Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill

I apologise, Mr Chair. I am sorry for jumping the gun. I thought we were moving quickly on to this part. I do not want to take too long over this, because, obviously, we have only a couple of clauses, but, actually, when you look at the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill—as I have already mentioned today on another bill—I think it can be tricky if the titles of our legislation are not understandable to somebody in terms of plain English. I think it was clearly outlined that there is not a lot of general understanding even around what a tort is. That was highlighted in the second reading speeches, when I think I admitted to having not a lot of knowledge about it. I recall also the member David Clendon, who was very frank in his own admission that he actually thought that perhaps a tort might be something that you would find in a German bakery. As tasty as that might be, provided there was some sort of actionability in Germany, that might make sense.

I think it is really important that, where we can, we make the titles of our bills easily understood, so that if any New Zealander picks up our statutes they can understand by looking at the title what it is that is trying to be addressed. I thought about that, so “Private International Law” in and of itself for the average person—if they looked at it, they might simply look and say: “I didn’t realise you could have your own private international laws. I thought international laws would be international laws and that laws are something that is public rather than private.” So that could create a little bit of ambiguity. “(Choice of Law in Tort)”—again, clearly, even if you did understand what a tort was, what does “(Choice of Law in Tort)” mean to the average punter?

However, having said all of that, I did really have to think about it and ask whether it was worth the effort of trying to change the title. What would we actually change the title to? Unlike the previous bill that we discussed, where I could think of a few alternatives, I have struggled to come up with any other alternative for this particular bill. Given that the only people who are likely to engage with this legislation are, in fact, people in the legal profession, it is highly likely that they will be able to understand what “Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Act”—as it will be then—actually refers to. So I guess, in hindsight, in having to explore whether or not this is the most appropriate title, I think that, ultimately, it probably is. It will still enable the very good provisions within it to be actioned within New Zealand and also by those in the legal profession, who are the ones who are most likely to engage with it.

Obviously, we had a bit of a change at the Justice and Electoral Committee around the time of commencement. Initially, the first draft of the bill had it coming into force on the day after which it received the Royal assent. Now the phrase “15 days” has been put in there, I guess, ultimately to allow the legal profession to make any adjustments that it needs to. So I think, ultimately, clauses 1 and 2 are in perfect condition as they are, and I am happy to support them.

It is a pleasure to make a final contribution on the title and commencement of this bill, the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill, which looks to codify the situation where tort claims span across jurisdictions. Of course, it looks to abolish the rule of double actionability and codify the situation moving forward.

I will just take the opportunity to answer Mr Bishop’s question, which he put to me earlier. He asked whether I was comfortable with the fact that we were moving to disestablish the rule of double actionability and looking to codify the situation where a civil wrong occurs and where perhaps two jurisdictions could possibly apply. The situation, of course, is that we are actually following suit. There are a number of other common law jurisdictions that have already made this change, one of them being the United Kingdom, to which we owe a lot of the development of our tortious law through common law. So I am quite confident that what we are doing here and what this bill will bring about has been well considered and will actually make claims in tort much easier when they do span across various jurisdictions.

Of course, my colleagues have noted correctly that clause 8 in this bill does still leave in place some discretion for the courts to consider various situations where it is perhaps not as clear-cut. It is important to build that discretion into the courts so that they have that room to manoeuvre.

So I am very pleased to be bringing in this bill. I think it is a good little bill. It is a technical bill. It has been endorsed by the legal sector, and I am sure that it is going to make things much simpler when bringing a claim in tort in a foreign jurisdiction or here in New Zealand. Thank you.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill and the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.