I listened with my customary level of interest to the contribution that has just been made by the Minister of Justice on the third reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I will say first that the question of whether it is necessary for Parliament itself to deal with maximum monetary levels of jurisdiction for an entity like the disputes tribunal is twofold. First, is all the time taken up by Parliament during the first, second, and third readings, a Committee stage, and a select committee process justified, given the nature of the exercise here, as against the alternative? The alternative would be to give the executive power to deal with the matter by Order in Council. That would automatically involve the Regulations Review Committee in the scrutiny of the matter. If anybody had a concern about the way in which the executive was seeking to either increase or decrease the claim limits of the tribunal, then that concern could be raised in that forum or when the matter was reported back to the House, in the event that a complaint had gone to the committee. So it is absolutely possible and feasible to have a good level of parliamentary scrutiny under our existing procedures while not spending a whole lot of the House’s time dealing with a matter such as the regular need to increase the jurisdiction of the tribunals themselves.

On the question of the levels that have been agreed upon, I asked the Minister during the Committee stage to take a call and explain why the particular figures had been settled on. I remind the House that the increases that have been agreed to are from a $7,500 as-of-right level to $15,000, and from $12,000 by the agreement of the parties to $20,000. The explanatory note of the bill notes that three options were canvassed when it came to considering what the increases should be. One option was no increase whatsoever; another was an increase to a maximum of $25,000, which was nearly settled on, given that the preferred option arrived at was $20,000; and the third option increased the maximum claim level to $50,000.

The explanations as to why the particular level was reached and why, for example, the $50,000 level was rejected seem fairly scant. It would have been helpful, I think, to have had an explanation from the Minister as to why, presumably on advice, the particular levels were agreed upon. But, unfortunately, the House does not know that reason, because the call the Minister was invited to take was not taken. I think that really proves the point I have just made. What is the point of putting the House through the agony of three readings and a Committee stage on the pretext that some greater scrutiny in involved in this jurisdiction-setting exercise, when the Minister will not even advise us, when he has the opportunity during the Committee stage, on a point like why the limits were reached? He might as well do it by regulation, have the Regulations Review Committee look at it, and then have the House scrutinise it by default if necessary.

On the question of the limits, in part because there was not any response to my question, I had another look at the question of how overseas jurisdictions deal with this matter. The US, along with the rest of the English-speaking world, has had small claims courts since the time of the Great Depression. That is when these types of claims courts came into vogue. They were informal and speedy, they did not require people to have legal representation, and they were able to deal with claims on the substantial merits of the cases. The largest jurisdictional limit appears to be in Hawaii, where there is a counterclaim limit of US$25,000. The smallest seems to be in Kentucky, where the small claims division of the Divisional Court can deal with matters only up to the value of US$1,500. That gives the House an idea of the sort of range that exists in the US. As I have said in previous speeches on this matter, in Australia the range is somewhat closer to that of New Zealand currently, although it is interesting to look at the jurisdiction that has most recently increased the monetary limit in this matter, which is Western Australia. Until 1 January this year the minor cases jurisdiction limit in the Magistrate’s Court was A$7,500. It has been increased to A$10,000. So by and large we are quite a way ahead of the Australians. We are about on a par with some of the more generous Canadian jurisdictions in this area.

As I have said, in the United States the range is vast. It is between US$1,500 and US$25,000. So it would have been nice to know how the levels agreed on in the legislation, $15,000 and $20,000 respectively, were arrived at. It would have been nice to know whether some thought had been given to, for example, not having a maximum level of jurisdiction if the parties to the dispute agreed. After all, we have heard many speeches from the other side of the House about what a great move this legislation is in terms of increasing access to justice, getting rid of red tape, and letting small business have access to a debt-proving mechanism so they can get their disputes heard. If that is the motivation, why not say to the parties of a dispute that, if they agree, there need not be a limit, they can do away with the lawyers, they can do away with the rules of procedure and the rules of evidence, and a referee can help them deal with the dispute no matter what the upper limit is, provided that there is informed consent about it? But, of course, because of the Minister’s failure to take a call during the Committee stage, we do not know the answer to that question, either.

Having said all that, I say that the Opposition has decided it will support the increase to the jurisdictional limits to $15,000, and $20,000 with consent. It is appropriate to always keep these jurisdictional limits up to date. The history of the disputes tribunals is a very good one. Since they were first established by the third Labour Government and then re-founded in their current form by the fourth Labour Government, they have provided an excellent opportunity for the rendering of substantial justice to people and small businesses that need them. Members on this side of the House very much support their continued efficient functioning. We very much hope that the new limits will contribute to that functioning, and we are delighted to signal that we will be voting in support of the third reading.