Auchinvole Chris: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12184] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Arbitration Amendment Bill during its third reading. The bill was introduced to the House on 10 October 2006. In the introduction the Minister responsible for the bill the Hon Clayton Cosgrove explained that the bill is the result of a review by the Law Commission of the Arbitration Act 1996 in conjunction with two other bills under review the Wills Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill both of which have been keeping pace with the passage of this bill. The Minister described the alternative dispute resolution as a growing trend in New Zealand and as receiving in general support throughout the country. Of particular note is the use of arbitration in disputes in regard to commercial contracts property and contractual situations. It is an observation one could make that the surprise is not that arbitration is having such general acceptance but that it has taken quite so long for such a sensible way of resolving disputes to come about. 
The system of arbitration in New Zealand largely inherited from the UK was in 1996 overhauled and updated. The resulting 1996 Arbitration Act reflected the model of law on international arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 1985. The Act is a complete code applying to both domestic and international arbitrations. Since then the Law Commission in 2003 reported on the 1996 Act and proposed amendments to it. If I might make an observation again I remember when we spoke with officials of the Law Commission at the Justice and Electoral Committee the sense of frustration that was expressed by them on the lack of Government attention to matters the commission brings to the Government’s attention for review. It is comforting to think that since then we have at least these three pieces of legislation going through as a consequence of the commission’s report. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If it is the Government it is not comforting. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well that is right. Is it comforting if the Government is doing it? I say to Dr Mapp that I will be speaking a little later about that. 
National supported the first reading of the bill and supported it to the select committee. We concentrated particularly on issues arising from clause 6 which deals with the important issue of confidentiality. Arbitration is a consensual method of dispute resolution. It enables parties to identify parameters to determine the rules that they wish to apply to the resolution of the dispute to adjudicate then make a binding decision. This is quite a delicate and sensitive way of dispute resolution and involves a considerable amount of trust by all parties in reaching a point of resolution. It is not a simple matter any more than is negotiation. Looking at the way the present Government negotiates we see that it seems to expect a particular standpoint to be adopted by all parties before it will begin. That is a great mistake. In my own experience of dispute resolution—and indeed in negotiation—I have never entered a negotiation where all the parties are in agreement initially. If that were the case there would be no negotiation required. Similarly with arbitration there will obviously be considerable differences between the views of the parties that have to be resolved initially so that the rules are plainly clear to everybody. 
Confidentiality as my colleague Mr Finlayson said in the first reading is a key issue. The Law Commission report stated that the key issues were firstly whether section 14 of the Act dealt adequately with the issues of confidentiality and if not how the Act should be amended to deal adequately with that issue. The second issue was when it is necessary for parties in arbitration to have recourse to the courts of general jurisdiction—in other words if the arbitration simply does not work in spite of the best intentions of all parties then they have to have recourse to the courts of general jurisdiction—should the otherwise confidential nature of this arbitral process yield to principles of open justice which of course apply in the courts of general jurisdiction. That was a fairly key question of the whole amendment process for the bill. The bill seeks to deal with this issue in clauses 14F to 14I. The general principle is that if one moves to the court system from arbitration the general principle of open justice will apply unless one can come within the exceptions set out in these clauses. National considered this to be the right balance. 
Other speakers in the first reading applauded other aspects of the bill. We have heard this evening from my parliamentary colleague Te Ururoa Flavell on the views of the Act held by the Maori Party and its support of arbitration in the resolution of disputes. 
The second reading seemed to take an inordinate amount of time to come back to the House and I am not quite sure why that was. Certainly the Justice and Electoral Committee moved with some determination and considerable progress on the select committee part of the bill but it seemed to take a long time to come back for the second reading. Aspects of the debate during that reading included technical discussion and the inclusion of amendments to clause 8. It was noted that the Justice and Electoral Committee worked well together in a constructive manner to build and strengthen the legislation. This is where I revert to the point of Dr Mapp’s very useful interjection in terms of the usefulness of the approach of the current Government. The Justice and Electoral Committee is the same select committee that is currently at risk of being riven over the way the Electoral Finance Bill is being processed. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: At risk? It has been riven already. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well we are a pretty determined lot on that select committee and I think it would be fair to say that so far there is a body of opinion that we on this side of the House are winning the intellectual arguments in most cases that are brought up. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: It’s not hard. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is not hard. I think we have them intellectually surrounded. The sad thing is the lack of reason in the approach being used by the select committee. This is the same select committee that has demonstrated that we can all work together— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You were deluded. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well I do not think we were deluded because I think the willingness is there on our part. But as I said before before one can negotiate before one can arbitrate and before one can work together one has to have a fair basis for discussion. We will no doubt be saying more about that as we get closer to the time. 
The arbitration system has significant advantages. I will be echoing the comments that have been made by previous speakers this evening when I talk about the advantages to dispute resolution. One could say that arbitration is a fight without blows. Through an arbitration system nobody should really get hurt. Arbitration should not necessarily be an adversarial type of resolution. It is enforceable; the results of it can be enforced on all parties. It matches the international models and is in harmony with them. It provides remedies. The bill is principally a series of technical amendments to the existing system to bring it right in to the new model. Indeed as has already been mentioned New Zealand has become one of the first countries to adopt the new international model of arbitration systems. The bill provides powers to preserve evidence enhance arbitration and protect property. I am pleased to support this bill.