Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I intend to take only a short call on this largely non-controversial legislation. This measure was part of a small business relief package announced by the Prime Minister on 4 February this year to promptly respond to the global financial crisis. Expanding the jurisdiction of the tribunal also fulfils National’s election promise to “increase the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal to reduce pressure on District Courts”. The bill increases the maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal from $7,500 to $15,000, or, by consent of both parties, from $12,000 to $20,000. I acknowledge the cooperation of all parties and officials in ensuring that this legislation could be introduced, examined by the Justice and Electoral Committee, and debated by the House expeditiously to enable it to come into force just 6 months after the Prime Minister’s announcement. It also reflects the respect accorded to the valuable dispute resolution services provided by the disputes tribunal.

The disputes tribunal already resolves more than 20,000 disputes each year. The increased maximum claim levels will assist up to a further 3,600 claims to be resolved each year. This increase will enable individuals, households, and, in particular, small businesses to resolve their claims more quickly. This will be of assistance particularly in the current economic climate. Submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee raised a number of other possible changes, including an even greater increase in the monetary limits. Although there may be merit in some of those ideas, the Government considers that it is best to wait and monitor the impact of the present amendments before deciding whether further change to the tribunal is warranted.

During the course of the debate I noted that Charles Chauvel made the comment that maybe dealing with limits in both the agreed and non-agreed context between parties may be something more appropriately dealt with by way of Order in Council, as opposed to statutory and legislative change. I have thought a lot about the contributions that member made during the course of the Committee and second reading stages. I still think that when we are dealing with the jurisdiction of a legal tribunal, it is for Parliament to set those particular limits through this Chamber in a way that can ensure a consistency of debate but also make sure that when it comes to issues such as this we are mindful of the impacts the legislation will have on the costs and the requirements for legal advice should these issues become more complex.

This is a significant increase in the maximum limits for claims before the disputes tribunal. This bill will have an important impact on access to justice for New Zealand. Again, I thank all of those who have been involved in this small but important bill. I commend the bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I listened with my customary level of interest to the contribution that has just been made by the Minister of Justice on the third reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I will say first that the question of whether it is necessary for Parliament itself to deal with maximum monetary levels of jurisdiction for an entity like the disputes tribunal is twofold. First, is all the time taken up by Parliament during the first, second, and third readings, a Committee stage, and a select committee process justified, given the nature of the exercise here, as against the alternative? The alternative would be to give the executive power to deal with the matter by Order in Council. That would automatically involve the Regulations Review Committee in the scrutiny of the matter. If anybody had a concern about the way in which the executive was seeking to either increase or decrease the claim limits of the tribunal, then that concern could be raised in that forum or when the matter was reported back to the House, in the event that a complaint had gone to the committee. So it is absolutely possible and feasible to have a good level of parliamentary scrutiny under our existing procedures while not spending a whole lot of the House’s time dealing with a matter such as the regular need to increase the jurisdiction of the tribunals themselves.

On the question of the levels that have been agreed upon, I asked the Minister during the Committee stage to take a call and explain why the particular figures had been settled on. I remind the House that the increases that have been agreed to are from a $7,500 as-of-right level to $15,000, and from $12,000 by the agreement of the parties to $20,000. The explanatory note of the bill notes that three options were canvassed when it came to considering what the increases should be. One option was no increase whatsoever; another was an increase to a maximum of $25,000, which was nearly settled on, given that the preferred option arrived at was $20,000; and the third option increased the maximum claim level to $50,000.

The explanations as to why the particular level was reached and why, for example, the $50,000 level was rejected seem fairly scant. It would have been helpful, I think, to have had an explanation from the Minister as to why, presumably on advice, the particular levels were agreed upon. But, unfortunately, the House does not know that reason, because the call the Minister was invited to take was not taken. I think that really proves the point I have just made. What is the point of putting the House through the agony of three readings and a Committee stage on the pretext that some greater scrutiny in involved in this jurisdiction-setting exercise, when the Minister will not even advise us, when he has the opportunity during the Committee stage, on a point like why the limits were reached? He might as well do it by regulation, have the Regulations Review Committee look at it, and then have the House scrutinise it by default if necessary.

