Abstract:
This thesis looks at some of the key differences between the New Zealand Personal Property Securities Act 1999 and the Australian Personal Property Securities Act 2009. The extent of the differences will become clearer over time; there is almost a year remaining until a number of the Australian Act’s transitional provisions no longer apply and very few cases have been heard under the new legislation. This thesis focuses on select key differences evident in the Australian legislation and seeks explore both the rationale and the practical effect of the different approaches. Broadly, I have found that the Australian legislation includes both some improvements on the New Zealand Act and numerous differences which add unnecessary complexity or implement questionable policy choices. The lack of official documentation setting out the background to apparent policy decisions makes assessing the novel approaches in the Australian Act difficult. Even where policy decisions are clearly set out, they are not always compelling. In some cases, approaches based on a particular policy stance as at the enactment of the legislation have been rendered largely ineffective through subsequent amendments. While the different approaches in the Australian Act highlight areas of potential reform for New Zealand personal property securities law, they do not always provide the most effective template. This thesis highlights a number of considerations for parties involved in trans-Tasman secured transactions, reveals some unnecessary complexities and questionable approaches within the Australian Act and identifies areas of the New Zealand Act which are ripe for reform.
