Sitting date: 22 Oct 2025

DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I'm pleased to present this bill to the House. The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill amends the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 to increase the financial jurisdiction of the tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000. The aim is to improve access to quick, low-cost dispute resolution so that people can resolve their disputes about claims of higher value, those over $30,000 going up to $60,000. In doing so, the bill enhances access to justice by providing an affordable forum for resolving more lower value claims. It's estimated that up to 2,000 claims a year could benefit from this process.

The bill enhances access to justice for people who either cannot afford to take a claim to the District Court or choose not to because the associated fees would exceed the value of the claim they're pursuing. In essence, we've got quite a good, efficient system that works for smaller claims up to $30,000, and for a long time that figure hasn't been adjusted. There has been a lot of inflation and we think it makes sense to extend that boundary further to $60,000—a practical, pragmatic thing that will make a difference to the many hard-working New Zealanders who just want to get on with their lives and get their disputes resolved in a timely fashion. This increase in the jurisdiction addresses this justice gap, provides benefits for new claimants, new people that would have abandoned it.

The Disputes Tribunal has one of the fastest disposal rates of all the courts and tribunals in New Zealand and is one of the busiest forums in the civil justice system. I just want to take the opportunity to thank all the people in the court system working across this tribunal for the work they do on behalf of all New Zealanders. I don't think we take the opportunity to thank the people who work in our courts often, because though sometimes they work in stressful environments, under a lot of pressure, they do their best for the community and we should acknowledge them today.

The tribunal is resourced through a combination of user-pays and Crown funding. This recognises the tribunal's public and private benefits. The bill also amends the Disputes Tribunal Rules 1989 to introduce a new filing fee tier of $468 for claims of $30,001 or more to aid with cost recovery and reflect the higher private benefits of using the tribunal for higher value claims.

This is the only fee users pay. Whilst the new fee tier might seem a barrier to justice, it's a very small portion of the potential value of the claim. Disputes Tribunal proceedings remain significantly cheaper than bringing proceedings to the District Courts where court and legal costs are incurred throughout the case.

The Government's also separately progressing a proposal through the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill which will give the disputes referees the discretion to order the respondent to repay the cost of filing fees to a wholly or partially successful applicant. This will help ensure the costs of pursuing justice do not fall solely on those who have been wronged.

The bill will ensure the Disputes Tribunal will continue to operate as an affordable and accessible way to resolve disputes and will improve access to justice for more people. In the justice space, we're focused on restoring law and order, but we're also focused on speeding up the wheels of justice so people can get on with their lives, get their disputes resolved, and continue prospering and doing well, like everybody aspires to do in this country. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This bill, Labour supports the aim of increased access to justice and supports this bill, and that includes an increase to the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal.

In essence, what this bill does is it amends the Disputes Tribunal Act by increasing the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000. This will mean that people who cannot afford to take a claim to the District Court or who choose not to because the associated fee exceeds the value of the claim would indeed be able to access the disputes tribunal for those claims. The bill also introduces a filing fee of $468 for those claims over $30,000.

We're incredibly lucky in New Zealand to have our disputes tribunal system. It really enables greater access to justice. That's why we support this bill. It's a simple but important reform that will make a real difference to the thousands of New Zealanders who are seeking justice in a fair, affordable, and timely way. It keeps our courts from being clogged up and it enables issues which have become problematic to be resolved more quickly.

The disputes tribunal plays a really crucial role and is often unsung in what they do in our justice system. It is often referred to as the "people's court", a place where ordinary New Zealanders can resolve civil disputes without any great cost and the complexity of lawyers or the long delays of the formal court system. Around 11,000 people each year use the tribunal to sort out their issues. While small by the standard of the higher courts, they can be absolutely life changing for those people involved. The tribunal was designed to make justice accessible and it will continue to do that with this change today.

Over time, the realities of inflation and the rising cost of living have eroded the value of the $30,000-limit. What might once have been considered a substantial claim is now often a modest one, especially when you're a small business, a contractor, or even tenants trying to recover what they are owed. As a result, more and more people are being forced to give up a claim that they're wanting to pursue in order to have their case heard, and that is not fair and that is not justice.

