DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I am privileged to present this bill in the House today on behalf of Minister Goldsmith, because it again shows this Government's commitment to timely access to justice. The bill increases the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000 to provide an affordable forum for resolving lower-value claims for New Zealanders It will improve access to justice for around 2,000 claims per year, according to the Ministry of Justice modelling.

New Zealanders do not have an affordable place to resolve civil disputes between $30,000 and $60,000. It is uneconomic to take claims of this value to the District Court due to the significant legal and court-related costs. The result is that people either abandon the value of their claim over $30,000 to fall within the tribunal's jurisdiction, or they accept a loss by not pursuing their claim at all. The justice gap does not support a well-functioning justice system and is inconsistent with the rule of law.

Expanding the disputes tribunal's jurisdiction will mean that a cheaper and more accessible forum to resolve disputes is available. The tribunal has features that will make it well suited to resolving small claims up to $60,000, and they include that the tribunal takes an inquisitorial approach and referees support the parties to put their case forward without the need for lawyers; that hearings are held in private with no standard right to legal representation, which creates an even playing field for both parties and eliminates legal fees; that it limits appeals to issues of unfairness or prejudice, promoting the finality of decisions; and that the statutory basis for the tribunal's decision making, including that it shall have regard to the law but not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, promotes the flexible and pragmatic resolution of issues.

The disputes tribunal has one of the fastest disposal rates of all courts and tribunals in New Zealand and it is one of the busiest forums in the civil justice system. I believe it is well placed to effectively manage higher-value claims, and I expect that claims will slowly increase as people become aware and confident in taking higher claims to the tribunal, and this will also be closely monitored by the Ministry of Justice.

The tribunal is funded by the Government and by users by paying a filing fee. Most of the tribunal's costs will continue to be met by the Crown as there is significant public interest in upholding the rule of law and ensuring citizens consider there is a viable method to enforce their rights. However, a new filing fee of $468 for claims of more than $30,000 will aid in cost recovery and help maintain current service levels.

It is appropriate that tribunal users help recover some of the costs of administering the tribunal, given the private benefit to people in having their disputes resolved. At higher values, the private benefits are greater, and with this change to the financial jurisdiction, parties will be able to recover up to $60,000.

It is important to note that this is the only fee that users will pay and the dispute tribunal will remain significantly cheaper than bringing proceedings in the District Court where there are additional court fees and also legal fees. I'm aware that the requirement for the applicant to front the cost of the filing fee for an application can still be seen as a barrier, particularly where the applicant is not seeking any financial compensation. This Government is separately progressing proposals through the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, which will give disputes referees the discretion to order the respondent to repay the cost of the filing fee to a wholly or partly successful applicant. This will help ensure that the costs of pursuing justice do not fall on those who have been wronged.

I'd like to thank the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill, and I thank submitters who shared their views on the bill. The Justice Committee has recommended that this bill proceed without amendment. My hope is that the disputes tribunal will continue to be seen as an affordable and accessible way to resolve disputes, and we will improve access to justice for many New Zealanders by expanding the financial jurisdiction to $60,000. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. We support access to justice, and we support the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. We were disappointed that suggestions made, and which were alluded to by the Minister in select committee, weren't accepted.

The Disputes Tribunal used to be called the Small Claims Tribunal, and it has exactly the same design as it did when its jurisdiction was $500. Some of the features of that design are: no lawyers, an obligation only to have regard to the law and not to apply the law, and no right of appeal. Now, we are a long, long way away, at $60,000, from a $500 claim. Sixty thousand dollars is more than a year's income for someone on the minimum wage, so if they are being sued for $60,000, that could be absolutely devastating. If they crash into someone's BMW and it turns out they don't have insurance, and they're being sued for $50,000 or $60,000, that could be absolutely devastating, and the Disputes Tribunal referee doesn't have to apply the law, and if they get it wrong, there's no right of appeal. So the first thing we would say about this is that, if we are going to have good access to justice, a summary jurisdiction for civil disputes, which we agree with, we might need to think a bit more carefully about the kinds of protections that need to be in place in there.

