Finlayson Christopher: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11847] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 National supports the third reading of the Arbitration Amendment Bill. I join with the Associate Minister of Justice in thanking the Law Commission for the good work it has done. 
The Minister is quite right when he says that the Arbitration Act 1996 has worked pretty well and that all that is required here are some minor technical amendments. It was very fortuitous that at the time the Justice and Electoral Committee was dealing with this legislation an opportunity was afforded to make a couple of amendments to deal with the issue of interim measures. What happens is that arbitration to a large extent is guided and governed by the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law which is known as UNCITRAL. It just so happened that the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law which meets twice a year—once in New York and once in Vienna—had been looking at the issue of interim measures. The New Zealand delegates could report back to the Ministry of Justice that some changes to these provisions were required and then the changes could be made very quickly. 
What the measures do is set out detailed provisions for the making of interim measures including the appropriate test for the tribunal to use regarding the need for interim measures and provisions for the making of preliminary orders. As a result of those amendments which the select committee worked on New Zealand has probably one of the most up-to-date arbitration laws in the world. Indeed I think it is possible that New Zealand is the first country in the world to adopt the new chapter on interim measures and I am very pleased that the select committee was able to do this. 
I particularly pay tribute to the three New Zealand delegates who have on a pro bono basis provided such a good service to New Zealand over the years at meetings of the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law. I am referring to David Williams of Auckland who is a very distinguished Queen’s Counsel and arbitrator. I refer also to James Hosking and Jennifer Lake both of whom are New Zealanders and are now resident in New York. James Hosking was a lawyer in New Zealand and is now a partner with Clifford Chance in New York. Jennifer Lake is well known to some of us. She was formerly a Crown counsel in the Crown Law Office and for a time did important work at the Iran - United States Claims Tribunal. 
Over the past few years New Zealand has had good service from these people. Indeed they advised the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Justice that they would be willing to continue to represent New Zealand on a completely pro bono basis so it is very disappointing to learn today that the request was refused on the basis that not only are there no funds to cover their expenses but also there is no time to undertake the pre - working-group meeting briefings and post-meeting reporting. The ministry says it has greater priorities for its time and resources elsewhere. If ever there was a situation where the ministry was looking a gift horse in the mouth it is this situation. These people have been providing excellent service to New Zealand as a result of which our arbitration law is state of the art and right up to date especially on the important question of interim measures. What we have from the Ministry of Justice is an unbelievably stupid response telling them that it does not have any need for their resources—even on a pro bono basis. I think that as a result it is entirely possible that our arbitration law will slip out of date again. 
My thanks to those people for what they have done. I certainly hope the Minister will look at this issue because it is an important one. But that having been said National will support the third reading of this legislation.