Members on this side have been pleased to support the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill through all its stages in Parliament because we think it is a good bill. It reflects, as has been noted, the very hard work of the previous Labour Government, and in particular that of my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who was Minister of Commerce at the time that the agreement the legislation is based on was reached.

This is legislation that truly benefits business. As far as this Government’s record is concerned, the simple re-enactment, or continuation of the enactment, of legislation largely originated by Lianne Dalziel, when she was either Associate Minister of Justice or Minister of Commerce, has constituted all of its meaningful pro-business law reform agenda. It is worth noting that that is actually the case. For all the rhetoric, for all the dog whistling about laws to extend the fire-at-will period to all businesses and the like, that sort of legislation will not make a difference to business in reality; the substantive reform, the pro-business law reform programme, is a continuation of the work of my colleague. I want to put that on the record of the House fairly and squarely.

The other matter that I want to refer to up front is the inappropriateness of this legislation going through the House under urgency. There is no justification whatsoever for doing that. Although there is multiparty agreement on the appropriateness of the legislation and its importance, and, certainly, members on this side are pleased to see the legislation finally being progressed, the procedure adopted here is an embarrassment. The Minister in the chair during the Committee of the whole House, the Attorney-General, clearly had had the job foisted on him. He did not know the answers to questions on the Government’s programme to allow the Governor-General, through clause 51, to extend the Act to certain tribunals and courts in Australia. He simply did not know the answers to significant questions. The Committee should have heard those answers and they should have been placed on the record.

I do not blame the Minister for that. He did a good job in the circumstances. But he did have officials present, so he could have asked them a couple of questions so that he could enlighten the Committee on what the Government intended by further extending the scope of the bill—which clearly is a good thing. That is what happens when legislation is rushed through under urgency, when the responsible Minister is not available to sit in the chair during the Committee stage and we have two substitute Ministers in the chair. They are simply not in a position to address the important questions. I would have hoped that, on a measure as important as this—particularly when the Minister for Building and Construction, who gave the third reading speech in the House today, claims to be very pro-business—we might see a slightly more respectful process in this House. Unfortunately, under this Government, that is a vain hope.

It is true that it is good that the bill will allow a broader range of judgments to be registered and enforced between Australia and New Zealand. It will allow court appearances by video link between the two countries, and it will allow the enforcement of regulatory regimes supporting trans-Tasman markets. All of this will make the doing of business and the resolution of disputes across the Tasman far simpler and more affordable.

When I was working in the Sydney office of my old law firm, one of the constant frustrations for businesses and individuals doing business across the Tasman was that the integrated single economic market was going along apace and people were very much in favour of it, but when a legal dispute occurred between, say, South Australia and New Zealand, there was no effective way of enforcing the judgment unless it was a dispute that could be resolved in the Federal Court of Australia on the one hand and the High Court of New Zealand on the other. Then a reciprocal enforcement procedure was introduced, thanks to work done by Geoffrey Palmer back in 1989-90, I think, when there were amendments to the High Court Rules and the rules of court of the Federal Court of Australia. If one was lucky enough to have a dispute case brought in the Federal Court on a federal matter in Australia, one could achieve some sort of mutual enforcement. But if the dispute was in a state court, or in any other court in the federal regime, one was essentially prejudiced. We are fixing that, finally. That is a desirable outcome, and that is why Labour substantially supports the bill.

On the issue of economic catch-up with Australia, which is a mantra we hear a lot in this House, and outside it, these days, we need more of this sort of legislation to fix the real productivity issues that occur as roadblocks to trans-Tasman business. As I say, I would like to see more of this sort of substantive reform; reform that is well-thought-through and evidence-based, reform of the kind that was advanced so strongly by Lianne Dalziel and Michael Cullen in the previous Government, rather than dog-whistle slogans about increasing productivity and trying to catch up with Australia, which unfortunately is the record so far of members opposite.

I will give an example of how the measures in this legislation are positive. An Australian-based company—“S”—is offering investment schemes to New Zealanders. It is registered as an overseas company in New Zealand, and it has appointed somebody to handle its legal proceedings here. It makes a misleading statement in one of its documents. “S” is prosecuted under the Securities Act, resulting in the imposition of a fine by the court. Well, under the current system, because “S” could withdraw all its assets from New Zealand and move them back to Australia to evade enforcement, it is not possible to enforce any fine. That is a waste of legal costs for all involved, and, in fact, people do not even bother with legal action in these circumstances, and there is no accountability under the laws of New Zealand, and that has a detrimental effect on respect for the legal system. Under the legislation proposed, our Securities Act would be more enforceable in Australia. The fine against the company would be as enforceable there as it would have been if a civil judgment had been made in a New Zealand court. That has to be a good thing, and it is something that certainly ought to be supported across the House.

At the moment, as I have said, only final money judgments can be enforced on a trans-Tasman basis. There is no ability to get interim relief. The decisions of the tribunals of one country cannot be enforced in the other, and even though the Minister could not tell us which tribunals the Governor-General will extend the legislation to, we can assume that there will be such tribunals. The rules to determine which countries’ courts will decide a matter are confusing, and neither civil pecuniary fines nor criminal fines can be enforced in a country other than the one they were imposed in. These are the sorts of real barriers to productivity that exist, these are the sorts of problems that ought to be addressed, but, instead, we see this Government trying to remove the rights of people to fairness at work. It says that that is the way to achieve better productivity on this side of the Tasman. Well, we know that is nonsense. We know that the way to get proper productivity and proper business law reform to the benefit of our nation is to advance bills like this. It is a shame that this one is being done through urgency, without the responsible Minister present to tell us the answers to some important questions. Lianne Dalziel has posed them, I have tried to pose some of them, and we have not heard answers, so we are not in the best space possible. None the less, the bill is finally going through and that is something we should be pleased about.