Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill

I move, That the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

The Prime Minister said in his statement to Parliament that he wants to give the single economic market a new impetus this year, and this bill is part of that programme. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill simplifies the process for resolving civil disputes with a trans-Tasman element, making it easier to resolve these disputes more efficiently and at lower cost. It will also reduce impediments to enforcing civil penalties and certain regulatory fines across the Tasman. The bill will implement the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement that was signed by the previous Government in Christchurch on 24 July 2008.

In November last year I was privileged to be invited on to the floor of the Australian Federal Parliament as the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, introduced parallel legislation. That legislation has now been passed by both Australian Houses and is awaiting the Royal assent. As indicated at the start of this speech, I will be seeking a shortened select committee period so that we can move as quickly as possible to the final stages necessary to implement the agreement, given the progress that the Australians have made to date.

Currently, with a few exceptions, New Zealand and Australia treat each other in the same way as any other foreign country when it comes to cross-border court proceedings. This is clearly undesirable, given our unique relationship and the commitments we have made to reducing barriers to trade. This bill will enable closer integration of our civil justice systems. That will benefit both countries, and progress in this area reflects our close relationship, our common legal heritage, and the confidence we have in each other’s judicial and regulatory institutions.

I would like to briefly outline some important measures in the bill. The bill simplifies the service of civil court proceedings. It will enable a statement of claim filed in a New Zealand court to be served on someone in Australia as of right. The plaintiff will not have to prove a connection between the proceedings and New Zealand, or to seek leave of the court. This bill and its Australian equivalent will adopt a common give-way rule for deciding which country’s court should hear a dispute. At present, New Zealand and Australian courts apply different tests to decide this issue, which can lead to unnecessary expense and uncertainty. The bill will also expand the range of Australian court judgments that can be enforced in New Zealand, and simplify the process for enforcing them. Currently, only final money judgments from one country may be enforced in the other. This bill extends this to include final non-money judgments, such as an injunction. The only ground for not enforcing an Australian judgment will be public policy. Any challenge that goes to the merits of a judgment will have to be raised with the original court.

The bill also introduces new measures to improve regulatory enforcement. New Zealand and Australia both have a strong mutual interest in the integrity of trans-Tasman markets and the effective enforcement of each other’s regulatory regimes. The bill allows all Australian civil pecuniary penalties to be enforced in New Zealand, unless they are specifically excluded from the regime. Equally, the Australian legislation contains mirror provisions enabling New Zealand civil penalties to be enforced there. Criminal fines play an important role in encouraging compliance with regulatory regimes. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill will allow criminal fines under certain regulatory regimes to be enforced in the same way as a civil judgment debt is. It is intended to apply only to those regulatory regimes that affect the integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency of trans-Tasman markets.

The bill simplifies the conduct of court proceedings in other ways. For example, it encourages greater use of technology so that parties and their lawyers, with leave of the court, may take part in New Zealand civil proceedings from Australia by audio or video link. Needless to say, requiring parties based in Australia to attend court in person is inconvenient and costly, and can add to delays. But it is not only businesses that will benefit. For example, an individual whose former partner moves to Australia before they reach an agreement on how to divide their relationship property will benefit from the simplified procedures and reduced costs.

This bill offers direct benefits for both New Zealanders and the New Zealand economy. New Zealand’s relationship with Australia is our most important, and Closer Economic Relations has set a global benchmark for free trade. Now is the time to build on that success through the single economic market programme by simplifying and improving the process for resolving trans-Tasman civil disputes. I commend the bill to the House.

Labour will support the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. Obviously, I have been involved in this legislation for quite some time. I was originally involved as the Associate Minister of Justice in 2003, and was instrumental in establishing the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. So it was certainly very satisfying to be able to sign the agreement on behalf of the New Zealand Government back in 2008. I think it was a very good occasion, and I really enjoyed it. I recall Justice French hosting the occasion at the Christchurch High Court. It is the only time I have sat on the bench, and I have to say the view is good from up there, but I would not really like to be a judge. It is probably an experience that I will park as a happy memory, rather than something that I would be ambitious to achieve in a future legal career.

