It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and also to have heard what members so far have had to say about this legislation, in particular the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister of Justice, and my colleague Lianne Dalziel. I mean no disrespect to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, but his was a brief contribution.

I think the praise that the legislation has had from both sides of the House is testament to the hard work started by Helen Clark and Lianne Dalziel in 2003 and the agreement worked on by Lianne Dalziel in 2008, which resulted in the bill that we are debating today. Good on the Government for progressing it! It is an important piece of legislation. It is a shame that it is being progressed under urgency; there is no particular requirement that it should be. None the less, we are where we are.

In 2003, as we heard from Lianne Dalziel, Helen Clark and Australia’s then Prime Minister, John Howard—my, how time flies—signed off on the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. That group reported back in 2006. There were a range of recommendations in the report back, such as increasing the use of new video technologies and increasing the types of judgments that can be enforced in both Australia and New Zealand, including civil pecuniary penalties and criminal fines.

As Lianne Dalziel told the House, an agreement reached with Australian legislators in 2008 under her guidance saw this bill drafted. I note with interest that some of the changes in it have been praised by David Goddard QC, one of our leading litigators, as the furthest-reaching proposals between any two sovereign States with separate legal systems. Those in the House who know the barrister whom I have just quoted will know that he has a particular interest in comparative law. If he said that that is the case as far as mutual commercial arrangements are concerned, then there is a very good chance that he is right. So it is interesting to look at the scope of the arrangements that are in contemplation by the House. Achieving a change this significant really is something quite noteworthy. I say that it is as a testament to the work that Lianne Dalziel did when she was a Minister.

It is also worthwhile to look at the work that the Law and Order Committee did. It concluded that the recommendations of Lianne Dalziel’s agreement, as set out in the bill, will make trans-Tasman proceedings simpler and more affordable for businesses and individuals. They will support a successful trade relationship between New Zealand and Australia. They will expand the range of enforceable judgments. Very importantly, they will avoid any incentive for people to move, along with their assets, to one country or the other in order to try to evade the execution or the commencement of legal proceedings in the other jurisdiction. Well, that is the background to how the bill originated.

I will give a brief description of some of the comments that we have had from the select committee, as well as look at some of the changes that have been recommended by it, along with Supplementary Order Paper 160, which the Minister plans to move during the Committee stage. The committee’s changes are largely minor and technical in nature. For example, there is to be a new clause 22(1A) inserted to make sure that a person served in Australia in respect of New Zealand proceedings can apply for a stay of proceedings if the person wants to argue that the matter would be better dealt with, or more conveniently dealt with, in an Australian court. There is clarification of regulation-making powers to provide sufficient rule-making ability so that the courts can ensure that the bill can be implemented properly.

The committee has also recommended that there should be an ambiguity removed. When somebody in New Zealand appears by an audiovisual link in Australian proceedings, Australian law applies to the remote appearance. The committee has also recommended minor tweaks to ensure that the bill is consistent with the relevant Australian legislation relating to contempt of courts and tribunals and to ensure consistency between the purpose of the bill, as set out in its third clause, and that of the agreement between Australia and New Zealand. The Courts (Remote Participation) Act is a recent law. The committee has taken care to recommend that its provisions will not apply to remote appearances made under this bill and that the trans-Tasman evidence regime will operate in parallel with, and not override or be subject to, mutual assistance in criminal matters legislation. Overall, these amendments appear sensible. I think members on this side of the House intend to express their support for them. They are technical changes that largely leave intact the hard work done by the previous Minister of Justice and the previous Labour Government.

The technical amendments that the Minister will move in Supplementary Order Paper 160 at the Committee stage are, again, ones that seem worthy of support because of their technical nature. Clause 26 is to be amended to align its wording with that of clause 24. Clauses 31(2) and (3) are to be omitted by the Supplementary Order Paper because they are unnecessary in a trans-Tasman context and may discourage New Zealand courts from giving interim relief and support of proceedings in Australian courts. Clearly that would not be desirable in the sort of regime that we are trying to set up here. Finally new clause 33A, clauses 39, 40, 54, and schedule 2 are amended to correct errors.

This is a good bill. As I said earlier I am pleased that the present Government is adopting and expediting the good work that was done by Lianne Dalziel as an Associate Minster of Justice. The bill recognises our increasing closeness with Australia, and it eases economic interaction as well as interaction between our justice systems. This is sensible, given the close relationship between our people and given the fact that the legal system that we currently have originated as part of the jurisdiction of New South Wales back in 1840 and has diverged since. In a sense we are correcting some of that divergence through this legislation, hopefully for the benefit of ordinary New Zealand citizens, taxpayers, and business people.

If someone sells their house in New Zealand and moves to Australia and there is a problem with the house or the settlement, later court proceedings will take place in New Zealand. But if a judgment is made and fines imposed, the person in Australia will not simply be able to ignore those with ease under this legislation. Under the new regime proposed in this bill, an Australian court will be able to enforce the judgment made in New Zealand. That is a sensible thing. It is actually a shame that we have not done this before.

The bill is a good step along the way to creating a single economic market. There is much more that we need to do as a Parliament if we are serious about this relationship. Even if David Goddard is right and this is the most ambitious alignment of legal systems between two sovereign States, there is so much more we could do to make business easier between the two countries. I lived and worked in Sydney for a couple of years when I was a partner in my old law firm and I know there were real frustrations that business people and travellers between the Tasman experienced. One cannot get a single mobile phone account or a single bank account. Those are the sorts of things that we absolutely need to correct if we are serious about the single economic market. Members on this side of the House certainly are, and we have a very ambitious set of plans for advancing the agenda. I hope the fact that the Government is advancing this bill indicates that it is similarly ambitious, although I have to say the evidence in respect of that is so far lacking.

This bill does work to make our changing situations in Australia and New Zealand easier for everyone, so I do look forward to hearing further debate on the bill in the Committee stage. I commend the bill to the House.