Courts Matters Bill, Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill

I move, That the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

These two bills are part of our Government’s efforts to provide New Zealanders with a more modern, fair, and effective justice system. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank members of Parliament from across the House for their cross-party support for these important bills and for the hard work of the Justice Committee members in examining these bills.

I will start off by highlighting some of the many changes that these bills will make, and I begin with the changes that the Courts Matters Bill is making to 16 Acts governing the operation of the courts. The amendments to the Courts Security Act will help to provide the safe, secure, and orderly court environment that people are entitled to. Court security officers will be able to deny entry to or remove disruptive people whose behaviour is causing distress to other people. They will also be able to detain people who commit minor crimes such as disorderly behaviour, wilful damage, or the possession of illegal drugs in court or tribunal buildings.

The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act will improve the efficiency and timeliness of the criminal courts. For example, the reclassification of offences with a maximum penalty of a community-based sentence as a category 1 offence will enable defendants to plead guilty or not guilty in writing, instead of having to appear in court, and it reflects the low-level nature of offences.

The amendments to the Summary Proceedings Act will enable fines and reparations to be collected sooner. This will enhance their credibility as penalties. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice will be able to use automated decision-making to set up arrangements to pay fines in affordable instalments. This will provide a much more efficient and effective means of setting up several thousand arrangements each year. Most people pay their fines in instalments because they cannot afford to pay them in full.

The amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act will reverse the order of the two judicial inquiries that are undertaken to assess if a defendant is fit to stand trial in a criminal court. In future, victims and witnesses will only have to give their evidence once, instead of sometimes having to do so twice.

The amendments to the Juries Act will provide for people who are not fluent in English with a quick and simple way to defer their jury service.

I will now describe some of the changes in the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. For brevity, I’ll refer to this bill as the tribunals bill. The tribunals bill will amend 22 Acts governing the operations of tribunals. These tribunals resolve disputes, deal with occupational discipline and regulation, and review the decisions of Government agencies. Around 40,000 people access these tribunals each year.

The tribunals bill will improve access to justice for people affected by the case backlog that has developed in the Human Rights Review Tribunal since 2015. I have previously spoken about one of the most challenging issues facing the Human Rights Review Tribunal, with that being the unacceptable backlog of cases and the actions this Government has taken to address this issue.

The House will know that the Human Rights Review Tribunal provides important services for people who may have had their human rights, rights to privacy, or health and disability services rights breached. Since 2015, the number of claims filed with the tribunal has exceeded its resources, and this has caused a significant case backlog to develop. What we know is that between the 2014-15 and the 2016-17 financial years, the number of new cases received by the tribunal grew by 92 percent. This led the backlog of cases to grow by 144 percent, from 52 cases, as it was at the end of 2014-15, to 127 cases at the end of 2016-17. As of 31 October 2018, there were 124 active cases on hand. In August 2017, the previous Government appointed a second chairperson for a period of 12 months to help with the case backlog, but that alone has not worked. Every day, people are waiting two years for a hearing and up to three years for a decision. Earlier this year, I reappointed the second chairperson for the same reasons.

Furthermore, and more importantly, I took a paper to Cabinet this year to amend the Human Rights Act 1993. This was needed to enable the permanent appointment of additional deputy chairpersons to the tribunal, which I know was incorporated by the Justice Committee, and I thank the committee members for doing this as it will increase the public’s ability to access justice. So the tribunals bill now authorises the appointment of more than one deputy chairperson. The new deputy chairpersons will be able to perform the same functions as those of the chairperson. This will help reduce the significant backlog.

The tribunals bill will now also include procedural changes to help further reduce the Human Rights Review Tribunal backlog. For example, the chairperson or deputy chairperson will be able to decide minor matters on the papers instead of a hearing being held. The tribunals bill will provide better consumer protection and redress. For example, the monetary threshold of the disputes tribunals will be doubled. People with disputes of $15,000 to $30,000 will have access to a quicker, simpler, and cheaper process than a court case.

The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal will be able to award monetary compensation of up to $100,000 for financial losses arising from a real estate agent’s unsatisfactory conduct. At the moment, the tribunal can only provide compensation for poor behaviour that meets the higher-threshold misconduct.

The Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority will be able to discipline unsatisfactory conduct such as bullying. The authority can currently only discipline misconduct which meets a very high threshold.

The tribunals bill will provide 21 tribunals administered by the Ministry of Justice with the tools they need to resolve cases faster and more effectively. More tribunals will be able to strike out meritless cases and decide minor matters on the papers—that is, without having to hold a hearing to consider the matter. These tools will enable, for example, the Legal Complaints Review Officer to significantly reduce the case backlog that has developed over many years, and to decide substantive matters more quickly.

In conclusion, I know this bill may have started under the other administration, but the bill before this House is substantially more meatier and with significant changes to address the backlog that has become an issue over the past number of years. So this coalition Government, with support from its support partners, has moved with efficiency and with as much haste as is humanly possible to move this as quickly as possible through this House.