The other thing we noted was that that $468 fee is a lot if you're on the minimum wage, and minimum-wage people and other people on low incomes do have disputes of $50,000 or $60,000, whether it be a building dispute or some other kind of dispute, that they want to bring. Now, if you go to the District Court, where the filing fee to file a claim is $260, you can apply for a fees waiver on the basis of hardship—for a fee that's $200 less. But you can't apply for it under the Disputes Tribunals Act. Now, we consider that access to justice would be further improved by allowing a hardship fees-waiver. We accept that, in almost all cases, citizens should bear a share of the cost of the delivery of justice, but, in that small band of cases where someone hasn't got the money—they've just been ripped off, so they're poor; they've been scammed by the builder down the road and they've paid their deposit for the garage that never got built, they're broke, and they can't sue, because they can't rustle up $450. So we really do think there should be a fees waiver, and we mooted this at the committee, and we think that, at the committee of the whole House stage, it is something that should be seriously considered, and I'd invite the Minister to put an Amendment Paper in at that point. I'd prefer it if that happened, because I haven't got the resources behind me to draft a good one, although I'll have a go.

Look, we do support this—summary justice is good; informal justice is good—but, once you get into life-changing decisions, and $60,000 is for many people, we need to have some more stringent controls and guards around it. I am saying no more than was said in the regulatory impact statement, which pretty much came to the same conclusion. So, yes, we support the bill. We support all of the objectives that the Minister outlined, and we agree that we need to take load off the District Court, and tribunals are a great way to do that, but we have those concerns, which were not dispelled. I must say that Minister Goldsmith, when he introduced this bill and listened to me at the first reading debate, indicated a willingness to engage on some of these other matters, but that indication was not fulfilled in the committee process. I hope it will be fulfilled in the committee of the whole House process. We support this bill, but we have reservations, which we will pursue further.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in support of this bill. The previous two speakers have already mentioned terms of the context of some of these bills. Specifically, this bill is looking to increase the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals, from making claims from—currently, the cap is $30,000—to $60,000. There are other measures and transitional measures as well. But in discussing that, I think, again, in the second reading, it would be nice to sort of encapsulate all of the things that were discussed during the select committee stage.

In this case, during the select committee stage, the Justice Committee received 107 submissions, out of which 43 were in support and 57 were opposed and a few others were uncertain in terms of which way they felt about this particular bill. As a select committee, we thought that was quite interesting, mainly because of the fact that, you know, when we're going into the select committee and we're going through the first reading—from a Green Party perspective, we thought that this is something that will, hopefully, alleviate some of the burden being placed on District Courts. So we were pleasantly surprised and willing to dig a little bit deeper on why some people would oppose this particular bill.

But just in terms of the people who are supporting it, we do have a lot of feedback, like the previous speakers have mentioned. We do have a lot of feedback around the fact that it will alleviate the burden. It will be somewhat of a more streamlined process, compared to the District Courts. We know there are delays in District Courts, due to a variety of bills that have been introduced just in terms of backlog, in general. In that sense, that was one of the reasons that people wanted to support it. Also, I think, on balance, people have commented on the fact that the application fee to the disputes tribunal is still lower compared to the District Court.

However, there were other concerns, which I thought was really interesting and I think definitely deserves highlighting. I think the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, raised one of the really important ones that people feed in on, which is around the new tier of the fees. At this stage, the fee is capped at $30,000, which is the maximum, currently. The fee is, I think, from memory, $234 for the filing fee, and there is this assumption that because now you're doubling it to $60,000, the application fee would also double to $468 dollars. I think, on balance, that sort of mathematics makes logical sense, but the difference is that the doubling of the amount would include—let's say your claim is $30,001. Understandably, having some sort of a tiering system makes logical sense, but there is the idea that some people have suggested that doubling the ability of the amount that can be claimed, and introducing a doubling of the application fee, is in some ways more disproportional to the other tiers. That was one of the biggest feedbacks that we received.

