Parker David: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Parker David: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13418] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel have both said Labour will be supporting the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill at this reading as we did in the earlier reading. Just following on from the previous speaker Simon Bridges in respect of how close things have become between New Zealand and Australia I say there is of course a notable exception to that which relates to the ever-increasing wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. Important though this bill is in making court proceedings easier in each country it is not as important as closing that wage gap. 
Of course at the last election National promised that it would close the wage gap with Australia. But the problem is that it said it would do that by 2025 and we cannot get any particularity from the Government as to an intermediate milestone. We might say that that does not matter very much because as long as we are going in the right direction we will get there eventually. But the reality is that we are not going in the right direction and the wage gap is growing ever wider. Unfortunately the National Government does not understand that because it had Gerry Brownlee in the House trying to palaver that the gap was growing narrower and John Key was doing the same thing only to be called “slippery” by TV3. It is a terrible thing when our Prime Minister so misrepresents statistics that he is called “slippery”. 
This bill will not make a difference to the gap between wages in Australia and New Zealand— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will they let Gerry Brownlee speak on this bill? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well they might let Gerry Brownlee speak on this bill but they have not let him answer questions on the more important issue about what is happening to that wage gap. The National members have not given us any milestone that New Zealanders can judge their performance against between now and 2025 and we all know that 2025 is a decade and a half away. Most of the National people who are currently here will be superannuitants by that time unless of course they change the qualifying age for superannuation by that time. 
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill which simplifies— 
Simon Bridges 
: Why is this member wearing his raincoat in the House? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Look sartorial elegance is obviously something that would be new to Tauranga but we celebrate it on this side of the Chamber occasionally. 
This bill essentially makes it easier to carry out civil proceedings in Australia or New Zealand. A number of changes are made. For example we are making it easier to serve documents in Australia in respect of a proceeding that has been initiated in New Zealand and the quid pro quo for that is that if a civil proceeding is appropriately commenced in Australia we are making it easier to serve those documents in New Zealand on New Zealand - based parties to that litigation. Equivalent provisions are in the comparable legislation that is being passed in Australia. In addition to that provisions in the legislation on both sides of the Tasman say that if a proceeding is inappropriately started in one country then a stay of proceedings can be applied for in that country while the people involved go to the other country and initiate proceedings there. That guards against people picking what might be the most convenient jurisdiction for them in which to start their proceedings. It might be convenient for them but it might be inappropriate in the context of the case. So a party can then go to the court seek a stay of proceedings— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s written on the back of the jacket? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Cutler a good brand. Let us return to the more important issue which is when we are to get some milestones from the Government on which it can be held accountable for real progress in closing the gap with Australian wages. That was the foundation principle on which National fought the last election. The National members told New Zealanders that they should be jealous of the position of Australians and that they would fix that problem. They said they would fix it by closing the wage gap but it is now going in the opposite direction. We have asked National time and again for milestones but it has declined to provide them. The latest two iterations of economic policy that we have seen from National were dated 1 August this year and the one that predated it a February iteration of the same document. There was no reference to this bill in either of them because of course it is peripheral only to economic performance. But in the February document the Government said it would cause a step change in the economy. It was going to open up further areas like schedule 4 areas for mining and it was going to have a financial services hub. None of those plans— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are in a second reading. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —appear in the latest iteration and this bill will have absolutely— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not entirely comfortable with raising this point but it is the second time I have done so regarding the Opposition. David Parker appears to be dressed in some kind of safari jacket. I notice that the Standing Orders require members to wear business attire. I personally would welcome a ruling that did not require us to wear these silly things around our necks. But I invite you Mr Deputy Speaker to make a ruling on what is appropriate. I certainly do not see that what Mr Parker is wearing right now is business attire. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being considered. I thank the member for that. In terms of wearing ties our Standing Orders require business attire to be worn and that is what we have to comply with. That is the standard set in this House. In terms of the jacket that the Hon David Parker is wearing in my view that fills the bill as business attire. I am quite comfortable with his wearing that jacket. That is acceptable. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker—a man of discerning taste unlike the member for Tauranga. 
The bill makes a very small contribution to the efficiency of the New Zealand and Australian economies. It will help the New Zealand economy to catch up with Australia’s by a very very small amount but no meaningful step has been taken by this Government in terms of bridging that gap. Indeed the  
New Zealand Herald  
has stated in respect of the Government’s economic policy that it has not done much more than some “tinkering with the Resource Management Act and suchlike.” Those were the words I think—“tinkering with the Resource Management Act and suchlike.” It also said that if small steps are taken then only small progress is made and things can go backwards. That is what is happening under this Government. The economic performance of this country relative to that of Australia is worsening. The wage gap is getting bigger. This bill will not be the answer because it does not have much of an effect on the economic performance of New Zealand. Although the bill is a good one it goes to issues of legal process rather than to the economic performance of this country. 
I hope that subsequent speakers from National will get up and tell the country what milestones those members are willing to set that would allow them to be judged on whether they are achieving the step change in the economy that they promised everyone even as recently as February this year that they would achieve—but the phrase “step change” has dropped out of their current rhetoric—and tell us what they are doing to bridge the wage gap with Australia. I am afraid that I am not willing to wait until 2025 to judge whether they are succeeding in delivering on that promise and I do not think that most New Zealanders are either. 
The other changes made in the select committee in respect of this legislation were largely technical. We approached the Australian legislature to see whether we could have the wording of some of its legislation changed as well. As a consequence there is a better alignment of both bills on each side of the Tasman. I commend this bill to the House.