Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13557] 
Limitation Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Limitation Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced in June 2009 to replace the 1950 Act that as I noted last year is creaky outmoded and long overdue for replacement. So this is indeed an exciting day for all of us because today we move a step closer to replacing the 1950 Act with a modern clear and comprehensive statute that will set out the general rules for determining the limitation periods for civil claims. Our rules are based on the United Kingdom limitation rules which have been described as a “ghastly network of unreformed legal fossils impervious to natural understanding and intelligence”. 
Simon Bridges 
: Like the Labour caucus. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Some people may say that is the Labour caucus but I am an issues politician and I do not like getting into personalities. The current labyrinth of rules can perplex even the most diligent lawyers. This bill will make them easier to understand and to apply. Important reforms are also introduced to avoid the sometimes harsh consequences of the current legislation. This bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendations following its review of the law of limitation defences in 2007. The Law Commission also carried out two earlier reviews in 1988 and 2000. The Law Commission recommended a new Act to simplify and improve the current rules. This bill clarifies the claims affected by limitation provisions more clearly defines the commencement of limitation periods and the exceptions or modifications to those periods and addresses the current unfairness in the law that a limitation period may end before a claimant knows that something is wrong. 
The bill was referred for consideration in June last year to the Justice and Electoral Committee which is chaired by that excellent MP for Whanganui Chester Borrows. The committee has now completed a thorough examination of the bill and has recommended that it be passed with some further improvements and some clarifying amendments. I thank the committee for its work on the bill and for its helpful recommendations. The bill contains some complex rules and the committee’s amendments are consistent with the bill’s purpose which is to modernise and simplify the current legislation to make it more accessible. 
The bill contains 60 clauses and the committee’s recommended changes will affect approximately 18 of those clauses. The committee has also recommended inserting three new clauses in the bill. Many of the changes are of a technical nature to clarify the meaning or the scope of provisions. However some changes are more substantive and are designed to address some problems raised in submissions or identified independently by the committee. 
Clause 16 is a very significant provision. It gives the court the discretion to allow monetary relief in claims arising out of the sexual abuse of minors even though a limitation defence could be established. The committee has recommended extending the court’s discretion to cover claims of physical and psychological abuse of minors by parents step-parents guardians close relatives or close associates. The committee observed that this type of abuse could have the same long-term effects as sexual abuse on a person’s decision when to make a claim. Research suggests that people are more likely to delay or avoid disclosing the abuse if the abuse is carried out in a family setting. The committee has also recommended extending this new discretion to claims for personal injuries that develop over a long time that are not work-related injuries covered by accident compensation. 
The committee recognised that otherwise claimants may be unjustly time-barred by the new 15-year longstop defence which is introduced by the bill. The new general longstop defence will enable a defendant to argue that a claim brought after 15 years is out of time even if he or she did not know about the claim before then. In some personal injury claims harm may not become apparent until much later than 15 years. Although these claims are likely to be rare this will ensure that justice can be done in deserving cases. 
The committee noted that there are divergent views on the length of the new longstop period particularly in light of the 10-year longstop in the Building Act 2004. The Limitation Bill is intended to carry forward the general limitation rules for civil proceedings. Although there are benefits in having uniform limitation periods different rules may be needed to address special circumstances in discrete policy areas. For this reason other Acts such as the Building Act contain special limitation rules if appropriate. 
The committee has also considered how the 1950 Act will continue to apply and there are important changes to the transitional provisions that I am sure members will be very interested in. The new Act is intended to apply only to claims relating to acts or omissions after it comes into force on 1 January 2011. The current Act would continue to apply to claims based on acts or omissions before that date. This means that the current Act could continue to apply for many years which may indeed be confusing. The committee recommended modifying its future operation by applying the new 15-year longstop to claims brought under the Act. There would be exceptions for some rare land claims and claims where the limitation period is extended for disability or fraud. 
The committee recommended that if a claims limitation period has ended before the new Act commences or will shortly end afterwards the claimant will have 5 years after the new Act commences in which to make the claim. The new longstop will not apply to any claim filed before the commencement of the Act. 
The new longstop will affect only those claims where a court applies the reasonable discoverability test. This test was developed by the courts to address the harsh consequence that in some cases a statutory limitation period ends before a claimant knows that the damage has occurred. If this test is applied the limitation period does not start to run until all of the essential elements of a claim are discovered or are reasonably discoverable. Without a statutory long-stop defendants do not know when their potential liability will end. To date the test has been applied only in negligence cases involving building work and personal injury claims. There are differing views on whether the courts will continue to develop this area of law in relation to claims under the 1950 Act after the new Act commences. The committee’s recommendation will mean that the old Act is phased out after 15 years from the commencement of the new Act except in some very rare cases. 
Finally the committee recommended that the new discretion for abuse claims and claims for personal injury caused by a gradual process disease or infection not covered by accident compensation should also apply to claims under the 1950 Act that would be subject to the new longstop defence. This will lessen any unfairness that might otherwise result and it will not revive any claims that are already statute-barred when the new Act commences. 
In conclusion I thank the committee again for its careful and thorough work on some very very technical legal issues. I am confident that the committee’s recommendations will clarify and improve the law and I commend the bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 For those people who are watching the live coverage of this high-rating not too terribly late-night show via television or the Parliament website I say that there is no need for them to thoroughly understand a recent Supreme Court ruling in order to truly appreciate the importance of this Limitation Bill. The Supreme Court’s ruling is the latest development in long-running litigation by the Commerce Commission against Carter Holt Harvey Ltd relating to the misgrading of timber prior to November 2003. 
The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Commerce Commission is subject to the 3-year limitation period in section 43 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 when it brings proceedings for compensation on behalf of consumers. That issue may sound a bit dry or remote but it is relevant to the Limitation Bill. What does not sound dry or remote is the nature of the case. I guess the mentioning of words such as “misgrading of timber” or “building material” will hit a nerve or push a button. I will come back to that case  
Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Limited 
 either during the Committee of the whole House or at the bill’s third reading 
Limitation law seeks to balance two interests. The first is that people have the right to bring claims to court when they have suffered an injury or some loss as the result of wrongdoing by another party. The second and equally important interest is that we ought not to let the period in which claims can be brought run indefinitely. We should not let plaintiffs sleep on their rights. The longer a plaintiff waits to bring his or her claim the harder it is for the defendant to defend it him or herself and the harder it is for courts to reach a good decision. Limitation periods allow potential defendants to get on with their lives without the threat of litigation forever lurking. 
The bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendation to replace the existing Limitation Act 1950 with a new and modern regime. The new regime will encourage claimants to make their claims without undue delay and will protect defendants from the unjust pursuit of stale claims. The Limitation Act 1950 is old legislation and it needs to be upgraded. The Labour Party supports the proposed changes in this bill. However although Labour agrees with most of the bill we disagree with the provisions on longstop periods. The bill provides for a longstop period of 15 years for most cases but only 10 years for Building Act cases. The reasons given for the shorter longstop period in the case of the Building Act—the complexity caused by multiparty building claims and failing memories—can also rise in other claims so a shorter period is warranted. It should be 15 years for all claims. Owners of houses with latent defects should have just as long as others to bring forward their claims. 
The bill simplifies the limitation regime by providing a general civil limitation defence to most claims. The new concept of money claims is introduced and it is defined to include any claim for monetary relief. That replaces the haphazard approach taken by the 1950 Act which sets out different limitation periods for different causes of action. The limitation period for most or all claims will be 6 years after the act or omission on which the claim is based. There are exceptions or modifications to this period in cases of minority or incapacity or if there has been an acknowledgment of liability part payment or fraud. A 3-year late knowledge period is being introduced because there might be circumstances where people do not realise they have a cause of action. Currently the limitation period for most claims runs from the date the cause of action accrued; namely the date on which all the elements necessary to establish the claim first came together. That has been very contentious and ambiguous. Under this bill the start date for most claims will be the date when the act or omission on which the claim is based occurred. 
The bill provides that a limitation defence cannot be used in cases of child sex abuse no matter how much time has elapsed since that abuse took place. There is currently no statutory limitation period for claims under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; this bill rectifies that situation by bringing that Act under the definition of money claims and the 6-year limit. 
The Limitation Act 1950 contains the general rules for determining the cut-off dates after which it is too late for a plaintiff to bring a civil claim. The most common period is 6 years and applies to claims founded on contract or tort claims for an account or claims in respect of a breach of trust. The current periods are subject to extension in a range of circumstances—for example if the claimant is under 20 years of age or is of unsound mind or because of fraud or mistake the claimant is unable to discover that a claim exists. There are difficulties with both the substance and the drafting of the 1950 Act. The 1950 Act which followed closely the terms of the 1939 Act is incomplete misleading and inaccessible. Judges have suggested that it is flawed and requires a complete legislative overhaul. The courts have made piecemeal attempts to cure the difficulties but the overall result has been a lack of harmony. One major issue with the current legislation is that in some cases claimants can be barred from gaining relief by the limitation period before they even know they have a claim. 
I look forward to more debate at the Committee stage and at the bill’s third reading. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Limitation Bill. It is great to see again some sort of understanding across the House of the validity of this bill and its worth to New Zealand which we are all here to serve. The bill is another product from the Justice and Electoral Committee and the hard-working and efficient team that exists therein. The key message of the bill is that the goal of new limitations is to provide a defence to legal claims brought after a certain period of time. We have found over recent years that what has generally been a standard limitation period of 6 years is no longer applicable and that a limitation can apply in different ways around the country. For instance in Auckland where it rains a lot boards rot quicker so leaky home situations occur a lot earlier than they do in homes in Christchurch for example where new homes are built under the same building regulations but in a different climate. So it is important for purchasers of homes to have some assurance that if for instance it takes longer than usual to discover a defect in homes they have purchased they will still be able to seek some compensation or damages against the parties responsible. 
During the course of the debate in the select committee a point was raised by the Hon David Parker about long-term delayed reaction injuries and the ability of claimants to access compensation or make claims in respect of those injuries. So the select committee worked with ministry officials to include that issue in the bill and it is another very sound aspect in the bill. I look forward to the debate on the Limitation Bill and I commend it to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand to speak on a relatively uncontroversial bill in this House. That does not happen very often. In the last 2 weeks we have had to sit through debate on bills that were passed with a very slim majority and no real public mandate. The Government has pushed through many bills that formed— 
Chris Tremain 
: It’s called a majority. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well what a funny majority it is when we look at the ACT Party. But it is all about—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh they have woken up now. They have all woken up. It was very sad indeed that we saw workers’ rights—rights that had been hard-fought for that respected workers and gave them dignity and that had been based on trust—decimated by the National Government hand in hand with the ACT Party which is in a terrible mess. But tonight at a quarter to ten under urgency this debate is not one of those occasions. 
