Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): Well there has been a lot of talk this evening about eloquent speeches that people have made with very few notes and I would just like to assure the House that this will not be one of them. There are a few notes in front of me and certainly eloquence on this topic is probably not what you are going to get from me.However I do at this point want to commend Paul Foster-Bell. As my colleague Sarah Dowie said earlier it is pretty impressive to get a second member's bill out of the ballot. The first one of course was his very successful Anzac Day licensing one and I think that was a very good bill. This one I am sure is going to be a very good bill once it comes into force as well—which I am sure it will—having been through all stages of the parliamentary process. It is great to see already from the speeches that we have heard from the other side of the House that there is wide support for it.I have to acknowledge that when I first saw this bill and saw that it proposed changes to the Arbitration Act 1996 I misread it and thought that the Arbitration Act was from 1966. As someone who was born in 1966 I could not understand why anyone would want to change anything that originated in 1966 but I realise now that this is in fact a 1996 Act that we are going to bring some changes to.I think there are some really good points that have been made already tonight. I am particularly pleased to see that this bill is going to bring us more in line with other international practices of arbitration law. I think generally I would say that it is a good thing that we are aligned with international practice in law although I have to say having visited the Australian legislature in the last couple of weeks there are some things that go on over there that I do not think we want to be aligned with particularly when it comes to protection orders for women across states and all that kind of stuff.But in this one I think it is actually really important when you do have disputes that cross international boundaries that our laws are consistent with what you have in other countries. My ears pricked up a little I have to say when it was talked about that people may then make New Zealand their place of choice to bring arbitration. I thought that perhaps the Minister of Tourism might be interested. We could perhaps start an arbitration tourism venture. We are starting to see that happen already after Louisa Wall's marriage equality bill where people are travelling here to get married. Perhaps there is a tourism opportunity in the field of arbitration as well.When it comes to this presumption of confidentiality—and I think it is interesting that this has been one of the things that has been talked about throughout this debate as we have gone on this evening. From my lay background it certainly seems particularly appropriate when relating to trusts. I will stand to be corrected—and I am sure I will be when the time comes at select committee or otherwise. When Mr Parker spoke the immediate place that he went to when talking about trusts was talking about the very wealthy who might protect their wealth inside a trust and for generations to come. My mind always goes immediately because of my background to charitable trusts and I would imagine that for a charitable trust having confidentiality when involved in an arbitration could well be a useful thing because if there is some sort of dispute that has yet to be settled having their good name taken out there publicly may not be useful to them or to the people that they work for. So at this stage I support the idea of it being a presumption of confidentiality because that does in fact ensure that we can get things sorted clearly and as my colleague Sarah Dowie said earlier of course the proceedings of the arbitration would always be done in private as well.So as I said it is a good bill brought forward by Mr Paul Foster-Bell. As promised this has not been eloquent at all. I would normally say that I look forward to discussing this when it comes through to the select committee. I am not sure that on this particularly occasion I will be enjoying it. Law is not a field as a general rule that I enjoy getting stuck into but the bill will be an important piece of legislation for what is an important part of our legal system and I commend it to the House.