Pillay Lynne: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13436] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill. As I said earlier today it is good to see a bill that adds value before the House because certainly that has not been the case with much of the legislation we have seen over the last week or two or indeed since National came into Government. But I will get back to this bill. 
I will go through the history of the bill because it does show a commitment. It shows the commitment of two nations working together for what will only enhance legal proceedings and civil justice systems in both countries. The Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement was established back in 2003 by the Prime Minister Helen Clark and of course the Prime Minister of Australia John Howard so we see there that it was certainly non-partisan and that two nations two Governments were working together for the greater good. That working group reported back in December 2006 and made many many recommendations which included the use of video technology to allow witnesses to appear while overseas and an increase in the types of judgments that could be enforced in each country. 
The agreement was signed in Christchurch by Lianne Dalziel and by Robert McClelland Australia’s Attorney-General and that happened in July 2008. I think it is quite significant that it happened in Christchurch which of course is Lianne Dalziel’s home town because she had put so much time and energy into this work. It was very fitting that Lianne had the opportunity to do that; I know that for her it was a very important part of her role at that time. 
That agreement which I have to say that I was mistaken about—which was pretty ridiculous because I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee—was covered by the Law and Order Committee. When the committee looked at the agreement it looked at the number of benefits that would flow by simplifying trans-Tasman court proceedings by expanding the range of enforceable judgments by improving the enforcement between Australia and New Zealand by supporting the success of the trans-Tasman relationship and by avoiding the incentive—and I think this is really important—for people to move themselves or their assets to another country in order to put themselves out of the range of accountability. That is really a large part of the justice measures we have seen from this mutual cooperation—there is no other way to put it—of the Trans Tasman Proceedings Bill. 
I want to correct what I said earlier. I mistakenly made a remark that was perhaps not very complimentary in terms of the chairing of the committee. I acknowledge Chester Borrows although at times I certainly do not agree with some of his views and certainly do not lately when looking at his and his party’s views on dealing to employees and taking away employment rights in New Zealand—and indeed human rights if we look at the 90-day “Sack at Will Act” that will be extended to cover all employers in New Zealand. Such things certainly do not bring about a feeling of warmth or working together from this side of the House. I was very disappointed in Chester’s speaking out about that at that stage but certainly with this bill he chaired the select committee very well. 
I know that a number of amendments were recommended by the select committee. As Simon—what is Simon’s other name? 
Moana Mackey 
: Bridges. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As Simon Bridges—affectionately known to everyone as Clark Kent— 
Moana Mackey 
: Or Gok Wan. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or Gok Wan—said it was not the most exciting— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: That’s way too flattering. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: People are saying that Gok Wan is way cooler than Simon Bridges but that is not the point; I think he is making an honest attempt to look cool and trendy and we should acknowledge that. But as Simon Bridges said the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill is probably not the most exciting bill that we have had before the select committee but the committee is hard-working—well most of the members are pretty hard-working; certainly the Labour members are—and the bill is important. It is a very very important bill and it enhances the relationship that we have with Australia. 
I will perhaps again go through a couple of the amendments that the select committee made. There were not many submissions to the select committee but the submissions that were made and the feedback the select committee received were very very productive and helpful. I certainly think that there was a will from everybody on the select committee that this bill needed to be brought forward in the best way possible to enhance our relationship with Australia and to see that people were held accountable and could not simply use a move to Australia to avoid that accountability. Of course people are moving to Australia in droves under this Government even though the Government said they would not. Most people do not go to Australia to avoid accountability; they go to Australia because this Government has not created any jobs or invested in any training here— 
Moana Mackey 
: Or increased wages. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or increased wages—despite all the rhetoric and despite all the promises. Although the majority of people are going to Australia especially now because there is no hope of them getting support for their families they are probably going for a quality early childhood education as well as we see that being denigrated here. Of course many other things are causing concern for New Zealanders and persuading them to go across the Tasman. But a small number would travel to Australia to avoid being accountable for any misdemeanours they have done in New Zealand and of course both sides of the House find that totally unacceptable as indeed did Helen Clark and John Howard when they started the working group that led to this bill. That is why it is good for everyone to acknowledge the work that was done in the earlier days—not in the hugely early days but certainly in the earlier days—and also the work whereby this bill is now coming into effect. 
I think it is worth acknowledging some of the work that the select committee did. I also acknowledge the very hard-working staff of the select committee; they do a fantastic job. We have a really really good clerk and support people. I also acknowledge the officials who gave us very good advice. That was very much appreciated not only by the chair but by all members of the committee. Having the ability to send back to the House a very comprehensive report that certainly improves the bill can happen only when we have the support of good select committee staff and of course of advisers working as a team alongside the members of the committee. In this instance that was certainly the case. 
Some of the improvements that the select committee recommended were about applications for a stay of proceedings the power of the New Zealand court to decline jurisdiction the procedural rules of the court the service of initiating documents in Australia and the defendant’s address for service. As the bill was introduced it did not expressly allow for a defendant’s address for service to be changed to another address in either Australia or New Zealand. I am pleased to say that that action is now able to happen under the bill because issues were raised canvassed and improved during the select committee process. There are also issues around the power of an Australian court or tribunal in New Zealand to permit an Australian court or tribunal to exercise— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired.