Fairbrother Russell: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19594] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 What a sad sad lonely speech that was. The member said nothing about the contents of the Supplementary Order Papers. His speech was all about stamping his foot over procedure. There was no objection at all to what is sought to be achieved by this bill. It was just a rant that possible objection could be taken because the procedure is not as envisaged by Mr Lindsay Tisch. That is a sad commentary on a bill that is essentially non-controversial and gets on with the business of this country. One would have thought that at this time of the day Mr Tisch would have cast his mind to the contents of the Supplementary Order Papers but maybe given his threat of violence to the process we will live another day and have to think of another way of going about it. 
I want to move to the amendments proposed in this bill to the Evidence Act 1908. That Act had been amended by the Evidence Amendment Act 1994. That was a remarkable change because it heralded the working more closely together of the legal systems in New Zealand and Australia and recognised the increasing community of citizens between Australia and New Zealand. The 1994 Act extended the right to subpoena within Australia and New Zealand a citizen of the other country for civil proceedings. That has proven to be remarkably successful. It has sped up the process it has reduced the costs and it has taken the objections to procedure—which we have heard from the last speaker—out of the picture so that courts can get on with their business. 
The next step is to move further to where that principle can apply. This amendment bill which will be supported by all parties is to extend that to the Family Court. It does not extend it to the area of the Family Court that intrudes on rights issues such as conventions under The Hague convention—that is the child abduction clauses—or affecting the status or property of persons with disabilities. It relates to family proceedings that want to get to the heart of what is causing a family to malfunction and what can help that family to function more effectively. 
This bill recognises the breadth of community we have between Australia and New Zealand and the fact that many families now span the Tasman Sea—the “ditch” as it is commonly called. It enables both courts in both jurisdictions to operate more efficiently by issuing a subpoena without the need for a separate application to be made in the trans-Tasman court. This is a sensible amendment and I cannot see it being objected to by any party in this House. 
But I get back to the previous speaker’s complaint—that he really picked up from Mr Prebble’s rant—about the procedure not being correct rather than his studying the substance. The amendment bill looks at the substance it faces reality and it makes the changes accordingly. If Mr Tisch and Mr Prebble have concerns about the procedure perhaps they should weigh those concerns against the substance of what is to be achieved and then make a value judgment rather than an outright threat of disruption and inconvenience. 
It is my pleasure to support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).