AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I have had the opportunity, luckily, to speak on this bill at previous stages through the House, and I have already expressed to the House my firm view of the benefits of this bill.

The National-led Government is very keen, as we have said on many occasions, to help businesses by taking the sharp edges off the recession. We are keen to get behind anything that will make their processes easier, faster, and lower in cost. We certainly see this bill as part of that approach by making it easier not only for businesses but for anyone with a dispute to use the services of a disputes tribunal. It will be considerably less onerous for them to access the tribunal.

In this speech I will reflect on the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid having to go to court for their disputes to be settled because they know how onerous the court system is. In thinking about the changes in Part 1, I will recount an example I am aware of. It concerns two quite experienced business people and two very large companies that had a commercial dispute involving the sort of money we are talking about. Faced with the prospect of going to court to resolve the dispute, both of them, having been down that road before and having seen where it led, decided they would settle their dispute by an arm-wrestle. This story is quite genuine. That is the sort of lengths they would go to. They said that rather than go to court they would just arm-wrestle.

It turned out to be a very successful endeavour. The marketing they got as a result was worth millions—and good on them. As it turned out, the chap who came up with this brilliant solution to avoid going to court found he lost the arm-wrestle and therefore the dispute, but in any event he got a great deal of coverage. The funny thing was that this situation really piqued the interest of people worldwide. If there is one thing that I think people in every culture share, it is a hatred of having to throw good money after bad when trying to settle a dispute where the sums involved are not big.

This bill, then, which reviews the limits on the disputes tribunal for the first time in 11 years, is really significant. While I was waiting to take this call I started to do a back-of-an-envelope calculation —to use an infamous phrase—of what has happened to the real level of access to the tribunal over the 11 years that the limits were not reviewed under the previous Government. One would have to say that access to justice has been severely limited over that time as inflation ate significantly into the value of the $7,500 limit since the National Government reviewed it in 1998. One would have to say that under Labour access to this tribunal in real terms was going steadily backwards over the last 9 years.

I am very pleased that Minister Power has taken it upon himself to very quickly get an amendment into the House to ensure that the limits are increased. We know that about 3,500 extra cases a year will now have access to this tribunal. One of the big benefits of the tribunal, which I will just touch on quickly in finishing, is its informality. We know that lawyers are not allowed, but the other thing I have not heard mentioned is that it is not just about time and cost; it is also about making justice available to people who would be intimidated by the court process and find it a bit daunting. Not everyone is articulate and confident enough to go to a court or to see a lawyer.

In the disputes tribunal people can rock up with very low levels of skill, business knowledge, or eloquence and put their case in the best way they can, and the referees have the flexibility to work with them to get justice. That is something we need to reflect on and support. I commend the Minister for bringing this bill before us. Part 1 is obviously where the real work in this bill is done, and I am very pleased to support it. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : The discussion on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill is likely to be the most extensive discussion in relation to the bill, and I imagine that this is where the Committee will spend the bulk of its considerable time on this short bill. Part 1 is, in effect, the part that increases the maximum levels that are able to be claimed in the disputes tribunal from $7,500 to $15,000, or from $12,000 to $20,000 with the consent of both parties. This bill has had a speedy passage through the House, and I am hopeful that the Committee of the whole House will see that speed continue.

Amy Adams gave an overview of what Part 1 does, and she did that pretty thoroughly. I will add only one or two points. The first is that this bill reflects a promise that the National Party made at election 2008 that we would increase the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Second, the bill is a response to those matters to try to lift some of the heat of the recession off businesses that are keen to pursue disputes through this tribunal in a way that will keep costs as low as possible. I commend Parts 1 and 2 and all three questions to the Committee of the whole House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : Obviously, Part 1 is the chief operative provision of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. It increases the jurisdiction of the tribunals in respect of “as of right” claims, as it were, from $7,500 to $15,000—a doubling of the jurisdiction—and “by agreement” claims, if we can call them that, from $12,000 to $20,000. I think all members agree that this is a timely reform, and they have therefore supported it.

