Adams Amy: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Adams Amy: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5067] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this part of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill although—as discussed in my last contribution and as other members have talked about—it is clear that Part 1 is the powerhouse part where all the real work is done. Part 2 with the incorporation of the schedules has a number of the consequential amendments that the change in the jurisdiction level of the disputes tribunal renders necessary. It points out the ramifications that the change has beyond giving access to the disputes tribunal at a very simple level. There are amendments to the Consumer Guarantees Act the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act the Fair Trading Act the Fencing Act the Minors’ Contracts Act and indeed the Retirement Villages Act. This part shows us that the disputes tribunal is a forum in which a number of the small-value disputes that often arise under the sort of legislation I have described can be dealt with. That is the sort of workload the disputes tribunal is dealing with and it is exactly those sorts of claims that often involve consumers and inexperienced business people. 
I started to talk about something in my last contribution and I want to develop it a little more. I started to talk about the informality of the tribunal. It is both its benefit and its absolute nature but also it is the reason we need to be careful. I see that a point the Justice and Electoral Committee considered when it looked at the appropriate level was that it is not simply the case that the higher the limit the better it is. I think that the Minister of Justice had to be very careful to make sure that the limit was raised to a level that would allow access to justice for people with smaller claims without taking it so far that that informality of process would start to result in real inequalities. That is the balance with a tribunal like this—well with all tribunals but particularly with the disputes tribunal because this more than some of our other tribunals like the Tenancy Tribunal operates with a more relaxed approach to the strict application of law which enables referees to help and almost compensate where the parties before them are inexperienced are perhaps ineloquent and are not used to dealing with officialdom in that sort of situation. For that very reason referees have the ability to step outside what lawyers would normally see as the appropriate ways of running a case or a piece of litigation to make sure that parties are not disadvantaged. These limits are reflected in these other pieces of legislation: consumer-based legislation neighbourhood dispute - type legislation and fencing disputes which often obviously are neighbourhood disputes. Those disputes are the real workload of this tribunal and that really shows us that this bill is not just about getting business going although it will be an important part of that; it is really about ensuring that the vulnerable in our society—the people as I say who are inexperienced who cannot afford legal representation and who do not feel comfortable in that environment—can none the less get their voices heard and get access to justice in a way that is meaningful to them. 
Just to finish off on that matter if I may I remind members that I talked in my earlier contribution to Part 1 about the fact that an estimated 3600 cases annually will now have access to the disputes tribunal. But the number could in fact be far greater because of the number of people who might otherwise simply have though it was not worth it as they were not going to get anywhere. They would have just sucked it up and moved out and accepted the fact that they had been ripped off and were not going to get access to their rights. By aligning our jurisdiction limits to the levels that are now being proposed in this bill we are ensuring I think that the balance is set appropriately making sure that access to justice is available for those who need it without transgressing into that area where the strict rule of law deserves to be applied. Having listened to Mr Chauvel’s contributions earlier and looking at other jurisdictions I agree that of course we could put this limit at a number of other places. But it is my strong view with my background in law that the level proposed in this bill is right and reflects the right balance. Thank you.