The other one that we received is around accessibility barriers, because some of the submissions did oppose the bill because of the fact that they think that this higher amount will create that barrier to some of the applicants. Particularly when it comes to the fact that there is no mechanism—unlike other courts, there's no mechanism for the tribunal to waive the cost of the filing fee presently, although there have been suggestions that other bills might be introduced that may address some of these concerns. It's also important to note that some of the submitters who oppose this bill looked at the increased complexity of cases and the impact this will have on the disputes tribunals. Understandably, claims that are under $30,000, although they will have some complexity, the fact that now the threshold has been increased to $60,000—there might be also an increase to the complexity of the cases. In those cases, whether the dispute tribunal currently is able to handle the increased complexity was some of the feedback that we have received. At the same time, there is also the concern that transitioning from the disputes tribunal to a District Court—for example, if cases get too complex—may also present additional challenges.

Other submitters that have submitted on this bill recognise the impact it will have on Māori, particularly from a tribunals perspective versus a court perspective of the understanding of tikanga Māori in some of these circumstances and how that could be a part of the decision-making process for the disputes tribunal. That was some of the feedback. I would just also like to add that as we're seeing an increasing number of diverse communities within Aotearoa as well, what we also need to be aware of is the fact that—for example, within the Chinese communities—there is still a growing understanding, but often it's not quite there, but a growing understanding of contractual obligations and what it means when claims are being made or, alternatively, claims are being made against someone else.

Those are some of the broader concerns that were addressed during the select committee stage by people who felt that the bill wasn't in some ways quite appropriate. I think those definitely deserve attention, as we are discussing this in the committee stage to follow after this.

The other thing that has also been mentioned and touched on as well, both by the submitters but also by the previous speakers, is the fact that there isn't an ability currently for there to be a right to appeal—well, the right to appeal is limited in some ways. That is something that has been raised. Again, also another factor to consider here are the transitional measures. There are definitely submitters—and as part of the select committee process, there have been discussions around the transitional measures, the fact that if you make an application prior to the commencement date of this particular bill, you cannot increase that threshold as part of your claim. I think some people have made comments on whether that is an appropriate setting. But, again, I think in those kinds of cases, the select committee recognises that a decision must be made to start the process or to start the bill in some way, and it's not always the best idea and the wisest idea to have retrospective measures.

Finally, as part of the select committee process, one of the things that's also been discussed was around whether there should be a built-in review as a part of this. It has been suggested having a three to five-year built-in review of whether the increased threshold to $60,000 will provide the right setting and whether $60,000 is actually sufficient if a dispute tribunal is able to, for example, increase that amount.

Fundamentally, one of the things that we did here as part of the select committee process was the wider issue here of access to justice and some of the wider reforms. We have seen a number of justice-related bills that have been introduced in this House over a period of time. I think that particularly from a court's perspective the last bill we had introduced here is around the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, which increased the number of District Court judges. But I think, as we are seeing with some of the broader justice reforms—I wondered whether the reason for a bill like this to be introduced is because of the fact that we are going to be seeing some of those increased demands and increased burdens on District Courts, and above in some of the higher courts, through the more justice-based reforms that this Government is undertaking, such as the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and other such bills.

Although I think in many ways it is a good idea in isolation as an individual bill, I do echo some of the sentiments that some of the submitters made on how it doesn't actually address the broader accessibility issue that we might be seeing in some of the other courts. So although the Green Party supports this bill, we look forward to committee stage; I think there are definitely a lot more things to discuss during that stage.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, thank you to Minister the Hon Nicole McKee for introducing the second reading of this bill on behalf of the Hon Dr Paul Goldsmith, and thank you to both of you for the work you're doing in justice and to make the system more streamlined and efficient. I also want to thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who stated it's rational to have a higher fee for a service and for a higher level of claim. I celebrate with that member of the Green Party their newfound commitment to user pays. So thank you, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Key changes: increase in financial jurisdiction, allowing the disputes tribunal to resolve claims up to $60,000, and improved access to justice. A better access to justice, to quick, low-cost dispute resolution for individuals who either cannot afford or choose not to take their claims to the District Court due to higher fees, is a great improvement. An additional new filing fee tier of only $468 for claims over $30,000 and up to $60,00 will aid with cost recovery, and reflects the higher private benefits of using the tribunal for higher-value claims.

