O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I rise to take a very short call on this bill and really to reiterate many of the comments that have been made tonight. I do take note of what the Hon Maggie Barry talked about being somewhat of a layperson in this regard but through the fine explanation of the member Mr Bayly and through the very wise advice we received it was something of an eye-opening experience. The aspect around open justice was the one that probably opened my eyes a little more as to the world of arbitration. I come from an organisation that was the only one in New Zealand that had binding arbitration so perhaps I didn't need to know quite as much about the intricacies of this and it did surprise me as I saw this that there are jurisdictions in the world—notably Singapore and Hong Kong—who have—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner hour. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before the dinner break the House was in committee for the consideration of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. Greg O'Connor had the call and he has three minutes and 48 seconds remaining if he so wishes and it looks as though he does. GREG O'CONNOR: Thank you Madam Chair. I would have felt that had I not taken up this call my life would have been somewhat unfulfilled. Perhaps the other members in the House don't feel the same way. However I did feel that such a bill has brought my somewhat amateur view and understanding of the arbitration process to a new level—particularly around the level of confidentiality. This was where really the basis of this bill was. I mean there was always the opportunity that if we were to have changed the bill or changed the Act so that arbitrations could be conducted—of course arbitrations are conducted in private but of course when they are elevated to the courts there was quite some considerable discussion. And that was the basis of the bill that in those subsequent court proceedings the presumption would be privacy. The real rationale around that is that it would then ensure that those who had been through what has been described previously as the private justice system" went to the open courts they were more likely to go there because they would understand that by the very confidential nature those issues wouldn't become subject to public discourse. Quite rightfully however—although there were submitters who certainly saw the opportunity that presented for an international arbitration industry whereby there would be organisations from all around the world that would come knowing that they could conduct their business here without that business ever seeing the light of day or the facts—it was quite clear as the discussion went on that any advantages would accrue from that. The basis of justice being conducted in an open manner there was no way that we could ever justify doing that. And I also was quite clear—Madam Chair perhaps one can hear at this stage my voice appears to be going. While I'm sure that the world would be a much better place for me continuing this presentation I will at this stage take my seat and commend the bill."