Bridges Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5111] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill is very brief—some two or three pages. Its operative clauses are really only three or four clauses. It is a bill of very limited compass. It achieves in its mechanics only one thing: it broadens the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal to claims of $15000 without consent and to claims of $20000 with consent. Nevertheless despite the bill’s brevity and its limited compass it achieves a very real advancement—that is increased access to justice. 
The bill’s passage through the Justice and Electoral Committee was interesting; it was an interesting process as we have heard. The committee was ably chaired by Chester Borrows with constructive comment from the membership of all parties. Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern—who I believe is in Hungary at the moment—were present on the committee and even Chris Hipkins came in from time to time with Diet Coke in one hand and a BlackBerry I think in the other. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Coke Zero. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: It was Coke Zero. But in all seriousness positive contributions were made by all sides. A characteristic of the select committee I would say was that of broad consensus both in terms of the parties’ views and generally of the submissions we had before us. 
If there was one issue that was subject to some consideration and discussion it was the issue of the jurisdiction limit. A number of submitters argued for a higher set of limits than we have gone for; some even said the limit should be $50000 or more. That view was given due honest serious consideration but I think it was quite clear in the final analysis of committee members that we had things at this stage and at this time about right. That is not to say of course that we might not look at this matter in the future once this amendment legislation has bedded in and its effects have been seen. We might change to the kind of proposal that Charles Chauvel noted and that the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power spoke on. 
The reason I say that it was quite clear to us that we had things about right is that to have gone higher with the maximum claim level would have changed the nature of the disputes tribunal. If we had gone much higher it would have become a disputes tribunal in name only thus losing its cheapness its simplicity its speed and the less formal aspect it has as a forum. The disputes tribunal would have become really a court by another name with all the formalities—some would say the pedantries—with all the procedural fairness and as some would say with all the unnecessary niceties that courts have when the value goes up. 
As I say if I do say so myself I think we did get things about right. We have a disputes tribunal at the moment that is working well; the quality is of a good standard. There was not the need to do those kinds of things that would have gone with raising the limits substantially such as greater appeal rights and the expense that goes with that or the need for legally qualified referees. We heard from the Law Society that we would need to go to such referees compulsorily if we increased the limit much more. There was also the right to lawyers the compulsory bringing in of lawyers—getting “lawyered up”—by the people who came to the disputes tribunal and the need for published decisions and all that went with that. We did not see all that as desirable necessarily for something that we wanted to be cheap simple fast and less formal when we had a quality tribunal as things stood. 
 In finishing I say that the explanatory note of the bill puts things very well when it discusses why we have not increased the quantum of the jurisdictional limit to $50000 for example. That is because “Justice officials consider that legal representation legal decisions increased appeal rights and increased requirements on the qualifications of Referees would all be required. Changes to these areas would compromise the very nature of the Disputes Tribunal. The Tribunal would not be able to provide its cheap simple and fast service.” Currently I think we have a tribunal that has the balance right by lifting those limits to $15000 and $20000. This will again “achieve the objectives of improving access to the Disputes Tribunal and allowing an increased number of New Zealanders to reduce their costs in resolving small civil claims by hearing the claim in the Disputes Tribunal rather than the District Court.” We did not want to turn this tribunal into a court by another name. We did however want to see greater access to justice and I think that is what this bill achieves.