Getting back to the Limitations Bill as Mr Assistant Speaker Roy knows I would like to I am one of the many Labour members who will take a call tonight to speak in support of the bill. We are speaking in support of the bill because it went to the Justice and Electoral Committee and we listened very clearly to what the bill was about. 
Hone Harawira 
: Surely not. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I ask that member to look at the way in which his party voted on the workers’ rights— 
Hone Harawira 
: On the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: No no on the workers’ rights legislation. That member lay down had his tummy scratched and did exactly what National wanted in terms of workers’ rights in New Zealand. So that is quite enough from that member. 
Simon Bridges 
: This sounds like a Shane Jones movie Lynne. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: My goodness “Clark Kent” rides again; it is just everywhere. I know that Mr Assistant Speaker would want me to come back to the bill. And I think that he would appreciate other members of the House not creating a diversion from what the bill is about. 
Simon Bridges 
: Tell us about the bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Never mind the new spectacles—“I look cool.”—and never mind going back to the past. This debate is about the Limitation Bill. We are here tonight to debate the Limitation Bill. 
Clare Curran 
: The National Party’s limitations. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well I will need to take many calls on that one! But we are here to talk about the Limitation Bill. I think we should go back to the bill. I urge the House to do that because there has been a little bit of slippage here. The Law Commission the very hard-working and respected Law Commission recommended that we replace the current 1950 regime with a new modern regime. It is nice to see something modern happening in Parliament is it not? We do not see that very often. This is one of those occasions where we are stepping up and moving forward and the new regime— 
Hone Harawira 
: Yee-ha! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —yee-ha—will encourage claimants to make their claims without undue delay and protect defendants from the unjust pursuit of stale claims. I think that is really important. 
I acknowledge Chester Borrows; he is a very hard-working member. He is looking a little bit tired at the moment reclining back in his seat. But we all recognise Chester Borrows for the great chair he is. Even though the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee do not have a meeting of minds at all times Chester Borrows is a very good chair of the committee. A Maori Party member acknowledges that with applause. It is a very hard-working committee. I ask the member how many bills have been before that committee. 
Chester Borrows 
: Oh 17. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Seventeen? I think it is more than that. It has been a very hard-working committee. Many members including National members often grieve that we are not referring the Sentencing Council legislation back to that committee. I think that would bring about a bit of passion. One of the sad things about the committee is we have seen piecemeal legislation on victims’ rights stuff instead of the enactment of that very good bill which is languishing on the Order Paper. We get bit by bit from the National Government. At least this bill is going in the correct direction. I will not say “right direction” because most of its legislation goes in the right direction but that is actually the wrong direction because it is a return to the right. But this legislation limited though it is—being the Limitation Bill—is sound legislation. So I am very happy to talk about this bill in the House and I would like to talk about—[ 
Interruption 
] It is not often I am happy in the House. I am actually pretty unhappy most of the time because some dreadful legislation comes through the House. 
The purpose of the bill is to provide clearer more comprehensive law on general civil limitation defences. It balances fairly the right of claimants to have access to justice—and if there is anything that the whole of Parliament should hold dear it is access to justice—with the right of defendants not to be disadvantaged by stale claims. There also is some clarity about the way that claims go. I can see my colleague Carmel Sepuloni who is an incredibly talented young woman nodding in agreement. 
Hone Harawira 
: Hear hear! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. She is nodding in agreement because she is sharp. She not only has picked up her portfolios but is really on to it in terms of justice matters. I will go to the report from the Justice and Electoral Committee— 
Simon Bridges 
: 4 more minutes to go Lynne. You’re all right. You’re doing well. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I ask the member to please not distract me. 
Simon Bridges 
: There’s a lot to get through isn’t there? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: There is so much to say and so little time to say it. Give a guy new glasses and he goes crazy. 
I want to talk about the bill. Many people may think that the Law Commission did a fantastic job and that the legislation put before the House would go to a select committee and come back without being amended. But no that was not the case. I acknowledge once again as I usually do the fantastic select committee staff and officials—and I can see Chester Borrows nodding in agreement—who gave us incredible support and advice. Indeed many changes were made to the bill. They were not particularly controversial; they were more technical in terms of making the bill work better in practice. But there was one controversial change and it related to the defence to a money claim filed after an applicable period. There were a lot of views about whether the 15-year longstop period currently in the law should be aligned with the 10-year period in the Building Act. The Law Commission wavered a little—which is not like the Law Commission but it did do so on this occasion—between the two periods. In its final report in 2007 the commission concluded that a 15-year longstop limitation period struck the appropriate balance between justice for claimants and certainty for the defendants. The main explanation given for retaining the shorter 10-year longstop limitation period for defective building claims was the complexity caused by multiple parties and fading memories. National members will know about fading memories will they not? But that was part of our deliberation. 
The Labour members on the committee believed that those issues are similar for many other causes of action and saw no good reason at all for shortening the longstop limitation period for building cases. We believe that it is more appropriate for the same longstop period to apply to all policy areas for which longstop periods apply. That was one area where there was not necessarily a meeting of minds. Once again the Labour members led the charge in terms of progression and in terms of listening to the submitters who came along on the day—well not on the day; on several days. Unfortunately they did not win the argument in that one area. 
But we support the bill. We are proud of the select committee report and we commend the bill to the House. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will address the Limitation Bill on behalf of my colleague Kennedy Graham. The purpose of this bill is to encourage claimants to make claims for monetary or other relief without undue delay by providing defendants with defences to stale claims. The bill would repeal and replace the Limitation Act 1950 and it is intended to implement the Law Commission’s recommendation to replace the current Act with a modern regime. Such a regime would encourage claimants to make claims without undue delay and would protect defendants from the unjust pursuit of stale claims. 
In essence three principal changes are envisaged in this bill. The bill would clarify a claim affected by limitation provisions; it would clarify the commencement of limitation periods and any exceptions or modifications; and it would address the unfairness that under the current law a limitation period may end before a claimant even knows that something is wrong. 
The Green Party supports the broad thrust of this bill and will vote for it. Many initiatives in it will improve matters. We agree with the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee pertaining to clarifying several definitions especially extending the definition of “Disputes Tribunal” defining the terms “trust” and “trustee” and clarifying the date for the filing of a claim. More important perhaps we support the committee’s recommendation pertaining to the claims filed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Clause 11 defined a “money claim” as a claim for monetary relief at common law in equity or under an enactment. That would have included a claim for monetary relief in respect of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The committee was concerned that the bill would apply a limitation period to claims for monetary relief for a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Such claims if time-barred should be subject to discretion. The inclusion of such rights claims in the new limitation regime reflects the recommendations of the Law Commission. It is consistent with international human rights law. A reasonable limitation period needs to apply to such claims. Defendants need certainty as to whether their actions might be challengeable so we are pleased with the recommendation on that matter. There is also the issue of late knowledge. There are certain legal complications attached to this but it was clear that a fraudulent action by another party was one reason that a claim acquired late knowledge and that this should be included as a qualifying factor. 
The main point of debate in the select committee concerned monetary claims filed after the applicable period. There was a range of views over the merit of the longstop period as defined in clause 10(3)(b). There were suggestions that the 15-year limitation period should be reduced to align it with the 10-year limitation period prescribed in the Building Act. The Law Commission concluded after much deliberation that a 15-year longstop period struck the appropriate balance between justice for claimants and certainty for defendants. The argument for retaining the 10-year period for defective building claims was the complexity caused by the number of parties that might be involved and by the length of time during which the memory of events becomes less reliable. The Green Party shares the view of Labour that these issues are similar for other causes of action. There is no good reason in our view for having a shorter longstop limitation period for building cases. It is an odd jurisprudence that would limit legal redress to the subjectivity of personal memory faculties. Having the same longstop period for all claims is more appropriate. 
This is just a short call. The Green Party is satisfied that this bill will improve the law as it relates to the complex area of claims. We are happy to support the bill and we look forward to its further progress through the House. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have been told that my friend Hone Harawira was going to take a call which I must admit surprised me. But I come back to say what a great committee the Justice and Electoral Committee is. It has a fantastic chair in Chester Borrows who does a great job as chair. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Lovely guy. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: His deputy chair Lynne Pillay is not bad as well come to think of it. 
I pay tribute to Lynne Pillay. Members saw her during her speech tonight. They saw the cool calm academic rigour that she brought to the Limitation Bill. She was a sucker for punishment in the committee on this bill with the way that she drilled down into the detail and kept challenging us time and time again to get into the detail of the Limitation Bill. I take my hat off to Lynne Pillay for her work on the Limitation Bill. 
It is great to be here tonight speaking on this bill. Despite my five o’clock shadow now at a couple of minutes to 10 I am nevertheless really switched on to this bill and the important matters of policy and principle that we are dealing with. I agree with Lynne Pillay. This bill is about access to justice and that is why we are here tonight. 
As the Hon Chris Finlayson said we are here tonight to do a noble thing. We are simplifying the 1950 Limitation Act and we are removing injustice. In the past it could well have been the case that some people discovered their claims after the expiration of the limitation period. Again to come back to that great learned expositor of the law Lynne Pillay that is an access to justice issue. That is not to say that we are not balancing justice issues or the right of a putative plaintiff to bring their case on the one hand and the right of a defendant to finality on the other side. There are those balancing of interests. 
Here we are just after 10 p.m. on Wednesday night doing a noble thing for this country. We are debating important policies and principles. I could talk a lot more about this bill but I say that it is a great bill and I am proud to be part of a Government that is bringing it forward and changing the rules in relation to limitation periods. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I have to point out the irony from the member who has just resumed his seat. Mr Simon Bridges the lawyer was being somewhat patronising to my very learned colleague Lynne Pillay. He claimed that she did not apply any legal rigour. 
Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at that remark that I was being patronising. I normally am but that speech was dead serious. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the honourable member that this is a robust debate. I think he should take on board the words of his own colleagues and harden up a bit. One cannot be that sensitive here. If Ms Ardern had said that the member was being “matronised” it might have been less offensive. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I would like to put on record that I think this is the first time a presiding officer has told a member to harden up. 
I point out the irony in Mr Bridges delivering a speech that called on my colleagues to display legal rigour when he the lawyer on the other side of the House gave no analysis of this bill whatsoever. I found that a little bit disappointing because I expected a little bit more from my colleague in that regard. Despite all the comments he made about my colleague Lynne Pillay I would have to say that no one on the Justice and Electoral Committee causes more of a stir in our meetings than Lynne Pillay. I do not think a meeting goes by without her defending the worth of the Sentencing Council. I want to mention the value of the Sentencing Council which Labour will defend to the end. 
