Cosgrove Clayton: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11846] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Arbitration Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Arbitration and mediation are the two main forms of alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution is a growing trend in New Zealand with arbitration becoming increasingly popular for contract-based relationships. Arbitration is a more formal method of dispute resolution than mediation with the parties still having a significant amount of control over the proceedings. Although the result in arbitration is a binding decision the parties can agree to structure the arbitration in a manner that suits their individual needs. That flexibility proves to be attractive when a dispute arises as many parties are involved in ongoing relationships. Arbitration allows for a less adversarial approach to a dispute when compared with litigation leading to less chance that the relationship between the parties will break down in the future. Due to the increasing popularity of arbitration it is timely that the Government is improving the Arbitration Act. 
This bill makes a number of relatively small changes to the Arbitration Act to improve its operation and to keep it in line with international best practice. The bill is the result of a review of the Arbitration Act by the Law Commission. The Law Commission concluded that although the Act was working well a number of minor changes could be made to improve the Act’s operation. I would like to extend my thanks to the Law Commission for its work. 
The Arbitration Act of 1996 replaced an outmoded 1908 Act which had been inherited from England. The 1996 Act which was based on an earlier Law Commission report saw a whole new approach to arbitration introduced to New Zealand. The review by the Law Commission was therefore essential to ensure that the Act was working well for all those who were involved in arbitration. It is pleasing to see that the Act has proven to be a well-used and workable framework with very few tune ups needed. 
As I mentioned in my speech during the second reading of this bill the timing of the bill has also provided an opportune time to ensure that the Act keeps pace with international best practice. One of the purposes of adopting the current Act in 1996 was to create consistency with laws in other jurisdictions. It was for that reason that New Zealand adopted the United Nations model law on international commercial arbitration. Recently changes were made to the model law to reflect international best practice. Those changes have been incorporated into this bill and New Zealand will be one of the first countries to update its legislation to reflect the changes. The amendments in the bill that reflect the changes to the model law will give arbitrators more power to ensure that arbitral proceedings are worthwhile. Assets will be able to be preserved ensuring that a successful party will be able to recover an effective remedy. Evidence will also be able to be preserved ensuring a fair process for all. Those new powers will help to further enhance the attractiveness of arbitration. 
The bill makes some important technical changes to the legislative framework within which arbitration takes place. The fact that only relatively technical amendments were identified by the Law Commission is a reflection on the success of the 1996 Act. 
Again I thank the Law Commission for its expert review of the Act. I also take the opportunity in a non-partisan way to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful and thoughtful deliberation on the bill and to thank the officials for their advice. I thank the House for the positive and cooperative approach taken to this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.