The preamble to the agreement is worth recording. I will not read it into the record, but I will summarise its main features. First of all, it acknowledges our longstanding friendship, close historic, political, and economic relationship, and, of course, the Closer Economic Relations agreement itself. I think it is worth noting for the record that it is this weekend when we celebrate, I think, the 27th anniversary of the signing of CER on 28 March 1983. It is quite a substantial event that is coming up. I am aware of that date because when I signed the agreement on behalf of New Zealand we were in the 25th anniversary year of CER. We are now 2 years down the track. I think it is quite significant that we are very close to the actual date of the anniversary of the signing of CER back in 1983.

The second thing the preamble does is acknowledge each other’s confidence in the other’s judicial and regulatory institutions. I think that is quite a powerful expression. It enables both jurisdictions to essentially give up something in order to know that they will be in a good, strong position, regardless of on which side of the Tasman Sea a particular action is being mounted. The third thing is that it affirms the shared commitment to appropriate and effective resolution of trans-Tasman civil disputes and increased regulatory cooperation. Of course, that is a major platform of the Single Economic Market (SEM) agenda, which I had much involvement in myself as Minister of Commerce in the previous Government. Finally, it agrees to build on the existing cooperative regime, regulating the taking of evidence and associated court procedures, in order to further streamline aspects of civil court proceedings and regulatory enforcement and reduce unnecessary procedural and regulatory business in the conduct of litigation. There is a long list of things that the agreement does, but, in essence, it simplifies the trans-Tasman service of court proceedings and enforcements of judgments, it expands the range of enforceable judgments, and it improves regulatory enforcement of civil pecuniary penalties and certain criminal regulatory fines.

I congratulate the Government on retaining the regulatory impact statement within the explanatory note of the bill. I know that the Government has made a decision to take the regulatory impact statements out of printed bills and have them available only on the Treasury website. I state again for the record that I think that is a mistake. It is incredibly useful for MPs in the House to be able to pick up the bill off the Table of the House and see the process that the Government has gone through in a quality, regulatory impact-analysis way. I really do reinforce how worthwhile they are, and this bill is a very good case in point.

This bill has an excellent regulatory impact statement within it. The reason I say that is that it does exactly what a regulatory impact statement should do—it states the public policy objectives of the legislation up front. We have a very clear statement of what the legislation is designed to achieve. It states: “The public policy objective for trans-Tasman court proceedings is to achieve closer integration between the New Zealand and Australian civil justice systems in order to—make resolution of civil dispute with a trans-Tasman element simpler, less costly, and more efficient; and make any remedies more effective; and support the success of the trade relationship between New Zealand and Australia.” Within those three short statements we have encapsulated the public policy objective of the legislation. Then it goes on to state a further objective, which is “to improve the enforcement of various regulatory regimes in which both countries have a strong mutual interest”. It talks about reducing incentives for people to move themselves or their assets to the other country to put them beyond reach of a regulatory regime, and to avoid enforcement gaps that would otherwise exist. We all know examples of people who have gone to Australia in order to avoid obligations that they have in New Zealand. This, obviously, is a public policy statement of some merit, and something that all sides of the House can support.

The next element of a regulatory impact statement is to set out all of the options. This bill does that. It actually sets out four options, not just one or two. Firstly, it starts with the status quo, and, in doing that, it identifies the flaws of the current arrangements. Secondly, it talks about strengthening the existing legislation, which is the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934, and its Australian counterpart, the Foreign Judgments Act 1991. But, as the regulatory impact statement spells out, that is only a partial solution. It would not be in the interest of good governance to pick that up as an option. The third option is legislation based on the Brussels model, which is about easing the enforcement of civil judgments between EU member States, and it talks about mirror legislation being required in Australia. Again, that has some limitations, and it has been identified and spelt out in the regulatory impact statement of the bill. Where more than one court has jurisdiction, priority is decided by a first-to-file rule. What we are adopting between Australia and New Zealand is a give-way rule. That has considerable merit, I think, over the first-to-file rule, because we know that there are limitations with that first-to-file rule from time to time.