I want to come to a number of more serious points on the Limitation Bill. Although there was a lot of agreement on both sides in terms of what this bill needs to achieve there were about three areas of contention that I want to draw on. They will probably be discussed in greater detail during the Committee stage but I want to flag them now. First off I again highlight the fact that we were reviewing legislation that had its origins in the 1950s. Obviously a lot of circumstances are known to us in the new modern legal system and they need to be addressed in any new regime around limitations. 
When we were discussing this bill we weighed up the idea of giving certainty to defendants and reducing undue delay with the idea of building reasonable grounds on which a claimant might have reason to delay the claim that was to be put forward. Before I get into some of the depth of the bill I point out that we continually hear from the Government some criticism as to how long Labour may or may not have taken to put forward various legislation and there has been the argument that we demonstrated undue delay in bringing forward a review of the Limitation Act. When we are discussing legislation from 1950 I think that that criticism could extend to both sides of the House. 
Having said that I want to jump into those three areas of contention which I have already pointed out and about which there was some lengthy and robust debate in the select committee. The first area of contention was the longstop period. I know that some of my colleagues have already discussed it. We had divergent views about a 15-year longstop period as defined in clause 10. It relates to the time limit that would apply to one’s claim whether the claim relates to personal injury or is a civil matter. It could even relate to building houses and therein lies the rub. When it came to claims around the Building Act— 
Chester Borrows 
: Give Lynne another go. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I tell Mr Borrows that I flag it again because I believe it was an important point. As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee he knows that this issue caused significant angst for the Opposition. Inconsistency in the law—as any good policy-maker like the good sir will know—causes some irritation. The Building Act 2004 differs from the Limitation Act in that it sets out a longstop period of 10 years. Some arguments were put before us as to why that was important. Some said that defective building claims the complexity of the issues and fading memories meant that those issues needed to be brought forward within a 10-year period and that they would be known to the claimant within that period. 
The fact that the Law Commission in three different reports extending back as far as 1988 I believe wavered in its view on this issue points to the fact that there is room for differing interpretation. My hope would have been that we err on the side of caution with this particular provision and that we default to the important premise of consistency. That was the view that the Labour members of the select committee brought to the table and during the Committee stage I would like to hear a bit more discussion about the inconsistency in that area and about what is added by having two differing periods. 
The National Government has put forward its package of remedial action around for instance leaky buildings and the main set I guess of cases was brought forth in order to explain why we needed a different longstop period. The Government claims that that is a robust package so I would have thought that nothing would be lost by building consistency between the two. 
The second of the three areas of contention I want to discuss—there were a couple of other areas where that the select committee made changes but from my recollection these were the three on which we made a significant contribution—was the discretion to allow relief for the claim of sexual abuse of a minor. Clause 16 gives the court or tribunal the discretion to allow monetary relief to be granted in respect of a claim of sexual abuse of a minor even when a limitation defence had been or could be established. We recommended specially amending that clause to cover claims of non-sexual abuse of a minor based on the fact that they could have the same long-term effects as sexual abuse. I think this is consistent with where we have been heading in New Zealand in terms of not only sexual abuse cases but domestic violence. We have extended our definitions of violence and of abuse in our domestic violence law. 
I think that there are a number of good reasons why allowing more discretion should extend beyond sexual abuse as well because at the end of the day the question of whether monetary relief should be granted despite there being a limitation defence will be a judgment for the court particularly when we are discussing cases that relate to minors. Those cases because of the many psychological factors that are implicit in them provide even more reason as to why we should look beyond what would otherwise be a longstop period. 
Of course we would not be standing alone in making such a judgment. As a select committee we asked specifically to hear international evidence and good practice in this area. We heard that the United Kingdom and many Australian jurisdictions give similar discretion to disregard limitations in personal injury claims which also include forms of abuse. So we are in keeping with other jurisdictions in this regard and I think we have made the right amendments. 
I want to touch now on the third area which I hope we will have more discussion on later in this debate. I do not know that we have resolved this issue which is about the discretion to allow relief for claims of gradual process disease or infection. Of course limitation applies to personal injury claims and it does factor in the idea of late knowledge but we expressed concern that the proposed longstop period could impose an unreasonable restriction on a person’s ability to claim particularly where gradual process injuries were involved. 
The argument we heard back from other members of the committee—and from officials to be fair—was that because we have a no-fault insurance scheme in the form of the accident compensation scheme we would not see as many cases in this area anyway because gradual process disease or infection is most likely to be covered by that no-fault scheme. We had some level of discomfort that that was taken as a given particularly at a time when there has been so much disruption to what otherwise we would have perceived to be unmovable parts of our accident compensation regime. It has in fact been proved that they are movable. Policies can be changed and people can be denied coverage and then they have no access of redress based on the way that this bill has been drafted. I will come back to that element further on in this debate because I do not believe that it is something we have reached an end point on. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Limitation Bill. The purpose of this bill is to repeal and replace the Limitation Act 1950. As the Hon Chris Finlayson mentioned the 1950 Act is creaky and outdated. This Act is based on the English statute of 1939 and that too was repealed long ago. 
The Limitation Act 1950 has been reviewed thrice by the Law Commission—in 1988 2000 and 2007. It was recommended that this Act be replaced with a new Act. The Law Commission identified that the current law is unfair uncertain and outdated. It also identified that some of the important terms are not defined in this Act. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee under the able leadership of Chester Borrows heard submissions which were duly considered and it recommended some changes. This bill makes limitation law more accessible and up to date. This bill achieves a balance between the competing right of access to justice and the right of the defendant not to be accountable for stale claims. In conclusion I say that this bill will make the law more comprehensive and clear. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise with some pleasure to talk on the Limitation Bill. This is important legislation that updates the current Limitation Act 1950 which obviously from its title is already 60 years old. I thank the Attorney-General for his careful consideration of the issues in this bill—in particular in relation to gradual process injuries which is an issue that I will come back to. 
The Limitation Bill is important legislation because it tries to balance two interests. On the one hand we have the public interest in enabling people who have been wronged to pursue through the courts a remedy to compensate them for the wrong that has been done to them. We want them to have that right and for it not to taken off them unduly. On the other hand we have an interest in ensuring that the quality of justice is good by making sure that these disputes are resolved in a timely manner before people forget before witnesses die and before documents are lost because those things are important in making a good decision. 
We also have the important public interest in making sure that the sword of Damocles does not for ever hang over the person who did the wrong; people should be able to move on with their lives after a reasonable period of time if the claim that is hanging over them is not pursued. So the general rule is that people have 6 years to take their claim. If they do not take their claim within 6 years then they lose their rights. That 6-year period currently runs from when the cause of action arises but what that means is complex and I do not have time to go into it. 
That test is changed slightly in this legislation but in changing that test we are also introducing a more clear exceptions policy. There are occasions when the normal 6-year rule would be unfair because people through no fault of their own do not know enough of the facts to ascertain that a wrong has been done to them or to know whom they should sue. So there is an exception when there is a lack of knowledge on the part of the injured person that would prevent them from bringing a claim within that 6-year period. The general rule has an exception that can extend that period for a longer period but that longer period is in itself limited by what we call a longstop date beyond which no matter what one’s rights may have been the rights have been lost because too much time has elapsed. That is how we balance those two interests. 
There are a couple of exceptions to that. An important exception to the normal 6-year rule is in respect of minors who have been sexually abused. Obviously they could be abused at age 3 and still be under the care and control of the person who abused them until they leave home many years later. If a 6-year limitation period applied in that case it would be causing an injustice to the children who were abused in their homes and who would have no effective remedy. So that is one of the public policy reasons why we have an exception in respect of sexually abused children. That exception is in the old Limitation Act and is carried forward into this legislation which is a good thing. 
There is another exception that we in the Labour Party are worried about. It relates to gradual process injuries. People might be exposed to asbestos in the workplace and they might not know that they have been exposed to asbestos in the workplace until asbestosis develops a number of years later. If there was a 6-year limitation period well the illness could happen after those 6 years; if there was a 15-year longstop period it could happen even after 15 years so those people would be without a remedy. 
The bill came to the Justice and Electoral Committee without there being an exception in respect of gradual process injuries. One of the justifications for that was that if the injury was work-related or even if it was not work-related but accidental the claimant would have cover under the accident compensation scheme. But when Labour members reflected on that at the select committee we thought: “Who’s to know what future accident compensation rules will be? Who’s to know whether some of these things will or will not be outside the cover of the accident compensation scheme?”. It was notable to us when we looked back at the old 1950 Act that that Act had not been amended by the Accident Compensation Act of 1972. It sat alongside it so that if people had cover under the Accident Compensation Act and it was stated that those people had no rights outside that Act then that was covered in the Accident Compensation Act and not in the Limitation Act. 
It became clear to us that from a principled point of view we needed to do in New Zealand what they had done in Canada which was one of the comparisons we had. We needed to have an exception in respect of process injuries and if those process injuries were long term and they were covered by the accident compensation scheme then that scheme would take care of them and no one would have any other risk because their claims were settled under accident compensation legislation. But if they did not have cover under that legislation then they ought not to lose their rights because of the provisions in the new Limitation Bill. We took that to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General looked at it. I thank the Attorney-General because I thought he showed wisdom and open-mindedness in being willing to look at that and then in agreeing to that as an exception. 
There is one other issue that I will deal with because although Labour will be backing this bill because it is a good bill I disagree with the Government in respect of having a longstop liability period for non-building claims that is different from the period for building claims. We are saying that we will have a longstop liability period for 15 years except for some of those rare exceptions relating to sexual abuse of minors and gradual process injuries. After that 15 years even if people did not have knowledge to bring their claims earlier they will lose all of their rights. But in respect of building cases we are saying that we are sorry but people will not get the same longstop liability of 15 years; they will get only 10 years. 
The first point I make is that this is irrelevant to the leaky building issues in Auckland because the Limitation Bill that we are considering will apply only to causes of action that arise from the date the bill is passed so it will not apply to those leaky buildings that we already have in Auckland. So the difference between the 10-year and 15-year period in respect of building cases is irrelevant to the problems that we already have in Auckland and elsewhere with leaky buildings. But I see no difference in principle between a building claim a professional negligence claim and a claim where someone acting as my agent could without my knowledge defraud me of some of the money that was due to me the principal from that agent. In that case if an agent is defrauding me I have 15 years to pursue my claim—up to a 15-year longstop period—if knowledge has not been reasonably available to me that would have enabled me to bring my claim earlier. Yet we say in respect of a building claim that we can have only 10 years; I do not understand the logical reason for the difference. A failure in the foundations of a house can happen after 10 years but not be apparent before that and after that 10-year period it will become the problem of the building owner because the longstop liability period will click in at 10 years. 
