Pillay Lynne: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8978] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 As the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee it is a pleasure to speak in support of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to acknowledge as the previous speaker Christopher Finlayson acknowledged that the committee worked in a very efficient and timely manner and—I am very pleased to say—in a very constructive manner which is not always the case with legislation but certainly was this case with this bill. We were able to present a unanimously supported report back to the House that not only supported the bill but also made some very constructive recommendations. 
Obviously the bill is an alternative disputes resolution bill. Arbitration and mediation are a growing trend in New Zealand and I think it is a very commendable trend. It is one that this Government certainly supports. Arbitration encourages the private resolution of disputes in both a timely and a cost-efficient manner thereby enabling the resumption of commercial or other contractual arrangements and relationships. Arbitration provides a forum that is less adversarial than traditional litigation. It achieves results in a way that enables parties to move forward and progress to be made in a timely manner and effectively life goes on. 
The purpose of this bill is to enhance arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution in New Zealand. Confidentiality consumers’ rights and choice of arbiter are all enhanced through this bill. Examples of where this bill would be used include construction projects both landlord and commercial tenants’ disputes and such things as sharemilking agreements. 
In terms of the bill as Mr Finlayson has acknowledged the Law Commission reviewed the 1996 Arbitration Act in 2003 and presented a report. Although acknowledging that the Act was working very well the commission recommended some amendments to make the Act work better. This amendment bill is based on the Law Commission’s recommendations and I take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for the work it has done on this bill. Indeed it has prepared many reports that come before the Justice and Electoral Committee and it is a pleasure to improve the Acts that we have in our system as a result of the work undertaken by both the Law Commission and the select committee. 
The bill is divided into two parts. The first amends the Arbitration Act the second the Disputes Tribunals Act. Many of the features of this bill are relatively small and technical changes such as clarifying definitions. The most significant change comes in clause 6 and ensures total confidentiality in arbitral proceedings with a few very well-defined exceptions. Confidentiality is a feature that makes arbitration very attractive to parties considering dispute resolution but it is currently only an assumption. As a general rule court action that takes place after arbitration is conducted publicly. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has made a number of changes to the bill. It recommends that clause 8(1) be deleted. At present under schedule 1 of the Act if a party is having difficulty with a witness or with obtaining evidence that party is required to approach the tribunal for assistance. The committee members had considerable discussion about this because the bill as introduced proposed to remove that requirement and instead enable parties to go straight to the District Court for a subpoena. Following public submissions however we gave strong consideration to what the submissions revealed which was that in practice the arbitral tribunal is generally able to resolve any issues parties are having in regard to witnesses and evidence and the parties do not need to go to the court. The effect of subclause (1) would have been to reduce the control that the arbitral tribunal has over the process and to provide parties with easier access to the court without their having first exhausted the tribunal process. 
This we believe does not quite fit in with the themes of the Arbitration Act which are to reduce judicial intervention and to increase control of the process by the arbitral tribunal. Therefore the committee has recommended the removal of that subclause and keeping what is in effect the status quo. I believe that was very constructive consideration and I can see Chris Finlayson nodding wisely in agreement. 
Charles Chauvel 
: There’s a first time for everything! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: There is a first time for everything another member says but certainly in this instance Chris is agreeing. It was a very constructive process undertaken by the committee. I commend it for the assistance it gave. I also acknowledge all the advisers and staff who worked very efficiently and helpfully on this bill and report. 
As I said before I am very happy to stand in this House acknowledge the bill and recommend it to the House. Thank you.