The preferred option, option 4, which is set out in the regulatory impact statement, is this bill, the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. It is based on the agreement that I signed back in 2008 with the Hon Robert McClelland, the Attorney-General of Australia. I think this is an excellent example of why regulatory impact statements should be included with bills that are tabled in the House. I know that I could have gone to the website and downloaded the regulatory impact statement if it had not been printed in here—that is exactly what I had to do for the next bill we will be debating on the Order Paper, the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. That is one of the most important bills on financial regulation that this House will deal with this year, and it does not have a regulatory impact statement with it. I will certainly come back to that when we get to that bill.

The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill, on the other hand, has an excellent summary of how the Government came to the conclusion that it was good for New Zealand. It is good for Australia, but, most importantly, it is good for the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. It reduces compliance costs for business. I think that when all of those boxes have been ticked, it has to be a step in the right direction. Labour will be supporting the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I certainly commend it to the House. I am really disappointed that I will not be on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which will consider it in detail, but I am sure those who have that privilege and advantage will feel that they are doing a worthy exercise on behalf of the House as a whole.

It is very positive to speak on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill, because I am sure there will not be a party in this Parliament that fundamentally disagrees with it. I think we have a broad consensus in this Parliament for a seamless operating environment for businesses between Australia and New Zealand. We have a consensus for a closer relationship between our two countries—two countries but one market, if you like, is what we are working towards. As I said, I think it makes this very positive.

I want to talk in a generalised sense about the nuts and bolts of this bill, then talk about what it represents. What it represents is quite significant. It represents closer relations and excellent relations between our Prime Ministers, our justice Ministers, and our officials, right on down. I agreed with the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Minister Power when they said it shows how we, on both sides of the Tasman, can have real confidence in our judiciary.

The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill implements a treaty between New Zealand and Australia. It has one aim: to make it easier to resolve civil legal disputes with connections on both sides of the Tasman. The bill, which is highly complex and technical, will apply to a broad range of civil disputes, benefiting both businesses and individuals. We understand that it would be complex because over a long period of time many countries, including our own, have built up procedures that become quite different from other countries. To unravel that, to systematise things, and to rationalise things so that there is a seamless relationship between countries, takes some doing.

It will also allow for appearances by video link from one country to the other. Today we have already gone through a reading on another bill that provides for greater video link in our courts domestically. I think it is excellent that we are also doing this trans-Tasman so that businesses are spared the costs of interlocutory matters and adjournments and the like, and having to fly the Tasman with all the consequences that go with that, not only financial but also in terms of carbon miles and the like.

The bill also allows the enforcement of regulatory regimes supporting trans-Tasman markets. As I have already said, it is worth noting that this bill is where it is today because of a number of players, most significantly at that high level between Prime Ministers where there is a warm working relationship and greater integration occurring at a regular and reasonably swift pace, then down to the Ministers of Justice level where I know Minister Power has been working hard and often with his colleagues on the other side of the Tasman and in various states, and at official level and downwards.

A working-group was established that has drilled down, if you like, and made this bill possible in terms of getting into the detail. That group comprised senior officials from the relevant Government agencies in both Australia and New Zealand. I will not go through its recommendations one by one and line by line, but they are of interest. One of their recommendations was that the proposed regime would allow initiating process and civil proceedings issued out of a court in Australia or New Zealand to be served in the other country with the same effect as if service had occurred in the country of issue. It seems to me that that is very significant because any litigation lawyer will say that just domestically trying to serve another party or group to a proceeding causes enough hassle as it is in terms of trying to find them, along with the rigmarole one has to go through when that party cannot be found with substituted service and the like. We have rationalised that and made that seamless on both sides of the Tasman, and I think that is very good. Again, it goes towards cutting down business costs and compliance costs, and pushing for one market so that a business in Palmerston, Australia, can do business with Palmerston North, New Zealand, as if we were one.

Having talked about some of those nuts and bolts and some of the things this bill does, I again reflect on the significance of this bill in a broader lens. It reflects the general commitment on both sides of the Tasman to enhance the operation of the single economic market. It reflects the warmth of relations and the absolute confidence we can have in first-class judiciaries on both sides of the Tasman, and long may that continue.

I rise to support the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel has already said on Labour’s behalf, we intend to support this measure.