I'm also interested in the modernisation and efficiency benefits that this bill introduces. It's part of an effort to modernise and streamline the dispute resolution process, making it more efficient and accessible to the public, and part of an overall programme of work—which the ACT Party supports—to make the justice system more efficient, more accessible, and more timely in the decisions that it delivers back to people who use it. I'm also taking part in and looking very carefully at the work going on to modernise the disputes tribunal, when it comes to how we might apply these concepts to resolving planning disputes in the resource management system, in another area of work that I'm involved in. Because having a relatively low-cost, quick turn-around process that provides tension on those who are participating in a system, whether it's the planning system or people involved in building and construction, actually means that there's more tension on people to behave better, to perform their roles better, to deliver their contractual obligations better, than if they have to muster up the cost and all of the reports that are necessary to go to a higher court. I'll have more to say on that policy once final decisions are taken.

But just to re-affirm, the ACT Party supports this bill. It's part of a fantastic programme of modernisation and efficiency that this coalition Government is working on. Through that, we will deliver a much better, leaner, meaner, faster, and cheaper Government for New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, which New Zealand First will of course be supporting. New Zealand First is committed to delivering efficiency and pragmatism in our justice system, and I think that's really important in this narrative that we're bringing forward. There is a huge piece of work that is continuing to be driven to ensure we have a fit for purpose justice system, and that involves access to not only timely justice but good justice systems.

This pathway to resolution being expanded to the 60,000 is an important addition not only to remove some of the pressure within the District Court system but to also empower the tribunal system to expand its scope of work. I take on board the discussions around fees and the cost prohibitation of filing fees, but the alternative in this space is to have no access at all because the cost pressures of the District Court system and lawyers would create even greater pressures. So I think it's a good opportunity to expand the way in which we look at justice and look at all of the aspects to which people can address their concerns and which they can be given equal access to a resolution.

The complexity of a court system can be really challenging and sometimes even questioning whether you have a claim, where it fits and where it sits. The reality is that there is more and more issues in this space. We see it across the scamming space. We see it across the fact that people who aren't as astute or as aware of their rights that aren't able to understand what they should have checked off in their contracts or their arrangements, the misunderstandings, all of those things tend to target those that are sitting in this space where we're not quite sure where our jurisdiction covers us. So I think it's really useful to expand this to the 60,000 threshold. The reality is that 60,000 is not the huge sum that it used to be, and that is the reality of the cost of living that we're faced under, but it is a really important sum to allow those frustrations that you have when someone has not met or honoured their side of the bargain.

So it is really good work and I commend the Justice Committee for the volume of work that they're putting through. This is a huge workload. The Justice Committee has been the recurring name in just about every bill I've spoken on recently, and I hope that they continue to keep this volume of work moving forward. The Minister of Justice and Minister McKee are also working very hard to make our courts and our justice system effective and pragmatic, and this concept of timely access to justice—I mean, justice delayed is justice denied. I think this is another really important piece of work that will support small businesses, families, and regional communities. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Steve Abel.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this amendment bill. The bill, as has been very thoroughly outlined, amends the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 to increase the financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000 with the aim of improving access to quick, low-cost disputes resolution for claims of higher value where action in the District Court would be unaffordable or would cost more to claimants than the value of the claim. The bill also introduces a new tier for the filing fees for claims worth more than $30,000 to support cost recovery and reflect the higher public benefit of using the Disputes Tribunal for higher-value claims.

The Green Party is committed as part of our justice policy to achieve a just and civil society through improving access to justice. The financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal has been increased a number of times. It was only $7,500 in 2009, and we have supported, as a party, increases to the threshold previously.

While this would increase access to justice for those with claims between $30,000 and $60,000, there are fewer legal protections for claimants in the Disputes Tribunal than in the District Court. For example, claimants must represent themselves and there is no judge. By having a legal referee who runs the hearing, outcomes in the Disputes Tribunal can be less predictable, as they make decisions on the merits of the case rather than on precedent. However, it is totally up to the discretion of the claimant whether they take their case to the Disputes Tribunal or the District Court, and so the lesser legal protections for claimants at the Disputes Tribunal are not a significant risk to justice and are outweighed by the expanded access to justice. Many claimants will also value the greater flexibility of the tribunal process, which is why we are supporting this legislation.

