Pillay Lynne: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13583] 
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.