The bill’s background is well set out in the regulatory impact statement, where the linkages between New Zealand and Australia are set out. It is probably worth repeating some of those facts to the House: “in 2006, over 900,000 Australians visited New Zealand and well over 1 000 000 New Zealanders visited Australia … in the year to June 2006, exports of goods from Australia to New Zealand came to NZ$7,641 million and from New Zealand to Australia to NZ$6,806 million:”. Those two figures were for the export of goods. In terms of services, services from New Zealand to Australia were $2.3 billion and from Australia to New Zealand they were $3.5 billion. As well as that, there were very significant investments: about $68 billion of Australian investments in New Zealand and about $25 billion of New Zealand investments in Australia.

The first point to make in respect of those trade figures is rather tangential to this bill. It is that there is a trade imbalance with Australia, which reflects the fact that the Australians have a more successful economy than ours. In my view, this reflects a fundamental difference between savings and investment policy on either side of the Tasman. Australia has long had a very good savings record; it does it through workplace savings for superannuation. Australians have had workplace savings for superannuation on a compulsory basis now for a couple of decades. In contrast, New Zealand has not, despite the good efforts of Sir Roger Douglas—back under the Kirk Government—in designing a suitable scheme, which was then trashed by Mr Muldoon in order to buy his way into success in the election in 1972 or 1975.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: 1975.

It was the 1975 election; I thank Sir Roger for that. Since that time New Zealand has not really caught up with Australia in terms of savings and investment. That is probably the main underlying reason why Australia has a trade surplus with New Zealand: it has deeper investment markets, and it has more money to invest in productive enterprise and to spend on the purchase of New Zealand businesses than we have to spend on the purchase of theirs. As a consequence, we suffer in comparison with Australia.

This measure is good but it causes me to reflect on some of the things that this Government is not doing in terms of bridging this gap between Australia and New Zealand. The Government says that one of its driving ambitions is to close the gap between New Zealand and Australia, but these regulatory measures do not actually cut the mustard. They are good things to do and I do not disapprove of their being done; indeed, this bill is a result of work initiated by the Hon Lianne Dalziel under a Labour-led Government. But the underlying reality is that the Government is not improving New Zealand’s saving and investment record in any material way. Indeed, it has done some things to its disadvantage.

It has missed opportunities to make fundamental changes to the economy. It had a good, considered report from a tax working group. Commissioning that report was wise on the part of the Government, but when it got it, it just picked out the eyes that National would ordinarily pick out of any such policy. It did what it always does. It will end up increasing the relative tax burden of low and middle income people to the benefit of higher-income people, who will get most of the tax breaks.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to come back to the subject. This bill is about trans-Tasman proceedings, not solely about New Zealand. I ask the member to bring his debate back to that subject.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming back to the bill, I say that that is the reason why the regulatory impact statement records such a gap in the export of goods from Australia to New Zealand compared with the smaller amount we export to Australia, and why we have a trade balance.

The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill obviously does some sensible things. Firstly, at the moment a judgment in an Australian court for anything other than a sum of money cannot automatically be enforced in New Zealand. This bill fixes that by saying that if there is an appropriate judgment in an Australian court then it can be enforced in New Zealand—whether it is a simple judgment on a debt or it arises from some other cause of action, such as breach of contract, tort, or whatever cause. Secondly, it says that proceedings commenced in an Australian jurisdiction can be served here. Thirdly, it says that where Australian proceedings are afoot in Australia, interim relief can sometimes be granted in New Zealand under those proceedings. So if there is an Australian proceeding where assets sitting in New Zealand might be at risk, and there is some desire to get some interim injunctive relief to stop the disposal of those assets, that sort of thing could occur. Someone could come to the New Zealand courts and say on the basis of those Australian proceedings that those assets ought not to be shuffled out of New Zealand to some other jurisdiction—and out of the jurisdiction of any court to attach—should the court action in Australia be successful. There are some areas where interim relief cannot be granted. I am not 100 percent sure of the meaning of those clauses, but I will be interested to better understand the detail of those provisions at select committee, where I am sure they will be clarified.

