Pillay Lynne: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12188] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. I would very much like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its hard work and indeed acknowledge the work of the staff and advisers who gave us really good advice and support during our consideration of and deliberation on this important bill. I have been reflecting that this bill amends the Arbitration Act 1996 which is not that long ago. Before that the Arbitration Act replaced the outmoded Act of 1908 which we inherited from England. We can see with this bill the culmination of the progressive approach to alternative dispute resolution in our country. If I reflect on the background that I come from—working in the union movement—I recall that mediation and arbitration was the preferred way of resolving disputes. I see now that arbitration has become a growing trend in New Zealand and I am pleased to say it is a trend that this Government supports. 
Maryan Street 
: It works. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: My friend Maryan Street says that is because it works and she is right. Arbitration encourages the parties to sit down and talk through those disputes in a less adversarial way than they would do by going through the court process. The advantage of that is a speedier resolution and that is a very good thing. It is a very effective form of dispute resolution but there is also the cost to consider. When we are looking at contractual law and at the associated costs borne by the parties arbitration provides benefits when compared with the more traditional adversarial approach. 
This is a very good bill and it represents an enhanced way of dealing with disputes in this country. Once again I acknowledge the Law Commission because this bill is based on the 2003 Law Commission report on the Arbitration Act. Although it was acknowledged that the Arbitration Act was working well some very common-sense recommendations were made as to how the Act could work better and really that is what this bill is about. It is technical and there is nothing particularly controversial about it but it goes a long way towards making things work better. 
Part 1 amends the Arbitration Act. Part 2 amends the Disputes Tribunals Act. Many of the features of the bill are relatively small and are intended to clarify the legislation. The most significant change is the insertion of new sections 14 to 14I into the Arbitration Act by clause 6 of the bill which will ensure total confidentiality in the proceedings with a very few well-defined exceptions. Confidentiality is a really important aspect of arbitration and mediation because it gives a chance for the parties to talk things through in a generally positive way that should lead to a resolution. If those matters were not kept confidential then there would not be open dialogue and the outcome would not be as positive. I am pleased that that is one of the key features of the bill. Also as a general rule if court action takes place after arbitration it is conducted publicly. 
I am pleased to say that the changes the Justice and Electoral Committee recommended were all agreed to in the Committee stage so at this third reading the bill has been reported without amendment. The first recommendation was that the current practice in relation to getting approval from the tribunal be maintained. That was not in the original bill but after careful consideration we believed that the bill would be enhanced if we retained the requirement to get approval from the tribunal. The second recommendation was to recognise the changes to the model law on universal commercial arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law. Those recent changes are included so the Arbitration Amendment Bill before us is very much up to date internationally. There was another recommendation that clause 9(2) be deleted because it would be contrary to the bill’s intent to reduce judicial involvement in the arbitration process. 
As I said before it is excellent that those amendments were agreed to and that there was no argy-bargy about them. The result is that in arbitration now a binding decision can be reached. Although the parties can agree to structure and go through the negotiation and discussion around reaching resolution—and that is a good thing—the decision in the end is binding on all parties. That really enhances the process. As I said before it is a less adversarial approach and although cost is not the only issue in a dispute it is a key issue. 
My view which I am sure would be shared by a number of my colleagues is that arbitration gives more access to justice because the cost is not so great. With a focus on wanting to resolve the dispute and with the parties accepting that it can be binding— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Absolute drivel. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I see that Mr Finlayson does not agree but we do from time to time not agree. I have to say that from time to time we do not agree and that perhaps I have more of a grassroots experience. He tends to focus more on the experience of his background within the law profession and perhaps has just a little less life experience should I say of dealing with people. Certainly it would be fair to say that his experience would not be of the same mediation and communication skills that many at the grassroots level enjoy. 
I really cannot think of much more to add except to thank the committee again and to also say that it is good to see this legislation go through and make the progress that it has made in this House. We know soon that it will be in place and offering an enhanced process for arbitration which has become a much more popular process with the people who use it. I think that is very good for relationships especially contractual relationships and for ongoing relationships in the future. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.