Key John: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Key John: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4792] 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I do not intend to take very long to discuss the schedules but I do want to draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of matters contained in them. Those who have had an opportunity to review and reflect on the bill will know that the schedules discuss in some depth the hearings and the manner in which the disputes tribunal may conduct those hearings. In particular I want to take a moment to talk about the rights of people to appear at hearings. 
Clause 7A in schedule 2 spells out the rights of anybody who wants to appear before a hearing. In particular it states: “At any hearing of an application or claim before a Disputes Tribunal any party to the proceedings is entitled to attend and be heard.” It then goes on to discuss whether representation is acceptable within those hearings stating at some length that people cannot be represented—except under some conditions outlined later on—by a barrister or a lawyer. I understand the reasons that that would be the case. In other words it is to reduce the cost and delay to hearings by making them less expensive and arduous. But I make the point that it is the right of an individual who wants to appear before a hearing to determine whether he or she wants representation from a lawyer or barrister. 
There will be people who have a very good reason for being there and who feel that they cannot adequately represent themselves. Even if the amount is under the $50000 limit for an individual or $200000 for a company those people may feel very much that they are unable to put their cases forward appropriately. I do not believe it is the place of Parliament to determine whether individuals spend their own money on seeking representation in a hearing. So I just draw the Committee’s attention to that point. 
I also draw to the Committee’s attention the issue that if one of the parties does want representation and the adjudicator approves that representation then the other party is entitled to have it as well. Again I draw the Committee’s attention to that issue because I believe that if we are to have standards whereby we argue that people do not require representation through a legal professional and then argue that because one party has representation the other party should have it just as of right that seems a little illogical to me. 
I want to talk for a moment on clause 9 “Duties of assessor” in schedule 2. In particular subclause (1)(b) talks about the duty being to “act in all respects”. The assessor must sit with the tribunal and that makes a great deal of sense. Clearly the assessor is providing technical knowledge on behalf of the tribunal. But in particular subclause (1)(b) states that the assessor acts in all respects as an extra member of the disputes tribunal. That is quite an interesting point in the sense that the kinds of people who can act within the disputes tribunal are discussed at some length in Part 4 of the bill and also the length of time that someone can be an adjudicator of the disputes tribunal. Two terms of 5 years each is the maximum. Those are quite rigorous memberships. To argue all of a sudden that an assessor can become an extra member but not go through such a rigorous process of assessment is in my view one of the failings of the schedules. 
I commend to the Committee clause 10 of schedule 2 concerning the immunity of witnesses. Clearly in these cases it is often very important that witnesses feel they have the security of that immunity. It is the only way that we will encourage people to come forward and put their case for the benefit of those who bring a dispute before the tribunal. On that basis I congratulate the Committee on having that provision. 
I also refer to clause 11 in schedule 2 which talks about the way that the decisions of the disputes tribunal need to be communicated. In particular it states that decisions must be given in writing. It is obviously very logical to have that requirement. Oral findings by the tribunal would probably not be worth the words they are spoken with. But in particular I am intrigued that under subclause (2)(b) every decision of the disputes tribunal has to contain the reasons for the decision. This is a rather wordy bill in my opinion. It has gone down to a level of minutiae that we have not seen in a lot of legislation in New Zealand. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Check the original bill. 
JOHN KEY 
: I am sure the original bill was also very lengthy and I fully support what this legislation will do for the industry. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I said check the original bill. 
JOHN KEY 
: We are replacing the original bill so if we are unhappy with it we have the opportunity through this bill to put new legislation in place. I simply make the point that it virtually goes without saying I would have thought that if a ruling on a dispute is being given in writing the reasons that the ruling has been made would have to be given. It seems rather superfluous to have that measure in the legislation.. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You obviously haven’t been to a disputes tribunal hearing. 
JOHN KEY 
: No I have not been to the disputes tribunal. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to the schedules be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.