Ardern Jacinda: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13439] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill. I have to say that with bills like this one often sees a select committee at its best. It is simply a matter of making sure that we have got all of the nuts and bolts worked out. This bill has traversed both a Labour Government and now a National Government. I point out that a piece of work like this bill has not come together simply in the past 12 or even 24 months. In fact this bill results from a work programme that really if we went back to its foundations we would find began under Helen Clark. I think that that was in 2003 in conjunction with John Howard—how things can change—and eventually through an agreement signed by Lianne Dalziel in 2008. I think that was an appropriate commentary on where we are currently with our closer economic agreement with Australia and how that is now becoming incorporated into so many pieces of our legislation and our legal framework as New Zealand’s ties with Australia become closer and the borders between the two become weaker and weaker. 
The Minister has already pointed out that the primary aim which is to simplify the resolution of legal disputes that traverse across trans-Tasman boundaries is essentially to try to reduce the cost and complexity of trans-Tasman litigation and I think that is something very few people would hold any objection to. But I also point out that in the wider context of New Zealand’s closer legal relationship with Australia and both countries’ attempts to streamline and create greater efficiencies in acknowledgment of the globalisation we are all now subject to we still maintain obviously our own sovereignty and our own right to make decisions that reflect the New Zealand context when it comes to our legal obligations in consulting with our Australian counterparts under various treaties. 
That was probably demonstrated most recently in the decision that the Minister for Food Safety made around folate. The food safety legislation sets out that the Minister is obliged to consult with his or her Australian counterparts to ensure that we comply with our agreements in that area—because again that is another area where we try to streamline. The Minister demonstrated that New Zealand can make its own decisions. Labour would argue that she made absolutely the wrong decision and an abhorrent one at that to decide not to introduce folate into bread and we will suffer the consequences of that but it probably again demonstrates the point that New Zealand still maintains a level of sovereignty over those mutual agreements and treaties. I do not think that it was the best way to prove that point and we will continue to suffer for that. But it is just an example that I thought would be timely to raise. 
I will go over some of the points in the bill that demonstrate how we have maintained the balance in ensuring the key elements of our justice system are maintained in the way that this legislation will work. Nonetheless it is a significant piece of work. David Goddard QC who was originally a member of the trans-Tasman working group said that these are the furthest-reaching proposals between two sovereign States with separate legal systems. So let us be under no illusion; they are significant. A lot of work has gone into them. 
The working group reported in 2006 and amongst its recommendations it delved into how New Zealand and Australia would apply differing rules around video technology. Since those recommendations have been made we have introduced earlier this year our own legislation on the use of audiovisual link technology in courts. I think we got the balance right eventually. Members will recall that there was a considerable stoush in this House over whether the extension of the use of audiovisual link technology had gone too far but I am very pleased a compromise was reached and I think we got the right outcome. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It wasn’t a stoush; it was a good debate. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I accept I say to the Minister that “stoush” may be too strong a word and I acknowledge the fact that he made a considerable concession from his perspective and I appreciate that. I think the words we use in this House are “robust debate”. In respect of audiovisual link technology in this particular bill the select committee made it clear that the Courts (Remote Participation) Act will not apply to remote appearances made under this bill. In fact the trans-Tasman evidence regime will operate in parallel and will not override or be subject to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It was important given the fact that the select committee had dealt with those pieces of legislation that it ensured there was clarity around that. 
But what are the main provisions of the bill? Essentially they can be drilled down into seven parts and I want to traverse some of those briefly. The first is that when civil proceedings are commenced in New Zealand the bill provides that an initiating document for proceedings may be served in Australia as well. There are three exceptions to this but each of those is reasonable. Some other members of the House have already talked about the kinds of circumstances that might arise from civil litigation for instance over the sale of a house etc. where the seller may have moved overseas. This now means that if those civil proceedings related to New Zealand began there that initiating document then can still be served to an individual based in Australia. I think members would have to acknowledge that that can be commonplace now given the state of movement between our two countries. 
The second key point in the legislation is that a defendant in civil proceedings can apply to have the proceedings heard in an Australian court with certain criteria met. That was one of the changes that the select committee made. We wanted to make sure that the bill was consistent over where proceedings were heard. We wanted to make sure that a person served in Australia for New Zealand proceedings can apply for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the matter should be dealt with by an Australian court. That was about ensuring consistency with the other subparts in the bill. 
The third key point relates directly to the provision that a party to proceedings commenced in an Australian court may apply for interim relief in a New Zealand court. The fourth is around remote appearances and remote evidence which is covered by the Evidence Act and I have already clarified the hierarchy of legislation in that regard. Then the fifth is the recognition of enforcement in New Zealand of specified Australian judgments. This is quite an important piece of the bill; it provides for the enforcement of Australian judgments in New Zealand and goes beyond just final monetary judgments. There was some discussion in the select committee about how this related to guardianship. We had some very important technical submissions around this and I thank those submitters who made those contributions to this bill. 
Those probably cover the most significant parts of the bill. It was obvious when the select committee was hearing evidence on this bill and considering it in detail that at the same time officials were working alongside Australian counterparts to make sure we had married up both pieces of legislation accurately. So a lot of the changes made at select committee probably bear out that we were at that point in the process. 
In conclusion I think that this demonstrates an important piece of work that shows that we do have to acknowledge the greater transience between Australia and New Zealand. Family relationships and legal relationships cut across the borders of Australia and New Zealand more and more and our legal systems need to demonstrate that. But at the same time we need to make the decisions that are right for us as a country. 
Bill read a third time.