The justification we were given at the select committee for the difference was that building claims had complexity because multiple parties were involved. We have the architect the engineer the builder and maybe the concrete layer or someone who has put the steel work into the foundations inappropriately so it is true that there are multiple parties. OK that might add a bit more complexity than would be the case in respect of a simple action between a principal and a single agent but there are plenty of cases where there is complexity as to fact and if someone cannot prove a case on the balance of probabilities—in a case of complex facts such as a building case—in that period between 10 and 15 years that person’s case will fail. I cannot see the reason in principle for having a different longstop liability period for people who suffer a failing building. That could be the loss of the most important asset in their lives; the foundation of the house could fail and the house could be largely worthless. 
The other argument we heard was that in Building Act cases we have fading memories. But we have fading memories in all old cases so I do not see a difference in principle there. I am not sure whether it will be in the scope of this bill because that is something I will need to check with the Office of the Clerk but assuming it is within the scope of this bill I will be promoting at the Committee stage an amendment to have the same longstop liability period applying to Building Act cases as to all other cases because I do not see the difference in principle. We can argue that the periods should all be 10 years: that Building Act cases should have a 10-year longstop period and that other cases should too. But we say that they should all be consistent; they should all have either 10 years or 15 years as their longstop period. Thank you. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Huri noa i to tatou Whare tena koutou katoa. I am pleased to stand to take a short call on the Limitation Bill. Indeed I was motivated to rush to the House once I realised that the Attorney-General was as usual giving his comprehensive and incisive rendition of this bill’s coverage its heritage and its legacy. It is important that we have the opportunity to hear that kind of leadership in the House— 
Chris Hipkins 
: There are no Cabinet jobs going at the moment. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: —and to inspire that response from Mr Hipkins. Our backbench members were motivated to get here as soon as possible to support the passage of this legislation through the House. 
This is an important bill. As my colleague Simon Bridges said earlier and as members opposite have reiterated the bill sets out to balance the rights of both the claimant and the defendant. The allocation and management of rights is an issue that continues to vex Parliament after Parliament and this bill takes the opportunity to clarify the area of legislation that allows claimants to bring their causes of action before the court and allows defendants to know that they will not be subject to claims long past the time when one might say it is fair for them still to be heard. 
As previous speakers have noted the Law Commission has reported on this bill three times: first in 1998 then in 2000 and again in 2007. The 1950 Limitation Act has exercised the Law Commission somewhat in that it has taken such a long period of time to finally bring the bill to the point where it is now at. Legislation is imminently to be passed and it will give greater certainty to people who are engaged in the process of having their rights heard balanced and judged. 
Far be it from me to continue to rehearse the technical detail that our Attorney-General has covered so well. I congratulate the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Chester Borrows who has shepherded the bill through the process in the careful and cautious yet comprehensive way that characterises—she said alliteratively—all the work that has to be done by the chair. The chair also carries a significant body of work. I think we have heard tonight that 17 bills are before the very hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee to the membership of which I have only recently been promoted. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Promoted! 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Of course other members too if they try hard enough could also find themselves one day on the Justice and Electoral Committee although that possibly does not apply to everyone in the House tonight. 
I also acknowledge the deputy chair who stands ready to support at a moment’s notice the work the chair has done. As we have noted in the House earlier we are constantly challenged by the diminutive Ms Pillay who has a giant concern for and commitment to the Sentencing Council. Of course we also have the incisive Mr Quinn and his rapid thrusting and razor-sharp interventions which continue to keep us on our toes and each thrust is parried by the inimitable Mr Parker. It has been an absolute joy to be a part of that process and I look forward to further debate on the bill this evening. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Limitation Bill to be taken as one question with multiple calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought that the provisions be taken as one debate—that is Parts 1 to 4 the schedule and clauses 1 and 2. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Parts 1 to 4 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I will not speak at any length on Part 1 which simply outlines the preliminary provisions but I do want to say something about Part 2 which is in many respects the core of the bill and sets out that there are to be defences to money claims. 
People will have 6 years from the events on which a claim is based to bring their claim before a defendant can argue that the claim is time-barred. If the claimant did not know about the claim within this time he or she has an extra 3-year late knowledge period in which to make the claim. However and this has been referred to by a number of speakers in the second reading debate after 15 years from the date of those events the defendant can argue that the claim is time-barred and money claims are defined in clause 11. 
I hear what Mr Parker said in his second reading speech and I indicate to him that I was grateful for the very useful discussion we had about clause 16 which I think improved it. But I do take issue with him over the different periods. It all depends at the end of the day on the policy considerations governing a particular piece of legislation. This bill sets out the general rules of limitation. 
There are nonetheless specific limitation periods in specific statutes for particular policy reasons. So for example in the Fair Trading Act the period in which one can bring a claim is 3 years. In the Commerce Act there are as I recall a number of different periods because of the requirements of that legislation. In the Family Protection Act there is a particular limitation period that differs from what is contained in this legislation. So uniformity I think is to be encouraged and it is one of the reasons why we have dealt with this legislation. Although it may seem to be rather boring technical legislation it actually has very real consequences for people when they seek to bring claims in court. But in my opinion there is a difference between the 10-year period set out in the Building Act and the 15-year period here. As I say this is a statute of general applicability. 
The second point I want to address concerns clause 16 which is a very important clause. Mr Parker has accurately outlined the way in which this legislation has developed and in particular the way in which clause 16 was amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. In one of the early drafts of the bill clause 16 was not there at all and then it was decided to provide a clause that gave discretion to allow relief for a claim of sexual abuse of a minor because of the particularly horrific nature of that kind of proceeding. But it has been broadened out and a number of changes have emerged as a result of the select committee’s deliberations. 
Importantly—and this is brought out in new clause 16A—there is the omission of the requirement that the strength of the claimant’s case is to be a matter to be taken into account in exercising its discretion. As Mr Parker said that widens the scope of clause 16 to include physical and psychological abuse of minors by parents step-parents and close relatives or associates and it extends the discretion to allow relief for claims for personal injury caused by gradual process infection or disease that is not covered by accident compensation. So it is a very important change and I agree with speakers who contributed during the second reading that it does improve the legislation. How many claims will there be? Well who knows but this is a particular form of harm and it is appropriate that we provide for it in this legislation. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Attorney-General for those remarks particularly in respect of the different longstop liability periods. I agree that we do not have nor ought we to have the same limitation period applying to absolutely all causes of action. I would say in respect of the two examples that the Attorney-General used that the Family Protection Act of course has a shortened period because one needs to distribute the proceeds of a will and let people spend it or use it for the purchase of a house or use the assets they inherit after a period. Of course when someone dies one generally knows whether one is in the class of people who can make a claim under the Family Protection Act and they are essentially close relatives of the deceased. They know that the deceased has died and therefore they know that if they are going to challenge the will they have a cause of action as a consequence of the death of their relative. So I do not see that as being a good reason or a good comparison with the Building Act. 
In respect of the Fair Trading Act similarly I would have said that most of the claims are things that will be known to a party within that period and if they did not have a right under the Fair Trading Act they would normally have a contractual right or claim which under this legislation would have a longstop liability in case of a lack of knowledge on the part of the claimant or the person who is injured which would actually be the 15-year longstop period. 
Although I accept the proposition that there are some areas where one does have a shorter limitation period I do not see the examples the Minister has given as being good justification for having a different rule from the general 15-year longstop period for building cases. I think those building cases are more similar to the other cases where we do have the 15-year longstop liability period than they are to the likes of the Family Protection Act or the Fair Trading Act cause of action. I again note that under the Fair Trading Act one generally has a contractual cause of action if one did not want to rely upon the Fair Trading Act cause of action. I see it as being more akin to general claims in tort or contract. 
I continue to be of the view that the longstop period for building cases ought to be the same as it is for other cases. There should be alignment. I encourage the Committee to consider seriously the amendment that will be appearing on the floor of the House. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I wonder whether there is a way through the issue raised by David Parker that would satisfy everyone. The Building Act was enacted first I think in 1991 and re-enacted in 2004. It is under review at the moment and it could well be that those arguments could be made in the context of the Building Act review so that we do not get into a debate about whether the member’s proposed amendment is within scope or whatever. It could well be an issue that is deserving of careful consideration when the Building Act review is concluded. I simply offer that not as a peace offering but as sensible way forward. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 That is a very kind offer but I like to have two bites of the cherry. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is an absolute pleasure to come down to the Chamber again and speak on the Limitation Bill. I was in my office catching up on a bit of work and I thought: “No—enough. I have to get back to this bill.” 
I heard with interest the comments in terms of the waiting period in the bill and I acknowledge the very good contribution of David Parker. That was something on which the Labour members showed a lot of leadership and I am only sorry that all our very valid arguments were not brought into effect. What I do know is that this bill is long overdue. As I said earlier in terms of the Government we have seen a lot of things we are not happy with come before the Justice and Electoral Committee but especially before this House. But on this occasion this has been a common-sense bill if I can use that term. It has clearer more comprehensive law on general civil limitation defences. The bill is not all about defendants being disadvantaged by stale claims. It is also about having some clarity in terms of the whole system. 
I acknowledge the work of the Law Commission. I note that under the previous Labour Government more Law Commission reports were implemented than were implemented under any other previous Government. Although I acknowledge Chester Borrows who is a very good chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the former chair who was me. During my time as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee there were many bills that came before— 
Hone Harawira 
: You were just wonderful. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I thank the member very much. Kia ora. If we really want to remember that committee the member will remember when we went to look at victims’ rights in Victoria. It was a very constructive meeting. Unfortunately the National members wanted to take advantage of the adjournment and go on international holidays but those of us in Labour and indeed in the Maori Party went on that select committee trip. The member was very helpful in the time that he was there but he then felt a need a very— 
Hone Harawira 
: To sneak off. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I would not put it that way. He felt a need to go and investigate some concerns. 
Hone Harawira 
: For a walkabout. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He went walkabout in Australia but that is past history. What I will say is that that member put in the time and effort to accompany us on that trip. I can see Minister Finlayson looking and thinking “Oh I wish I had been there.”! I know that it is something the Minister has always regretted just a teensy bit. The trip was crucial in terms of Labour enacting some very very good legislation on victims’ rights which the National Government has been a little tardy on building on. We hope that in the future it will do so. 
I come back to the Limitation Bill because I know that all of us on the committee found it particularly interesting. Even though it is an update it seemed quite technical and some quite substantive issues came out that needed quite a bit of consideration and discussion. My good friend David Parker has talked about sexual abuse claims and why the limitation period should not apply to them because of the very nature of longevity of when those claims may come into effect. It would be really remiss of me not to acknowledge that and at the same time acknowledge what a dreadful dreadful job the Minister for ACC has done in terms of providing support for survivors of sexual abuse in New Zealand. I know that it is not appropriate to digress and very few members have tonight but that is one of the things that would have to be a real blot. Where do we draw the line? Where do we stop counting all the terrible things that this Government has done? But that has to be up there with the worst. 
