Borrows Chester: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4969] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill and I can agree with a number of the comments that have been made so far. The fact is that the disputes tribunal is a facility where laypeople can access justice very cheaply and in a timely way in a local court. Where I live a disputes tribunal hearing can be obtained within about 2 months of making application. As a member of Parliament I find that it is not uncommon for me to assist constituents to fill out a statement of claim on the forms provided by the court and to give them a bit of a start on how they can head down the track to access justice. The disputes tribunal enables people who are working in small businesses to be able to resolve disputes in a fair way because it is not rigidly bound by the black letter of the law. It is able to take into account what is fair in a situation and that is something that encourages confidence within our legal system. 
It is true to say that a number of submitters wanted the threshold to go up because they felt that access to justice through the District Court was a very expensive business. To have thresholds of $15000 and $20000 for the disputes tribunal seemed to be quite low when people were trying to pursue a matter through the District Court at a level say of $22000 or up to $25000. It could cost nearly half of that to get the matter before the court and to get it argued depending on its complexity. I think that the point made earlier by the Hon Lianne Dalziel is quite valid in that we need to look at the mechanism by which we can increase the threshold but I think it is also fair to say that before Parliament does that it needs to have its ducks in a row. 
Those complicating factors that led the committee not to recommend that the bill go a lot further at this stage took into account for instance that the higher one gets in terms of the threshold the more precise the decisions need to be. At the moment there is no requirement for adjudicators to be legally trained yet there is provision for an appeal through to the District Court. So we want to have legally robust decisions coming out of the disputes tribunal but at the same time we want a level of fairness metered in there so that people are not tied to the black letter of the law. If we extended that threshold further people would feel the need for or feel some safety or comfort in actually being legally represented and of course the beauty of this process is that people go into the room without lawyers and without having to make long and protracted legal arguments after having swotted all the law books. People seeking redress through the disputes tribunal go in there as laypeople up against laypeople who are wanting to make an argument that is based on where the law is as they understand it and as members of the public understand it but that is also based on fairness as it applies in that particular case and on recognising that they cannot go to the disputes tribunal just to get a bill paid. There needs to be a dispute. 
I am pleased also to hear the Minister say he is willing to look at a future mechanism for changing it. There will be a timely way of doing that and I am sure that it can be done simply. We have given some indication that that can happen when as I say we have other ducks in a row. 
I endorse the bill. I commend it to the House and I look forward to its wide support. I thank members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their contributions. I thank the public for their submissions and I thank those most involved with the disputes tribunal process. Thank you.