Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Labour is supporting this bill at its first reading and referral to select committee. I have got to say that the area of conflict of laws between different jurisdictions is an area where I feel more ignorant than virtually any other area of law so I hope I do not make a fool of myself in this contribution. If I do I am sure that Mr Finlayson the Attorney-General will correct me in my errors. Can I thank David Bennett the member who brought this bill to the House for his contribution. I thought that was helpful.I have got a number of questions that the Attorney-General might be able to answer if he is going to take a call. The first is that this applies for the purposes of private international law. One of my preliminary questions—and it might seem pretty obvious but it is not to me—is whether that means international law to do with private dealings as opposed to public law involving States. Is that what it means? The Attorney-General nods. My alternative proposition was that it was somehow to do with private contractual relationships or disputes arising that might have a tortious element where none the less there is some underlying private agreement that in the event of a dispute that dispute is resolved in a particular jurisdiction that is nominated in an arbitration agreement or something like that. I suspect it is the former—that it is private rather than as between States—but it is one of the things the Attorney-General might clarify and will be checked at the select committee.The second question I have is this. Where there is a choice of forum I am less than perfect in my knowledge as to how it is that in New Zealand someone can sue in respect of a tortious action causing loss that arose in another country. I would have thought that normally the action would actually have to be brought in that other country rather than in New Zealand and that if you were to issue proceedings in New Zealand no matter which law you applied I would have thought that the other country where the tort applied would not enforce the judgment because it would say: Hey that should have been determined in our courts rather than yours." So perhaps the Attorney-General can elucidate that issue as well.In terms of the cases that the member David Bennett referred to I have not read either. Thank you for bringing them to our attention. You could even shoot me a copy because I would be quite interested to read them so that I understand this area of law a bit better because if this bill is going to proceed into law after subsequent readings I would hope that Parliament has a better level of understanding than I have got at first reading and those cases may assist.I do take cognisance of the article that the member referred to that Chapman Tripp prepared. I have read that. It is very brief and it does not really take me much further into the underlying principles although I do take solace from the fact that as the member David Bennett said similar changes have already been made in Australia Canada and England and I presume that the drafting of this particular bill is based on those provisions that are in that amending legislation in Australia Canada and England. I would expect that the provisions in each of those amending Acts in Australia Canada and England are similar because I would have thought that the same principles apply in those Commonwealth jurisdictions as apply in New Zealand and if they have been trying to cure an ambiguity in their law then presumably they have got to—I would hope that they have got to—the same place as is being proposed here. If they have not then we are going to have to look very carefully as to whether we have got it right or wrong if we are different from them.I do not propose to expose my ignorance by pretending to properly understand the complexity of the existing double actionability rule. I have never studied it. I understand that the basic principle is that presently New Zealand can hear the claim only if the tort is actionable in both jurisdictions and that that is being changed in the way that David Bennett has described which is set out in clause 7 of the bill. I understand that in deciding which law to apply in the dispute that is being determined in the New Zealand law if it is a tort in respect of a cause of action for the damage of property then the laws to be applied by the New Zealand court are the laws of the jurisdiction where the property was damaged. I understand that; I just do not understand how it comes to be litigated in the New Zealand courts. I also understand the logic that if it is another cause of action then it is the law of the jurisdiction in which the most significant element or elements of those events occurred. I can understand the possibility that there are torts that cross jurisdictions and therefore part of the cause of action may arise in one country and part may arise in another country. My analysis of that might be wrong. There might be two separate torts—one in each country. I understand that with the displacement rule we are again conferring upon the court a discretion to say that the general rule which has been changed—so the old general rule is being repealed and we are putting in place a new general rule which I have described—can be displaced if in all the circumstances the court thinks that it is substantially more appropriate for the applicable law for determining the issues to be the law of the other jurisdiction notwithstanding that the general law rule that is set out in clause 7 would have had a different effect.I would be interested to understand from the Attorney-General who I think may have had a hand in this bill—as Mr Bennett alluded to—why in practice this is necessary and I ask for him to give us some examples of how this would have either changed outcomes or made the rights of people who have suffered or are alleged to have suffered a tort. I would like him to explain why this is necessary."