Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill be now read a second time. The bill contains a package of new measures aimed at resolving civil disputes involving both the Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions more effectively and at lower cost.
It will also improve regulatory enforcement between New Zealand and Australia to the benefit of both countries. The bill implements the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement, a document signed by the previous Government in 2008. The Australian Parliament passed the equivalent Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 in March this year. The Australian Act mirrors this bill as introduced except where differences were necessary due to different legal and political contexts. The new regime to be created by the bill and the Australian Act is one of several initiatives that the Government is progressing to help bring about a single economic market between the two countries. As the Prime Minister said in his statement to Parliament in February, the single economic market is to be given a new impetus this year.
I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill, particularly within a shortened time frame. The committee made a number of recommendations to improve the operation of the new regime on both sides of the Tasman and aligned the bill more closely with the Australian Act. For example, proceedings filed but not served before the legislation comes into force will be able to be served on defendants in Australia under the new service arrangements in the bill. However, the bill as introduced meant that those defendants would not have been able to apply for the New Zealand proceedings to be stayed using the new test in the bill. They would also not have been able to appear by video link as of right at a hearing of their application. The committee recommended a change to ensure that all defendants served with proceedings under the bill are able to apply for those proceedings to be stayed under the new arrangements. I expect that the Australian Act will be amended to reflect that change and other changes recommended by the committee where necessary for the two statutes to remain aligned. The committee recommended, for example, that the purpose clause of the bill be changed to mirror the purpose section of the Australian Act. This is important, because purpose sections are used as an aid to interpretation by the courts.
The committee also recommended that a provision be inserted to clarify that the trans-Tasman evidence regime, which is being extended to criminal matters, will operate in parallel with the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. There is already an equivalent provision in the Australian Act. The committee also made recommendations to ensure that the bill worked in the New Zealand context. The New Zealand Law Society submitted that it was important that the bill allow rules to be made to implement the new regime not only under the Judicature Act and the District Courts Act but also under the Family Courts Act, because aspects of this bill will apply to many Family Court proceedings. The committee agreed and recommended that the bill allow rules to be made using any power to make procedural rules for a court or tribunal. That raises an important point, namely that the bill is relevant to business and personal civil disputes. Australia is the biggest market for our manufactured products, a crucial source of our foreign investment, an important source of our skills, and a significant source of our tourism earnings, but with more than 460,000 New Zealanders living in Australia, our personal relationships also bridge the Tasman Sea. This bill will span those different spheres by making it easier to resolve disputes that arise with connections to both New Zealand and Australia and will allow a greater range of judgments to be enforced.
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill is an example of the level of integration that can be achieved between these two civil justice systems where both countries share a common legal heritage and each country has sufficient confidence in the other’s judicial and regulatory institutions. I commend the bill to the House.
