Pillay Lynne: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2267] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I am sure members have heard from my colleagues that Labour is supporting this bill going to the select committee. I think it is very important for the public to come and have a say on this bill. It is certainly quite a simple bill as Simon Power—not Simon Power; he is sitting over there—as Simon— 
Hon Members 
: Bridges. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Simon Bridges. There is a Simon thing in the National Party. As Simon Bridges said it is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How do you tell them apart? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is very hard. It is the Simple Simon approach to bills in this House. This bill is actually quite simple yet still quite complex in what it does. It raises the maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal from $7500 or $12000 to $15000 or $20000 respectively. That has to be with the consent of both parties. I think that is really relevant to this bill. The change is with consent it is a common-sense way and—as members opposite have said—it is about access to justice. The bill provides a way whereby instead of going through the full court process there is by consent access to justice to address these issues. 
If we look at when the disputes tribunal amounts were last set we see that it was in 1988. At that time as I said before they were $7500 or $12000. Since 1988 there has been considerable movement in terms of inflation and in terms of the costs. I have to be quite honest here in terms of the costs of access to justice in terms of people looking at a dispute that may not be huge and in terms of looking at what the remedy would be—what the solution is—versus what the cost would be if they were to engage legal assistance. I note that even though through the disputes tribunal the vast majority of cases use referees—people who are legally qualified—there is no actual requirement to do that. I think that is very important. It means that if people do not have funds to remedy what may be deemed a minor dispute in monetary terms they will have access to that. 
 If we look at the original claim level of $7500 we see that in this day and age that amount falls far short of the mark of a reasonable amount if one were engaging legal counsel. The bill increases that amount to $15000 or an upper limit of $20000 and that is certainly more realistic. The levels were last changed two decades ago and in that time there has been considerable movement. I see Mr Assistant Speaker acknowledging that fact. 
Members on this side of the Chamber support the bill going to the select committee and we think it is important for the public to have their say. In terms of the regulatory impact statement we note that other consideration was given to alternative options. The first option was no increase to the maximum claim level at all but as I said earlier there was agreement that that would just retain the current inadequate situation and make no allowance whatsoever for inflation. As I said there are rising costs associated with litigation and there are a variety of reasons for that. In terms of access to justice it is all about the viability of taking a case to the District Court for low-value claims. If it is not viable because the legal costs outweigh the cost of what the remedy would be then we see that justice is not served. So that first option was not seen as viable or sensible. 
The second option would increase the maximum claim level to $25000. That would allow the disputes tribunal still to be at a greater level to provide a cheaper and faster service but it is my view and the view of expert advice that those protections would need to be strengthened because of the amount of money at stake. I hasten to add that many people would not wish voluntarily to go through this system with those high stakes. 
In terms of the bill it is very sensible. I really look forward to the select committee having the opportunity to hear submissions because it is something that many many organisations and members of the public would wish to have a say on and I commend the Government for that. Many times more important bills have not had the opportunity to go to a select committee. I think that is very sad and I know that we can all recount a number of bills that have had quite detrimental— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: In the first 100 days! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly! But it would seem now in the next 100 days or whatever that there is more of a responsible approach being taken by the Government and more opportunity for the public to have their say. I along with other parties in the House am very pleased to stand in support of the bill going to the select committee so that the public can make submissions and have their say.