The panel discussed issues of previous experience, practical need, the threat of the TEA becoming a “fourth arbitrator”, the election process, how the parties’ right to be heard could be guaranteed while at the same time safeguarding the confidentiality of the tribunal’s deliberations, and many more topics. Dr Barends, taking on a role previously assigned, was critical of the concept, while Mr Schumacher advocated its advantages. Both at the beginning and at the end of the discussion, a survey was taken among the audience, with a majority being in favour of the concept before the discussion. At the end of the discussion, that balance had slightly shifted in that the pros still held the majority, but with the cons having gained votes. A Solomonic outcome, with both disputants successfully holding their ground!