We did have a look at the particular impact on Māori and Te Tiriti, and there are no clear specific impacts on tangata whenua or any inconsistency with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, although it's notable that Māori tend to be under-represented in the use of the Disputes Tribunal. This bill is unlikely to change that, but it may be yet another example of where our justice system is either inaccessible or not attractive to tangata whenua Māori in certain instances, and perhaps that is a place for work—that certainly is a place for work.

So we're very happy to support this bill. Thank you very much.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Justice Committee, we received 107 submissions on this piece of legislation, though only three made oral submissions to the bill. But it does make a prudent change to the financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal, lifting it from $30,000 to $60,000. I would point out that in 2022, the Rules Committee released the Improving Access to Civil Justice report, and the report recommended increasing the financial jurisdiction to $70,000 if sufficient resourcing exists. This is moving in the right direction so that people can have access to quick, low-cost disputes resolution so I commend the bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you. We support this bill. As has just been said—in a very succinct and concise manner—it does a step in the right direction. It improves people's access to justice, which is always a good thing. There's nothing worse than feeling aggrieved and having a grievance and having nowhere to ply that and nowhere to seek resolution, and that is the position that we find ourselves in if people are unable to access that mechanism to seek that resolution, so raising it from $30,000 to $60,000.

The Justice Committee heard from very few submissions, but we received just over 100 and three oral submissions. It wasn't unanimous in so far as whether that was the magic number or not, and there were some people that certainly suggested it should be higher to capture a few more of those small businesses in particular that find themselves in dispute. But this nevertheless is where we have landed.

The improved access to justice is not just a sort of catch phrase. It is something that is profoundly important to the orderly manner in which a society feels included and that it works properly. The disputes tribunal obviously offers this much more low-cost, informal avenue for resolving disputes. By raising the cap, it may quite rightly—or quite predictably—change the nature of some of those cases. So we do need to be vigilant that the people working within this system have the requisite skills, that it doesn't just become dominated by the big end of town—so far as $60,000 can be conceived the big end—but that the genuine small claims that we used to think of when we remember the small claims court don't get lost in the mix.

That, ultimately, is a question of funding. And with so many departments and ministries and public servants really under pressure in terms of making those cost savings that have been dictated by this Government, this is one more avenue that we have to be vigilant to make sure that it runs properly and doesn't suffer from a "cheap and nasty" sort of version of itself.

We think that the Rules Committee recommendation is worth adopting. We think the core efficiency and the case load management is obviously something worth trying. Many times in this House we talk about the backlogs and the fact that if the system gets clogged up, it has real-life repercussions for people that get kind of stuck in limbo and can't move forward with their lives. So anything we can do in that direction is worthwhile.

We do still feel quite miffed about the relatively high fee, and therefore think that would have been something through the select committee process that would have been good to look at a little bit more seriously. And obviously also that lack of a right of appeal, which remains a sore point as well. But nevertheless, the good things outweigh the bad and so we recommend and commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, in the second reading. My colleagues across the House have, really, traversed the essentials of these changes quite well. What I'd like to add, if I may, is when we're talking about the application fee that has been doubled, for me, I find it logical that if the financial jurisdiction is doubled, therefore the application fee is doubled. Indeed, I saw this when I used to work in the small claims tribunal in Australia while I was studying law. But what I would like to say is that what is good for us to know—and I'd like our listeners to know—is, as our Minister Nicole McKee mentioned earlier, there is a suite of changes taking place currently in the regulatory tribunals bill, so part of that would mean that section 3 of the Disputes Tribunal Act will be amended to allow costs to be awarded to the applicant, should they be successful. With that, I commend this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Greg O'Connor.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. A couple of the speakers before have mentioned this in relation to the justice system, particularly Minister Costello, and it's very interesting to put it in that perspective, because as the justice system has changed, and, more importantly, in my experience, the policing system has changed, many of the issues that now end up before the tribunal are things that would've been dealt with in the past by the criminal justice system.

I can actually remember a time when police used to attend people who turned up and got their credit card turned down by a retailer. Police would be called because it was an attempt to commit fraud, and often someone would actually end up in the system for that. I'm talking about people who actually did drive-offs from petrol stations; in the past, that was very much a police issue.