In terms of choice of jurisdiction, there are protections in this bill to make sure that people do not just choose the jurisdiction they think will be best for their case in terms of the differences in the law between Australia and New Zealand, rather than choosing the proper and best court depending on the background to the case. There is ability here for the court to say that the case should not be heard in its jurisdiction, and a stay of proceedings can be applied for in a New Zealand civil proceeding if the court is convinced that Australia is the more appropriate forum for the hearing of that dispute.

Another provision is that the courts can now enforce contractual agreements between the parties as to their court of choice. When parties enter into a commercial arrangement, they can agree in advance what court will resolve their disputes. It can be quite common for a New Zealand business doing business with an Australian-based company to agree in their contract that the contract disputes will be determined in Australia according to Australian law, or in New Zealand according to New Zealand law. In either case those agreements will now be able to be enforced. In the case of an agreement to litigate in New Zealand it would be enforced by this legislation and a New Zealand court; in respect of agreements to litigate in Australia the companion legislation, which will be passing through the Australian legislature, will have a similar effect.

Another important change made by the bill is the facilitation of remote appearances and the remote giving of evidence on both sides of the Tasman. It will be made easier, which is appropriate. We had a discussion earlier in the day about its being more appropriate in respect of civil proceedings than in respect of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings the defendant has the right to see the witnesses and to test their evidence in a way that is more important, given the risk to their liberty if they are convicted of a crime, than the less important considerations of personal liberty that arise in respect of civil proceedings, which this bill deals with.

Another part of this bill gives force to various tribunal findings, which will now be able to be enforced in New Zealand. In other words, some of the ways in which judgments can be forced will apply to decisions not just of Australian courts but also of certain other listed tribunals. That, too, is appropriate.

As Lianne Dalziel said, this bill has a good regulatory impact statement. I must say I find it beneficial that it is included in the bill. Although in a perfect world we would have a lot more time to prepare before we speak on these debates, on occasion we come here without having had the opportunity to download the regulatory impact statement. I think it is useful for members, and it aids the integrity of the regulatory impact statement process, if the regulatory impact statement is included in the bill rather than put in some other document. It enables people who are interested in those matters to have easy access to them so that they can assess for themselves whether the proposed regulatory move is justified. In this case I think the regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this new regulation, giving power to enforce judgments arising from Australian courts and making—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, but the member’s time has expired.

The Green Party regards this Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill as introducing an improved legal framework for addressing trans-Tasman civil disputes, and, as such, it should make it easier for such disputes to be resolved more quickly and more cheaply. The bill also provides for the greater use of video and audio conferencing, which has environmental benefits as well as efficiency benefits.

A potential issue with the bill is that it helps set up a regulatory framework that could facilitate further economic integration between Australia and New Zealand in terms of CER and the single economic market. We do not think that this in itself is a strong enough reason to vote against the bill, as the general impact will be positive.

One technical issue with the bill is that it might allow a litigant to lodge proceedings in one jurisdiction without proving that it is the most appropriate place to do so. That is to say, he or she could lodge a proceeding in New Zealand without proving that it is more appropriate to do so here than in Australia. The defendant in that situation could apply for a stay of proceedings to stop inappropriate jurisdiction being used, but this moves the onus of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant, which would be an unusual development.

We think this issue should be explored at the Justice and Electoral Committee, but, with due regard to those passing concerns, we are positively disposed towards the bill and we support its referral to the select committee.

I would like to make a brief speech to reiterate Labour’s support for the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. It arises from work done by the fifth Labour Government. In 2003 Helen Clark along with John Howard set up the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. The working-group identified ways to streamline the process for resolving civil proceedings involving a trans-Tasman element. The group’s recommendations were incorporated into the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement, which was signed in 2008.

New Zealand and Australia have two of the most closely aligned or integrated economies in the world. Every day there is huge movement of people, assets, and services between the two countries. Of course, this means that disputes with a cross-border element will inevitably arise. This bill is therefore very important as it facilitates the efficient and effective resolution of such disputes. These reforms are important for all businesses and individuals who could be involved in trans-Tasman disputes. For them, this bill will make the justice system more efficient and more affordable to use. It will simplify trans-Tasman court proceedings and make dispute resolution much easier.

