Hipkins Chris: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5112] 
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 Rangitikei. 
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 $7500 or $12000 with the consent of the parties to $15000 or $20000 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 $15000 and $20000. 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.