Quinn Paul: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Limitation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5393] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I acknowledge the very kind compliments that my colleague Lynne Pillay who is the senior member of the Opposition on the Justice and Electoral Committee paid to all the members of the committee on their diligent and committed hard work. I will say that committee runs a very close second only to the Maori Affairs Committee in terms of its camaraderie and members’ respect for one another. We look forward to that continuing of course driven by the outstanding chairmanship and leadership of that wonderful gentleman Chester Borrows. I along with my colleague Lynne Pillay in terms of the very fine remarks that she has made acknowledge the committee. 
Unfortunately those are about all the fine remarks that Lynne Pillay made. She started off by talking about consultation in terms of this Limitation Bill that we are going to send to a select committee. But I recall something called the Electoral Finance Act. 
Chester Borrows 
: Who was the chair? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Who was the committee chair who rammed that legislation through ignoring all the input and who then by his own words “mea culpa”—I think “mea culpa” were the words the shadow Attorney-General used—bared his soul before this House for having rammed that nasty piece of legislation through? It was probably the worst piece of legislation that has been put through this House closely followed by the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I ask the honourable member across the House where the consultation was on that. Does the member remember the foreshore and seabed legislation? Where was the consultation on that? I am advised—I was not aware of it—of another piece of legislation: the building legislation. Apparently the consultation on that legislation was such that the Standing Orders were suspended for the first time in 15 years. So all I say to my friend and colleague in the Opposition is that when we use words like “consultation” we had better make sure we are lily-white before we actually start to throw around accusations. That is all I would like to say on that. 
I now return to the Limitation Bill. To put things in perspective it is worth acknowledging that the current 1950 Act stemmed from the original English law the Limitation Act 1939 and it was from that Act that our current statute the Limitation Act 1950 was derived. Like the Sentencing Council that legislation has had its day. The reason we moved on from the Sentencing Council which the previous speaker referred to was that it was past its use-by date. In the same way the Limitation Act 1950 is past its use-by date. 
I think it is appropriate to reflect on a bit of the history as some of the speakers have done—and on the fact that there have been three Law Commission reports on that Act. I do not want to conjecture or comment on why the previous administration took so long to act on this issue; previous speakers have covered that sufficiently. More important I would like to refer to two or three cases that have highlighted—and where the justices have raised—issues about the legislation. I refer of course to a case in 2004  
P F Sugrue Ltd v Attorney-General 
 
in which the Court of Appeal passed a judgment about the fact that monetary relief did not come under the gambit of the Limitation Act 1950. Another case in the Supreme Court in 2008  
Thom v Davys Burton 
 referred in the judgment to the date of accrual or the commencement date in terms of any claims. 
The other case I want to refer to is  
Murray v Morell & Co Ltd 
 which was a Supreme Court case in 2007 and I will give a couple of quotes from the justices there. Blanchard J made the comment: “It is notorious that the New Zealand law concerning limitations is long overdue for reconsideration. It is to be hoped that Parliament will soon have the opportunity of giving it some attention.” Tipping J in the same case and I think this is worthy of my friend and colleague Parekura Horomia’s ears said: “What is required in New Zealand and has been required for some considerable time”—he is not referring to a National Government; he carries on to say—“is a complete legislative overhaul of the Limitation Act. All of the competing interests can then be fully considered and reconciled. Piecemeal attempts by the Courts to cure the difficulties with the present outdated legislation have already created their own difficulties and have produced a distinct lack of harmony in the areas being addressed. The surgery now required is beyond the proper province of the courts.” 
It is these sorts of comments that have led our outstanding Attorney-General to take up the challenge that was left on the table for so long by the previous administration and to deal to this issue. It is one thing to claim that one thought about the idea; it is the ability to actually get something done that counts. Thoughts count for nothing. It is like Parekura’s All Black team; it is the actions that count I say to my friend. I say this Government is about actions not about thoughts. We have shown the leadership that the All Black team lacked the other day. The issue is about showing leadership on the Government side of the House. We are acting on this issue. We have turned our attention to the some of the specific issues that have been raised in those three judgments and by the Law Commission in its three reports. Like all things we have to bring the legislation into modern times and refresh it so that it is applicable to the modern day that we face today. 
The bill tidies up conflicting issues that various judgments through time have raised and as a number of the speakers have referred to it responds to the fact that evidence does deteriorate over time. When people sit on a claim because they think there might be leverage in doing that or it might be to their advantage to do so that can impact on other people’s lives or on the activities of companies or commercial entities. This legislation tells people that if they have something they are going to actually take a claim about they should get on with doing that. It tells them they should not pester other people in their lives but just get on with proving their case up and down. It may well limit in future the opportunities for lawyers to drag cases out but what really counts here is justice for people. What this legislation now does—because we are behind the people—is to provide solid and sound justice for people. The legislation says lawyers should get on with it and not dilly-dally around. 
With those few words I say it has been a pleasure to be able to stand here and support the first reading of this bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.