On the question of the limits, in part because there was not any response to my question, I had another look at the question of how overseas jurisdictions deal with this matter. The US, along with the rest of the English-speaking world, has had small claims courts since the time of the Great Depression. That is when these types of claims courts came into vogue. They were informal and speedy, they did not require people to have legal representation, and they were able to deal with claims on the substantial merits of the cases. The largest jurisdictional limit appears to be in Hawaii, where there is a counterclaim limit of US$25,000. The smallest seems to be in Kentucky, where the small claims division of the Divisional Court can deal with matters only up to the value of US$1,500. That gives the House an idea of the sort of range that exists in the US. As I have said in previous speeches on this matter, in Australia the range is somewhat closer to that of New Zealand currently, although it is interesting to look at the jurisdiction that has most recently increased the monetary limit in this matter, which is Western Australia. Until 1 January this year the minor cases jurisdiction limit in the Magistrate’s Court was A$7,500. It has been increased to A$10,000. So by and large we are quite a way ahead of the Australians. We are about on a par with some of the more generous Canadian jurisdictions in this area.

As I have said, in the United States the range is vast. It is between US$1,500 and US$25,000. So it would have been nice to know how the levels agreed on in the legislation, $15,000 and $20,000 respectively, were arrived at. It would have been nice to know whether some thought had been given to, for example, not having a maximum level of jurisdiction if the parties to the dispute agreed. After all, we have heard many speeches from the other side of the House about what a great move this legislation is in terms of increasing access to justice, getting rid of red tape, and letting small business have access to a debt-proving mechanism so they can get their disputes heard. If that is the motivation, why not say to the parties of a dispute that, if they agree, there need not be a limit, they can do away with the lawyers, they can do away with the rules of procedure and the rules of evidence, and a referee can help them deal with the dispute no matter what the upper limit is, provided that there is informed consent about it? But, of course, because of the Minister’s failure to take a call during the Committee stage, we do not know the answer to that question, either.

Having said all that, I say that the Opposition has decided it will support the increase to the jurisdictional limits to $15,000, and $20,000 with consent. It is appropriate to always keep these jurisdictional limits up to date. The history of the disputes tribunals is a very good one. Since they were first established by the third Labour Government and then re-founded in their current form by the fourth Labour Government, they have provided an excellent opportunity for the rendering of substantial justice to people and small businesses that need them. Members on this side of the House very much support their continued efficient functioning. We very much hope that the new limits will contribute to that functioning, and we are delighted to signal that we will be voting in support of the third reading.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : It is a great privilege to take a call in the third reading of this very important bill, the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. The bill went to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which was very ably chaired by Chester Borrows, the MP for Whanganui. He did a fantastic job getting it through the select committee process.

I will make a few introductory remarks on this important third reading. Most important is that the Government is very busy. It is getting on with a very heavy justice workload and is progressing a lot of bills through Parliament in the name of the Hon Simon Power. This is an important bill. It is very important for a whole lot of New Zealanders because it allows for pretty speedy, cost-effective access to justice. That is the most significant point about what this bill does.

The Disputes Tribunals Act has not been changed since 1998, when the maximum claim levels were last adjusted. Nothing happened in regard to this legislation under the previous administration, so it is great that we are cracking on and making justice simpler and easier for a whole lot of New Zealanders.

Currently, about 20,000 disputes are resolved each year. Because of the new bill and the way we are progressing it through the House, and with the select committee work that has gone on, around 3,600 people will be able to have access to justice quicker, on top of those 20,000 disputes that are resolved each year. That is a significant point.

This is a very small but very important bill. I spoke in the second reading debate of the bill. It has a great deal of support around the House, which is fantastic. I think some of the challenges that were raised by submitters and the discussion through the select committee process were about the claim limits and whether they should be higher between the agreed and non-agreed parties. That is a challenge for this Government. We must allow this legislation to bed in and to give it time so that we can understand how it is working and how the jurisdiction limits are working. The Hon Simon Power raised the issue of whether in future the limits could be looked at through the Order in Council. That is something to watch.

