Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2259] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that New Zealand has a long history of dispute resolution that is freed from the rigours of the rules of evidence and from the formalities of the rules of common law. Labour sees the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill which increases both the default and the by-agreement jurisdictions of the disputes tribunal as a logical extension of that history. We will support the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee where our members on that committee will listen carefully to the evidence to determine what our final position on the legislation ought to be. 
I referred in my introductory remarks to the long history this country has of these forms of dispute resolution. I respectfully refer the House to Peter Spiller’s excellent book on disputes tribunals in New Zealand because the history is well set out there. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: Co-edited by Mr Chauvel. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It is nice to see Dr Worth in the Chamber. I say “Namaste sir!” to him. 
I note that the Supreme Court was established in New Zealand in 1841. It heard the important cases—the big cases—of high monetary jurisdiction but it did so according to the rules of evidence in the English courts. As early as in 1844 the legislature of New Zealand set up another body called the Courts of Request. They were set up to hear claims for the easier and speedier recovery of small debts. Lawyers and advocates were not permitted to appear in these courts and their decisions were final in respect of law and fact. Then in 1846 Resident Magistrates’ Courts were established for the simpler and speedier administration of justice. They were required to give judgments according to the concept of equity and good conscience. The Courts of Request were abolished in 1858 and the Resident Magistrates’ Courts were renamed the Magistrates’ Courts after 1893. They became the only redress for dealing with small claims. 
The lawyers in the House will know that the equity and good conscience jurisdiction remains in the District Courts which is what the Magistrates’ Courts became after the Beattie commission in 1981. It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction continues in other fora such as the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. It is intended to allow the courts to hear the claims of a litigant according to their moral and equitable rights without the application of the rigours of the rules of evidence. 
Spiller records in his book that by the 1970s there were doubts about the Magistrates’ Courts’ ability to do justice in cases of small claims. He identifies four reasons for this: first representation by lawyers was costly; second laypeople felt overwhelmed by the legal process; third adversarial processes were unsuitable for the settlement of small claims; and fourth the equity provision was at the discretion of the presiding magistrate. These concerns coincided with general desires in the community for the promotion of better access to justice. It is no accident that the citizens advice bureaux and the community law centres in their current form date back to this time. 
Legislators in this Parliament looked abroad for examples of other low-level tribunals. There were the North American small claims or small debts courts which existed in Canada and the United States from the early decades of the 20th century. In this part of the world Queensland then Victoria then the other Australian states and territories led the way. At the 1972 election Labour in its manifesto promised to give favourable consideration to the setting up of small claims courts after having studied similar projects in other countries. 
In 1975 Labour’s Attorney-General Dr Martyn Finlay introduced a small claims tribunal bill. The legislation passed into law in 1976. The first referees were appointed on 3 June 1977 in Christchurch New Plymouth and Rotorua. The original jurisdiction of the tribunal was $500. From 1980 the tribunals were established elsewhere and by October 1985 they existed in 36 centres. The $500 limit was raised to $1000 in 1985 by Labour’s next Attorney-General Geoffrey Palmer who also reformed and updated the system significantly via the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988. The jurisdiction was extended and this included raising the monetary limits to $3000 by right and $5000 by consent—the first time that an as-of-right versus by-agreement dichotomy was introduced into the system. 
As the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power said legislation in 1998 and 1999 raised the monetary limit to the presently applicable levels—$7500 as of right and $12000 by consent. I think it is correct to say that at that time credit contract and hire purchase claims were also included in the jurisdiction of the tribunals. By 2003 54 referees were stationed around New Zealand servicing 59 centres. The current bill is designed to extend the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals from $7500 by right or $12000 with the consent of the parties to $15000 or $20000 respectively. There are consequential 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 the Retirement Villages Act. 
I said in my introductory remarks that Labour would support the introduction of this legislation and its referral to a select committee. We do so because of our proud tradition in this area. As I have shown it was a Labour Attorney-General Finlay who first introduced the legislation setting up small claims tribunals and it was his successor Palmer who introduced the legislation transforming them into their current form—the disputes tribunals. 
It is clearly sensible to continue to update the jurisdiction of a tribunal but I ask the Minister to consider the following matters as members on this side of the House consider their position on the bill. If we are going to be amending legislation such as the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act why not look at inserting provisions in that legislation that for example would regulate the imposing of usurious interest by pay-day lenders? I have signalled I think that ought to be done by this Parliament and I will seek to do it by a member’s bill if there is no other such legislation before the House. And why should we not think about an unlimited upper limit on the jurisdiction of the tribunals if the parties so agree? What is wrong with parties agreeing to seek access to justice in an informal forum like this and agreeing—provided that the agreement is made by informed consent—that there should not be an upper limit on the monetary claim? Why should we not be able to do away with lawyers altogether in that sort of situation? 
Hon Simon Power 
: Steady! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I can see by the Minister’s smile that he will consider this seriously. [ 
Interruption 
] If I could just be heard over the rabble opposite I will ask the Minister why we should not solidify the promises that have been made to community law centres as to funding this year. Why should we not announce a solution going forward given the hard times that New Zealand is going into and given that many low-income earners with claims of over $15000 will be forced to use the ordinary courts because they will not be able to get agreement from the other side that $20000 ought to be the limit? Those low-income earners will have to use legal aid and have recourse to community law centres at a time when the funding of those centres remains uncertain despite the undertakings that have been given to date by the Government. 
So Labour members on the select committee will be looking for solutions to the matters I have just raised but as I have said we will support sending the legislation to the select committee because on its face it addresses an important issue—the updating of the jurisdiction of the tribunals which should happen. We should always keep the monetary levels of jurisdiction of our courts and tribunals under review as circumstances change. But there are important issues as to consumer protection and access to justice that remain unaddressed by this legislation and that must be faced at some point by this Parliament.