Mitchell MarkARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 12 December 2018.Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on this the second reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. A couple of things: the first thing I want to start with—and it does relate to this bill and it relates to this bill because I'm talking about international arbitration and this bill is actually going to have I think a very positive effect for us as a nation in terms of being seen as a genuine destination location for international arbitration. But if you remember the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and I sat on the select committee that had the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement come through it there was a lot of concern around the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions and the ISDS provisions relate directly to the international arbitration or the arbitration that would be required if there was a dispute contained inside that free-trade agreement or in the Combined and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership as it's called now. During that debate there was a lot of opposition around the ISDS provisions and actually the TPP free-trade agreement from the Government from Labour. I noticed that when they went from Opposition to Government they very quickly embraced that agreement. And that was a good thing because in terms of trade historically both the major parties in this House have tried to support and make sure that there was good quality. Yes I'm going to narrow it and come back to the bill.SPEAKER: You're going to get there pretty soon I hope.Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'm going to narrow it and come back to the bill. The point that I'm making is this: the reason why there was so much tension around the ISDS provisions was because there wasn't a high level of confidence in terms of where the jurisdiction would be and how that process would actually be undertaken. And so the reason why having this Arbitration Amendment Bill in the House is so good is that it's actually strengthening our own legislation in New Zealand that will help us be seen as a genuine location for people to come and actually have international arbitration cases heard here. I've been sitting in the House today and I've been listening to a lot of speeches running this down. I was very lucky recently to have a visit to Hong Kong which of course now is part of Mainland China and they recognise that: one country but two very different systems. And the thing that Hong Kong has been very very good at doing—and they identified that there was a clear opportunity around international arbitration—is they've set themselves up as a hub to be able to attract a lot of that global business and they're doing very very well. They've recognised that there's actually massive international investment going on especially around infrastructure and that there's actually a genuine opportunity.I see here that every case heard in New Zealand around international arbitration is worth on average $1 million to the local economy. So if we just stop and reflect on that and we just think about creating and being seen ourselves as a genuine location destination for international arbitration just think about the amount of revenue that we can actually generate through that professional service in itself. The reason why this bill is going to help us be seen even more as a destination for this type of professional service is because we're already highly trusted. We already have very strong institutions. We have a very strong judicial system. We're seen as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. And so for Andrew Bayly to bring this bill—and I just want to acknowledge actually Paul Foster-Bell who I think was the original sponsor of this bill and brought this bill to the House.SPEAKER: Chris Finlayson.Hon MARK MITCHELL: What's that?SPEAKER: Chris Finlayson maybe.Hon MARK MITCHELL: It's Chris Finlayson? SPEAKER: Well I think he initiated it didn't he?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I think Paul Foster-Bell brought it originally but the Hon Chris Finlayson did have a lot of work to do on it too Mr Speaker. You're right.So if I could acknowledge both of them it would be appropriate but especially Paul Foster-Bell as the original sponsor of this bill taking it to the first reading. So can I acknowledge him for bringing it into the House but now can I acknowledge Andrew Bayly who has religiously come to the select committee during the deliberation and debate around this bill. It's his input in terms of the changes that have been made. So can I acknowledge him and the work that he's done around removing clause 6(4) and other considerations. Well done to him.So I would just like to finish my contribution by again just reinforcing and restating that in actual fact although this arbitration bill has gone a long way to making sure that it's much fairer that it's easier to access that it removes pressure from our own courts system not only for our own people—for Kiwis—but it's also setting us up to develop a genuine professional service that could be world leading and could create very strong revenues and opportunities for us as a country. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.