Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): No pressure at all—no pressure at all. The Labour Party is supporting this bill at its first reading but I do want to address a number of issues that I would like the select committee to address. The first one if I could deal with the issue that Paul Foster-Bell raised in respect of this issue is that there should be a rebuttable presumption that court proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of arbitration proceedings should not be published. I am not sure about that. I heard Paul Foster-Bell's arguments in favour of it and I accept the proposition that you should not be able to hold over the threat of litigation as a negotiating technique but on the other hand there is also a public interest in court decisions being published. That applies in every other area of law and I would want the select committee to test whether that presumption should be overridden in respect of arbitration and if so why.The other example that is given about the need for confidentiality in order to preserve the feelings of people in respect of matters arising from trusts is another issue where there is scrutiny needed because I can understand families not wanting to have publicity around disputes over large amounts of money in trusts. But again there is an argument that there is a public interest in those sorts of things being scrutinised. We live in a society where there is this increasing concentration of wealth amongst the 1 percent around the world and in New Zealand and I am not sure that it is right that trusts in respect of the financial interests of 1 percenters" once they come into conflict should escape the scrutiny of the public.There are some interesting principles that lie behind theoretical limits to trusts. The rule against perpetuities which is still in New Zealand law through proxy periods defined at law stops people controlling the future for ever after their death by controlling the way in which their wealth is dealt with after their death. So there is a rule that says—the old rule at equity was that the length of a trust created by someone could be no longer than a life in being plus 21 years. A life in being plus 21 years was the length of life of a person alive at the date of the death of the person who created the trust plus 21 years. If you had a trust you could say "This trust shall last for the life of my last living descendant"—might be a grandchild—"plus 21 years." If it was any longer than that it was an illegal trust and the trust failed. The reason for that is that at equity the courts decided that it was not desirable that you have these dynasties that go on for ever on the basis of these concentrations of wealth where the person who made the original wealth could control the lives of their descendants through the way in which that wealth was dispensed under the trust that was created by the wealthy person in the first place.In this world where we have got this move towards concentrations of wealth which have been well described by Thomas Piketty and others I think it is appropriate to ask ourselves the question: now that we have these concentrations of wealth when these disputes arise amongst subsequent generations as to the division of these large amounts of wealth maybe it is appropriate that we occasionally do see into these disputes so that we can get an idea as to how long these bundles of wealth are persisting in society and whether we think these rules are fair. I am not sure where the correct line lies there but it is another area that I would like to see the select committee consider.In respect of the issue arising from the issue of Carr v Gallaway Cook Allan I have to disclose an interest. Mr Carr was a client of mine for many years in a very complex—very complex—series of disputes involving various parties which were the preceding facts that led to the very complex set of affairs that arose leading to Carr v Gallaway Cook Allan. It is a very sad case in a lot of ways in that there was a very large award of damages in the end which exceeded the insurance cover of the defendant firm and so caused hardship—quite considerable hardship—to some of the defendants in that case. I think that the amendment that is proposed to the Arbitration Act arising out of the jurisdictional issues that were raised too late in that case is something that I agree with. The member's amendment in that regard has my support because I think if you are going to raise objection to an arbitrator's jurisdiction you should do so early. You should not leave it until later in the process.I think that is probably all I have got to say at that stage on this bill. Can I thank Paul Foster-Bell for bringing it. Can I also thank the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand for its note. I did think that its advice in respect of moving to trust disputes involving descendants such as grandchildren being able to be resolved through arbitration rather than through the courts did raise some of those questions for me as to whether that was the right step but I would not have had that question or that insight if it had not been for the information provided by it. The restrictions on reporting I have covered.The final thing is the reference to a challenge to jurisdiction arising out of the Singapore case referred to as Astro v Lippo. That was a lengthy and expensive arbitration of issues arising in the telecommunications industry and the amendments that are proposed here are to close the potential loophole in the New Zealand Act which was exposed by that decision in respect of either Singapore or Hong Kong—I am not sure which. So that seems a sensible provision in this bill too.It is a pretty technical bill. There are some issues that I think we should delve into as a matter of first principle as to whether we should have further confidentially around some of these trust arrangements. I am not completely convinced that we should remove this current requirement that some disputes in respect of grandchildren of trusts should be dealt with through the courts rather than through arbitration. I quite like the openness of court processes in respect of these large amounts of wealth and the attempt to control that wealth beyond death."