Curran Clare: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Curran Clare: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5110] 
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 $7500 or $12000 with the consent of all parties to $15000 or $20000 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 $15000 to $20000 level may enable this but only time will tell. 
What is concerning is the number of low-income earners with claims of over $15000 who will be forced to use the ordinary courts because they will not be able to get agreement from the other side that $20000 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 310000 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 471000 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.