Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and to take the final call in relation to the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. I will not be making the error of referring to any litigation that's currently before New Zealand courts in my contribution and I must admit I was somewhat surprised that members opposite have thought it appropriate to do so.It's tempting to make a general comment about torts referring to snails and ginger beer bottles for those who are inclined to enjoy such a joke but that might be opaque for many. But nevertheless I feel I would be negligent not to try.Before I proceed any further I'd like to acknowledge a few of the others who have spoken in relation to this bill so far. The honourable member Sarah Dowie in whose name the bill is now proceeding—I thank and congratulate her for that. To the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC—his name is not above the title but his fingerprints are all over it so I congratulate him on that as well.Similarly I enjoyed the contribution from Dr Webb the member for Christchurch Central. He made some very interesting and I think useful points in relation to the extent to which we can legislate in these matters particularly around some hard cases across international lines and I would encourage him and say that I look forward to maybe a member's bill in his own name to rectify any of those matters that he feels were deficient in this piece of legislation. I also echo the thoughts of a couple of colleagues on both sides of the House in relation to the experience of studying law. The phrase certainty in the law" obviously has a particular meaning in relation to this legislation but my own lack of certainty in the law related not least of all to torts exams and so I'll have to proceed with that in the back of my mind and not allow it to distract me too far.It seems to me that this piece of legislation is very worthwhile and indeed worthy for five main reasons which I summarise as: certainty sovereignty flexibility internationality and priority. I'm not sure if "internationality" is actually a word but it fits at least phonetically with my other points in making some sort of terrible Dr Seuss sequel.So on the first certainty at clause 10—we've heard already from other members that the main import of the bill is to abolish various common law rules and in particular those around double actionability which of course as has already been explained well by members on both sides of the House in support of the bill simply means that if a tort or a potential tort is committed then it need not be actionable in more than one potential jurisdiction to be valid as a claim. It seems to me this is a good thing. Certainty in the law is a high priority for lawmakers I would suggest and is almost as important as having law that is good in other ways because at least the parties involved in a potential action know where they stand. That seems to me an empowering thing for citizens as well as their respective legal representatives.My second point is sovereignty. It seems to me that this law has a very beneficial aspect in that it promotes New Zealand sovereignty. It does so primarily through clause 5(1) which I'll take the liberty of referring to in the bill itself: "The characterisation for the purposes of private international law of issues arising in a claim as issues relating to tort is a matter for the courts of New Zealand." So that's obviously under the heading of "General principles" and it seems to me that it's a guiding principle of the substantive clauses of the legislation. That is a very useful overall flavour such that our courts can determine our matters to the extent that they are our matters. And of course if they are not then the law does provide for other jurisdictions to handle those matters and that's something to which I will turn shortly.Next however on the subject of flexibility again this has been raised at least briefly by other speakers. At clause 8 I note that the general rule which is being discussed in relation to the appropriate jurisdiction—or "country" as is the term used in the law—being that in which the action or the wrong or the potential wrong takes place is displaced if the court determines that in various circumstances it is "substantially more appropriate for the law of another country" which it labels as country B to determine the matter. So it seems to me that flexibility in having a rule but having that able to be overruled so to speak—a presumption that's able to be rebutted—is a valuable thing. At the same time as enjoying and promoting certainty in the law we do also like flexibility in the law to the extent that it allows a matter to be determined on all the relevant factors. So again it seems to me a well-considered and thoughtful bill in that regard as well.Next internationality. It has been observed—if you will forgive the tautology—that we live in a global world and so it's appropriate in relation to this and indeed all legislation that we consider how this law of our land might interplay with the laws of other lands as well. Of course the whole flavour of the bill and its tenor is to contemplate that things happen in different countries—or again jurisdictions—and that we need a mechanism for determining where those should best be heard.The law itself however in its drafting and passage so far also reflects an international flavour in that it draws heavily upon a statute on the UK statute book that is broadly equivalent. That dates to 1995 in the UK and that seems to me helpful for a couple of reasons. The first is that we can take advantage of the things that we as a House determine are valuable to carry over into our own law firstly and secondly that we are able to ensure some degree of alignment between our law and that of the UK in this case and thirdly because in the case of legislation there that has been in effect for some 20 years we have the benefit of some jurisprudence I expect that will have been built up in their courts and so that may give our legal system some guidance about how we might best apply this law when it comes to be considered in our courtrooms as well.My fifth and final point—as promised Mr Assistant Speaker which I know that you and every member of this House and the thousands watching at home have been eagerly awaiting—is priority. So at clause 11(4) we hear that—and I quote—"This Act has effect without prejudice to the operation of any New Zealand rule of law that"—among other things leaping ahead—"(b) modifies the rules of private international law that would otherwise be applicable in the particular circumstances." So clearly—or perhaps not clearly—this legislation itself acknowledges itself to be subordinate to New Zealand laws that already trump private international laws. So there's no confusion about whether this displaces in those circumstances. It sets out its own priority albeit in a subordinate kind of a way and it seems to me that that demonstrates some foresight on the part of the drafters the promoters of the bill no doubt the submitters and those who contributed at the earlier stages of the passage of the legislation.So it's with some pleasure and relief that I wrap up my own comments. Noting that I'm the 12th of 12 speakers we approach the end and it seems to me finally that it might be worthwhile to make a comment on the way that the law has been drafted in very much a plain language fashion. I think that does credit to those involved and I acknowledge the staff of this institution as well as the elected members and officials who have been involved in its passage. It seems to me it's a helpful thing from the perspective of accessibility of law that laws can be readily read and understood whether or not one has a considerable legal background. We've heard speakers in the House tonight with a range of different experiences grapple with it come to terms with it and I think understand it well enough to reach a sound conclusion in commending it to the House and I do so as well.Bill read a third time."