Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I would just like to pick up where my colleague Chris Bishop has left off which is around clause 10. I have some points around clause 10 that I would like to make that are different from the ones that he was looking for. The double actionability nature where clause 10 is looking to remove the double actionability rule is very important. If anyone was paying attention which they probably were not to my second reading speech we looked to where that double actionability rule first evolved from—it actually came from right back in 1870 when there was a rogue Jamaican governor who actually managed to then hide behind this double actionability rule based on the fact that he had been engaged in some pretty outrageous acts of flogging executing and imprisoning people without really much cause. Of course by the time he had retreated back to the UK he had managed to hide behind the laws of both countries. So it is clearly important to me that clause 10 in getting away from there needing to be an actionable legislation in both the country in which it occurred and back here in New Zealand for you to be able to take an action against somebody is very important.If for example there were two New Zealanders between whom something had gone down overseas if it did not meet the threshold of double actionability as is the case now the only option available to that person of course would be to take legal action against the other person in the jurisdiction where it occurred. If you have got a New Zealander wanting to take action against another New Zealander in a foreign jurisdiction that is entirely and completely difficult—not to mention the fact that that jurisdiction may not have an ability to apply anything to the offending party anyway. So that would always have been a long shot.So I think by getting rid of the double actionability rule we are making is a very clear statement that actually if you are in a country and you contravene that country's laws and you cause harm to another person you can be liable for that in New Zealand regardless of New Zealand law. I think a very useful part of this legislation is that it removes that double actionability rule.Clause 7 is also particularly interesting in that it establishes a general rule which is focused on the place of wrongdoing. As I just mentioned when talking about clause 10 it is actually where that occurs. There are different elements involved in this. Clearly it means that the law will be applied to the case where the law of the jurisdiction where it occurred will apply and where the events that give rise to the claim occur. The difficulty though is where different elements of the questionable events may have occurred in different countries. So this new general rule is split into three parts. For personal injury the law of the country where the personal injury or death occurred applies. I think it is important to note that this does not affect New Zealand's ACC provisions.Secondly for actions that relate to damage to property again it is the law of the country where the property was when it was damaged. So the property does not need to be owned in that country. For example if it was property that I owned here whether it was some sort of—I do not know what it is you would take overseas; a camera or whatever it was. It is about where the property was at the time when the questionable event occurred.The hazy part I guess also needed clarity. That is in the third part where it talks about in any other case the law of the country in which the most significant element or elements of those events" that give rise to the action applies—that is where the majority of the actionable behaviour occurred. It is the law within that jurisdiction that applies. So if there was something that was ongoing that occurred in multiple jurisdictions then of course it would then be up to the court to determine where the majority of it had occurred—where most of it had occurred—in order to be able to ensure ultimately that there is an ability for that action to take place.There is of course an exception to this general rule because of course whenever you have a general rule there is always bound to be an exception somewhere along the line and clause 8 actually provides for this. By virtue of clause 8 the court then is allowed to apply the law of another country where it is substantially more appropriate to do so. So what this does is it actually gives the judiciary some discretion to assess the merits of applying the law of a different country on a case by case basis.In the Committee stage debate on the previous bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill we talked about the importance of having flexibility. When things are simply done in a hard and fast way particularly when it comes to tortious acts there is always going to be a certain level of grey area. So it is important for the judiciary to be able to have some discretion to assess the merits of applying different law in the country on a case by case basis. So the courts when doing this obviously do not just have a carte blanche ability to do it at will or whenever they like but they must consider that the significance of the factors that connect a tort with the country whose law would be the applicable law under the general law and the significance of any factors connecting the tort with any other country. So it is not just a random thought—not that I am sure our judiciary ever just has random thoughts because they are very well-considered people—what they have to do is actually weigh up the significance of any factors that they may have if they want to apply this exception to the general rule.So ultimately I think what we have is again a piece of legislation put together initially—we keep lauding the Hon David Bennett for his work on this but I think Chris Auchinvole actually had a bit of a part to play in this as well before he left at the end of the 50th Parliament. The Hon Dave Bennett picked it up and of course Sarah Dowie has taken it through. We have got I think a piece of legislation that will make it easier for New Zealanders who have had wrongs done to them outside of New Zealand to be able to take action to actually rectify and bring some closure to them and to bring some sort of remedial action through the courts to make up for any losses any injuries or any damage that they have had to property. So it is great to see that there has been such good support for this and I look forward to the third reading of the bill."