Chauvel Charles: Arbitration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Arbitration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5585] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Like the previous speaker I rise to support the introduction of the Arbitration Amendment Bill and its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. As we have heard the Arbitration Act which was passed in 1996 was a significant overhaul of the arbitration system. The move of the system so that it should reflect the model law on international commercial arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law was a very positive thing from the point of view of harmonising New Zealand’s business law with that of the international community—a trend that ought to continue and is continuing in other areas. 
As we have heard in 2003 the Law Commission reviewed the Act and as I said in respect of a previous bill a very positive feature of this legislation and two other bills that have been introduced today is that they remedy the regrettable trend of allowing Law Commission reports to moulder on the shelves. As I said earlier the existence of the Law Commission is something that New Zealand is very fortunate to have in its system. It allows for considered law reform rather than perhaps the more hasty process that can occur in this House. It allows for consideration by experts and it allows “lawyers’ law” to proceed toward reform in a technical fashion until the right solutions are found. 
The review of the Arbitration Act in 2003 was conducted in a measured way by the Law Commission and the bill that is before the House today effectively implements the recommendations of the Law Commission. Again we should be pleased that the Government is bringing forward the programme of reform that has been recommended by the commission and is advancing it through the House. There is no great political gain in doing that for any Government but it is a good and right thing to do and it is to be noted and commended. 
The bill is divided into two parts obviously. The first amends the Arbitration Act the second amends the Disputes Tribunals Act. Many features of the bill are technical and as the previous speaker Chris Finlayson said simply allow for clarification of matters such as definition and bringing other matters up to date. It is a timely reform as one would expect from the commission. 
The most significant change obviously comes in clause 6 where the total confidentiality of arbitral procedures with a few well-defined exceptions is allowed for. I would have thought given the comments of the last speaker that if that makes arbitration more attractive—as it probably will to commercial parties in particular—then it is a good thing as far as relieving pressure on the general court system is concerned. The openness of justice principle is preserved by new sections 14F to 14I in that if the parties do have recourse to the ordinary court system then the principle of open justice more or less applies unless there is a very good reason to persuade a judge that the reverse position should apply in whole or in part. 
Unlike the UN model—this is a significant point—New Zealand allows arbitration in consumer disputes. It seems to me there is no logical reason why these alternative dispute resolution provisions should not apply across the board. That is what will happen here in respect of the Disputes Tribunals Act. That is a good thing because it means there will be comprehensive reform in this area which is recommended by an expert body and which is needed. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Debate interrupted.