Sepuloni Carmel: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5108] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. The disputes tribunal has been very successful in gaining the confidence of New Zealanders since 1988 when it was set up as Mr Chauvel said earlier under the third Labour Government. The disputes tribunal has been successful because it has demonstrated its ability to resolve civil disputes; therefore it does make sense to enable the disputes tribunal to resolve cases of a higher value. 
Before I go into detail about what these changes will entail I think it is worthwhile providing a little background to the disputes tribunal. Disputes tribunals are established by the decision of the responsible Minister as divisions of particular District Courts. The jurisdiction of a disputes tribunal is exercised by referees who are appointed under warrants by the Governor-General for terms of 3 years and they may be reappointed. In performing their statutory duties referees have the same status as a justice of the peace acting in a criminal jurisdiction. In general tribunal decisions are enforced as court decisions. 
We on this side of the Chamber recognise that there has been a gap between cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. In the past a number of cases have been deemed as not worth taking to the District Court due to the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings or people feeling that they should not pursue their claim at all. The alternative for many claimants was to reduce their claims so as to be able to have their case heard at the disputes tribunal. Hopefully the amendments to this bill will result in better access to justice particularly for individuals but also for small businesses. 
At present the disputes tribunal generally has jurisdiction only if the maximum amount of the claim does not exceed $7500. The amendment increases that amount to $15000. The exception to the general rule in the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 is where parties agree otherwise in relation to the extension of the tribunals’ jurisdiction. At present where both parties consent the jurisdiction of the tribunals may be extended to deal with claims up to a maximum of $12000. The amendment increases that amount to $20000. By amending the Act we are providing more effective access to justice and this can only be good. Hopefully this will close the gap between those cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. The changes should result in fewer instances where claimants are faced with the choice of reducing their claim facing the increased costs or not pursuing their claim at all. 
There were a number of issues raised by submitters during the select committee process that I thought I would touch on. One issue was they felt that perhaps there was scope for increasing the maximum claim levels further. Although most submitters supported the proposed increases in the maximum claim levels and considered that access to the disputes tribunals would not be improved and that the costs of resolving civil disputes would be reduced as a result some submitters argued that the purpose of the disputes tribunals would be achieved better if the maximum claim levels were increased further. There is probably scope for looking at that again further down the track. 
As the purpose of the disputes tribunal is to provide cheap simple fast and less formal access to justice it limits the protections that would ordinarily be available to parties appearing before the courts in various ways. The point was raised that although referees have regard to the law when making their decisions they are not bound to give effect to strict legal rights. Instead decisions can be based on the substantial merits and justice of the case. I stand to say that Labour will be supporting the amendment to this Act. Thank you.