Worth Richard: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8979] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We have been entertained and informed by the speech that Mr Finlayson made on behalf of the National Party concerning this important legislation the Arbitration Amendment Bill—legislation that National supports. I am just going to make some brief comments with particular reference to the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Perhaps I will start by saying that arbitration is probably the oldest adjudicative form of resolving disputes. If one were to look at a continuum one would see that it would run from the top with consultation then there would be negotiation then there is a concept called good offices then there is mediation then there is arbitration and finally there is judicial determination. 
As is well known arbitration has a number of significant advantages. The object of an arbitration is to resolve a dispute and to have resolution of the dispute recorded in an enforceable award. So it is quite different from mediation. It is generally intended that the award should be final and unchallengeable. As others have said the benefits of arbitration in a private law context flow into international law and they include advantages relating to the ability of the parties to determine what the key issues are such as the composition of the arbitral tribunal the rules of procedure the pace of the dispute resolution programme and—if appropriate—the remedies available to the arbitral tribunal. 
 So when this bill was introduced—a bill that had as its purpose a plan to make “a small number of relatively technical amendments designed to strengthen arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution in New Zealand.”—we saw that these particular amendments focused on increasing party autonomy which is very much the hallmark of arbitration while reducing judicial involvement in the arbitral process. 
Others have spoken about the work that the Justice and Electoral Committee did in terms of substantive change to the bill. I just note that work has been done in connection with control of the arbitral tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas and with an important new section relating to interim measures. 
Mr Finlayson in his thoughtful comments to the House spoke about the interesting issue whereby one has a model law sitting outside a country that changes. This issue is commonly encountered in the world of delegated legislation where we have international standards that may be updated or amended in some way yet the law in New Zealand remains static. That is why the Parliamentary Counsel Office in the delegated legislation context has devised templates that will enable the law to be kept up to the mark. That is much more difficult to do in primary legislation like this where the voice of the legislature must be heard and the process must be seen with every substantive law change. 
Here we have as others have said the picking up of a change of the model law which has been able to be incorporated in this legislation. It is probably in the area of interim measures that the big changes occur. Those changes centre on clause 8 where there is a definition of “interim measure”. One of the problems in litigation and in arbitration is that because of the delays that can occur in those processes the parties may take steps to try to stymie an outcome and to try to compromise a position. That is why provision for interim measures which will perhaps hold the ground become so important. So interim measures are defined in the bill; and in addition to that conditions for granting interim measures are set out. 
It is worth noting finally perhaps that this is an amendment bill; it is not a bill in its own right. So it sits alongside the Arbitration Act of 1996. If members look at that particular legislation they will see that it contains three schedules in the back. Two of those schedules are those that contain all of the procedural rules that in general terms unless the parties opt out of them are the rules that govern in process terms what occurs in the arbitration context. 
So I commend this legislation to the House. I look forward to more scintillating comments flowing from members as particular passages in the bill are analysed in greater depth.