New Zealanders’ access to justice needs to be top of mind

The Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand (AMINZ) has called for a review of the terminology and better clarity in the Incorporated Societies Bill to ensure the legislation is accessible and future-proofed for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 

AMINZ, an internationally recognised Institute and New Zealand’s largest organisation for dispute resolution professionals, was pleased to see provision for dispute resolution in the legislation. The purpose of their recent submission, as well as commending that, was to highlight the need for all New Zealanders to be able to interpret the bill and access justice, if and when needed. 

“Many pieces of legislation are technical, or pertain to a particular subset of Aotearoa. The Incorporated Societies Bill is not one of those. This bill’s ultimate audience is very much the ordinary person on the street,” says Sue Wells, Executive Director of AMINZ. “It needs to be drafted to be absolutely clear and accessible for the general public.”

“The dispute resolution provisions of this Bill affect the ordinary club member navigating what action to take to resolve disputes when things have gone sour, or the committee having to deal with a complaint from a member. It is vital that the provisions are clear, unambiguous, and cater for a lay audience. Currently, the bill falls short of that in critical clauses relating to dispute resolution.”

AMINZ’s submission highlighted particular clauses where circularity and contradictions would make comprehension difficult for the general public. 

AMINZ also recommended that the phrase “consensual dispute resolution” should replace the word mediation. “Mediation is a particular type of dispute resolution. There are many types of consensual dispute resolution which are not mediation. Facilitation and restorative justice are examples of that. The bill should keep options open for people, especially given the length of time this time of bill is likely to be around. 

“(The legislation) needs to provide sufficient flexibility to enable people to find the solutions that fit them best, for that is the nature of dispute resolution. It needs to enable diversity of dispute resolution and better reflect the particular needs and aspirations of Māori,” says Ms Wells. 

“Further, it should be open enough to provide for changes in the dispute resolution landscapes as the profession evolves.”

AMINZ’s submission can be read in full HERE.