In essence, this bill will make it easier for New Zealanders to access justice. That is important for New Zealanders. I am delighted to support the third reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. The disputes tribunal has been very successful in gaining the confidence of New Zealanders since 1988 when it was set up, as Mr Chauvel said earlier, under the third Labour Government. The disputes tribunal has been successful because it has demonstrated its ability to resolve civil disputes; therefore, it does make sense to enable the disputes tribunal to resolve cases of a higher value.

Before I go into detail about what these changes will entail, I think it is worthwhile providing a little background to the disputes tribunal. Disputes tribunals are established by the decision of the responsible Minister as divisions of particular District Courts. The jurisdiction of a disputes tribunal is exercised by referees who are appointed under warrants by the Governor-General for terms of 3 years, and they may be reappointed. In performing their statutory duties, referees have the same status as a justice of the peace acting in a criminal jurisdiction. In general, tribunal decisions are enforced as court decisions.

We on this side of the Chamber recognise that there has been a gap between cases that can be heard in the disputes tribunals and those that are viable to be taken to the District Court. In the past, a number of cases have been deemed as not worth taking to the District Court due to the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings or people feeling that they should not pursue their claim at all. The alternative for many claimants was to reduce their claims so as to be able to have their case heard at the disputes tribunal. Hopefully, the amendments to this bill will result in better access to justice, particularly for individuals, but also for small businesses.

At present, the disputes 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 the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 is where parties agree otherwise in relation to the extension of the tribunals’ jurisdiction. At present, where both parties consent, the jurisdiction of the tribunals may be extended to deal with claims up to a maximum of $12,000. The amendment increases that amount to $20,000. By amending the Act we are providing more effective access to justice, and this can only be good. Hopefully this 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 instances where claimants are faced with the choice of reducing their claim, facing the increased costs, or not pursuing their claim at all.

There were a number of issues raised by submitters during the select committee process that I thought I would touch on. One issue was they felt that perhaps there was scope for increasing the maximum claim levels further. Although most submitters supported the proposed increases in the maximum claim levels and considered that access to the disputes tribunals would not be improved, and that the costs of resolving civil disputes would be reduced as a result, some submitters argued that the purpose of the disputes tribunals would be achieved better if the maximum claim levels were increased further. There is probably scope for looking at that again, further down the track.

As the purpose of the disputes tribunal is to provide cheap, simple, fast, and less formal access to justice, it limits the protections that would ordinarily be available to parties appearing before the courts in various ways. The point was raised that although referees have regard to the law when making their decisions, they are not bound to give effect to strict legal rights. Instead, decisions can be based on the substantial merits and justice of the case. I stand to say that Labour will be supporting the amendment to this Act. Thank you.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank the members of that committee and acknowledge the efforts they have put in to progressing the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill through the select committee process.

Chris Hipkins: And the acting members.

CHESTER BORROWS: And various acting members, who were all welcome, and who ate their fair share of the chocolate biscuits. Having said that, I can say that a number of submissions were made before the committee, but not a heck of a lot; most of them were around the issue of the threshold in terms of making suggestions that it be raised so that people could come before the disputes tribunal to settle disputes with a higher monetary value than the bill currently before us has.

The decision was made that the threshold should stay at about where it is, on the basis that once we start raising that threshold and taking it as far as some submitters wanted—at around the $50,000 mark—there would be a need to have greater legal expertise, because the weight of the ramifications of the decision of the arbiter would be too heavy for those who did not have access to legal counsel, bearing in mind that those appearing before a disputes tribunal are not legally qualified.

There was also some concern about certainty and consistency around the country. Whereas the majority of those arbiters in the disputes tribunal process have legal qualifications, there are some who do not, and there is seen to be a variation in the integrity of some decisions from tribunal location to tribunal location. Then, of course, the way to appeal that is through the District Court, which in itself becomes expensive.

It is important to note that access to the disputes tribunals is easy. Paying a sum of about $40, obtaining specific statement of claim forms from the court house, filling them in in handwriting, and giving them into the court can see people before the disputes tribunal in a couple of months. The arguments are made, as I said earlier, without legal representation. The adjudicators can apply fairness, as well as the black letter of the law, to a situation; they are not bound specifically by the law. So it is seen as a ready remedy that is available quickly to the public.

