Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5065] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Obviously Part 1 is the chief operative provision of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. It increases the jurisdiction of the tribunals in respect of “as of right” claims as it were from $7500 to $15000—a doubling of the jurisdiction—and “by agreement” claims if we can call them that from $12000 to $20000. I think all members agree that this is a timely reform and they have therefore supported it. 
It is interesting though to reflect on practice overseas. I have had a look at what the limits are in comparable jurisdictions and I think we should be a little slow to rush to the conclusion that Amy Adams appears to have reached that Parliament has been dilatory in extending the jurisdiction of the tribunals. The New Zealand legislation seems to have a unique feature in that the parties can agree to an extended jurisdiction. I have not seen that featured in comparable jurisdictions overseas. 
But extending the maximum jurisdiction to $20000 is quite significant. In New South Wales the small claims division of the local court as it is there has a maximum jurisdictional limit of $10000 in the local currency. If we look at some of the other jurisdictions we see that it is $10000 in the ACT it is only $5000 in Tasmania as far as I can tell in Queensland it is $7500 and in Victoria—which is a fairly advanced jurisdiction in these sorts of areas—the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has a maximum fair-trading claim limit of $10000. In South Australia the limit is $6000 in Western Australia it is $10000 from 1 January 2009—the limit was formerly $7500—and in the Northern Territory the local court’s jurisdictional limit is $10000. So as I say I do not think we should be hasty in concluding that we have not kept the jurisdiction of the tribunals up to date. Obviously the present increase will take the jurisdiction beyond the monetary limit of those operating in the Australian jurisdictions quite significantly. Actually the current limits even in respect of the Australian courts and tribunals I have mentioned are pretty much at par with what currently operates in New Zealand. 
The American experience is not much better. The limits are very small. It is $3000 in Alabama. I will not read them all out but they range from about $3000 to about $20000 in Hawaii. Canada is pretty much in the middle ground. In Alberta at the moment the limit is $25000. It is the same in Nova Scotia and British Columbia and in Saskatchewan it is $20000. But limits as low as $5000 operate in the province of Newfoundland. 
So as I have said in common with members on this side of the Chamber this increase appears to be a timely exercise and it is one we support. The limits that have operated to date do not seem to be massively out of line with overseas jurisdictions. Even when they are increased although they will be more favourable than the Australian limits they will be about the same as those operating in Canada—in that ballpark. 
I think we should turn our attention to whether we need to keep using primary legislation to achieve these changes from time to time. It might well be better to look at a system where it can be done by Order in Council and the House can scrutinise the Order in Council in the ordinary way through the regulations review process. That might well be a more efficient way to deal with the problem real or imagined that Amy Adams outlined in her speech during the Committee stage. But having made those points I say that Labour supports the amendment. We agree that it is timely to keep the limits under review and having had a look at the international comparison jurisdictions the proposed levels look to be about right.