Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4971] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and support the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. Once again we have here a National bill that was laid out in the manifesto— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No it wasn’t! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Anyway it was one of our election promises that we would bring it before the House as one of our 100-day achievements. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What about the tax cuts? 
PAUL QUINN 
: That has got those members all going; it is good to see them liven up and lift the atmosphere and the drag of the House. 
I congratulate the Minister of Justice and I also congratulate the chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee Chester Borrows on the excellent work he did in moving this bill through that select committee. I notice that for whatever reason Opposition members of the select committee are not here to speak to the bill which is disappointing. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is going to say. The member cannot refer to members who are not here; withdraw that comment. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I withdraw. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Deputy Speaker. As a number of the earlier speakers have mentioned this bill lifts the limits in respect of the cases that referees can hear from $7500 and $12000 by agreement to $15000 and $20000 by agreement. Of course the principal reason it is time to review that is inflation. Since fees were last set I think in the mid-1990s and in terms of their real impact there has been a significant decline in the real value of that maximum. 
Lianne Dalziel raised the issue of having a more efficient mechanism to review the level and in some ways I can see the value of that. I think the real issue is what that level should be. The issue arises because it is not a legalistic process; it is a process that involves dare I say it people on each side who are ordinary hard-working folk. Certainly in the examples I am aware of they tend to be plumbers carpenters or electricians who are pursing bills from householders for jobs they have done. One example that I am familiar with was a job requiring some wiring in an office; there was a dispute over the payment when the job was done. I think the dispute was over only about $2500 and it went before a referee and was resolved. The point is that those disputes are coming from hard-working New Zealanders who just want to get on with their lives. They do not want to spend a year waiting for a case to be heard. They do not have the time money or resources to employ a lawyer. This provides a conduit enabling them to resolve outstanding issues in a less legalistic forum and in a forum where those issues can be dealt with expeditiously. 
A lot of decisions are being made there and then at the time of the case. The real issue is that the higher that level is lifted the more information one would need to consider and the more legalistic the process would become. I think I am right in saying that part of that is simply because in many of these cases the referees are not lawyers; they are people from various backgrounds who may have experience in mediating. If one starts lifting up that level higher and if larger amounts of money are being dealt with it makes it necessary for the applicant to be more well-resourced and briefed as the outcome may depend on who can confuse the referee. I think one has to be careful about setting these thresholds simply because the adjudicators and referees do not necessarily have the experience to be able to deal with those levels of mediation. That is one issue. 
Another issue that has not been mentioned so far is that everyone may be happy with the law which was an interesting point that was raised during the course of submissions. I note that the Opposition speakers have commented on the lack of submitters but the people who use this service may be happy with what is being proposed and may have better things to do than make submissions. Most people would be happy with what this Government is doing as we tend to do things that people like. Therefore there is no need to make submissions; it is the silent majority—I think that is the phrase used—who are in the support of this bill. The fact that there were only 10 submitters is neither here nor there. After all we threw out the days of administrating justice by way of the roar of the crowd in the Colosseum. We on this side of the House are about quality. 
An interesting point that was raised in the select committee was whether the judgments of the decisions should be released. From memory it was the New Zealand Law Society that raised the issue as to whether it would be useful to release decisions to referees adjudicators and others in order for them to understand the reasons why the decisions were made and therefore assist them in developing mechanisms and precedents around those things. In the end that issue did not come to anything so we decided not to make that change. 
The rest of the bill is all pretty standard stuff. The real issue regarding limits and maybe in the future finding a mechanism so that we do not have to change those thresholds through a parliamentary process has been raised by previous speakers and that may well be the way forward. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its Committee stage.