The courts and various changes in the system over time determined that where the retailer had then given the service or given the product to the person who didn't then pay, then it was a civil case. So from years when the police or the authorities may have become involved, very quickly the lexicon became that it's a civil case, and that threshold has moved considerably over the years, to the extent that things like dine and dash at a restaurant will now be treated as a civil case, it might be surprising for many people to learn.

The remedy for the retailer in those cases is actually to go to the small claims tribunal, which is, of course, what it used to be called, and it's now the Disputes Tribunal. So moving the threshold up to $60,000 does make considerable sense, but I think it's important to realise that we're now increasing, as we change the justice system, the number of people that will require this system to actually obtain their justice.

The court filing fee: that will be a barrier for many people. There's another little bit of irony here, that not long ago we were discussing a piece of legislation—and I congratulate New Zealand First for supporting that—the theft by an employer of wages intentionally. In the past, I heard many of the speakers say, "That should go off to the tribunal. Why are we making this a criminal offence where an employer steals money off an employee?" This is the sort of thing that's pushed that threshold back over the years, and I'm very pleased to see that that legislation did pass, because it stopped that particular piece of action, of theft, of crime being pushed into the civil jurisdiction as well.

One thing will be of interest to anyone who's watching this: who are these referees? Are they judges? Well, no; the people who are appointed this job are people because of personal qualities, knowledge, and experience, and many referees have training in dispute resolution and the law. I like to see that description for the people that'll be in this tribunal, actually, because over the years it's been a bit of a mystery as to how people become judges in both the District and the High Court. If you ask anyone how they got there, there's not really a well-trodden path, a well-understood way in which people do end up—there's shoulder tapping; there's all sorts of things. So it's actually quite good to see in the criteria for these referees there is a criteria—you've actually got to show that you've got a background in having dealt with disputes, a background in having referees. So I think you're more likely in these tribunals to get—particularly if you're unlucky enough to get someone who's new to it, at least they will have a background in this.

These tribunals are actually becoming more important, and, of course, $60,000 compared to the old limit—I believe it was $500 when it was the small claims court. It is quite a lift. I heard my colleague Duncan Webb there talking before about how the sorts of amounts we're talking about now are ones that will make a massive difference to people's lives: $60,000, and even that, I think, $468 filing fee. Trying to put that sort of money together, for a lot of people, is actually quite difficult when you're living hand to mouth on your wages. Try and find that. You see how much difficulty people have actually getting school uniforms together, which I'm sure every MP here knows they'll have people who are having those sorts of difficulties.

So this is a sensible move, but I think, again, it should be taken in the context that this is a reflection on how we've seen changes to the justice system that have required more and more people to actually use the services of this tribunal, whereas in the past they might've had alternatives. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Hello, Madam Speaker. This is a good bill—$30,000 to $60,000, a doubling. I hear the comments from the other side, I understand that perspective about the filing fee, but remember it only applies to the portion above $30,000. There is no barrier that isn't already there. There is nothing new for the $0 to $30,000. If people want to go to a higher threshold, which we've seen is an issue—we've heard through submissions that that is an issue—there is now pathway. This just gives them an extra option. I have heard the criticism from Labour that this swings too far in favour of quick and final justice. Actually, like Greg O'Connor just shared, quick and final justice is what people are after through this, particularly with a number of civil complaints that used to be more criminal, and the "dine and dash" was an example he gave. So this makes a lot of sense. I commend it to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I'm really interested in this piece of legislation, because I can see the advantages and the disadvantages of it. I'm glad that we're supporting it, because I think that there are a lot of people presently in a position where it's just too expensive to litigate and this is really an alternative that we need to be available to people up to $60,000.

I, too, think my colleague Greg O'Connor has his feet on the ground when he says that $400-plus is a lot of money to a lot of people. It's particularly difficult if you've just lost a lot of money because somebody hasn't paid you or you're in a position where you want to exercise your rights to get that money. So it's a bit of a vicious circle there. I also think that by lowering the fee there may be a real advantage in that people would come to the court or to the disputes tribunal more readily and not take an option up of going to the District Court. So it probably would pay for itself very quickly to have a lower fee.

