Dalziel Lianne: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4968] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the further passage of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill which has been reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am very pleased with the consideration the bill has obviously gone through at the select committee but was somewhat interested to learn that only 10 submissions had been received and that only three of those submitters wanted to be heard. That raises a question about having to amend the principal Act every time we want to review the adequacy of the thresholds. I know that this issue was raised at the select committee and the select committee quite rightly referred to it in its report back to the House. The select committee stated that a recommendation came through the submissions to allow the maximum claim levels to be amended by Order in Council. 
One of the things that in considering such a matter I would like the Government and also Parliament itself to seriously think about is whether there has to be such a close correlation between the amount at which one can require that the matter be determined at the disputes tribunal and the amount that is able to be agreed between the parties. I am just thinking about whether the new thresholds that are introduced with this legislation—lifting them to $15000 or $20000 with the consent of both parties—are too low. Is that $20000 too low when it is by consent? If parties to a particular transaction have a dispute that relates to $22000 they will have to knock off $2000 in order to reach an agreement for $20000 or have to knock off $7000 in order to have it heard as a matter of right by the disputes tribunal. That is an area where a degree of consideration could be given to separating the two thresholds and thinking about them as two quite separate issues—the issue of where the threshold is to be determined. I actually wonder whether a gradual inflation indexing approach might solve the problem which is the alternative to the proposal that came up in the submissions to allow the maximum claim levels to be amended by Order in Council. 
There are issues around whether this is the type of amendment that requires the consideration of the House. I still think that the Order in Council process is a pretty robust regulatory process and requires a degree of consideration and consultation for it to meet its regulatory impact analysis provisions. It is also subject to the review of the Regulations Review Committee so it is not as though Parliament is completely distanced from the process. But when a bill is brought into the House goes to a select committee gets only 10 submissions and only three of them ask to be heard one has to really argue that perhaps this is not the best way to alter what is essentially an access to justice issue. 
I heard the Minister say he was willing to look again at the thresholds but I actually wonder whether he would look at the substance of the issue that has been raised in the submissions and also raised by the lack of submissions in terms of the public interest in this matter. I wonder whether there is a better way of determining the amounts against which the thresholds would be measured. Again I think that separating the mandatory amount and the agreed amount would be a way to do that. 
Obviously from time to time we hear of people who are not happy with the results of disputes tribunal hearings but in the main we do not get that feedback. In fact the overwhelming response to the disputes tribunals process that we have in place—originally the small claims tribunal—is a very positive reaction from those people who would find it completely impossible to negotiate both the cost and the access to the District Court. The disputes tribunal has been a mechanism for resolving disputes of a very minor nature and enabling people access to justice which is so important. I personally have used the small claims tribunal as it was known in the olden days. I had taken a leather jacket into a dry-cleaners. Those members who have studied law will know exactly the scenario that I would have confronted when the dry-cleaners lost my beautiful blue leather jacket. 
Hon Members 
: Blue! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was going through my blue period at the time. Tragically I was born with blue eyes so I suit the colour unfortunately. The point I am making is that the dry-cleaner ended up saying it was not liable because of the little ticket it gives to customers. As I was studying law at the time I knew perfectly well about those rules but in this particular case I had not accepted the jacket because it had not been cleaned properly. I had actually resubmitted it for further work which was when the dry-cleaners lost it. So I had the dry-cleaners on that point. I filed with the small claims tribunal and the dry-cleaners happily paid up several hundred dollars for me to purchase a new leather jacket which was not blue. 
The small claims tribunal—now the disputes tribunal—enabled me as a student to take on a business that I would not have been able to take on if I had had to rely on the District Court. The disputes tribunal process is a very very good service overall and it is excellent that we are seeing its parameters extended by increasing the maximum claim threshold with this bill. 
I was looking at the dates of the original legislation in 1977 the disputes tribunal itself in 1988 and changes to the thresholds again in 1998. It seems to me there is a bit of a pattern emerging; every 10 years we give this threshold a substantial boost. I am wondering whether that is the best way to do it. It is probably a very good reason to think about perhaps finding a different way to make this legislation permanently relevant rather than having to jump the threshold up every decade. 
On that note I say that I too am grateful for the work of the select committee. I am not on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I know that it does some excellent work and this bill has been no exception. I congratulate the chair Chester Borrows and other members of the committee on the work they have done. I certainly look forward to the chair’s comments on the bill. I commend the bill to the House.