Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It's a pleasure to take a third reading call on the Arbitration Amendment Bill. The first thing I want to say is that I'm just incredibly proud of the amount of real-world commercial expertise that rests on this side of the House including my colleague Andrew Bayly. There's lots of the law that makes for a strong economy that actually relies on what may seem quite complex and not particularly attractive law such as arbitration law but if we're serious about having a strong economy having good-quality detailed workable law in areas like arbitration is actually part of the economic success story that New Zealand needs to have. I compliment my colleague Andrew Bayly and also Paul Foster-Bell for his original work on this bill.The issue of arbitration law is actually not just important for arbitration disputes that may occur in New Zealand. Actually there are lots of commercial contracts that are done around the world in which people have a choice to specify in those contracts where they wish to have those arbitration disputes resolved and the real strength of New Zealand having world-class arbitration law is that those doing commercial contracts will choose to cite our arbitration procedures as the preferred venue in which those disputes will be resolved.Now the detail of this bill is right about the certainty that needs to go with arbitration processes because if the very principle of arbitration is to fly as a preferred mechanism for resolving disputes to the courts then we need to have law that has as little opportunity as possible for people to be able to game the system and through an arbitration decision to then throw it back into the courts. I don't want this Parliament to be naive about the scale and the sorts of dollar sums that are involved in these arbitration disputes. Both as a Minister and in the construction industry prior to coming to this Parliament under our Arbitration Act I have seen contractual disputes for many hundreds of millions of dollars being resolved through this process.Here's the problem: if there's even a sliver of a chance that people might be able to relitigate those arbitration decisions in the courts the financial incentives are for people to disrupt the process in that way. Yes what they'll probably do is then get behind closed doors and cut some sort of a deal but it actually undermines the credibility of those arbitration processes. What the two specific provisions in this bill do is just close down a couple of significant areas where our existing arbitration law—the 2017 Act—enables those sorts of appeals to be nipped in the bud and to provide that greater degree of certainty.Now I'm pleased I've followed my colleague from New Zealand First because I have to say I am continuously surprised by the ambidextrous nature of New Zealand First. Well I have to say over 30 years if there's any political party in this Parliament that's got the capacity to say Black's white and white's black" it truly is the New Zealand First Party. I know my colleagues will remember an equally important issue the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the way in which the New Zealand First Party raged that this was the greatest evil that could ever come to our country but hold on if you call it the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership suddenly it becomes the biggest deal on the go.Actually the one that's been amusing me this week which has got an analogy with this arbitration bill is—I don't know if any members opposite have picked up the speeches from the now Foreign Minister on the Belt and Road Initiative from China. I tell you again you would see that this was one of those great evils. Now equally so if we look back on the record of this arbitration bill this was something about dirty private dealing that was going to be behind closed doors that the New Zealand First Party—I think it was Mr Denis O'Rourke from the New Zealand First Party—railed against this awful legislation. But isn't it a beautiful thing how when New Zealand First gets in Government somehow all those things that National was proposing to do that were so awful actually suddenly become incredibly palatable for members opposite.I have to say—[Interruption]—well it's no wonder I heard someone referring today that New Zealand First has become the "one percent party". That doesn't surprise me. They are a party that struggles with the competence of Government because actually in Government you need to do the right thing and what is being done in this bill is the right thing.Hon Member: Where's your leader? Is she busy?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The last point—actually Simon Bridges is going strong. Anybody who saw his performance in the House this afternoon would know that he was top of his game. But you really know you're getting under the skin of the Government on a bill and pointing out the contradictions of New Zealand First when they want to distract and move away from the content that I'm sure Mr Assistant Speaker you would want us to be focused on in respect of this bill.I want to come back to the core principle. Good quality arbitration law is essential for New Zealand's commercial success. Again I stress that the horsepower that exists on this side of Parliament understands that every aspect of commercial law—Hon Member: Horse and cart.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I'll match up. Well I have to say—and I'm happy to match up the skills of colleagues like Chris Penk the experience of people like Andrew Bayly. We would have 10 times the practical commercial experience of any of the members in New Zealand First. I do refer—Kiritapu Allan: Chris Penk has been out of law school for about two weeks. You've got Duncan Webb over here—he's written a bloody book on this area.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I quite liked the comment I had at a business meeting in Nelson last week and a colleague made the comment that "I think Grant Robertson's great business experience was running the university tuck shop."So the reason that you're getting good sensible commercial law from this side of the House—actually it's what National excels on: providing the sort of laws that will ensure that we have a strong growing economy. That can only occur if we've got businesses that are able to be able to go about their business in confidence knowing that their compliance costs the costs of being involved in expensive litigation are minimised.So again I say to the House I commend this bill commend the specific changes that are being made to the schedules. No it's not the most exciting bill but I say when you know in practice the hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved in arbitration disputes these are the details of law that we need to get right. It's about making New Zealand more competitive. It's about making our economy grow stronger not by itself but as I think Sir John Key expressed so well every member of the National team is focused on those little changes that when added together make for the "New Zealand Inc." boat just going that little bit faster. Again I say to Andrew Bayly well done. I commend this bill to the House."