We heard of some of these instances where a Master's student was paid $9,000 for a full year's work; she was owed $41,000 in total. But to bring her case to the tribunal, she had to forego more than a quarter of what she was owed. She quite literally had to choose between cutting her losses or facing the cost and delays of the formal court process. That instance is precisely what this bill seeks to fix today.

By raising the cap to $60,000, around 2,000 more claimants each year will be able to pursue the full value of their claims before the tribunal. For them, this is not just an abstract number; it is wages owed, work completed, deposits unfairly withheld, or contracts broken. These are disputes that affect people's livelihoods, their business, their sense of fairness, and their mental health.

Access to justice is the cornerstone of a fair society, and Labour has always believed that justice should not depend on the size of your wallet or your ability to hire a lawyer. The disputes tribunal, with its low filing fees and its straightforward process embodies that principle. It allows people to come forward and tell their story, to be heard, and to get a decision without being drowned in legal costs. Updating its jurisdiction is about keeping that promise alive in modern and challenging economic circumstances.

This bill also allows referees to order that a losing party reimburse the successful applicant's filing fee. That might sound like a small change but it's symbolically important. When someone wins their case, they should not be left out of pocket for simply accessing justice. It reinforces the idea that fairness should be practical as well as philosophical.

Some have questioned whether increasing the tribunal's cap will overburden it, but the evidence that we received is otherwise. The Ministry of Justice modelling shows that the system can absorb this change and that only a modest increase in the caseload is expected.

The tribunal's referees are highly skilled and already deal with a wide range of complex and different issues that they resolve. This bill simply allows them to hear more of the cases that are already coming through the door but which currently fall just outside of their reach.

Labour also notes the recommendation of the Rules Committee last year, which suggested an even higher cap to $70,000 or even $100,000 by consent, along with clearer appeal rights. We support the Government taking steps in that direction and we will continue to encourage a broader look at just how our civil justice system serves ordinary New Zealanders. There is still more work to streamline the enforcement and to ensure that the tribunal decisions can be upheld without the added cost and delay of going back through the District Court.

But today, this bill represents a meaningful and positive step forward. It modernises an important institution and it recognises the economic realities that many New Zealanders are facing today. We should not have a situation where people are deciding whether to pursue a claim or whether to be able to pay their rent or pay their bills, because access to justice is fundamental.

This change makes justice more accessible for those who need it the most. At a time where the cost of living is biting hard, ensuring people can recover what they are owed, without spending thousands more to do so, is not just good law; it's common sense.

This bill is practical, it's fair, and it's overdue. It upholds the principle that justice should be available to every single New Zealander, not just those who are able to afford it. It gives more New Zealanders the confidence to stand up for themselves, to know their rights, and it helps keep our justice system working for the many, not just the few. For those reasons, we are proud to support this bill.

Labour has opposed an amendment at Justice Committee to introduce a fees waiver for the filing fee on the basis of hardship, reflecting the existing practice of the District Court. Accordingly, the New Zealand Rules Committee has already referred to increasing that. It's important to note that we will be bringing some more changes at the committee stage. We think there are further improvements that can me made to strengthen this bill, and it's important that we discuss those in few. We feel that there has been a missed opportunity, that there have been a number of other improvements that could have been made to the Act. Those include clarifying the subject matter jurisdiction of the tribunal, which is currently limited and could be expanded to include other disputes—for example, those related to land or intellectual property. We know that that could be further strengthened.

We also do have some concerns around the $468 - filing fee. We consider that this may well be a barrier to some people bringing legitimate claims before the tribunal. There are legitimate reasons for a filing fee to cover the costs associated with a dispute resolution process; however, $468 is high to many New Zealanders right now—significantly higher than the $260 filing fees for the District Court and there is no associated fees waiver on the basis of hardship; there is such a waiver for the District Court. So we believe it is not right that there should be a fees waiver for the District Court fee but no fees waiver for a disputes tribunal, which would be a lower form.

Sixty-thousand dollars is not an insignificant amount of money. A finding either way in $60,000 could have a really significant financial return for either party. Sixty thousand exceeds the limit in which a no-asset insolvency is available.

