Arbitration Amendment Bill

Actually, it is a pleasure to follow on from the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Louisa Wall, because this takes us back to when we left off, I think, on the last members’ day, when she had just made a very constructive contribution on this bill, my Arbitration Amendment Bill, and I was responding to some of the very useful and constructive points that she had made, including that the arbitration system in New Zealand is, generally, set up very well.

We are one of the least corrupt places in the world. In fact, we have been rated by Transparency International as the least corrupt country in terms of public sector perceptions of corruption; that includes our judicial systems, our courts, our police, and all of those very fine people who keep this a good and safe country to live in. Also, the member had pointed out that we base our arbitration framework on the model law, adopted in 2006, created by the United Nations to provide a model for best practice, and that we ratified the 1958 New York Convention on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. So we are, generally, a good system when it comes to arbitration.

But there are a couple of small issues that do need to be resolved. It really did surprise me that the New Zealand First spokesperson did not agree with the submission of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand—a very, very fine institution—on some key issues. For instance, the presumption of confidentiality—and this would be a rebuttable presumption—is something that is required. I will give a couple of examples that it cited in a memorandum that was circulated to all members of this House and to all parties, and I would be surprised if the New Zealand First spokesperson, who is usually very assiduous, had not actually read it.

There would be a number of cases that we could refer to that have seen family trusts go into the courts and actually cause great public hurt, pain, and further suffering for families who are already grieving. The three recent disputes that it cites are the estates of Michael Erceg; the very fine judge, the late Sir Robert Chambers, who contributed so much to this country in his judicial capacity; and Hugh Green. These were bereaved families who did have a dispute over the settlement of the trust and the estates of those people.

It is far better that these sorts of matters are dealt with in a respectful and a private way. It is, frankly, nobody else’s business, and to have these matters dragged through the courts because a rebuttable presumption of confidentiality does not exist, in my view, is actually cruel, and it is something that we should change. This is in line with the global trend towards the arbitration ability of trust disputes, and this is evidenced by the International Chamber of Commerce laying this out in its standard clauses, which it publishes, and also by a recent decision in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. So I think this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.