It is interesting, though, to reflect on practice overseas. I have had a look at what the limits are in comparable jurisdictions, and I think we should be a little slow to rush to the conclusion that Amy Adams appears to have reached, that Parliament has been dilatory in extending the jurisdiction of the tribunals. The New Zealand legislation seems to have a unique feature, in that the parties can agree to an extended jurisdiction. I have not seen that featured in comparable jurisdictions overseas.

But extending the maximum jurisdiction to $20,000 is quite significant. In New South Wales the small claims division of the local court, as it is there, has a maximum jurisdictional limit of $10,000 in the local currency. If we look at some of the other jurisdictions, we see that it is $10,000 in the ACT, it is only $5,000 in Tasmania, as far as I can tell, in Queensland it is $7,500, and in Victoria—which is a fairly advanced jurisdiction in these sorts of areas—the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has a maximum fair-trading claim limit of $10,000. In South Australia the limit is $6,000, in Western Australia it is $10,000 from 1 January 2009—the limit was formerly $7,500—and in the Northern Territory the local court’s jurisdictional limit is $10,000. So, as I say, I do not think we should be hasty in concluding that we have not kept the jurisdiction of the tribunals up to date. Obviously the present increase will take the jurisdiction beyond the monetary limit of those operating in the Australian jurisdictions quite significantly. Actually the current limits, even in respect of the Australian courts and tribunals I have mentioned, are pretty much at par with what currently operates in New Zealand.

The American experience is not much better. The limits are very small. It is $3,000 in Alabama. I will not read them all out, but they range from about $3,000 to about $20,000 in Hawaii. Canada is pretty much in the middle ground. In Alberta at the moment the limit is $25,000. It is the same in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and in Saskatchewan it is $20,000. But limits as low as $5,000 operate in the province of Newfoundland.

So, as I have said in common with members on this side of the Chamber, this increase appears to be a timely exercise, and it is one we support. The limits that have operated to date do not seem to be massively out of line with overseas jurisdictions. Even when they are increased, although they will be more favourable than the Australian limits, they will be about the same as those operating in Canada—in that ballpark.

I think we should turn our attention to whether we need to keep using primary legislation to achieve these changes from time to time. It might well be better to look at a system where it can be done by Order in Council, and the House can scrutinise the Order in Council in the ordinary way through the regulations review process. That might well be a more efficient way to deal with the problem, real or imagined, that Amy Adams outlined in her speech during the Committee stage. But, having made those points, I say that Labour supports the amendment. We agree that it is timely to keep the limits under review, and having had a look at the international comparison jurisdictions, the proposed levels look to be about right.

PAUL QUINN (National) : I intend to take a very short call on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill because I think the Committee is pretty much in agreement. Given the mirth of Opposition members last night when I followed the Minister of Justice after he moved the second reading and I said that this bill was based on National Party policy, but when I was cried down because Opposition members said that it was not, I have in my hand the National Party policy statement from last year, dated 22 October 2008, which I will read: “To help relieve this pressure on district courts, National will, in turn, allow more civil cases to be heard by the Disputes Tribunal.” In fact, in a speech made by the Prime Minister earlier this year he confirmed that we would be progressing this legislation simply because it would remove another roadblock in that, first, it would free up the courts, and also it would reduce costs. Up to 3,600 cases a year will now be transferred out of the courts and into the much more friendly disputes tribunals. I think it is important that that be stated for the record.

The other comment I am forced to make is in response to the previous speaker, Charles Chauvel. If I heard him right, he criticised Ms Adams for setting out the increased levels of the value of claims that can be dealt with, on the basis that other jurisdictions, to use his terminology, have much lower levels in similar cases. It is ironic that in this case he is obviously promoting the concept of being a fast follower, whereas in many other fields he takes great pride in trying to promote the fact that this Government should be a global leader. Now that we are, in fact, a global leader, he does not like it. I find that ironic. Climate change comes to mind, but there are other examples where a more cautious approach might be appropriate, although the member does not seem to think so.

