Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'd like to acknowledge the member Andrew Bayly who has just resumed his seat and also I'd like to acknowledge former National MP Paul Foster-Bell the bill's initial sponsor who is in the debating chamber with us this evening. I want to thank again our officials our advisers the Parliamentary Counsel Office and our independent adviser the retired High Court judge Justice Paul Heath QC. I acknowledge members of the Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand and renowned arbiters such as Sir David Williams QC and Mr John Walton. I want to thank the Minister of Justice Andrew Little for his support understanding and should I add patience and tolerance. Former National MP the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC attended most of the sessions. Mr Finlayson QC brought obviously a lot of wisdom and legal expertise to this process. I still remember the phrase he used when the advisers took the committee through the departmental report. The phrase he used if my memory serves me well was hot tub". The hot tub or "hot tubbing process" as I understand it is a useful tool that challenges experts and gets to the truth more efficiently. Someone has suggested that that particular method originated from the Australian Competition Tribunal practice in the 1970s and others suggested that it originated from arbitration hearings. So basically it involves tandem witness examination where experts collide holding opposing views.Following that spirit I reckon I presented the case to Minister Little and we decided to release the departmental report earlier to attract further submissions and also appointed our independent legal adviser Mr Paul Heath QC. I am confident that the committee has made the right decision because it was not only honouring the sector but also getting some of the fundamental principles right because as Chief Justice the Rt Hon Sian Elias stated in her two letters to the Justice Committee this bill although a member's bill did touch upon some important issues dealing directly with a court function. What I want to reiterate is that a subsequent evaluation of those issues and in particular the report from the independent adviser Mr Paul Heath QC basically confirmed that the officials' views spelt out in their departmental report are correct. It is very important for me and for us to acknowledge it to that extent. Unlike other bills no matter whether they are Government bills or members' bills we have deleted most parts and most provisions from this bill. So in that regard Mr Bayly if he likes may regard himself as a successful failure but in a very positive sense because he has and we have achieved a lot in terms of this legislative process.Indeed there are some key changes and points I wish to highlight at the bill's third reading. The first one—as Mr Bayly acknowledged—is obviously clause 1(4) of Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Justice Committee received strong representations from submitters that the clause should be repealed. That provision gives rise to a problematic aspect called the "quick-draw" procedure. However the proposed repeal of this clause is not contained in this bill. So a question of scope arose and we went all the way to the Business Committee seeking a new mandate that the Business Committee has duly granted.Another problematic provision was clause 4 of the bill which proposed a new section 10A. As drafted the clause would bind all beneficiaries including unborn children and incapacitated and unascertained beneficiaries. The effect of the clause would be to exclude beneficiaries' entitlements to refer the conduct of trustees to the court. Needless to say the court would have always exercised supervisory jurisdiction over such matters. The Chief Justice called it "a radical exclusion of beneficiaries' entitlement" and said it "is not warranted".The third issue is concerning the presumption of confidentiality versus the rebuttable presumption. We are of the view that open justice is a fundamental part of the New Zealand justice system in terms of both the public scrutiny and as a safeguard for the proper administration of justice. The court can always order a private hearing if a party applies and/or where the public interest in a public hearing is outweighed.Lastly I want to say that I am a strong advocate for New Zealand business and "New Zealand Inc." in general. I do agree that international commercial arbitration has grown significantly in the past 30 or so years and it is vital to promote New Zealand arbitration and promote New Zealand as a business-friendly destination for international commercial arbitration hearings. The Asian Development Bank has embarked on a project to improve international arbitration laws in the South Pacific region. There is no reason why we shouldn't follow good examples in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong Singapore and in terms of Pacific nations such as Fiji and specifically promote New Zealand as a business-friendly destination for international arbitration hearings.Sir David Williams QC offered insights into the use of confidentiality provisions overseas and some reasons why it might now be an appropriate time to promote New Zealand and New Zealand arbitration and promote New Zealand as a seat of international arbitration. Paul Heath QC also in his report for the committee's consideration cited a bifurcated model as a possible model for a confidentiality regime.My personal view is: let's not regard the third reading of this bill as the end of this conversation. Rather we should regard this third reading debate as a beginning of many thought-provoking discussions about good ideas of how to promote New Zealand as a business-friendly destination for international commercial arbitration hearings. So my message to the sector is: let's work together. Thank you."