Hon Christopher Finlayson

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There is nowhere else I would rather be. I have to say, with respect, that I thought the discussion in the Committee was excellent. I particularly note the contribution of my friend Ms Pillay, and I say “my friend” advisedly because we enjoyed working together, she as chairperson and I as deputy chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee, even though we disagreed on everything and she took the Labour members off on a wonderful jaunt to Australia and I pulled the National members out because I thought that they should be at home working.

The one substantive point raised in the course of the discussion came from Mr Parker, who I thought made a substantive contribution to improving the bill with the amendment to clause 16, and I acknowledge the discussions we had. He wanted to amend the Building Act longstop period. It could well be that there are very cogent arguments for so doing and that there are benefits, as he said, in uniform limitation periods, but I think this is an issue that needs to be canvassed in the context of the current Building Act review, and his proposed amendment, which was a very serious amendment with very serious consequences, would really need to be consulted on. That was the proposal I put in the Committee stage. It was not accepted, but I do think that that is the best way to move forward.

I am very pleased to be able to move that the bill be read a third time. It replaces 60-year-old legislation. It is very important because, as Ms Pillay says, it addresses the problems that have been identified with the current Act’s substance and drafting. It clarifies and improves general limitation rules, although there are specific limitation rules in other statutes. These rules determine how long people have to bring a civil claim before defendants can argue that the claim is time-barred. The justice system gives people access to the courts to settle disputes they cannot otherwise settle themselves, but these kinds of rules are needed—and I think Mr Parker alluded to this on a number of occasions in the Committee stage—as it is unjust for people to have to defend claims about something that may have occurred many years earlier, merely because the claimant has delayed bringing the case. These rules are designed to strike a fair balance between the conflicting interests of claimants and defendants. Without these rules people could face potential liability for an indefinite period for which they would need to maintain records, professional insurance, and so on. Importantly, the rules address the important public interest in the timely resolution of claims.

The path to the reform of the 1950 Act has not been entirely straightforward. I acknowledge the work of the Law Commission over many years. It started with a preliminary discussion paper in 1987. There were then further discussion papers and reports in 1998, 2000, and 2007. It is a tribute to the Law Commission—and Sir Geoffrey Palmer took a very special interest in this reform—that we are where we are now. An exposure bill was published in 2008, submissions were received on the bill, and the Law Commission then convened a working group of interested persons to consider these changes. The then Minister of Justice gave permission for me to be on that working group—I thought that was very sporting of Annette—and this further work resulted in some significant restructuring and refinement of the bill before its introduction in 2009.

I conclude by thanking the Law Commission for its work, and I also thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its good work. I think that what we have now is very sensible legislation that will stand the test of time, although I hope it is not another 60 years before this Parliament takes another look at this very important area of law. The primary 6-year limitation period is carried forward. We have this new 3-year late knowledge period, which is introduced to address the problem identified by the courts and other experts whereby people sometimes discover they have a claim only after a limitation period has ended. Then we have the 15-year longstop that has been the subject of quite a lot of debate tonight. The new periods will not apply if there is fraud, or if a claimant is incapacitated. As has been canvassed tonight, in some rare cases where minors, for example, have been abused or where the evidence of a personal injury develops over many years, the court will be able to exercise a discretion to grant monetary relief. I think all speakers have noted that limitation law can be complex--

Grant Robertson: But fascinating.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is truly fascinating. I say to Mr Robertson that if he wants a riveting read he should go to the transitional provisions of this bill. They are very, very interesting. I know that he will enjoy that, more than anything he has done in recent times. I echo the words of Lynne Pillay. This bill is a major achievement in ensuring that the rules are fairer and easier to understand and apply. I thank everyone who has played a part in the debate, and I commend the bill to the House.