O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker did you say it's a split call? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A split call yes. SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh excellent a split call—all right. Then members I will either halve what I was going to say or I'll speak twice as fast. Look I'm delighted to take a call on this third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill and I will start by acknowledging Paul Foster-Bell and the work that you have done. We've been friends and colleagues for years and I think it's a pleasure that not only is this piece of legislation going through but you're here as well. If I might also speak personally I acknowledge Logan Morton who has passed. I know he was good friends with many of us here—and you in particular—and I want to acknowledge in the House his passing. To Andrew Bayly of course the member who has shepherded this bill through thank you for paying attention—that's good; you can relax now. Look Andrew thank you for your work. This is one of those pieces of legislation which is incredibly particular. I think for most members of the House—and there's relative concord here tonight and a little bit of humour too which is welcome—bills like this are relatively rare. What I mean by that is it's not their size—we have even smaller bills—but this is a very very particular piece of law and a very particular change. A lot of the legislation we deal with in this House is very very broad and touches on a number of areas. I would suggest—and it probably is hinted at—that we obviously had to bring experts in and the Parliament and the Justice Committee did. There are probably few in this House who would fully understand the law. I'll be honest: I am not an expert in arbitration but I do understand a good opportunity when we see it. So this was an attempt if you will—certainly in my thinking—to create an opportunity for New Zealand and I think we are mostly there and that's particularly so in the international space. I mean one of the fundamental reasons for advancing arbitration is effectively as I understand it—and I'm sure those who are more expert will correct me later—to keep things if you will out of the courts when not necessary. We try to apply that in a whole lot of ways and particularly now in the international context we are seeing a lot more international arbitration. I have the good fortune of chairing the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the issue of arbitration comes across our committee often and certainly in my discussions with ambassadors high commissioners and others—particularly in the commercial sector. So arbitration is a growing area first and foremost in demand. There are a number of countries and interconnected global agencies that wish to use the service and as a consequence those who are prepared to offer it and New Zealand's laws are not as sufficient as they might or could be. So this really is an opportunity for New Zealand. It's quite important that New Zealand's laws are well-known and respected and I think it goes without saying that that is understood in the international context. I know one of the areas of debate for the select committee and indeed for this House was the transparency of arbitration and in particular whether or not the details of an arbitration should be made public. I mean as members will know here if something goes into the courts it by and large is and does become public. It's the nature of our system one that's—I was going to say Westminster" but that's more to do with our Parliament. Law that comes out of the English code of law becomes public and as you might anticipate there are a number of pieces of arbitration engagement. If one thinks of the various international agencies be they commercial or political they do not wish to have their issues aired in public and arguably if New Zealand is to look at this both from a legal and from a commercial point of view—and I think that latter element's quite important. There is a commercial quality here. If New Zealand wants to be able to attract particularly these people seeking international arbitration in New Zealand we should be able to make allowances in a sense—an exception to our usual protocols and principles—to allow this to be in effect in secret so that they can solve their situations. I think that's again a fantastic opportunity for New Zealand if we were able to fully explore that. So I think there'll be further discussions in time and I think an opportunity that again we do need to maximise. Fundamentally—and particularly if it is in the international space—if something is or is not public between two international entities it doesn't actually have a material impact on New Zealand. In fact I'd say that it would have no impact whatsoever except a commercial and a financial one. Simply put if we become a well-known area for international arbitration that's—I suppose I want to be hesitant in reducing something that's important and legal to being something simply commercial. But if people are going to come down here they're going to have to stay in our hotels and use our taxis and take in the country drink our very fine wines and so forth. They are going to actually become part of and contribute to the New Zealand economy and I would also argue be able to tap into and understand our legal code. So I think this is a particularly good bill. Again I just want to thank all those that have been part of this—from Paul Foster-Bell to Andrew Bayly—for their work and I commend this bill to the House without arbitration."