So while we support the bill in principle and we look forward to it going forward, we think it can be strengthened. We will be working to provide those suggestions and those changes—

Hon Members: This is the third reading.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —during the committee stage. Sorry, apologies for that. So we think it further could be strengthened, but we agree that in the time that is incredibly difficult for New Zealanders, it is important that we note that the cost of living continues to be a real problem, and we believe that that filing fee is not sufficient.

Carl Bates: Does Hipkins know you're making an announcement?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Apologies on that. I've been rushed this morning. But we did put those suggestions through; they have not been made to the bill. We still believe that that filing fee is too high and it will be prohibitive to those who want to pursue justice through the courts. It's a good change but it could have been strengthened further. So we think, in future, we would like to revise some of those changes to make access to justice even more available to those people.

Carl Bates: Policy announcement; check with Hipkins.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Even no matter how many properties someone might own, everyone should be able to go forward and pursue their claims in the tribunal.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. Now, we've supported this bill since the first reading because we do think that what the bill is intending to do, in terms of raising the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000, is a good one, and we will see that more claims will be made and it will, hopefully, alleviate some of the burden that we've seen on other parts of the court system.

In saying that, again, something like this in terms of increasing the financial jurisdiction is not new. We have seen numerous increases over the last few decades. However, the threshold that we're currently seeing in terms of going from $30,000 to $60,000 is probably the most significant increase that we've seen in a while.

I just want to touch on a few things that we did discuss during the committee stage. Again, while the bill is not the most substantial in terms of length, there are a lot of implications in terms of the operationalisation of a bill like this and what it means for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. One of the things that we discussed at length is around, I guess, the policy intent in the first place of the rationale of increasing the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000. One of the things is whether other considerations have been made in terms of other ways to alleviate some of the pressures that we're seeing in our court system; again, being a key component of the rationale for this bill.

Now, one of the other things that we've also mentioned—in terms of the discussions that we had at the committee stage with the Minister in the chair, we are happy in terms of the increase of the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000. But the other thing that we've kind of discussed at length during the committee stage is around the increase of the filing fee here from $234 to $468. Now, while on paper it looks like, you know, we've doubled the existing threshold from $30,000 to $60,000, ergo, it makes sense to double the filing fee as well, a key challenge is in terms of the significant increase of that threshold. Again, you know, this is the most significant increase in the financial jurisdiction threshold for the disputes tribunal that we have seen in a while. The key aspect here is if you are making a claim that is $30,001 your filing fee will also be doubled in response to that, and whether we think that that is actually the right setting and whether other things could have been considered that phase in or proportionalise the filing fee. Because, again, for a lot of people now during the cost of living crisis, $234 for a filing fee for the disputes tribunal is not insignificant, but now you are doubling that. That $468 is a lot of money for a lot of people.

While we were at the committee stage, there is an assumption that was made, because there was no genuine evidence of this other than from the Minister but also from the officials—the assumption being that if you were to make a claim that could be $30,000 and above, theoretically you would be able to fork out the $468 filing fee, or if you are going to be successful in getting your claim or, either way, you are able to have that filing fee reimbursed. But that still relies on the fact that people need to have that filing fee and that cash upfront, and pay for that application in the first place.

While people can now make a claim up to $60,000, there is no sort of, I guess, empirical evidence other than the assumption that we have seen throughout the committee stage that suggests there's any rationale behind the idea that people making claims above $30,000 naturally have nearly $500 that they're able to pay for this in the first place, which is one of the reasons why the Greens supported the Labour Party's amendment from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in terms of having an opportunity to look at the hardship situations where the filing fee could be waived.

Now, we see that ability to waive filing fees or to waive certain court fees in other jurisdictions, particularly in the higher courts, but we don't get to see that in disputes tribunal because, again, the assumption is that the smaller courts like the tribunal will remain significantly cheaper for the applicants than bringing proceedings in the District Court. But the District Court has that ability for hardship and for considerations and for waivers of that fund. So we are disappointed that the Government hasn't decided to consider that particular option of a waiver, because it would be in line with the idea of natural justice and also in terms of being a democratic society and having the ability for everyone to access justice as a rule of law here in Aotearoa.