These reforms are also important for the future of closer economic relations between New Zealand and Australia. This bill provides support for the trans-Tasman trade relationship, and removes barriers to that relationship. It more closely integrates the civil justice systems of the two countries, and the passing of this bill will also mean that regulatory enforcement between New Zealand and Australia is greatly improved. This bill is enormously significant for closer economic relations between New Zealand and Australia. It will bring our two separate legal systems into alignment in a way that is unprecedented anywhere in the world. It is symbolic of our close and unique relationship that New Zealand and Australia can work like this to allow for ever closer cooperation between individuals and business across the Tasman.

Acknowledgment should be made to Simon Power for introducing this bill, and to the fifth Labour Government for setting up the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement in 2003, and for signing the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement in 2008. This bill concludes the excellent work done by the previous Government on reforming the process for resolution of disputes with a trans-Tasman element. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. The 2006 report Māori in Australia: Ngā Māori i Te Ao Moemoeā reckoned that there were about 120,000 Māori living in different parts of Australia. It listed a number of reasons why Māori have chosen to move to what has been called the lucky country: lifestyle, climate, economic opportunity, higher wages, and a lower cost of living. Mind you, there is also a series of more negative factors, which forced Māori to leave Aotearoa: prejudice from Pākehā, mainstream negativity about Māori issues, negative attitudes towards success within their own whānau, the ugly side of domestic violence, and the impact of drugs, gangs, and crime. Members of the Māori Party have been over there a few times, and we have seen the full extent of the challenges people face in trying to maintain Māori cultural practice, and nurture their sense of Māori identity; and despite the best efforts of whānau here to entice their loved ones home again, it is fair to conclude that there will continue to be a significant number of Māori who call Australia home.

In particular, whānau employed in construction, mining, security, community services, and various trades, happily call states such as Queensland and Western Australia in particular a blue-collar paradise. This bill recognises the huge increase in the movement of people, assets, and services between both countries, with nearly 450,000 Kiwis living over there and, apparently, some 60,000 Aussies living here. Exports from Australia to New Zealand total about $8 billion, and exports the other way total about $7 billion. Apparently, it is much the same for services, with about $3 billion going either way.

The area of real difference is the level of investment, with total Australian investment here being about $70 billion and total New Zealand investment over there being about $25 billion. That is what this bill is all about—the challenges posed by trans-Tasman trade relationships—because the growing levels of investment and the export and import of goods and services bring with them a greater number of disputes involving those working across borders. The bill puts in place dispute resolution processes that are cheaper, more efficient, and less complicated and can deliver tangible results to individuals and businesses in both countries. Hopefully, this bill will help streamline the process for registering and enforcing court judgments, facilitate the greater use of technology to enable parties to appear in proceedings in either country, and ensure that fines imposed in either country for regulatory crimes can be enforced in both countries. For those reasons and others the Māori Party will be supporting the bill at this stage. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā anō tātou huri noa i tō tatou Whare. I am pleased to take a short call on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. The importance of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand has been long recognised on this side of the Tasman as well as on the other side of the Tasman. The relationship between our two countries canvasses a number of dimensions, and the bill before the House tonight gives us the opportunity to cement further a strong foundation to support that relationship. Tourism occurs between our two countries, a range of business occurs between our two countries, and, as previous speakers have already mentioned, we have a number of family connections across the Tasman, between our two countries.

My colleague Hone Harawira mentioned the report Māori in Australia: Ngā Māori i Te Ao Moemoeā, which was published in 2006. It gave a comprehensive report on the nature, extent, and degree of Māori travel to, and settlement in, Australia. I am delighted to say that in my former incarnation as the deputy secretary of Te Puni Kōkiri I had the foresight to commission that report, because I was concerned to ensure that we did have a fuller understanding of the nature of the Māori population settled in Australia. Of course, even though Māori live in other countries, whether it be in Australia or in any other part of the world, their relationship and their status as tangata whenua of Aotearoa New Zealand is not compromised, and those ongoing relationships remain important to us.