The reason that the Labour Party is supporting this bill today is because the systema at the present time is acknowledged as not working. I have been concerned about the people who have been in the debt area where it's just not worth them recovering the debt, and I think it sinks a lot of our small business, that kind of weight of financial debt that they have.

I also am quite in favour of having other options that don't involve lawyers as much as possible, because lawyers have become such a heavy burden in terms of their cost. Yesterday, I think, one of my colleagues on the other side of the House suggested it was strange I was suggesting that lawyers should be left out or that there was a negative force, given that I was one and she was one originally. But actually I stand by that. I think that the way that lawyers have become so necessary to so many people is a real problem.

I wasn't on this select committee, and I can see some things that perhaps I would like to see added to this regime, because I'm concerned about what my colleagues who've made a report under this are concerned about—the issue about $60,000 and the lack of appeal, meaning that there aren't enough checks and balances in the system. I think we do need to think of some other ways of making checks and balances. One thing that we could look at is actually recording these processes, because we now have a real technological advance and we could look at something where we recorded those, and we'd have a high-level supervision of the decisions that are being made at this level.

I'm also concerned that we've moved to a lot more mediation, a lot more quick arbitration-style approaches, because legal fees are so expensive but also because the delay has got out of hand. Today, I went to meet with one of my ex-clients, because they're a union and I was talking to their members about the processes that they had to go through. They told me that presently, to get a mediation in the Employment Relations Authority it's taking 10 weeks. I think about that issue that it's not just in one place; it's in all our little tribunals and our courts, that we have got these extended delays. I think that it was the New Zealand First member who talked about justice delayed is denied. It certainly is.

If you are an employee and you are waiting—or an employer—for that mediation, and you've lost your job or you're waiting to resolve something, things go sour in 10 weeks; you can't resolve them in the same way. In this situation, it's very, very important that people aren't opting for this because the rest of our system is broken. This should have a benefit that is well beyond that.

We should be proud of our justice system. I would love us to focus on that delay, and getting rid of it in our courts and our tribunals because, quite frankly, it is just not good enough. It shouldn't be that people move to what is a quick, maybe sometimes flawed, process of judgment because they have no other option, because it's not possible. So I would urge the House to think about that, about how important it is that we look at delay and how important it is we look at systems when we bring systems like this in where we are cutting out the lawyers, which is, I have said, a good thing—that we also try and balance that system by making sure there are checks and balances.

Now, that might not be appeal rights or you could do a limited appeal right. That's what my colleagues on the Justice Committee have suggested, that perhaps the appeal in this situation at those higher amounts might be more limited to matters of fact and law. It might be able to be constrained. So that's one way of doing it. Other ways of doing it are that people can look at these judgments. We can see if they've gone wrong. We can see the quality of the hearing. So we're not sending people into situations which are unsafe legally, when they are actually going there because they simply cannot afford the alternative process.

I want to come back to the fee and the $60,000. It's a lot of money for a lot of people. It's not a lot of money for the people in this House. It's simply because our salary allows us. It would still hurt. It would hurt a lot, for most of us, but it wouldn't sink us. And there's a whole lot of people out there that it would sink—a lot more people. The average salary in this country is under $70,000 and we are all on salaries that are about, I think, $170,000. We have a lot more capacity to make choices.

I want to come back to the rather glib comment from my friend in the ACT Party who talked about congratulating the Green Party in terms of joining the user-pays movement. I think that my friend misses the point. We have a whole lot of people who cannot afford to exercise their rights in this country. It's not a glib matter that they have to pay $460 as a filing fee. And it's not a glib matter when they're owed $60,000. But it's really important that we get it right for them. These are the people who are most vulnerable in our community. We need to make sure we sure we get it right.

Actually, if we do, and we don't sink people in this situation and we don't disempower them so that they're devastated because they lose their house, they can't pay their mortgage, and they feel the system is unjust towards them—if we don't look after them, actually what we find is that they are angry, they end up with mental health issues, they end up with their children in dire situations because the whole system breaks down.