I mentioned before—just in passing of course—the assault on workers in New Zealand. I also want to mention the Sentencing Council because I know the Minister would be very upset if I did not mention it. I know that other members have also mentioned it tonight. If the Minister could somehow enrapture the Sentencing Council into this bill he may wish to take a call. If we are talking about access to justice—[ 
Interruption 
] Ah I see the Minister is jumping to his feet. Thank you very much. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Hearing the dulcet tones of Lynne Pillay takes me back to those very happy days between 2005 and 2008 when we were getting ready for Government and she was the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. How we enjoyed working collaboratively and positively together on the electoral finance legislation! It was one of the thrills of my life! I regret to say that I was the one who was responsible for pulling the National members out of that select committee visit to Australia because we do not believe in trips like that which are primarily vacations. I remember receiving the itinerary from Ms Pillay and I was so disappointed. I think there were two or three meetings a day and she and her colleagues were going to be holed up at the Park Hyatt. They were going to be travelling business class but I believe that people should fly economy class across the Tasman. I said: “Well I am sorry but the National members are required at home to serve the people.” and we pulled out of the trip. But nonetheless I do acknowledge the honourable member and I say that the Sentencing Council which was an appalling edifice designed to straitjacket judges into giving particular sentences is now consigned to the trash heap of history just like the electoral finance legislation. 
I want to say something about Part 4 of the Limitation Bill because Part 4 contains some very interesting general provisions that relate to claims made in arbitration limitation defences and other enactments contracting out of defences and the pleading of defences. I refer honourable members to clause 41 which is one of the more fundamental principles of the bill. It says that if a defendant establishes a defence against a claim under the Limitation Act then the court or tribunal cannot grant the relief sought but the claim itself is not extinguished. So one is prevented from bringing the claim but the claim is not extinguished. That is at the very heart of what this limitation legislation is all about. 
The other interesting part of Part 4—and I do not know that I have ever seen it before—is that the 1950 Act will be with us for many years so the 1950 Act is amended and then repealed. The Acts specified in the schedule are consequently amended and these are the important transitional provisions that officials work very hard on to knock into shape. I do not think I have ever seen a situation where an Act is amended and then repealed but it will continue to apply to claims relating to events before 1 January 2011 and it will require claims to be brought by the latter of 15 years of the date of the act or omission or 5 years after the new Act commences. That is why clauses 23A to 23D are included. They bring across provisions to the 1950 Act relating to the longstop period and the discretion to allow relief for example for an action of abuse of an infant or the gradual process injury that we have been talking about. 
The only other point I make—and it is good that the law finally is clarified in this country—relates to clause 53. That will provide that the clause will apply to a civil proceeding before a New Zealand court or tribunal whenever the substantive law of a foreign country is to be applied in that proceeding and it provides that the limitation of that foreign country is part of the substantive law of the country and must be applied accordingly. For many years there was academic debate about whether limitation law was procedural or substantive. The Choice of Law (Limitation Periods) Act 1993 of New South Wales and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 of the UK clarified the point for those jurisdictions and it is now clarified here. I note also in clause 54 the public policy exception for limitation law of foreign countries is to apply except in relation to Australia. Part 4 as I said contains some very important transitional provisions. The reason for that is that the 1950 legislation will be with us for many years to come. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am somewhat disappointed that the Attorney-General was not quite as excited about clause 8. Clause 8A of the Limitation Bill was another notable addition as a consequence of Mr Corry’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee which raised the issue of equitable claims. 
Of course equitable claims are not common law claims so the Limitation Act generally does not apply to them and neither does the Limitation Bill. But the position has grown in the equitable courts that they apply analogous limitation periods to equitable claims. So although the common law or the statute law relating to limitation does not directly apply to equitable claims the courts by analogy apply similar rules because they want to properly balance these interests between people having rights to pursue redress for their injuries against a duty of people to pursue their claims with alacrity once they have the knowledge that enables them to do so. 
Mr Corry submitted to the select committee. He is very learned in those matters and he might have been one of the authors of the Law Commission report. I am not positive about that though I see the Attorney-General nodding there. He made the suggestion that we clarify that through this legislation we were not stopping through new legislation the courts by analogy applying Limitation Bill provisions to equitable claims. In order to clear up that possible unintentional consequence clause 8A of the bill was introduced. It states: “Nothing in this Act prevents it from being applied by analogy to a claim in equity to which no defence prescribed by this Act applies.” I hope that I have given the Clerk enough time to decide whether my amendment is in scope. I will not say anything further for the moment. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge the contributions made by my colleagues and by the Attorney-General. The Limitation Bill introduces the new unifying concept of a money claim—namely a claim for monetary relief whether in common law in equity or under an enactment. Part 2 sets out the regime relating to the defence to money claims. There is the general civil limitation defence to a money claim if the defendant can prove that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. This is known as the primary period. 
The 6-year period does not apply if the claimant has late knowledge of the claim. In the case of late knowledge it is a defence of a claim if the defendant can prove that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 3 years after the late knowledge date or if the claim is made 15 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based—namely the longstop period. This provision set out in Part 4 is designed to prevent indeterminate liability and applies to non-money claims. 
The late knowledge date is defined by clause 13 as the date on which the claimant gained knowledge or if earlier the date on which the claimant ought reasonably to have gained knowledge of all the certain specified key facts that the claimant must know in order to make the claim. The requisite facts are set out accordingly. The primary period is 2 years and not 6 years for defamation but the late period might apply in certain circumstances. 
Earlier in the bill’s second reading I cited the 2009 Supreme Court case  
Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd 
. The issues are relevant to this particular bill and particularly relevant to a late knowledge period. According to Bell Gully it is relevant to this bill in respect of reasonable discoverability. As drafted the bill does not define knowledge nor does it specify the degree of knowledge required before the claimant is taken to know or ought reasonably to know the specified facts. I quote: “It is therefore likely that in the absence of amendments to the Bill the Supreme Court’s decision in the  
Carter Holt Harvey 
 case will influence the application of the Limitation Bill once enacted”. So I wish that the responsible Minister the Attorney-General would take a call and enlighten us on this particular issue. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I want to come back to an element of the Limitation Bill that I raised in my first reading speech. It was an issue that has been discussed at great lengths within the Justice and Electoral Committee and I would not mind hearing the Minister’s view on this. This was the discretion to allow relief for claims of gradual process disease or infection. Obviously when the bill first came to us it had a 6-year primary limitation period for monetary claims for personal injury claims to which of course the late knowledge requirements and the 15-year longstop period would also apply. Many submitters presented to us during the select committee process that that might be an unreasonable limitation particularly if a person was seeking to obtain relief for a latent personal injury caused by gradual process disease or infection. As I mentioned in my previous speech one of the many arguments we heard was that New Zealand is different from some of the other jurisdictions we heard about based on our no-fault accident compensation scheme. We did however seek advice on this issue so that we could consider how this rule applied in other jurisdictions particularly when it came to gradual process disease or infection. The UK and Australia seemed obvious jurisdictions for us to examine. We noted that in those countries courts were given the discretion to disregard limitation defences when it came to physical or mental conditions. 
Hone Harawira 
: Just fascinating Jacinda just fascinating! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It was even better at the select committee; that was the live unedited version. I admit that this is somewhat watered down and I apologise for that but if the member wishes to sit in the select committee I can tell him that it is tickets only. But that was where it came to physical or mental conditions. When it came to the range in those countries ours was somewhat constrained comparatively. Those countries included personal injuries caused by gradual process at their discretion. 
We had some discussion about this. One of the discussions that came up as I recall was on cases that some of us have seen in our constituency offices. One that I raised was a gradual process claim which was initially covered by accident compensation. It was several decades ago so it would have been outside this legislation. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had originally acknowledged the individual to have a gradual process injury and had covered the claimant for many years because of that fact. In fact ACC had prosecuted the workplace in question and received damages to cover the long-term payment for the claimant. However somewhere down the track ACC decided to reassess that case decided that in that instance it no longer believed it was a gradual process injury and instead declared it to be a degenerative disease. So in that situation we had originally had a gradual process injury which was covered by ACC and therefore it was one of the cases that understandably we would say was outside the limitation and was already covered by the State insurer. But then when ACC changed its mind there was no point of redress for that individual. Even going back to ACC to try to claim for a gradual process injury meant a very lengthy litigation period. That person would not be covered by the limitation because of being outside the scope. 
That was the kind of discussion we had at the select committee. Then we come to what we decided. Collectively the select committee decided to give the courts the discretion to allow monetary relief to be granted for a claim in relation to a personal injury caused by gradual process disease or infection when the Accident Compensation Act does not stop the claim being made or relief being granted. So there is still an interesting rub when it comes to the way that ACC chooses to define the case in question. I think it is very important to make sure we have the interaction between accident compensation and this legislation right because I do not think we can assume that all things will necessarily remain equal when it comes to accident compensation. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I will follow on from Jacinda Ardern. The member’s last words were that we cannot assume all things are equal— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: All things will be equal with accident compensation. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes I think that is a very valid point. In terms of the Limitation Bill that certainly was the view of the Labour members on the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
I am very pleased that our amendment put forward in the name of David Parker is on the Table and I urge the Government to consider it. Although there was a good working relationship and good chairing at the committee I think that from time to time the Government members although they were listening a lot better than they do in other circumstances did not listen enough. I see that the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Finlayson is listening intently now and nodding I think just a little. No he is not nodding. Do Government members change their colours? No they do not. 
I hope that there is some support for the amendment that David Parker is putting forward in terms of extending the limitation period with regard to building cases to make sure that all bases are covered and that there is fairness and equity in terms of longstop periods in the bill. We on this side of the Chamber are not being stupid—we will not oppose the bill completely if that amendment does not go through—but we urge the Government to listen to consider carefully to think about what was said to think about the arguments and to think about what the submitters put forward. I think it is important for members to put their egos aside; it is not about who is right or wrong. Members should put their egos aside and consider the amendment that we are putting forward. 
I have said it before but again I acknowledge all the work that has gone into a bill that could be seen and described as quite technical and probably to some boring though certainly not to me. It was never boring under the leadership of Chester Borrows on that select committee but it was not perhaps the most gripping bill we have had. That would be a fair comment would it not? It was not the most gripping bill we have had before the select committee. Having said that this bill makes a difference to people in terms of fairness and the delivery of justice. 
This bill is fair and it is common sense. It is good to stand in this Chamber and speak about this Government putting a bill before the House that has some common sense attached to it. 
Grant Robertson 
: It doesn’t always happen does it? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It very seldom happens. It very very seldom happens but in this instance it has. 