The point has been made by previous speakers about the mechanism involved in being able to raise the threshold in the future. It has been suggested that this should be able to be done by regulation, or could be done through the legislative process by having some sort of inflation-tied figure. That is a matter for another day; suffice it to say that it should be that flexibility could be accorded to the disputes tribunal process, because the thresholds appear to be changed only about every 10 years, and it seems that, getting to the end of those 10-year time frames, the sum is not appropriate because it is too small, bearing in mind the cost of legal representation to proceed through the District Court.

So I too commend this bill to the House. I am pleased that it has received wide-ranging support from across the House. I look forward to its speedy progress into use within our disputes tribunal system around the country. Once again, I thank members of the committee and those submitters who took the time to make submissions before it. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : I take a call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. As mentioned by previous speakers, this bill will amend the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988. It increases the maximum claim level of the tribunal from its current level of $7,500 or $12,000 with the consent of all parties, to $15,000 or $20,000, respectively. The need for this bill rests with inflation and the relative value of the current maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal, which has decreased. That is combined with the increased cost of taking cases to the District Court, which has created a gap between cases heard by disputes tribunals and those taken to the District Court. The increase of the maximum claim levels is intended to enable more New Zealanders to resolve their civil disputes in a simple, cheap, fast, and less formal forum. Increasing the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal to the $15,000 to $20,000 level may enable this, but only time will tell.

What is concerning is the number of low-income earners with claims of over $15,000 who will be forced to use the ordinary courts because they will not be able to get agreement from the other side that $20,000 ought to be the limit. My colleague Charles Chauvel outlined that in his first reading speech. We must offer protection to low-income earners, and this should be a Government priority, especially in a recession. We have seen more than 310,000 people join the dole queue, which is an extremely worrying trend. It undermines the Government’s claims to be blunting the sharp edges of this recession.

As at February 2008, there were 471,000 businesses in New Zealand, and it is estimated that around 97 percent of them are small businesses—businesses employing fewer than 20 employees. So this bill is relevant to them. Before being elected to Parliament as the member for Dunedin South, I was one of the many New Zealanders who owned and was director of a small business. Passing legislation is important to support those businesses, because they are so vulnerable in the recession. On becoming an MP, I resigned my interest in my business, but I still hold the passionate belief that it is small businesses that keep New Zealand humming along. We note and acknowledge that the proposed changes in this bill could reduce costs for many cases—perhaps thousands of cases a year—which will now be able to be held in the disputes tribunal, and we agree that it is important to lighten the load on small and medium sized businesses so they can get on with the business of producing goods and services. We agree with the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand, in its statement of February this year, that taking the pressure off the District Court and making justice much more accessible, not just to businesses but to all New Zealanders, is important. So Labour supports this bill.

We have a proud tradition of setting up small claims tribunals, as members have previously heard my colleague Charles Chauvel outline, and we agree with the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand, which says that we must ensure high-quality dispute resolution is readily available through alternative means to the courts system. The disputes 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. Most submitters supported the proposed increases of the maximum claims levels, and said that access to the disputes tribunal would be improved, and the cost of resolving civil disputes would be reduced as a result. However, some advocated greater increases. I share the select committee view that changing these protections would harm the disputes tribunals’ ability to deliver a cheap, simple, and fast service. Increasing the jurisdiction to higher levels would increase the workload of the disputes tribunals immensely.

It reminds me of a current proposal that this Government has for dealing with copyright disputes. How can a tribunal’s power be increased, such as it has been in the case of the Copyright Tribunal, without it being properly resourced for the increase? I look forward to hearing more from this Government on its plan to properly resource the Copyright Tribunal to cope with what is most likely to be hundreds and possibly—or, more likely, probably—thousands of claims, within months of it enacting its rewrite of section 92A of the Copyright Act. As with the Copyright Tribunal, it is important the disputes tribunal is fully resourced, as many of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people turn to that remedy.

