COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 May 2011.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:05): It is with pleasure that I indicate to the house that the opposition has considered this bill, and we will be supporting it. The bill was introduced in this house by the Attorney-General on 4 May 2011. As outlined by the Attorney's second reading contribution, it purports to update the Commercial Arbitration and Industrial Referral Agreements Act 1986 to reflect amendments in 2006 to the United Nations Commission on International Trade, the UNICITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) met in April 2009 and noted that the UNICITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration could form the basis of a uniform domestic arbitration in Australia.

In May 2010, SCAG agreed to a draft model law based on the UNICITRAL model but adapted for domestic application. As we understand it, it includes elements of the commonwealth act, such as the maintenance of confidentiality (section 27E(1)) and issues of costs and awarding of interest (section 33B). Our understanding is that this model bill has already been adopted in the New South Wales and Tasmanian parliaments and, as I have indicated, it is one which we support.

I should disclose that I am a registered arbitrator and in doing so indicate that I do not think there is any conflict of interest in my speaking on this matter. It is not a qualification that I have utilised very heavily because I decided to come to parliament not long after obtaining that qualification in Tasmania. I will say that arbitration as a means of mitigating against expensive court litigation generally has been favourably received around Australia and has offered an alternative for litigants to the court process, largely to minimise cost and time.

Unfortunately, some of our courts are under enormous stress in undertaking litigation and determinations through the court process, and therefore litigants or potential litigants have been facing months, if not years, of delay. It is important that we offer that relief where disputes have arisen. In this circumstance, I think that all members would appreciate, just as we have moved for corporate registration at a national level, for the very same reason it is important. We have companies and businesses Australia-wide which do operate and practise their businesses or professions across jurisdictions that are state jurisdictions, and it is important to have some uniformity in this area.

This is the method which the Attorney on South Australia's behalf at the SCAG meeting has signed up to as the means to implement it, by the model bill being introduced to each of the jurisdictions, and accordingly I indicate that we will support the bill. I should also indicate that the Hon. Stephen Wade in another place has consulted with a number of different bodies that we consider would have some say on this matter, including the Law Society of South Australia, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, and others.

I will say that the Law Society has not expressed any concern or suggested any amendments. Mr Ian Nosworthy of Nosworthy Partners, someone whom I overlapped for a time in legal practice and someone who has been recognised in the mediation and arbitration world of some experience and capacity, had this to say:

I have been involved in the arbitral community in Australia, and particularly in South Australia for many years, and I confirm that that community welcomes the introduction of the Commercial Arbitration Bill 2011. There is a need for a uniform arbitration regime in Australia and, to the extent that it harmonises with our international arbitration regime, that will ultimately be to the benefit of us all.

Mr Nosworthy is an Adelaide-based board member of ACICA and a past president of the AIMA.

Certainly, we have appreciated his indication of endorsement. Mr Nosworthy, of course, continues in his work in this field to the aid of potentially warring parties. Probably the most recent occasion that I am familiar with to do with his involvement, which I think has assisted to progress the matter, was the mediation of a number of different local government councils over the stormwater project for the Brown Hill and Keswick Creek project, which has had some notoriety in the press due to the different views taken by Mitcham, West Torrens and other relevant councils.

Because it covers a flood area and potential water harvesting, some of that is seen in a damaged and detrimental way and others have seen it as a positive and potential opportunity way. We have councils like the Adelaide City Council that would have the opportunity to harvest a significant amount of water out of that. My local council of Burnside has an opportunity to harvest and aggregate water into the bottom end of the Glenside hospital site and channel that water under Greenhill Road into the South Parklands, if such a project were to have some momentum and to advance. We have the areas in Unley and West Torrens where often every year they get flooded and, of course, there is a flood mitigation opportunity there.

When we have circumstances like this, it is important to be able to bring in an arbitrator to determine the matter or a mediator to help assist in the resolution of the matter. One of Mr Nosworthy's recent cases was to assist in that regard. I, and other members of the parliamentary party, certainly have appreciated his advice and recommendation in this regard. With those few words, I indicate our support and I will not be asking the house to go into committee.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (16:14): I place on record my appreciation of the contribution from the honourable member for Bragg and say what a delight it is that in this chamber we have the honourable member dealing with these matters and what a contrast it is to another place where things go on interminably, where amendments are moved endlessly, where the simplest of things become intricate, complex and—

Mr Pederick: Come on, John. There's an air of love this afternoon. Let's go.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, you know, John Paul Young didn't always get it wrong. I am quite serious when I say this, because, even in conferences where the two houses have attempted to resolve their differences, I have felt that the member for Bragg quickly understands the issues, comprehends the issues. She does not necessarily agree with me—often does not—and is quite firm in saying so, I might add, but does not appear to have a problem understanding what is being said, and that is tremendously gratifying to me. Can I just say that the other day—

Ms Chapman: Ping-pong balls!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I was just going to go there. The other day when we were explaining about balloons and ping-pong balls, I looked across the other side and the member for Schubert had a huge question mark written on his face. The member for Kavel stirred himself to emit a question mark. There were question marks, and then the member for Bragg, sitting there nodding—'I've got it. I know what you're talking about.' I think that afterwards she gathered the member for Schubert and a few others together and explained to them what was going on, and I think they were probably grateful for that elucidation by the member for Bragg.

I am quite genuine in saying that it is marvellous to be able to have things in here which are dealt with on their merits. Even though no-one is tougher in this place than the member for Bragg when she is offended or unhappy about something, she is equally generous and courteous in terms of agreement, and she is an ornament to the parliament in that respect. I thank her very much for her cooperation in relation to this matter.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (16:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.