I see that Grant Robertson has come down to the Chamber. He is not on the Justice and Electoral Committee. He was up in his office doing some work and he thought: “Oh my goodness it is the Limitation Bill!” and he was off like a robber’s dog to come down to the Chamber and speak on the Limitation Bill. I am really proud of my colleagues who are committed to having their say. So often the debate is negative. So often we go home with knots in our tummies about what has happened and about all the dreadful things that this National Government has done but this is not an occasion like that. Although we want our amendment to be carefully considered we know that this is not the time for argument. We could simply sit back and say: “Who cares? We support it so we will not speak on it.” but we are not a party like that OK? We believe in giving credit where credit is due. 
I tell members that on the Limitation Bill the National Government has excelled. The rest of its record is rubbish but on this bill— 
Simon Bridges 
: Woo hoo! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right you have done it. You are Superman and Superwoman as far as we are concerned. We are very pleased to support this bill. I cannot think of much else I have to add. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind the member that I am not necessarily Superman but that helps.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is true that I was sitting in my office wading through various piles of paper—which is a great thing to be doing during the urgency period—when I saw that the Limitation Bill was being debated and thought that I needed to be in the Chamber. As my colleague Lynne Pillay said it is unusual for us on the Labour benches to see a Government bill and say that it is practical and common sense. It was probably a bill from the previous Labour Government that was inherited by National but in this case we have to give credit where credit is due and say that this bill has come through with the Minister in charge Chris Finlayson leading the way and breaking new ground in this Chamber. That is what the Minister is doing with the Limitation Bill. 
I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage and I draw further attention to David Parker’s amendment. It is important that in a common-sense bill like this one we look for consistency. If we provide something like the longstop period and if we say it is important and useful then we should try to apply it consistently. The problem with this bill as I understood it while I sat up in my office listening intently to the speeches—particularly those by David Parker Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern—arises when it comes to the Building Act and for the very people whom the National Party has come to Parliament to represent. Perhaps those people are leaky building owners and I ask why they should not get the ability to have a 15-year longstop period in a case that involves the Building Act. That is precisely what David Parker’s amendment is designed to do: to extend the period from 10 years to 15 years. 
I think that we all know particularly those of us in metropolitan areas and have dealt with people who have had leaky buildings and leaky homes. There is no overestimating the seriousness of that problem for those people. The effects of leaky buildings take a period of time to become obvious. In my electorate of Wellington Central there has not been an end to the claims. More and more people have become interested in the issue. Building products that were used in the 1990s are becoming less and less durable and people are concerning themselves about this problem. The Limitation Bill has the opportunity to help address some of those issues and it is important to look at what the Justice and Electoral Committee said in its report to Parliament about this issue. It stated that there were divergent views about the question of the longstop period. That is significant in a bill as important as the Limitation Bill which perhaps for some people is a technical bill but which for many people has a very very practical provision for them if they have an issue under the Building Act. 
In three separate reports on the issue of the longstop period—in 1988 2000 and 2007—the Law Commission changed its mind about whether the longstop period should be 10 or 15 years. In 2007 the Law Commission concluded that a 15-year longstop period struck the appropriate balance between justice for claimants and certainty for defendants. It is a difficult balance to strike ensuring that people have the ability to have their say and have some kind of redress for what has occurred to them but not extending that opportunity out for ever and a day making providers feel like they have a liability for their whole lifetimes. 
David Parker has put forward an amendment and I think it is well worth reading out. It would insert a new clause 60 after clause 59 which is a good thing—making sure it is sequential is important. Clause 60 would read: “Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act or the Building Act 2004 the longstop period under the Building Act 2004 is hereby amended to 15 years so as to align with the general longstop period provided under this Act.” That is it in essence in a nutshell to make sure that we actually get some consistency and some ability for those people who have been affected by issues relating to the Building Act to know that they have that longstop period of 15 years. 
So I really do ask the National members to take a call and explain to us why they do not believe there should be this kind of consistency. I know that the Minister is a person who takes his responsibilities seriously on issues such as these. The Limitation Bill is one that he would have pored over for hours and hours in his office going through each clause word by word to make sure that it is precise and accurate. 
Chris Hipkins 
: He’s the New Zealand legal system’s greatest mind. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right and we are trying to make sure that this bill is improved to the extent that it can be. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry I could not quite hear Clark Kent. 
Simon Bridges 
: Lynne Pillay did a lot of the detailed work as well. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right she did and to give credit where credit is due so did the whole of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I have had the privilege of sitting briefly on the Justice and Electoral Committee from time to time. I am a great admirer of the chair Chester Borrows. He does an excellent job on that committee. 
Hekia Parata 
: Aren’t we all aren’t we all. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: We are and I think it bears saying again and again that this has been a good process. This is a bill that does a lot of common-sense things and here is an opportunity for one more common-sense approach that the Minister could take. It would be good if he could take a call and explain to us here in the Committee whether the National Party will be supporting David Parker’s amendment. It is the opportunity to get a 15-year limit across the board. The Law Commission itself was wavering and here is a chance for Parliament to give a clear direction. Our job is to give people a clear direction not to set up inconsistency within law but to make sure that people who want to make claims under the Building Act know that the longstop period applies to all of them. 
I will not delay the Committee much further on this bill. I see that a number of its clauses deal with laws in respect of which people need to make claims over a period of time. We have already had some discussion about things like gradual process and the role of the Accident Compensation Corporation within that. I am sure that my colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee would have ensured that all of those provisions are useful accurate and helpful for the people who will be seeking redress under the accident compensation scheme. The longstop period is an important part of this bill and it is one in relation to which the Labour Party has seen fit to put forward an amendment. My colleague David Parker who is a lawyer in his own right takes these matters very seriously and he has put it up. 
I really do call on the National members to make sure that they give serious consideration to this amendment. Sometimes amendments come into this Chamber that I know Government members see as perhaps time fillers or as amendments that we are not serious about but in this case that is not so. We are deadly serious about the fact that we think this will be good for New Zealand and good for the people who use the Building Act. It is timely that when we are in urgency that the Government says that this bill is important for it to pass. The Limitation Bill is one of the bills that it urgently wants to pass and we say good on the Government for wanting to pass a common-sense bill urgently but we ask it to look at the amendment in the name of David Parker to insert a new clause 60. I look forward to a contribution perhaps from the Minister now on whether he will accept this amendment. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 4 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 59: 
59A 
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act or the Building Act 2004 the longstop period under the Building Act 2004 is hereby amended to 15 years so as to align with the general longstop period provided under this Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Parts 1 to 4 the schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Limitation Bill be now read a third time 
. As I stand to speak on the third reading I reflect on how lucky we are as members of Parliament to be debating limitation law at 11.15 on a Wednesday night. 
Grant Robertson 
: Hear hear! There’s nowhere else I’d rather be. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There is nowhere else I would rather be. I have to say with respect that I thought the discussion in the Committee was excellent. I particularly note the contribution of my friend Ms Pillay and I say “my friend” advisedly because we enjoyed working together she as chairperson and I as deputy chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee even though we disagreed on everything and she took the Labour members off on a wonderful jaunt to Australia and I pulled the National members out because I thought that they should be at home working. The one substantive point raised in the course of the discussion came from Mr Parker who I thought made a substantive contribution to improving the bill with the amendment to clause 16 and I acknowledge the discussions we had. He wanted to amend the Building Act longstop period. It could well be that there are very cogent arguments for so doing and that there are benefits as he said in uniform limitation periods but I think this is an issue that needs to be canvassed in the context of the current Building Act review and his proposed amendment which was a very serious amendment with very serious consequences would really need to be consulted on. That was the proposal I put in the Committee stage. It was not accepted but I do think that that is the best way to move forward. 
I am very pleased to be able to move that the bill be read a third time. It replaces 60-year-old legislation. It is very important because as Ms Pillay says it addresses the problems that have been identified with the current Act’s substance and drafting. It clarifies and improves general limitation rules although there are specific limitation rules in other statutes. These rules determine how long people have to bring a civil claim before defendants can argue that the claim is time-barred. The justice system gives people access to the courts to settle disputes they cannot otherwise settle themselves but these kinds of rules are needed—and I think Mr Parker alluded to this on a number of occasions in the Committee stage—as it is unjust for people to have to defend claims about something that may have occurred many years earlier merely because the claimant has delayed bringing the case. These rules are designed to strike a fair balance between the conflicting interests of claimants and defendants. Without these rules people could face potential liability for an indefinite period for which they would need to maintain records professional insurance and so on. Importantly the rules address the important public interest in the timely resolution of claims. 
The path to the reform of the 1950 Act has not been entirely straightforward. I acknowledge the work of the Law Commission over many years. It started with a preliminary discussion paper in 1987. There were then further discussion papers and reports in 1998 2000 and 2007. It is a tribute to the Law Commission—and Sir Geoffrey Palmer took a very special interest in this reform—that we are where we are now. An exposure bill was published in 2008 submissions were received on the bill and the Law Commission then convened a working group of interested persons to consider these changes. The then Minister of Justice gave permission for me to be on that working group—I thought that was very sporting of Annette—and this further work resulted in some significant restructuring and refinement of the bill before its introduction in 2009. 
I conclude by thanking the Law Commission for its work and I also thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its good work. I think that what we have now is very sensible legislation that will stand the test of time although I hope it is not another 60 years before this Parliament takes another look at this very important area of law. The primary 6-year limitation period is carried forward. We have this new 3-year late knowledge period which is introduced to address the problem identified by the courts and other experts whereby people sometimes discover they have a claim only after a limitation period has ended. Then we have the 15-year longstop that has been the subject of quite a lot of debate tonight. The new periods will not apply if there is fraud or if a claimant is incapacitated. As has been canvassed tonight in some rare cases where minors for example have been abused or where the evidence of a personal injury develops over many years the court will be able to exercise a discretion to grant monetary relief. I think all speakers have noted that limitation law can be complex— 
Grant Robertson 
: But fascinating. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is truly fascinating. I say to Mr Robertson that if he wants a riveting read he should go to the transitional provisions of this bill. They are very very interesting. I know that he will enjoy that more than anything he has done in recent times. I echo the words of Lynne Pillay. This bill is a major achievement in ensuring that the rules are fairer and easier to understand and apply. I thank everyone who has played a part in the debate and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the third reading of the Limitation Bill. I agree with just about everything that the Attorney-General said in his address. 
Amy Adams 
: This is so boring. Find something to describe. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Amy Adams says that this is so boring. 
Amy Adams 
: No you’re agreeing that everything is so boring I’m afraid. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh I am being boring. 
Amy Adams 
: Yes. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well Amy Adams’ contributions have been riveting tonight have they not? 
