Clendon DavidDAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to offer a short contribution in the first reading of this bill. I am not a lawyer and I have never aspired to be a lawyer I must say but I have taken some advice on this and I can say that based on what I have heard the drafter of the bill Mr Bennett has proven himself to be a somewhat unusual member which may not be news to some people. I understand that to many law students and indeed lawyers tort law is something that encourages them to run screaming from the room but Mr Bennett by all accounts enjoys this thing. So good on him. We are told it is a convoluted area of law a difficult area of law. The Greens are supporting this legislation because it does seem to address a real issue. It is a real opportunity to do better which is something again that is a surprise in this bill—that it is a National member's bill that is providing a substantive useful piece of legislation. That is something that we have not seen much of in recent offerings from National Party members' bills and let us not talk about missing suitcases. Having said that we are supporting this bill. The question has been raised to ask that arguably a member's bill is not a particularly good mechanism for changing tort law. Arguably it is something that should perhaps be part of an overall review of the law to take a broader look—that a Government bill might be more appropriate.The point has also been made that this is a very simply drafted piece of legislation and that in itself is often a significant virtue. It is something that cannot be said about a lot of our statute book. But again just a very small red flag has been raised to ensure that the simplicity of the drafting of this bill does not cause problems further down the track that it does not cause people to trip over.One of the complexities I understand of tort law and one of the differences perhaps is that judgments tend to be based more on precedent decisions that have been made by other judges rather than on statute which in my mind at least—my non-lawyer mind—would suggest that it is something more of a moving target than something that is grounded in a piece of statute. And for that reason arguably it is somewhat more difficult for judges to come to grips with.Certainly it is an area that bears some investigation. Anything that can simplify clarify and reduce the amount of time that judges spend on a particular case is a good thing. Our courts are at least busy and often overly busy. Anything we can do to progress matters through the courts more quickly more efficiently and to get good justice outcomes has got to be a good thing. If this bill contributes to that then so be it.Mr Bennett arguably somewhat immodestly has noted that at least one law firm has said some good things about his legislation. He notes that Australia Canada and England have gone down this route already albeit in a slightly different way. The models are not entirely comparable but they have made some effort to cut through the inevitable tangle when you are endeavouring to decide which country a particular matter should be addressed in when clearly you are going to have significant interests on the opposing sides. I suspect very often in these matters there would be quite a lot of money sloshing around as well in order to fund the argument and to extend it. So it is a good thing I argue that it is happening.Another law firm made commentary on this bill and just highlighted a bit of a cautionary note I guess for companies that are doing business overseas where these matters arise where disputes arise. If the decision is that a case will be heard in another country it would most certainly be in their interests to make sure they understand tort law in that country because New Zealand law would have no influence.So in conclusion I simply say that yes we are somewhat surprised and shall I say pleased a little that a National member's bill has come through with some substance that might effect a useful and positive change in the legislation. The only other point that was made was that there was some concern particularly about intellectual property for Māori that there could be situations or circumstances where this legislation could potentially shade that a little. But I am sure that is something that the very good minds on the Justice and Electoral Committee will resolve in good time and we look forward at this point to supporting the bill. Thank you.