Peachey Allan: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2314] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the first reading debate on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill 2009— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Tell us about your dispute with Anne Tolley. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I also note that the troublesome fourth former on the other side of the House has started again. 
This legislation is just one more example of this Government which was overwhelmingly elected in November 2008 keeping the promises it made to the electorate. The National Party now the Government promised to increase the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals in order to reduce pressure on the District Court system. This bill keeps that promise. The disputes tribunals are divisions of the District Court so they are very very important bodies. Their jurisdiction is exercised by referees who are appointed under warrant by the Governor-General for 3-year terms and those terms are renewable. Disputes tribunal referees have the same status as justices of the peace in criminal cases. The proceedings of the tribunals are judicial proceedings. In general tribunal decisions are enforced as a District Court decision. So the bodies that we are dealing with and the increased jurisdiction that we are providing are very very important parts of the New Zealand judicial system. 
The bill has two main provisions. The first is to increase the maximum amount of claims from the current $7500 to $15000 or with the consent of all parties from $12000 to $20000. This is a sensible logical move particularly given that those thresholds have not been changed in 10 years—not since the last National Government did so in 1998. 
The bill does something else. It makes consequential amendments to a number of other pieces of legislation: the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 the Fair Trading Act 1986 the Fencing Act 1978 the Minors’ Contracts Act 1969 and the Retirement Villages Act 2003. Just as an aside when we go through that list of legislation that has to have consequential change made to it we realise what an over-governed country this is. However that is a subject for another day. 
The raising of the thresholds will do a number of things. Firstly it will reduce the pressure on owners of small to medium sized businesses and individuals who are trying to collect disputed debts. This will allow more parties to access the tribunals and thereby reduce the costs to all parties of resolving disputes. 
It is anticipated that about 3600 more cases each year will be heard by the disputes tribunals as a result of this amendment than is currently the case. As more and more cases are dealt with by the tribunals we will have a system that is much more cost-effective than otherwise would have been the case. In other words the tribunals will for more New Zealanders now provide a cheap simple process with fast access to the justice system and in a forum that avoids the legality and the formality of the District Court room. An additional 3600 cases a year will be able to be heard in the disputes tribunals rather than having to go to the District Court with everything that that involves. 
The second effect of raising the thresholds is that more businesses and individuals will benefit because filing fees are significantly lower in the disputes tribunals than they are in the courts. No lawyers are allowed. That in itself greatly reduces the costs of taking claims. The fact that third parties like lawyers are not involved means that the cost of using the disputes tribunals is considerably less than New Zealanders have to incur when working through the courts. 
The third result of the raising of the thresholds will be to reduce pressure on District Courts. We know that there are major workload pressures on our court system. By increasing the maximum level of a claim and allowing an increased number of New Zealanders to use the disputes tribunal system less pressure will be put on the District Court system and that will result in more New Zealanders experiencing the timely delivery of justice. This must always be an underpinning point of the judicial system: the timely delivery of justice the timely hearing of disputes and the timely hearing of cases. I think it is widely recognised that not all New Zealanders enjoy access to that timely delivery of justice. For many New Zealanders the timely delivery of their rights through the processes of the District Court is not up to standard. This bill will take a small but significant step towards rectifying that. In other words one of the effects of the bill will be to speed up the delivery of justice not only to those who are seeking to use the disputes tribunal but also to other New Zealanders who are involved in the court system. 
Fourthly by making the enforcement of debt easier as a result of the disputes tribunal system small to medium sized businesses will benefit from the increased cash flow that results. It is interesting to listen to Labour members sniping away; it brings home to me the understanding and realisation that members opposite just do not understand the significance of businesses and the cost structure of businesses. I would have thought that given the outcome of the last election it would be wiser for members opposite to sit quietly and not show their ignorance. 
There will be significant and noticeable improvements in the operation of dispute resolutions as a result of this bill. It is just one more item on the list of initiatives that this Government has announced to help businesses and individuals. In conclusion I invite the House to reflect on this: the last time the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal was increased was 10 years ago. 
Todd McClay 
: How long? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It was a long time ago—10 years. It was when National was last in office. Labour did nothing for 9 years and now this afternoon Labour parrots away with little understanding of what this bill is all about. I commend this bill to the House.