Now, there are a couple of other considerations that were made during that committee stage. One of them is also a lengthy discussion, both in terms of the select committee stage but also in terms of the committee stage, around the fact that, you know, the disputes tribunal being a smaller tribunal and being, I guess, something where lawyers may not always be needed or may not always be represented, and the ability for people—now with the increased financial jurisdiction—to be able to seek additional support if they're in a situation of hardship such as legal aid or other forms of advice such as using community law centres. So, again, it was something that fundamentally comes down to, with the increase in financial jurisdiction, will we be seeing a more prominent role that's being played by the disputes tribunal, and how are people able to rightfully access some of those services, now with a higher filing tier threshold? Also, the ability for people to now increase that to claim or make an application of up to $60,000—whether there should be more awareness or more allowances being given to access some of the, I guess, universal or free services that we are seeing that are currently being used in other services and other courts.

Overall, like I said in the beginning, the Green Party understands the policy intent of this bill and we do see this being a good start. Again, there are precedents of increase in terms of the financial jurisdiction, which is one of the reasons why the Greens support this bill. However, we also need to address the broader challenges that we're seeing in our court system around the ability for people to access justice. We have seen certain improvements that are being made in terms of access to justice across various jurisdictions. But as the Minister himself said right at the beginning, we are seeing an approach and we're seeing a bottleneck because of the approach the Government has decided to take that may not be in line or may not be providing stress relief, I guess, in some ways, to the court system, which is why we're seeing a bill such as this.

So there is a general concern in terms of whether the ability for us to relieve some of the higher courts such as the District Court and above, in terms of having some of that being allowed to be put through the disputes tribunal, actually, in some ways, fails to address the bigger issue we're having in our court system, which is that we're not being able to process bills fast enough. Yes, there are other bills that are being introduced in the House such as the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, but we're not seeing that being responsive enough to what our communities really need in this current environment, particularly, in terms of the number of judges. Yes, increase the District Court judge by one, increase the High Court judge by two—

Hon Casey Costello: Back to the bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I'm not going to listen to someone who is a tobacco lobbyist, frankly. So I'm going to keep on going with what I'm saying, which is broadly in line with the bill and the intention of this bill.

Hon Casey Costello: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was clearly a slight to my comment to the member, and suggesting that I'm a tobacco lobbyist is something that he should withdraw and apologise for.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Did you take personal offence to that?

Hon Casey Costello: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member might want to offer that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

This does bring a broader question, because this is relevant to the bill because this is the intention of the bill, which is to address the bottleneck and the pressure on our court system. So we would seek that the Government actually do more to genuinely fix the court system.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in this third reading of the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. ACT in Government is about actually fixing what matters, and this is an important bill that adds to everything that the Government and ACT is doing to support our court system and ensure people actually have access to justice.

This is a small but important amendment. We're increasing the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal—up to $60,000; so that's the amount that they can look at—and that's going to improve the ability for people with disputes to be able to get in front of them. So that's a really important, practical thing. It is actually fixing what matters.

The Minister of Justice, supported by the excellent Nicole McKee, the Minister for Courts is addressing our issues around our access to justice. We've already seen an improvement in court timeliness, and I know Minister McKee is going to continue to work on that throughout this term because it is very important.

Again, I am very happy to commend this bill. We're fixing what matters, and let's just get on with getting this passed.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill at its third reading. I think it's worth noting that this is the third reading as we kind of went down a wrong track with the previous speaker.

This is, as has been stated, a very pragmatic and practical step and, again, it's an indication of how this Government is moving us forward and getting the important tasks done. It is about improving access to justice.

New Zealand First firmly believes in upholding fairness and accessibility to the justice system. The bill aligns to our core values of equity and fairness and ensuring that more people can access an appropriate justice mechanism by increasing the threshold to $60,000. There are mechanisms under which the fees can be addressed through existing processes within the justice system. Therefore, the bill is very effective and will deliver exactly what it's aiming to do, which is access to justice. I commend the bill for the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

© Scoop Media