I will recount the policy balance that Limitation Acts try to achieve. They try to balance the rights of injured parties to pursue through the courts those who have caused them injury in order to get redress for the injury that they have suffered through the wrongful actions of a wrongful party. We want to empower people to do that. We want to encourage them to use court processes rather than gangs or fisticuffs because we live in a civil society. But we want to make sure that if they have rights they exercise them promptly. The reason for that is that the longer one leaves it the greater the chance of injustice. Memories fade witnesses die and documents are lost. In addition there is the need to let people even the wrongdoer get on with their lives eventually and not have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for ever. 
We balance those rights by saying that if people have rights they generally have to exercise them within 6 years. But we make some exceptions. We make an exception if people do not know enough to know that someone has wronged them or do not know who it was who wronged them. So we have an exception that says that if a person does not know enough within that 6-year period he or she will be given another 3 years. If a person has late knowledge that person will be given another 3 years. But even that has to come to an end sometime so we have a longstop period of 15 years. That is essentially what this bill does. It has a number of exceptions because there are exceptions to be made to those general rules. 
The exception that the Attorney-General has raised in respect of sexually abused or abused young people is a case in point. A young person could be abused within his or her family at a very young age could still be under the care and control of the very people who abused that young person and could have no effective way of bringing an action partly because the young person is not of a contractual age and does not know how to go to a lawyer and partly because he or she may still be living at home. We do not want those people to lose their rights. They should have some prolonged period in which to exercise their rights because that is fair and so we have an exception for them. 
There was another exception that the Attorney-General agreed to following some overseas precedents including precedents from Canada. A person might have a process injury such as asbestosis or some other workplace injury that takes a long time to arise and there should be an exception in respect of that person. The logic around that provision was slightly confused at one stage as a consequence of accident compensation. People thought that if process injuries were covered by accident compensation then the Government would not need to provide for them under the Limitation Act. But that logic was not quite right. The accident compensation scheme speaks with its own voice. If someone has an accident compensation remedy it is covered by accident compensation and he or she does not have the right to a non - accident compensation claim. The accident compensation claim trumps that and says that those people do not have any residual tortious right. But there are cases that may fall outside accident compensation cover either because of the current rules covering accident compensation or because those rules may change in the future. So it is important that the Limitation Bill provides for gradual process injuries in the event that they are not covered by accident compensation. So that is another exception. 
The general rule in respect of the limitation period should also apply by analogy to equitable claims. Equitable claims are not claims under statute or under common law; they arise using the equitable jurisdiction of the courts. None the less the courts apply periods that are limitation periods by analogy to equitable claims. They apply similar rules to those that apply to common law claims. An amendment was made at the Justice and Electoral Committee to make sure that that is carried forward under this legislation. 
I do not want to give the impression that there will no longer be disputes about whether an action is within time. Although this legislation does simplify things somewhat and attempts to minimise the number of disputes and the injustice that can result from them we will still have disputes about when people had sufficient knowledge so as to be properly informed of their rights and were therefore obliged to bring their cause of action before the courts if they wanted to pursue it. There will be claimants who say they did not have enough knowledge when the other party to the claim will say that that the claimant did know enough and sat on their rights for too long lost their rights and can no longer sue the other party. There will still be disputes as to when people did or did not have sufficient knowledge to trigger the 6-year limitation period or indeed the 3-year late knowledge period. Not all disputes will be avoided and perhaps speaking as a lawyer that is a good thing. 
Amy Adams 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Amy Adams liked that. She is a lawyer too. 
The one area where I remain a little disappointed is in respect of the inconsistency that we have for Building Act claims compared with non - Building Act claims. The general 15-year longstop period is not being applied to Building Act cases and the 10-year longstop period is being left as it currently is. There is a genuine and fair debate as to whether the longstop period should be 10 years or 15 years. Indeed the Law Commission initially recommended a 10-year longstop period for everything. It modified its position in its subsequent report and said it should be 15 years. But we have this exception introduced for Building Act cases that says it should be only 10 years. I still am not convinced as to the logic that lies behind that. I think it is a pity that that was not cleared up in this bill because we had the opportunity to fix it up now. 
There will of course be pressure from the building industry to keep it at 10 years. It is in the industry’s self-interest to have a shorter period because it limits its liability. But I am not convinced that it is right. I think that if we have a 15-year longstop liability period for other breaches of contract or tortious claims I cannot see why it should be different for Building Act claims. I again make the point that this is not of any import in respect of the current leaky home problems in Auckland because this new bill applies only to wrongs if you like or causes of action that accrue from the date after the passage of this bill rather than things that have already happened before that date. But none the less that principle should have been consistent in my view for buildings as well as for other claims. 
Perhaps the most valuable asset that most people own is their house. If they lose a substantial portion of the value of their house because of a latent defect they do not know about which does not become apparent for more than 10 years—and that does not happen often but it does happen sometimes; foundations might fail after a period of time because they were not appropriately taken down to hard fill—then under this legislation they will have only 10 years to pursue their claim because of the longstop liability under the Building Act. That is unchanged. However if it were a claim in contract and a claim for something less serious that did not involve their biggest asset they would have 15 years to pursue it. I am not convinced of the logic of that and I am not convinced that the complexity of Building Act cases is so different because of the multiplicity of parties. I agree that it is a relevant factor but there is already a built-in protection whereby it is for plaintiffs to prove their cases on the balance of probabilities. If they do not do so because the effluxion of time means that they are not able to bring to the court sufficiently good evidence to prove their case then they lose. So the other parties to that litigation have that level of protection in any event. 
Having said all of that I say that the Labour Party thinks this is a good bill. I thank the Attorney-General for the consideration he showed for some of the issues that Labour raised in respect of gradual process injuries and I commend the bill to the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I take it as a privilege to be able to take a call on the third reading of the Limitation Bill. I am pretty fired up about it at half past 11 at night. I have had a coffee and a wine gum and I reckon I could talk for hours about this bill. 
I would like to commend the contributions of those in the House. In the course of my cousin’s dissertation in the third reading he transported me back to studying civil procedure at Victoria University. I know that in hindsight he would prefer to have given me a grade higher than 51 percent. I find it incredible that someone who can be so eloquent has yet to discover the noble art of voice modulation. I do not know whether the rest of the House feels that way but I am just stating the way it is. It reflects that in the time that he was our lecturer on civil procedure he went off to Rome to do a course on conversational Latin. Does that explain why we are here debating the Limitation Bill at half past 11 at night? 
I also commend other contributors such as the honourable member Lynne Pillay who struggled to the top of the beer crate and managed to look over the top. She towered over Carmel Sepuloni! Carmel looked up at Lynne Pillay and asked her how the weather was up there. Lynne Pillay was thinking “Boy if only Pansy Wong could see me now!”. 
This bill is a wonderful piece of legislation. As I understand it the Minister of Justice who is in charge of this legislation was away and the Attorney-General the Hon Christopher Finlayson was sitting in his chair. After he had eaten all of the Minister’s peppermints and had found his pencils and given them a wee sharpen he started looking in the Minister’s bottom drawer for something to read. He came across the Limitation Bill and thought “Ah this is what I’ll do. While the Minister’s away the cat will play.”—or the mouse in this case. And away it went. The Limitation Bill came before our hard-working and efficient Justice and Electoral Committee and tonight it is at the zenith of its long career in the House. I know that Ms Pillay who was in form 1 when the first Limitation Bill went through is only too pleased to see this one overtake it before she steps down and hands the mantle over to somebody else. Congratulations. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 As members have said it is not often there is a bit of camaraderie in this rather sad place. Despite the very good control of the Speaker we see some terrible things happening in this House—things that would bring tears to a glass eye quite frankly. But this is not one of those occasions. I am pleased to acknowledge that the Limitation Bill is a bill that everyone on all sides of the House supports going forward. There were some amendments that Labour members would have liked to see. Time will tell; often we on this side of the House have to say to the Government: “We told you so; we tried to tell you.” 
Grant Robertson 
: Almost every day. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Actually every day if we are being really honest. Every day we have to say “We told you so.” I believe that my colleague David Parker put up a very good amendment. If we had extended the time and had given more consideration to it perhaps we could have had a full house on it and got full support for it. But we are not a petty party—certainly not. I will not comment on other parties because I do not want to get niggly at this time of night. We are not petty and if we look at the bill in its entirety we know that even though common sense did not prevail on one small part it will as many members have said provide a lot of certainty and enhance our legal system. Indeed that is what Parliament is about even though it does not happen all the time. I had not picked up that it is 60 years to the day—is that the case? 
Grant Robertson 
: What else in here is 60 years old? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I do not think we need to go on to that. But I know that 60 years is very very special. 
Grant Robertson 
: It is a special time. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is a very special time for many many things and people and I want to acknowledge in this House how important 60 years is. I think we should all acknowledge that. In going back to the bill Mr Deputy Speaker I say that I think that the reference to people’s height given that you are sitting in the Chair was most inappropriate. I think a few feathers will be flying in the National caucus next week with those sorts of comments from Chester. It was completely out of character. Perhaps it was a case of his showing off at the last— 
Grant Robertson 
: One too many wine gums! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That could well be the case. But goodness me if we all took offence at personal comments in this House we would never get anything done would we? So I will let that one go. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Wayne Mapp would be a basket case! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is exactly right. So I will let that one go and go back to the Limitation Bill. This is a third reading speech and tempted as I am to go into the detail and all the technical stuff I will not do that. 
Simon Bridges 
: I’ll remember you for this speech Lynne! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I thank that member very much. I do not have cool glasses for people to remember me by so I have to rely on referring to the bill. This is a third reading speech and all nonsense aside third reading speeches are a time to acknowledge the work that has gone into the bill. 
I will start with the Law Commission which made the recommendation and has done so much work. Most of its work was enacted under the previous Labour Government. In fact if we look at the previous Labour Government’s record we see that so much work was done. Sadly all of the work that was done on the Sentencing Council was not enacted. We on this side of the House the Green Party and I am sure many National members who have a bit of knowledge of the good that the Sentencing Council would have done are rather disappointed at that. But notwithstanding that the Law Commission has done a lot of good work and I acknowledge that good work in this House. 
In an earlier speech today I acknowledged—but I will do it again because it cannot be done often enough—the hard work that the Justice and Electoral Committee’s clerk and his hard-working staff put in. He has to manage many different people on that committee. We have acknowledged Chester Borrows as a very competent chair which was pretty predictable. We cannot say that of Paul Quinn. Paul Quinn is a difficult member to manage. Even the National members will say that. So I acknowledge the select committee staff who look beyond members’ quirky little ways and manage to keep things running pretty smoothly. 
I also acknowledge the hard-working people from the Ministry of Justice who give us advice. We always listen to that advice but in this situation there was very little controversy. That advice was appreciated and most of it was taken. 
