Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4972] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 In my first reading speech on this Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill I recounted some of the history of the disputes tribunals and their predecessors the small claims courts in New Zealand. I was very proud to note that the small claims tribunals were introduced by the third Labour Government and Martyn Finlay was the architect of that legislation. The disputes tribunals were introduced in amending legislation introduced by the Attorney-General in the fourth Labour Government who was Geoffrey Palmer. So it is appropriate because each of those changes involved changes in the jurisdiction and monetary limits of the tribunals to continue to update that jurisdiction. 
As far as this reform goes it is not bad. If one looks at the monetary limits overseas one can see that in New South Wales the limit is $10000 and the same in the Australian Capital Territory. The limit is only $5000 in Tasmania; it is $7500 in Queensland and it is back up to $10000 in Victoria. We are going further than some of the comparable Australian jurisdictions with the proposed amendment but not as far as some of the Canadian ones. In Alberta the limit is $25000 as it is in Nova Scotia and British Colombia. In Saskatchewan the limit is $20000. The American comparable courts and tribunals have much smaller limits. 
I do think that my colleague and friend Lianne Dalziel made a good point when she said in her speech that there was an element of time-wasting in legislating for these limits. The fact that there were only 10 submissions to the select committee and three of those submitters who wanted to be heard orally on this increase does lend force to the suggestion in the select committee report that maximum limits in future should be able to be dealt with by Order-in-Council laid on the Table of the House then disallowed by the House if it feels that the regulations have gone too far or not done enough. It would seem to a be a more efficient way to deal with the question of continuing to update the jurisdiction of these sorts of tribunals in future rather than taking up the time of the House by way of substantive legislative amendment. 
The changes are all about access to justice. Obviously it is a good thing to keep informal justice within the reach of ordinary people and ordinary businesses and that is the whole nature of the thinking behind the disputes tribunals themselves. But when we think about the questions of whether New Zealanders have access to justice we do need to think more widely. There is the problem of the community law centres and their ongoing uncertainty about funding. There is the cut to civil legal aid rates which was introduced recently by this Government after a substantial rise in those rates last year under the outgoing Labour Government. Those are issues that go to the ability of ordinary people to access justice. They are issues of which this House should be mindful. 
It is also interesting to note that the legislation amends the Consumer Guarantees Act and the consumer finance legislation. Those are two pieces of legislation in respect of which I have proposed a member’s bill that would introduce amendments to put caps on payday lenders and introduce some responsible lending criteria in this country. Those are two reforms that I think are necessary to ensure access to justice in the wider sense for some of the most vulnerable consumers in our society. 
Another criticism of the disputes tribunals has been that one actually has to have a dispute about a question of law before one can access their jurisdiction. There is no simple “non-lawyerised” “non-judicialised” process by which ordinary people and small businesses can prove a monetary claim and get enforcement of that claim. Again this is a real access-to-justice issue that I think members in this House should be mindful of. In summary the Labour Opposition will continue to support this reform as it did at the first reading and at the select committee. But it is a timid reform; many more things could be done to guarantee better access to justice for ordinary people in this country. It would be good to see those more thorough reforms enacted rather than these sorts of piecemeal extensions to jurisdiction in the disputes tribunals from time to time.