Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat. As the member who is sponsoring this bill Mr Andrew Bayly should be feeling lucky as seldom do members' bills especially technically driven ones attract so much attention. On that note I'd like to acknowledge the initial sponsor of this member's bill Mr Paul Foster-Bell who is present in the House tonight.I want to thank our officials advisers and PCO—the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Without their knowledge experience input and should I add their patience we could not have achieved what we have achieved now. I want to also thank the Minister Andrew Little for his leadership support and should I add again patience and tolerance without which we cannot achieve what we have achieved in terms of both the substance and procedure in terms of the progress of this bill.We might have made history or at least set a rather unusual precedent. If members are not quite sure about the historical side of that at least members can agree that we had a very robust process and had robust debate and worked constructively on this bill. We considered two departmental reports: one from the advisers from the Ministry of Justice and another one from our independent adviser the retired High Court Judge Justice Paul Heath QC. This bill has also attracted the attention of Chief Justice the Rt Hon Sian Elias. To a large extent the views expressed by the Chief Justice have helped shape my own views and also others' views in terms of fundamental principles as well as specific provisions proposed under this bill.Lastly this bill went all the way back to the Business Committee where we as the Justice Committee sought advice and sought instruction from the Business Committee for that committee to determine whether a particular amendment to a provision which would be outside of the scope of the bill could be considered by the House and the Business Committee has duly determined that the amendment could be considered by the House. That particular point concerns clause 1(4) of schedule 2 of the Arbitration Act 1996—the primary legislation. The Justice Committee received strong representations from submitters that that clause should be repealed. That provision sets out a default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators where parties cannot agree. It gives rise to a problematic aspect called quick-draw procedure".Let me read out one direct quote from Paul Heath QC's report: "It would be undesirable for an arbitration that had continued for … months to be challenged successfully at a late[r] time on the basis that [Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand] had no power to make the appointment." That's a direct quote from QC Paul Heath's report therefore clarity is required. However the proposed repeal of clause 1(4) of schedule 2 is not contained in the bill and a question of scope therefore arises.Another important issue concerning this bill is open justice. Arbitrations are conducted in private by default and confidential information cannot usually be disclosed. However when arbitration proceedings are elevated to the court our laws provide that proceedings are conducted in public by default although a party can apply for private proceedings. One of the key and contentious proposals of the bill was to extend the presumption of confidentiality to cover court proceedings related to arbitration.What the advisers from the Ministry of Justice provided in the departmental report is that the current section 14F provides a process for a party to apply for a private hearing. Before ordering a private hearing the court must consider basically three elements. The first one is public interest in the judgment the second one is the private nature of arbitration and the third one is the open justice principle. Paragraph 64 of the departmental report made it clear that where hearings are open to the public the courts can still order that information not be published if there is a compelling reason to do so. As noted by law partner Jeremy Johnson during his oral submission it is rare that courts will decline an application to anonymise their judgment.I do not intend to spend too much of the House's time at this stage simply for two reasons: (a) I'm very much looking forward to the committee of the whole House stage where I understand certain Supplementary Order Papers will likely be introduced; and (b) I'd like to come back to some other important issues including open justice and also the views expressed in the two letters of the Chief Justice which again helped to shape my own view and I believe shaped the committee's view. So I look forward to the progress of this bill. Thank you very much."