As we have said before—and I do not want to be churlish—the bill provides that a defence of limitation cannot be used in cases of child sexual abuse no matter how much time has elapsed since the abuse took place. That is really significant. We cannot extend that goodwill to such cases. I do feel a bit bad about doing this but I cannot miss the opportunity to say what a dreadful Minister for ACC we have and how much damage has been done to survivors of sexual abuse in this country. It is certainly good to know that those cases are exempt from the provisions of the Limitation Bill. There is no limit under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This bill matches that situation. Money claims under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are covered by the 6-year limit. 
As my friend and colleague David Parker said the only matter of any disagreement in the select committee was the longstop period. Although Government members listened to many of Labour’s arguments on the bill and improvements were made it was very sad that that disagreement occurred. I know that Grant Robertson spoke on this matter as did David Parker and indeed Jacinda Ardern. Jacinda Ardern will probably speak about it again because I know she has much to say on this bill. I know she will want to take a call on it. We believe that it is appropriate for the same longstop period to apply to all policy areas for which limitation periods apply. The reason for the shorter period for building cases could apply equally to all other types of cases. As I said earlier the problem of fading memories—I am quite blessed in that I do not suffer from it—does happen. Also with regard to the complexities of having multiple parties we firmly believe that owners of houses that have a latent defect should have as long a time to bring their claims. The one little teensy black mark in terms of the goodwill and camaraderie around this bill’s progress is that that limitation period was not extended to 15 years. 
However as I said we on this side of the House are not petty-minded. We are supporting the bill. We are looking forward to its enactment. Goodness me! I do not think anyone in this House has spoken about when the bill will be enacted and I think it is something we all really want to know. Oh yes it was to commence on 1 July 2010. Well that date is no longer feasible because we have clearly gone past that date but the hard-working select committee picked that point up and recommended that the bill come into force on 1 January 2011. That is really fitting. We will start the new year of 2011 with a fresh start to limitations. On that basis I commend the bill to the House. Thank you very much. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Lynne Pillay is absolutely right—there is no fading memory there. She remembers Woodstock like it was yesterday. She talked about the current Limitation Act having come into force 60 years ago I think it was—I feel like listening to Chester Borrows more than her—and her 60 years have passed by very quickly indeed. I talked in my first reading speech I think about the 5 o’clock shadow that I was developing. It has now turned into a quarter to 12 mild mildewy moss. 
We have had some good speeches and like Lynne Pillay I will do a bit of backslapping. I agree with all the comments that she has made about the people who deserve thanks. She did not actually mention—or maybe she did but only in passing—someone who deserves a lot of praise in this process: Paul Quinn. Paul Quinn asked quick-fire questions in the Justice and Electoral Committee because of the rapid way that his mind works. He quickly got to the heart of the matter in the select committee and we need to keep that on record. Despite being quite a diminutive character who does not like to cause confrontation he cut through things very quickly unlike Hekia Parata whom we could not shut up! She just could not stop talking about this bill and raising important questions. 
I will very briefly in my last 30 seconds pick up on the issue that David Parker raised. I agree with what Chris Finlayson said when he was the Minister in the chair not long ago. He said that uniformity in limitation periods is to be encouraged. I would say that it does not need to be overly encouraged. As he pointed out there are many different pieces of legislation with different limitation periods. If we think about criminal law then that is obviously quite a different area of law with different policy considerations. In that area there is no longstop period at all. The best that one can hope for if one has been accused of a crime even 40 or 50 years down the track is a stay of proceedings and that would be in a case where one simply could not get a fair trial. So there are different longstop periods. There are different policy considerations at play. I do not think that we need to be afraid of that. Although uniformity is to be encouraged because it adds certainty to some extent it does not always need to be the case. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I state for the record my disappointment that during this debate the Sentencing Council has not been mentioned because I always find it to be a key part of any discussion by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I also begin my remarks by acknowledging the chair of the select committee Chester Borrows. It has already been mentioned in the House that Chester Borrows deals with a diverse select committee which has robust debate within it. 
Although some of the difficult members have been named tonight I have to say that Lynne Pillay is not one of them. She is a picture of politeness she has an inquisitorial mind and having been a select committee chair herself she knows the difficulties of managing a select committee. But it would be remiss of me in this debate not to mention Paul Quinn as my colleague Simon Bridges has because Mr Quinn always makes a robust contribution. If Chester is to offer courses in the noble art of modulation I say for the record that I will offer courses on the art of using one’s inside voice. Paul Quinn has never mastered the art of the inside voice in the select committee nor has he mastered it in the House. I think that all the members in this place would benefit from the use of the inside voice not only in terms of tone and volume but also perhaps in terms of the art of thinking before one speaks. 
I acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. In his defence I would ask who needs modulation when one has mastered the art of the personal attack. I know that Minister Finlayson would like to claim that he never makes things personal but he is so good at it that sometimes we do not even know that it is happening. I also acknowledge the fact that he has worked for a number of years on this legislation. I will go over a little bit of the history of this bill in my remarks but before I move on from my notes of thanks I also acknowledge the work of the officials. At every point during the discussion on this bill whenever we raised the need to go back for instance and look at some additional jurisdictions to see whether we were in keeping with what was happening overseas the officials were always more than willing to bring forth not only what we asked for but also more again. I want to thank them for their assistance. 
To go back briefly to some of the history of this legislation I start with the Law Commission report which is really where it all began. There were reports in 1988 2000 and 2007 but this was probably the one that substantively triggered the work that we see before us now. It was the Labour Government at that time that asked for a substantive review by the Law Commission as we did with many other more controversial errors than this. One that may spring to mind is the Law Commission’s extensive work on alcohol reform a piece of work that is the most comprehensive work we have seen in this House probably in our lifetimes no matter what age members in this House may be. It traverses every element of our alcohol legislation. I note for the record that it is a shame that not all of those recommendations were put before a select committee for it to decide on. 
Going back to the Law Commission report it is one of many that Labour instigated. In December 2007 it became the basis for which a draft bill was sent to stakeholders for consultation but that was not the end of it. There was a reference group and I think that Minister Finlayson may have referred to it. It was set up in 2008 and was chaired by Justice Blanchard. It included representatives from the New Zealand Law Society the Bar Association the Ministry of Justice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. As Minister Finlayson acknowledged the goodwill of the Minister of Justice at that time the Hon Annette King meant that she included Chris Finlayson himself who at that time was an Opposition MP in that reference group. I think that that again demonstrates that limitation legislation is incredibly important within our justice system. It sets the boundaries and it seeks out the balance between giving certainty to defendants in access to justice for claimants. I think that that is a particular area that goes beyond political boundaries and that was acknowledged by Annette King. I acknowledge her in this final reading. 
In this final reading I will go over some less controversial elements of the bill that we did not touch on in the Committee stage but that were picked up on in the discussion in the select committee. That means that they were slightly more substantive. I believe that we have talked a bit about equitable claims. The committee recommended inserting new clause 8A into the bill to clarify that the court will not be prevented from applying statutory limitation provisions to equitable claims for which no limitation defence is set out in this bill already. There is a limitation there that exists for the court so an element of discretion applies. 
We have already discussed at some great length one of the areas and this is a significant one where disputes still lie around longstop periods. I think that it was the right thing to do for the Hon David Parker to put up an amendment to try to bring consistency between what is in the bill and the Building Act. It was disappointing that the Government chose not to adopt that amendment. Only time will tell as to whether we will see people’s access to justice limited by the fact that the Government has chosen not to adopt this element of consistency which we advocated for. In particular there will be areas—Auckland probably most significantly so—affected by the leaking building phenomena. I remember distinctly when it arose. Maurice Williamson himself will be the one who ultimately will have to relook at cases if we find that the limitations that have been set are not working. Again only time will tell but for the record I say that Labour believes in consistency in setting a 15-year longstop period in limitations and in the Building Act. 
There was not much discussion from my recollection on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. From memory the select committee only very briefly looked at claims under that Act and whether they should be subject to discretion similar to the discretion that we looked at in terms of time-barred claims for sexual abuse of a minor. We decided against including discretion in that area. Again we were erring on the side of certainty in that regard. 
Defamation is another area that I recall us touching on a lot in the discussion but it is worth flagging again that there was discussion on it. We heard concerns that the late knowledge period for defamation is 3 years as set out in the bill as it was introduced and given to us. Anomalies might arise so our recommendation was that the late knowledge period should be shortened to 2 years. I think that that is in keeping with the types of claims we are likely to see under that heading. We have already discussed claims of sexual and non-sexual abuse of a child and I touched on the claims of gradual process disease or infection. I wish to flag that it was Labour that pushed quite hard that the exception for the gradual process claim be inserted into the bill and I am proud that we did that. I still have ongoing concerns around the interaction between accident compensation and the limitation requirements predominantly because of the changes in policy and practice we have seen within accident compensation. Any constituency member of this House will know those all too well. 
The final amendment is on actions based on acts or omissions around the late knowledge exception. I believe that my time is about to expire so I will not dwell on that. This was a useful discussion with good cooperation between the members of the select committee. It is an important bill. 
Hone Harawira 
: Fabulous speech. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I call that a standing ovation from Hone Harawira as he is literally standing whilst applauding. I note for the record and for some viewers who gave me feedback that I need to reduce my airline-type gesturing that I hope they saw some improvement in that last address. Kia ora koutou. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 In this third reading of the Limitation Bill it is great to see that the bill has support from all parties which is very uncommon. This bill is part of the process that this Government took over to simplify the judicial system. The Justice and Electoral Committee has dealt with more than 17 different bills since the Government took over in November 2008. Members of this Government have been working hard to make sure that New Zealand has the best judicial system. This bill is an example of the important work Parliament can do in improving the quality of legislation in order to make it more accessible and less confusing to the public. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the officials who have been providing excellent support during the hearing of this bill. It is my privilege to be part of the select committee which is led by Chester Borrows and I acknowledge the Hon David Parker and other Labour members for their contribution. I commend this bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call. We heard the Attorney-General describe the day that the Limitation Bill passed its first reading as “a great day for black-letter law”. That reminded me of a 2007 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court observed: “What is required in New Zealand and has been required for some considerable time is a complete legislative overhaul of the Limitation Act. … The surgery now required is beyond the proper province of the courts.” So this bill implements the Law Commission’s recommendation to replace the current Limitation Act 1950 with a new modern regime. The new regime will encourage claimants to make claims without undue delay in order to protect defendants from the unjust pursuit of stale claims. The Limitation Act 1950 is an old piece of legislation and it needs to be updated. The Labour Party supports the proposed changes in this bill. The bill simplifies the limitation regime by providing a general civil limitation defence to most claims. 
Debate interrupted.