This bill provides, as I said, another dimension of the framework of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand by proposing to cement in place a civil justice relationship. The bill reflects the commitment of both Governments to enhance the operation of a single economic market between our two countries. Our Prime Minister, John Key, emphasised the importance of the single economic market when he outlined the Government’s programme for the year in the statement he made to the House in February. He said that the Government intended to push hard for progress on the single economic market. Australia is often the first stop for New Zealand businesses looking to expand into overseas markets, but getting to grips with the different Federal and state regulations can sometimes be a significant challenge. The single economic market is about aligning the regulatory environments in New Zealand and in Australia so that a New Zealand company operating in Kawakawa or Kaitaia can as easily do so in Canberra, or, indeed, so that a New Zealand company operating in Ruatōria can as easily do so in Sydney. We want to give the single economic market a new impetus this year, and that is something our Prime Minister will be discussing with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

This bill is an important step towards closer integration of the Australian and New Zealand civil justice systems, which will underpin those aspirations for greater, stronger, and more positive relationships between our two countries. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to take a short call to add to the words of the previous speaker, and speakers before me on this side. As has been said, this bill really arises from the work done by the previous Labour Government. It is quite significant that this work started with John Howard and Helen Clark way back in 2003, and it is really interesting that we are here in 2010—7 years later. That shows how long it takes to do things properly when one is trying to get a trans-Tasman agreement and then trying to get supporting legislation in both countries to any trans-Tasman agreement. These reforms will make legal proceedings between the two countries much easier. Another benefit is that they will be much more affordable. So the bill works towards the closer economic relations plank that the two countries have.

I commend some of the people who have worked on the bill, particularly David Goddard QC. He was a member of the trans-Tasman working-group, which reported back to the Labour-led Government in 2005. He pointed out that these proposals are the most far reaching between two sovereign States with separate legal systems. Today Minister Simon Power mentioned that the enabling legislation has been tabled already in Australia, and this side will not get in the way of New Zealand’s legislation being progressed through all stages.

I feel it is important to acknowledge the work of the previous Minister, Lianne Dalziel. She signed the agreement between New Zealand and Australia in Christchurch in 2008, so one can see how long these steps take. Something like this cannot be supercharged; it had to go through the Australian system and then our legislation has to take its pathway.

This bill is great work and now Labour is in Opposition and we have a National-led Prime Minister working with an Australian Labor-led Prime Minister. It shows how close both countries are with our intent to do what we can, where we can, as two countries to make relationships work more smoothly and to have our legislation more aligned. We support this legislation.

It is interesting: there must be an outbreak of love this afternoon. I note that this is the Government’s third bill that has come before the House this afternoon, and both sides of the House are in full agreement in supporting all the bills before us. I also note that the Opposition took the time to move a motion of congratulations to one of our esteemed MPs, so this is perhaps a great day of love that has broken out.

I want to focus on a couple of things that other speakers have commented on, and I agree with them. The bill is highly technical but it focuses on a further step, if you will, in the growing relationship with our near neighbours in Australia. But there is one aspect that I do not think has been covered and which I think is very important to note for the record. We have obviously reflected that this bill will assist in progressing civil proceedings much more efficiently, and, in particular, will improve the effectiveness of any remedies awarded. It is particularly important to note that the biggest beneficiaries will be medium to small businesses. We know that the big corporates have the resources to take things to extreme and, one might say, play hard ball when things are not going their way. The small to medium sized enterprises have great difficulty in, firstly, taking action, and, secondly—depending on the success or otherwise—being able to pursue the remedies that may have been awarded to them. They have had difficulty and had to go to great expense to pursue those awards. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill, simply because the greatest beneficiaries will be small to medium sized businesses.

The other aspect I want to comment on, as have other speakers from the Opposition, is the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the bill. I note that it canvasses some of the economic indicators contained in the bill, and although I note that I was somewhat disappointed with the contribution of David Parker to this debate, it is worth recording that the very steps this Government is taking—and this bill is one of them—are all aimed at improving the economic position of New Zealand, relative to Australia. We are doing that so that New Zealand can, once again, reverse what occurred under the previous administration whereby our relative position was going backwards. With those few remarks, I join with others in recommending the bill for its first reading. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2010, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.