took place—where it actually occurred. It is useful at this stage to have those clarifications. "Claim" clearly means "a claim in tort" because it is the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. All the claims referred to within this legislation will be in relation to a tort and not in relation to anything else. So it is good to have that spelt out right at the beginning of the bill so that people can have a clear understanding of what is in place.Under clause 3B the term "country" is an interesting one. That word in itself clearly has different meanings. Often we will use the word "nation" we will use the word "country" and we will use the word "jurisdiction". The word "country" sometimes is used in terms of the definition between town and country. But I think it is really important that again we are talking about this in the context of this bill so that "country" does mean "a country in the sense of private international law". It has got to be cleared up so that when these claims are made people can be very clear about what jurisdiction applies where the act occurred and what has gone on and the lawyers and judges involved can be very clear on what process they need to do.Finally clause 4 in Part 1 is about the Act binding the Crown. Again sometimes people think that the Crown is somehow above the law. Again it is useful for this to be spelt out that this is in fact actually binding on the Crown—that if somebody believes that they have been wronged by the Crown they still have an ability to take a tort out with regard to that.So again clause 4(2) states that "Nothing in this Act limits or affects the application of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 in respect of any claim in tort by or against the Crown." Of course while I have said that it is binding on the Crown in case somebody believes the Crown has wronged them it is also binding on the Crown that if the Crown believes it has been wronged it also can make a tortious claim under this bill.I look forward to further parts where we get into a bit more of the meaty stuff of this bill. I look forward as we progress this through the Committee stage to taking further calls with regard to that."