Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2311] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Where was I with that speech? I think I had got to “Hurricane Hughes” at half back. We thought that he would be a problem. We reviewed a couple of extra tapes and on closer examination we found that he had been dropped from selection so there is no problem there. Of course in relation to the rest of Labour’s backline—I am sorry its backbench—our new protégé and wonder kid Nikki Kaye at first five will have no problems at all— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We have moved on to the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I ask the member to address the question if he wishes to use his time. The House has moved on. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am sorry; I have done so much speaking recently. 
I join with those who spoke last night in support of the bill because it provides an avenue that has been established within our semi-judicial process by way of tribunals to enable people—particularly those in small business but also others—to pay a fee and access justice when they are experiencing some difficulty or disagreement with another party. I am talking about electricians or plumbers for example who are sole traders and have great difficulty at times in trying to get paid particularly when they have contracts with bigger corporates. The process of access to a tribunal has been used and has very successfully been established as an avenue for assisting individuals particularly those in small businesses to recover payments or to have their day in court—but without the expense of court. We all know that courts can be very litigious places and very expensive particularly when a corporate has big resources and can confront a sole trader who has very limited resources. 
The critical thing is that the thresholds that are established in the Disputes Tribunals Act date back to 1988 and are way out of kilter with the real cost; they are way out of date. The bill endeavours to shift the threshold from $7000 up to $15000 automatically whether or not one party agrees and to shift the threshold from $12000 up to $20000 where both parties agree. During the debate last evening there appeared to be a difference of view—let me put it that way to be kind to the Opposition—about what those increases represented. I think Ms Ardern said the threshold was too high but I may be mistaken. I tried to reference the  
Hansard 
 but unfortunately it was unavailable. I think the member complained that it was too high whereas Ms Pillay thought it could be higher. I am sure the select committee will have an interesting debate on that issue and that there will be robust discussions. 
The important thing is that we are in the right headspace about lifting the threshold to ensure that it keeps up with modern times. The disputes tribunal is important because as I say lawyers can be very expensive particularly where one party is better resourced than the other. That level of moneys can be used by one party to drag the process out beyond the resources available to the other party. The bill is very good in terms of disputes tribunals; the National Party supports the concept of bringing this process—or dragging it if you like—into the 21st century. We look forward to the select committee’s receiving the submissions which I am sure will be robust but also very supportive of the bill. I think the main area of contention will be around the adequacy of the thresholds to take cases to the disputes tribunal. Thank you.