With those few words, I join others in commending the Committee to support this part.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I am happy to speak on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. Given the success of the disputes tribunals in gaining the confidence of New Zealanders through the demonstration of their ability to resolve civil disputes, it makes sense to enable them to resolve cases of a higher value. We on this side of the Chamber recognise that there is a gap between cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. A number of cases were deemed as not worth taking to the District Court due to the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings, or because people felt that they should not pursue their claim. The alternative was for claimants to reduce their claim so as to have it heard at a disputes tribunal. Hopefully, the amendments to this bill will result in better access to justice, particularly for individuals but also for small businesses.

Clause 4 in Part 1 states that at present the tribunal generally has jurisdiction only if the maximum amount of the claim does not exceed $7,500. The amendment increases that amount to $15,000. The exception to the general rule in section 10 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 is where the parties agree otherwise. Clause 5 amends section 13(2) of the principal Act, which relates to the extension of the tribunals’ jurisdiction by agreement. At present, where both parties consent, the jurisdiction of the tribunals may be extended to deal with claims up to a maximum amount of $12,000. The amendment increases that amount to $20,000.

By amending section 13 we are providing more effective access to justice, and this can only be good. Hopefully, it 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 cases where claimants are faced with a choice of reducing their claim, facing the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings, or not pursuing the claim at all. The amendment will improve access to the disputes tribunals for individuals and small businesses and will reduce the costs that individuals and small businesses face when resolving civil disputes by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals.

The increase to the maximum claim levels will enable an increased number of New Zealanders to resolve their civil disputes in a simple, cheap, fast, and less formal forum. The tribunal will continue to operate on its current basis, balancing the required protections for parties against the need to provide simple, cheap, and fast access to justice.

The other additional benefit to this amendment is that it will hopefully take off some of the pressure that has been placed on our District Courts. Thank you, Mr Chair.

• Part 1 agreed to.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I will take a brief call on this part of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill, although—as discussed in my last contribution, and as other members have talked about—it is clear that Part 1 is the powerhouse part where all the real work is done. Part 2, with the incorporation of the schedules, has a number of the consequential amendments that the change in the jurisdiction level of the disputes tribunal renders necessary. It points out the ramifications that the change has, beyond giving access to the disputes tribunal at a very simple level. There are amendments to the Consumer Guarantees Act, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the Fair Trading Act, the Fencing Act, the Minors’ Contracts Act, and, indeed, the Retirement Villages Act. This part shows us that the disputes tribunal is a forum in which a number of the small-value disputes that often arise under the sort of legislation I have described can be dealt with. That is the sort of workload the disputes tribunal is dealing with, and it is exactly those sorts of claims that often involve consumers and inexperienced business people.

I started to talk about something in my last contribution, and I want to develop it a little more. I started to talk about the informality of the tribunal. It is both its benefit and its absolute nature, but also it is the reason we need to be careful. I see that a point the Justice and Electoral Committee considered when it looked at the appropriate level was that it is not simply the case that the higher the limit, the better it is. I think that the Minister of Justice had to be very careful to make sure that the limit was raised to a level that would allow access to justice for people with smaller claims, without taking it so far that that informality of process would start to result in real inequalities. That is the balance with a tribunal like this—well, with all tribunals, but particularly with the disputes tribunal, because this more than some of our other tribunals, like the Tenancy Tribunal, operates with a more relaxed approach to the strict application of law, which enables referees to help and almost compensate where the parties before them are inexperienced, are perhaps ineloquent, and are not used to dealing with officialdom in that sort of situation. For that very reason referees have the ability to step outside what lawyers would normally see as the appropriate ways of running a case or a piece of litigation, to make sure that parties are not disadvantaged. These limits are reflected in these other pieces of legislation: consumer-based legislation, neighbourhood dispute - type legislation, and fencing disputes, which often, obviously, are neighbourhood disputes. Those disputes are the real workload of this tribunal, and that really shows us that this bill is not just about getting business going, although it will be an important part of that; it is really about ensuring that the vulnerable in our society—the people, as I say, who are inexperienced, who cannot afford legal representation, and who do not feel comfortable in that environment—can, none the less, get their voices heard and get access to justice in a way that is meaningful to them.

