Finlayson Christopher; Tolley AnneHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I'm really pleased that New Zealand First is supporting this bill because at various stages New Zealand First has opposed it. I'm delighted that Darroch Ball has indicated their support.Look we were all sitting around one night wondering what bills could be the subject of members' bills. People were wondering and I came up with the brilliant idea: what about double actionability? That's the genesis of the bill. It's always been a subject that I've found most interesting—possibly a very sad reflection on me but there you have it. So David Bennett looked after the bill in its initial stages and Sarah Dowie has done a wonderful job steering the bill through to its third reading and I'm so very pleased we're here.On one level it could be said that private international law or the conflict of laws is geek's law. It's the sort of thing that pretty sad lawyers like when they're not really interested in human rights and stuff like that. But the fact of the matter is the conflict of laws or as it's called now private international law is a very important practical subject. In the course of my legal career I've had to deal with issues such as: can one enforce in New Zealand a judgment obtained in Virginia? In another case can one enforce in New Zealand a judgment obtained in Hawaii which was under appeal? Is such a judgment full and final for the purposes of enforcement in New Zealand?Chris Bishop: What's the answer?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: What happens—I won as one would expect so the answer was yes it could be enforced in New Zealand even though it was under appeal. Then there are cases that come up all the time: what happens if a contract is entered into between a New Zealand company and a company in Texas and the governing law of the contract is Texas law—can that be litigated on in New Zealand?With increasing international involvement between individuals—and I stress individuals because we're talking about private international law—private international law is becoming and will continue to become an intensely practical subject. That's why it's very important that we have clear rules to deal with the kinds of topics that arise be it divorce be it domicile be it reciprocal enforcement of judgments—all these kinds of issues come up from time to time.I suppose it's because of the intense pressures on this place and on the Ministry of Justice that sometimes we don't have the attention brought to some of these black-letter law issues that we should because it's considered that it's in the realm of only the lawyers are interested in it". But unless the rules are clear one runs the risk of what's called satellite litigation where enormous cost can be incurred and delays incurred while lawyers argue over things like the double actionability rule.I want to congratulate the various speakers who have talked about this rule and how it applies to torts like defamation or negligence. I don't think I need restate the rule or where it came from—some of the old English cases—but it certainly at the moment applies in New Zealand which is why it needs to be considered. It has over the years produced unfair and peculiar results. An example would be where a defendant can invoke a defence available under one system of law but not the other in circumstances where the connection between the claim and the former system is tenuous.So it is overdue for reform in this country. It lacks certainty which is its primary problem. The court when dealing with the rule has to consider two sets of laws. I think on balance it could be said it's too favourable to defendants and importantly as referred to by Ms Craig the rule has now been abolished in most other jurisdictions. It was the subject of legislative reform in England and Wales in 1995. It's been the subject of reform in Canada. In Australia I think it was the High Court of Australia that decided that the double actionability rule should be abandoned. So that's why in a state of great excitement one night I suggested: let's move on the double actionability rule and my caucus colleagues accepted the challenge with acclaim.Hon Michael Woodhouse: And acclamation.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Mr Woodhouse was particularly enthusiastic.The heart of the bill is clause 7 so the double actionability rule goes west as it were and it's replaced with the general rule that the applicable law is the law of the country in which the events that constitute the tort in question occur. Some members have already referred to clause 7(2)(b) that basically it will be the country where the most significant element or elements of those events occurred. The second key point which I won't go into in any detail sets out when the general rule is displaced and that's clause 8. Finally clause 10 abolishes the rule of double actionability and related common law rules.So by the passage of the bill we will fall into line with other countries and I'm very pleased that that is the case. Previous speakers have referred to submissions that have been given by various submitters. I think the person that was referred to a few minutes ago was Professor Campbell McLachlan of Victoria University who is an academic and a Queen's Counsel. He is one of the world authorities on this subject. He's the editor of a book called Dicey Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws which is one of the great textbooks of the legal library and I'm very grateful to him for his interest and support in this matter.Another person who's been very helpful is another Wellington Queen's Counsel one of—I would say probably our top lawyer at the present time David Goddard who I spoke to about the bill and various lawyers in Chapman Tripp. The New Zealand Law Society always does a very good job when it comes to legal submissions. They are the ones who year in and year out come down to select committees—as Dr Webb's going to find out—and invariably contribute to the improvement of statutes. I think it was an American academic who said it's the bar who makes the statutes and I think that's probably absolutely right because the New Zealand Law Society on this sort of thing does a very good job.So that's at the heart of why we're discussing this legislation. I congratulate Sarah Dowie for—she may say accepting a hospital pass but for taking this bill and steering it through the House. It is a complex piece of legislation but as I say it is a practical piece of legislation and this Parliament ignores black-letter law at its peril. I always recall with limitation law which had reached a shocking state that a judge of the Court of Appeal said when dealing with a case on the law of limitation: "This law is so out of date there is nothing we can do with it. It cries out for a legislative solution."So it's very important that with this sort of stuff—it's hardly going to be party political but it behoves both administrations be it a National one or a Labour one whoever's in power to try and keep this kind of law up to date because it's important to do so obviously and also because it avoids that spectre of satellite litigation where delays and costs are incurred because rules that really should be quite straightforward are unnecessarily opaque. So I really think this is a very good development a very good piece of legislative reform. I'm very grateful for the comments that Chapman Tripp made about it because they said—[Madam Deputy Speaker stands up]—how wonderful it was and I commend the bill to the House. I'd been looking at that clock not you.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Thank you. It's time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."