On the face of it, this legislation addresses an important issue by updating the jurisdiction of the tribunal, which should happen. As my colleague Charles Chauvel said in his first reading speech, we should always keep the monetary levels of our courts and tribunals under review as circumstances change, but important issues about consumer protection and access to justice remain unaddressed by this legislation, and they must be faced at some point in this Parliament.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : The Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill is very brief—some two or three pages. Its operative clauses are really only three or four clauses. It is a bill of very limited compass. It achieves in its mechanics only one thing: it broadens the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal to claims of $15,000 without consent, and to claims of $20,000 with consent. Nevertheless, despite the bill’s brevity and its limited compass, it achieves a very real advancement—that is, increased access to justice.

The bill’s passage through the Justice and Electoral Committee was interesting; it was an interesting process, as we have heard. The committee was ably chaired by Chester Borrows, with constructive comment from the membership of all parties. Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern—who I believe is in Hungary at the moment—were present on the committee, and even Chris Hipkins came in from time to time, with Diet Coke in one hand and a BlackBerry, I think, in the other.

Chris Hipkins: Coke Zero.

SIMON BRIDGES: It was Coke Zero. But in all seriousness, positive contributions were made by all sides. A characteristic of the select committee, I would say, was that of broad consensus, both in terms of the parties’ views and generally of the submissions we had before us.

If there was one issue that was subject to some consideration and discussion, it was the issue of the jurisdiction limit. A number of submitters argued for a higher set of limits than we have gone for; some even said the limit should be $50,000 or more. That view was given due, honest, serious consideration, but I think it was quite clear in the final analysis of committee members that we had things, at this stage and at this time, about right. That is not to say, of course, that we might not look at this matter in the future, once this amendment legislation has bedded in and its effects have been seen. We might change to the kind of proposal that Charles Chauvel noted and that the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, spoke on.

The reason I say that it was quite clear to us that we had things about right, is that to have gone higher with the maximum claim level would have changed the nature of the disputes tribunal. If we had gone much higher, it would have become a disputes tribunal in name only, thus losing its cheapness, its simplicity, its speed, and the less formal aspect it has as a forum. The disputes tribunal would have become, really, a court by another name, with all the formalities—some would say, the pedantries—with all the procedural fairness, and as some would say with all the unnecessary niceties, that courts have when the value goes up.

As I say, if I do say so myself, I think we did get things about right. We have a disputes tribunal at the moment that is working well; the quality is of a good standard. There was not the need to do those kinds of things that would have gone with raising the limits substantially, such as greater appeal rights, and the expense that goes with that, or the need for legally qualified referees. We heard from the Law Society that we would need to go to such referees compulsorily if we increased the limit much more. There was also the right to lawyers, the compulsory bringing in of lawyers—getting “lawyered up”—by the people who came to the disputes tribunal, and the need for published decisions and all that went with that. We did not see all that as desirable, necessarily, for something that we wanted to be cheap, simple, fast, and less formal, when we had a quality tribunal as things stood.

In finishing, I say that the explanatory note of the bill puts things very well when it discusses why we have not increased the quantum of the jurisdictional limit to $50,000, for example. That is because “Justice officials consider that legal representation, legal decisions, increased appeal rights, and increased requirements on the qualifications of Referees would all be required. Changes to these areas would compromise the very nature of the Disputes Tribunal. The Tribunal would not be able to provide its cheap, simple, and fast service.” Currently, I think we have a tribunal that has the balance right by lifting those limits to $15,000 and $20,000. This will again “achieve the objectives of improving access to the Disputes Tribunal, and allowing an increased number of New Zealanders to reduce their costs in resolving small civil claims by hearing the claim in the Disputes Tribunal rather than the District Court.” We did not want to turn this tribunal into a court by another name. We did, however, want to see greater access to justice, and I think that is what this bill achieves.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I will probably take only a very brief call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill.

Hon Simon Power: Excellent idea!

CHRIS HIPKINS: I will try. It is something I have never managed in the past, but I will give it a go. I want to make sure that the Minister in charge of the bill, Simon Power, gets a little bit of a break, because I notice that once again we are having another day in the House when it is bill after bill for which he has to rise to his feet. He is the very hard-working MP from Rangitīkei.

I had the opportunity to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee for much of its consideration of this bill, in place of David Parker, who was tied up with the emissions trading scheme review. It was a really interesting debate, and I compliment the chair of the select committee, Chester Borrows, on his excellent chairmanship. It is always a pleasure when I have the opportunity to sit on that committee. I also acknowledge the work and dedication of my colleagues Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern, who are the other Labour members on the committee, and the contribution they made to the deliberations.