Just to finish off on that matter, if I may, I remind members that I talked in my earlier contribution to Part 1 about the fact that an estimated 3,600 cases annually will now have access to the disputes tribunal. But the number could, in fact, be far greater because of the number of people who might otherwise simply have though it was not worth it as they were not going to get anywhere. They would have just sucked it up and moved out, and accepted the fact that they had been ripped off and were not going to get access to their rights. By aligning our jurisdiction limits to the levels that are now being proposed in this bill, we are ensuring, I think, that the balance is set appropriately, making sure that access to justice is available for those who need it, without transgressing into that area where the strict rule of law deserves to be applied. Having listened to Mr Chauvel’s contributions earlier and looking at other jurisdictions, I agree that of course we could put this limit at a number of other places. But it is my strong view, with my background in law, that the level proposed in this bill is right and reflects the right balance. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : In respect of Part 2, I have a couple of questions that I wonder whether the Minister would consider addressing. I suppose the first arises out of the discussion on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill relating to jurisdictional limits and the way in which the decision was reached to come to the figures of $15,000 and $20,000. I have looked through the introductory material relating to the bill. I have had a look at the alternative options that are contained in the explanatory note of the bill. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to get up and tell the Committee briefly how the numbers that have been reached were reached, given the overseas experience to which I have referred. I am sure he will be aware in detail of that experience, because of the official advice he will have received.

Paul Quinn: A global leader, Charles.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: The other question I have for the Minister relates to the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which are two of the Acts that are being amended by Part 2. Given that I have been accused by Mr Quinn of being a fast follower in some areas but not in others, I raise the point that I have put forward, for each of the members’ bill ballots that have come up in the last couple of weeks, a member’s bill proposal that would deal with fringe or payday lenders within the context of those two Acts. The bill to which I have referred would bring New Zealand into line with many overseas countries that we lag behind at the moment—Mr Quinn will be delighted to know this—in dealing with these lenders. It would allow the imposition of interest rate caps at the behest of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, and would also put in place on these lenders some responsible lending requirements that do not exist at the moment. Those measures would be accomplished by the amendment of those two Acts. Given that Part 2 deals with amendments to those Acts, it would be interesting to know whether the Minister has a view on the merits of the amendments I am proposing.

PAUL QUINN (National) : I will take a short call on Part 2, which, as the previous two speakers have alluded to, deals with consequential amendments and in particular puts in place the limits. But before I do that, I will take the opportunity, now that I see the Hon Lianne Dalziel walk into the Chamber, to produce for her eyes the National Party policy—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has effectively just referred to the presence or absence of a member in the Chamber, which I do not think is in order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I will overrule that. Members can refer to the presence of a member, which is what the member did.

PAUL QUINN: Thank you for your ruling, Mr Chairperson. I will show the Hon Lianne Dalziel the policy statement of 22 October 2008, which she intimated last evening was not the case.

In respect of dealing with this part, I thought there was one aspect that might be worth touching on and bringing to the Committee’s attention. It was raised in the select committee process, and it provided some food for thought during that process. It is the matter of whether decisions of the tribunal should be published. In fact, in just reviewing my select committee submission notes, I see that the Whitireia Community Law Centre proposed that, but the Justice and Electoral Committee decided not to pursue it.

Basically, we have stayed within the confines of the intention of the bill, which is fundamentally just to raise the levels and really to bring them back, in inflation terms, to the real values they had when they were set, some 10-plus years ago, I think. As I say, there is not much more to add, really. These provisions just tidy up other Acts that refer to the details of these limits. So with those closing remarks, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak.

• Part 2 agreed to.