Finally, the Courts Matters Bill and the tribunals bill will improve people’s experiences of the courts and tribunals system. I commend these bills to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to lead off on this side of the House in relation to the Courts Matters Bill and Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. I talk about this side of the House rather than the Opposition, because in relation to this piece of legislation—technically pieces of legislation as cognate bills—we are in agreement with the Government. Indeed, our side of the House, when we were on the other side of the House, so to speak, did lead off that work, so I acknowledge both the present Minister and his Government but also the previous Government and, indeed, the previous Parliament—acknowledging the work of that institution’s select committee that has brought us to this place today.

I’d like to touch on a few of the themes that run through both of the bills. I’ll then comment on a couple of the aspects in particular on each of those individual ones. I don’t think I need to take up too much of the House’s time on that, but I think it’s worth noting that some of the very detailed work that’s gone into the legislation does reflect a number of broad themes that are worth encouraging. So whereas previous stages—for example, in particular, the committee stage—have been worthwhile exercises in thrashing out some of that detail, and, again, the select committee processes prior to that, I will focus on a pretty high-level response and acknowledgment of the work that has gone on to get us to this place.

So in general terms, we have some legislation that recognises that our court systems must constantly evolve if we are to regard them as modern, fair, and effective places of justice within the overall justice system and framework that we have. In relation to the—well, actually, in both pieces of legislation, these cognate bills, we emphasise in particular the time frames for hearing and resolving matters. It’s a fundamental aspect of justice that matters are heard and resolved in a timely fashion. It’s acknowledged across both sides of the House and, indeed, at all levels of the justice system, I think I’m right in saying, that the system could be and should be and indeed must be much more timely. The truism, almost, that justice delayed is justice denied is no less true today than when that phrase was first coined, and to be able to make a contribution in this Parliament to ameliorating that situation somewhat is something that we are very pleased to be able to do.

Users’ experience of the courts and tribunal system in general—perhaps, following on from the timeliness theme—as well as just user-friendliness for those who are actively caught up in the justice system, whether by choice or otherwise, is a very important thing for citizens and people of New Zealand. It’s important for them to be able to rely upon that when they have a stressful moment in their life—or a long moment or series of moments, as often is the case—so that the stress of the litigation, whether it’s a criminal or civil matter, need not be accentuated by procedural difficulties in addition to, obviously, the contentious matter—the substance of that.

So talking about, then, the ways that this will apply in terms of the Courts Matters Bill—that half of what we’re looking at—I’d like to just, perhaps, by way of example, focus on the security aspects. So the powers of the court security officer, actually, were touched upon by Minister Sio in leading off his contribution. He’s right to emphasise the matters that are strengthened in terms of security provisions. Security of these places of justice is a fundamental aspect of our rule of law. It goes to the question of access to justice, because New Zealanders must be able to feel as though they can access our courts in a way that sees them free from physical and other forms of intimidation.

It also goes to open justice, so that those who wish to observe as well as participate in the justice system can do so, again, without threat of intimidation or physical interference, and with equality before the law, as well, such that all who would come before our courts have the right to a fair opportunity to do so without external influences that are unhelpful and indeed unfair in the process.

So in the committee of the whole House we talked about some specific details, acknowledging contributions that had been made by the Law Society and, I think, also the Auckland District Law Society in relation to where the court security officers’ powers would apply—not just at the actual physical courtroom itself but in the surrounding environment—and so too the time at which those would apply; being beyond the period of the actual proceedings. I don’t intend to rehash that except to note that that’s an example of the constructive manner in which this process has been conducted by submitters, officials, and, dare I say it, the members of Parliament themselves as well.

Efficiency has been touched upon by the Minister in relation to criminal procedure, and I’ll just make that the theme of my brief remarks on the tribunals’ powers side of the legislation, and just note that the general theme of desiring to standardise procedures across more than 20 tribunals is a worthy one. It’s been achieved well, it seems to me—not to say that we can’t continue to make those ongoing improvements as this Parliament and the future Parliaments proceed, but for now, at least, there’s been a lot of work that’s gone into that standardisation project that’s helpful for people to understand how the system coheres as a whole and, indeed, those who are practising within it.

With a final specific mention to the disputes tribunal, there’s the ability of that body to be able to hear disputes of a larger scale. So a jurisdiction being expanded in that way is very helpful. In my professional life, immediately prior to entering into this House, as a lawyer I was always very keen to encourage clients not to go to court if they could at all help it, and having the ability for claims to be heard without the help—all assistance short of actual help, as we used to say—of lawyers is a worthwhile thing indeed. It’s encouraged by the operation of this legislation, which enlarges the ability of the tribunal in that way, and so that’s a very commendable aspect, as are the other ones. Hence I have no hesitation and my colleagues have no hesitation too in commending this legislation to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. These must be the ninth or 10th bills that the Justice Committee has sent back to the House. It is very difficult to see the exact number because some of the bills were divided into different bills, so it’s very hard to tell the exact number which this extraordinarily busy Justice Committee has sent back to the House. We have had about 18 bills, in addition to inquiries, financial annual reviews, and Estimates. I want to follow the Minister and thank our officials, advisers, and submitters. I thank them for their knowledge, experience, and input.

