Katene Rahui: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2312] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I come to the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill as probably one of the very few people in this House with any experience—admittedly not personal—with the disputes tribunal. I venture I am definitely one of the few former lawyers in this House to steer clients away from litigation and towards mediation through the disputes tribunal. I come with a particular preconceived view which is that disputes tribunals are fantastic. This is high praise indeed but it is also a reflection of the fact that those tribunals are an excellent mechanism for keeping people out of the courts. 
Unlike other political parties the Maori Party has no tolerance of the obsession with building up the court docks and prison cells by getting tough on crime. We promote restorative justice systems and our actions in this House show that the Maori Party has consistently supported legislative changes that increase access to justice. It is our view that any real move towards increased access to justice is a community benefit and warrants our support. 
The key benefit in keeping people out of the courts is that it is a significantly cheaper approach for claimants not to mention the long-term costs saved to society. The process is mediated and as a consequence can be more restorative in nature than a court setting. There are no lawyers so the setting is more accessible and less alienating as a result. Rather than being scared off by the legalistic vocabulary people can actually understand what is going on; a peculiar concept I know but true. Another benefit that we consider to be of high value is the fact that there can be whanau support and/or advocates to talk on behalf of claimants if they are not confident to do that themselves. 
One piece of information that did not come up during the debate in the House last night is a more comprehensive analysis of who actually uses these tribunals. A survey commissioned by the Ministry of Justice as part of the tribunal reform project interviewed some 813 people both applicants and respondents who had used the disputes tribunal amongst a range of other tribunals. The figures showed that the key users of tribunals were more likely to be European with under-representation of both Maori and Pasifika; to be male; to have an income of $50000 or more; and to be aged 40 to 59 years rather than aged 15 to 29 years. That analysis was very informative in demonstrating some specific issues that clearly needed to be addressed in any reform process. 
Just to test my theory I went to the Maori Legal Service to gain a flaxroots on-the-ground perspective of how well this all works. In the last 12 months the service has had three clients seeking remedies with the disputes tribunal. None of those clients knew what the tribunal did or what to do to pursue a complaint. As a consequence the service needed to educate those clients about the tribunal and to assist them to write their application. In the end however the service was unable to confirm whether any of those clients had filed their forms as each of them thought the $100 filing fee was too expensive. There is no current ability to waive that fee at the tribunal. 
My suspicion is that the tribunal is not well known to Maori people. Perhaps it is not well profiled in Maori communities. I suspect that even the $100 filing fee is a barrier to access to the tribunal as well. I would like to seek further clarification from the Minister of whether the changes will increase the filing fees which will inevitably increase barriers to justice for our community. Also I note there is no concerted effort to profile the tribunal to Maori communities and I wonder whether that will also increase barriers. 
As other speakers have mentioned the purpose of the bill is to allow more individual and small business claimants to have access to this—hopefully—affordable justice forum by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within its jurisdiction. We believe the process could be improved by requiring the referral of claimants to community law centres where appropriate to assist people in filling out the forms and perhaps gaining better access to the law. 
The process is comparably user-friendly already—that is in relation to trying to deal with the complexities of litigation through the District Court or the High Court. But we in the Maori Party believe that the disputes tribunal process could be made even more user-friendly. Given that there are forms to fill out it would be helpful to have someone to explain the procedures and what needs to go where on the forms. This is where organisations like community law centres come in. We would like to see the court staff routinely referring parties to community law centres for help with this. Although this is done now on an ad hoc basis it would be a positive move for it to be a requirement where appropriate. 
We also believe that the process could be far more Maori-friendly. Disputes tribunals offer a mediated process they can be more restorative they try to avoid legal language so that people can understand what is going on they can have whanau representation and they are significantly less expensive than going to court. A tribunal may permit someone to be present at the hearing to assist the party in the presentation of his or her case if it appears to the tribunal to be proper in all the circumstances and if the tribunal approves such persons. In approving a representative the tribunal can also impose conditions to ensure that no other party is substantially disadvantaged. The tribunal either can help the parties to come to their own solution or will determine the dispute. Any ruling it makes is binding and will if necessary be enforced by the courts. All of these aspects are a very positive foundation for providing a positive way in which Maori can access dispute procedures other than the formal courts. Therefore the process is something that we wish to support. 
Aside from the general context that disputes tribunals offer to the legal environment the purpose of this bill is ostensibly to increase the maximum claim level. The last time the claim levels were set for the tribunal was in 1998 so it makes plain common sense that the relative value of this level has inevitably eroded due to inflation and the rising cost of litigation. Other speakers have canvassed the figures such as the increase of the maximum claim to $20000 but the point we simply wish to make is that we support the intention that the maximum claim level should be increased in order to restore it to the original level set a decade ago. The level needs to be updated to allow more people to use the disputes tribunal. At present claimants are faced with a choice of reducing the value of their claim facing the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings—which may not be a viable option given these costs—or not pursuing their claim. None of these options seems viable hence the reason for this bill. 
We need to maintain accessibility and to ensure that the level of protections is relevant and appropriate in order to ensure that the groups of New Zealanders affected by this bill will still be able to access the tribunals without unnecessary barriers being introduced. Every party to a claim is entitled to attend and be heard and to our mind this is the very hallmark of a democratic and fair justice system. However with some exceptions no party is entitled to representation unless the tribunal considers it proper to allow it and approves a representative. We want to ensure that the tribunal will continue to operate on its current basis balancing the required protections for parties against the need to provide simple cheap and fast access to justice. 
Finally the last set of issues that we believe are reflected in this bill is that the legislation will allow more individual and small business claimants to have access to this affordable justice forum by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within its jurisdiction. The bill should be seen in the context of the package of proposals designed to assist small and medium sized enterprises.