We're a community and we need to support everyone in it. It is a very, very big part of the Labour Party that we believe there is our community: they are our children, they are our friends, they are our whānau, and we need to make sure that our system works for everyone in New Zealand, whether people are earning a minimum wage or less or they are earning a lot more. We are part of the same whānau.

So I commend this bill to the House, and I urge the parties to consider the delays that are occurring across our country in our courts and look at rigorous solutions that make sure that people are treated with justice, despite our urge to get rid of that delay. Justice is part of that. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We need to—as the Minister said—improve court timeliness and access to justice so that Kiwis can get on with their lives. The change in the level at which you will be able to apply to the disputes tribunal will mean that a Master's student who paid just $9,000 for a full years' worth of work, who had to cut her losses and abandon the claim for the $41,000 she was owed, would be able to actually take that claim under this new law. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Kieran McAnulty. This is a split call; the other half of call six. Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill makes sense. A New Zealand court rules committee recommended that the cap be upped. Why wouldn't we listen to them? They know what they're talking about. The fact is that most members in this House have provided examples where, because the cap was at $30,000, people who would have claimed and won and would have got more were restricted by the cap. And that doesn't make sense.

Of course, originally, the cap was at a level where $30,000 was a lot more than it is now. But also, we've got to recognise that this bill proposes a cap of $60,000. Now, $60,000 is still a lot of money. I would hazard a guess that there wouldn't actually be many members in this House that could just stump up with $60,000—"Oh, well, I've lost the case. Here's sixty grand." It's a big amount of money. People would have to refinance or put it on the mortgage, or whatever. We are actually on high incomes. For people who are on average incomes or, Heaven forbid, low incomes, this is a big deal—a massive deal. Think about the minimum wage. It only went up 35c a couple of days ago. There's no way in hell they would be able to stump up with $60,000. I'm only saying this because it's important to recognise the significance of the amount.

So, if we do agree on that—that $60,000 is a lot of money—it is of concern that the bill doesn't recognise that, in the sense that it doesn't contain a right of appeal. And the simple question is: what if a mistake were made?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: They are made.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, they are made; that's right. I mean, you only have to look over there to see that many people make lots of mistakes! But the point is that, if a mistake is made in a tribunal like this, they have to start all over again and they only go to the same level. It's not like in the courts, where you can appeal to a higher level of court and look at it from a different angle. It's the same tribunal looking at the same issue if a mistake is made.

Why wouldn't the Government want to consider the prospect of having a right of appeal, not to dispute matters of fact but maybe just matters of law, so that people can have confidence in the process. Yes, it's a good thing that the cap has increased—and I'm very pleased to hear the example of the employee that would have been awarded $41,000 but couldn't get it all, because of the cap. I'm pleased that that's recognised in this House, and perhaps we might wish to refer to that and the reference to that case by Government parties in future debates. It's good that they're recognising that that's important today, but without that right of appeal, we feel that this is missing something, and we feel that this could actually lead to some level of injustice in the future.

We recognise that the fee—$468—reflects the costs that are incurred to run the disputes tribunal, but we also must recognise that $468 is actually quite a lot for many working people, especially people on very low incomes like the minimum wage, or lower if they're part-time, of course. When you consider that the filing fee for the District Court is $260—almost half—surely there could be some wriggle room there, some flexibility. We're talking about claims that could be very, very small, and when the fee to make that claim is actually a decent chunk of cash, there is a bit of an issue there. It would be good, in the committee of the whole House stage, if that was explored further.

Given that we support this—and we've had a few instances of this in Parliament this week, where there has been broad support for bills. They could have been bills that started under us and this Government has finished off, or that this Government has introduced, building on work that the previous Government had done. There has been broad support. Here comes another one. So I hope that the Minister enters the committee of the whole House stage in that vein and actually takes seriously the amendments that we will put up. They will be around the right of appeal. They will be around flexibility of the filing fee. I think of an instance this week where the Hon David Parker put forward an amendment to the Hon Chris Penk and, essentially, he conceded that he agreed with him, but, "Oh, well, we'll figure it out later." That's a shame. I've had that happen to me when I've put an amendment forward to Chris Bishop. He's said, "Yep, good idea, but nah." Hopefully, this Minister has a bit more an open mind, and we'll be working with him in that stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

© Scoop Media