I learnt a lot about disputes tribunals by sitting on the committee and hearing the submissions on the bill. The bill increases the maximum claims levels for disputes tribunals from $7,500, or $12,000 with the consent of the parties, to $15,000, or $20,000 with the consent of the parties. Probably the most common theme through the submissions was where the numbers came from and how they were determined. A lot of submitters wanted to see those numbers go higher. It would be fair to say that there was not really a compelling argument for where the numbers came from. I think it was fairly arbitrary on the part of the Government when it came up with those numbers. As I said, a lot of people wanted to see those numbers go a little higher.

One of the things it is important to bear in mind when it comes to the dollar amount of a maximum claim is that monetary amount and complexity are not proxies for one another. There could be a claim with a fairly small amount of money involved that could actually be quite complex. And vice versa; there could be a claim with quite a large amount of money involved that could be relatively straightforward and simple. It is important that we do not see monetary value as a proxy for complexity.

In terms of raising the limit further, there was a lot of talk about the simplicity of the tribunal process at the moment. If we raised the limit further, we would need greater legal expertise at tribunals. At the moment, one does not have to have a huge amount of legal expertise in order to preside over disputes tribunals, and one does not need a lawyer in order to make a claim with disputes tribunals. The larger the stakes involved, the more that that situation would be questioned.

There is also a very limited right of appeal from the disputes tribunals. If we make the monetary value much higher, then some questions would start to arise. There was a view from some submitters that the District Court would find a way. I am seeing nods from members on the other side; I think they can probably recall the submission. I cannot remember who argued that point, but the submitter argued that if we increased the monetary value of a maximum claim significantly and an injustice was done, then the District Court would find a way of dealing with that. That was an argument that was put forward.

Although referees have regard to the law when making their decisions, they are not bound to give effect to strict legal rights. Instead, decisions can be based on the substantial merits and justice of the case. The grounds for appeal are limited. Parties in hearings are not entitled to legal representation, referees are not required to be legally qualified, and proceedings are held in private. Decisions of the disputes tribunal are not published. In fact, those are some of the reasons that were put forward for maintaining the limits at a relatively low level—the new limits of $15,000 and $20,000. Some of those things would be compromised if the limits were to be raised further as many of the submitters asked for.

A lot of discussion at the committee was about whether the decisions of the disputes tribunals should be published. Many submitters argued that some case law and precedents in the case of the disputes tribunals may well be quite useful. I think the general view of the committee was that publishing them could be problematic, and it was a view that I had some sympathy with. If we start publishing the decisions of disputes tribunals, then the whole process may become much more complex and much more legal in nature, and therefore the whole principle behind a relatively simple, easy-to-access, and fast form of justice may be compromised.

Although Labour members have some reservations about this provision, it is a very arbitrary increase, but without necessarily an evidential base to justify it. The Minister, I suspect, probably stuck his finger in the air and thought that the numbers sounded about right and so picked those numbers. That is the kind of approach he would generally take to these sorts of matters. We do have some reservations about where the numbers might have come from, but, generally speaking, we need to keep these things up to date. Of course, the value of the numbers over time and of the maximum amount in real terms has diminished. This bill brings it forward a little. We are generally in support of that situation, but we obviously have some other questions. I am sure they will be addressed at some future point. Thank you very much.

PAUL QUINN (National) : It gives me great pleasure to rise to make some concluding remarks on behalf of myself and other members on this side of the House on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. This outstanding bill is another milestone achievement of this National Government. I make one point: during question time this afternoon, I thought we might have to take urgency to get this bill through, because the brutish glare that I saw the Hon Trevor Mallard give his colleague the Hon David Cunliffe was unbelievable. I thought “Gosh, we are going to have to go to the tribunal and bring in Parekura Horomia as the referee!”.

Hon Member: And the language!

PAUL QUINN: And the language. That would be the first opportunity for the Hon Parekura Horomia to be the referee amongst his colleagues.

With those concluding remarks, I commend the bill to the House.

• Bill read a third time.