The Justice Committee received 48 written submissions and heard 15 oral submissions. The submissions came from the judiciary, professional organisations, and interested groups and individuals. Many of the points raised by those submitters are valuable to us not only on these particular bills but also on other bills as well.

For instance, the Justice Committee is currently considering the Privacy Bill. One point raised so far concerns the jurisdictional aspects between the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Review Tribunal. That would bring us to an issue that the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill seeks to address, which is the significant case backlog that has been building up over the past years and, as such, what kind of impact it may have with regard to the tribunal’s roles and functions in relation to the Privacy Bill, etc.

The issue relating to case backlog has existed for a while now. Since 2015, the number of claims filed with the tribunal has exceeded its resources. The chairman, Rodger Haines QC, made a very powerful submission. We are very glad to report that through the changes under this bill, we will get what he described as artificial restrictions in the Human Rights Act 1993 addressed.

Another example that I’d like to cite—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but it’s kai time.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Another example that I’d like to cite is the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 134, relating to inserting a new Subpart 9A in Part 4 of the Courts Matters Bill. The SOP amends the Senior Courts Act 2016 to restore the ability of a single Court of Appeal judge to decide minor contested matters in civil cases, instead of having three Court of Appeal judges to decide cases on those applications.

The third example is concerning the use of audiovisual facilities. In the modern era of smartphones, computers, and social media, it’s common sense—isn’t it—for the courts to be equipped and adapted to the reality. Part 4 amends the Courts (Remote Participation) Act to enable judicial officers and court registrars to allow any participation in a criminal procedural hearing via audiovisual link (AVL) technology, if AVL is available and its use is not contrary to the interests of justice. This will also enable participants such as lawyers and witnesses to appear via AVL facilities during criminal procedural hearings.

The final example I wish to cite is relating to our jury service and some language issues that potential jurors may have experienced. The Juries Act will be amended to authorise court registrars to defer jury service for potential jurors who are not confident in their understanding of the English language.

These two bills introduce a large number of amendments that will help improve people’s experience with courts and tribunals. Efficiency, business efficacy, productivity, and improved users’ experience are the keywords, and the two bills will contribute to a modern, efficient, and effective courts and tribunals system. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I was commenting to one of my friends and colleagues before that it feels like we’ve been debating this legislation for ever. It seems like every time I come down to the House, we’re debating the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill and the Courts Matters Bill.

💬 Simon O'Connor: Career defining.

Well, “Career defining.”, my colleague Simon O’Connor says. I’m not sure about that, but they are good pieces of legislation that the Opposition wholeheartedly supports. The genesis of this legislation goes, actually, back to the last Parliament and the last Government. They progressed through the Parliament as a cognate package, really, because it makes sense to bring all the changes in together and to consider them together. It came out of very good work by the officials. I do, in our third reading of these bills, want to pay tribute to the good work of the officials, both within the Ministry of Justice but also the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

As you can see, this is a weighty tome, the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill—162 pages. It’s fair to say it makes the operation of our tribunals and our court system more efficient, and it makes a whole series, a whole suite, of changes that will generally make things more efficient and more effective. Just to give you one example, if you go to subpart 11 to do with the Legal Services Act, we’re talking about changes like the insertion by clause 133 of new section 55A “Procedure”: “Forms for use in the Tribunal may be approved by the chief executive of the Ministry after consulting the Tribunal.” Very small, very discrete changes—a lot of the time they’re clarificatory changes.

When we were on the Justice Committee in both the last Parliament and, latterly, in the new Parliament, we did hear about a series of changes—a lot of clarifications and a lot of “for the avoidance of doubt” provisions, I think it would be fair to say. Look, it’s been through a thorough process. We did consider it extremely thoroughly at the Justice Committee. I think it’s fair to say the Justice Committee is the hardest working committee in the Parliament, and I’m not just saying that because I see Greg O’Connor waving at me across the House; I am saying that because as much as it seems like we’re always debating this bill—and finally we won’t be, because it’s going to get its third reading—it feels like the Justice Committee is always sitting. It’s like rust: never sleeping. We’re always sitting, and we’re always on the go. I know that there’s more legislation coming from this activist Government, but we will give it the due consideration that it deserves in due course.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s actually my first opportunity to address the House and, indeed, the nation in my new role as chief whip of New Zealand First.

💬 Hon Members: Hooray!

Thank you—enough. I am aware of the convention around discussing the whereabouts of other parliamentarians, but I will say that it has not been a naked grab for power. It is a temporary, acting position.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill. I commend Minister Sio on shepherding it through. As has been referenced, this is a bill that started under the previous Government. I believe the Hon Amy Adams may have been in charge of the early part of this bill.

When I first looked at it—just sort of the headline—I thought this must be some sort of reasonably trivial piece of legislation, but, in fact, it is not, as Mr Bishop referenced in his last presentation. The cognate nature of these two bills, the Courts Matters Bill, which actually amends 14 Acts, and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, which amends 20 Acts—within them, there are some fairly significant changes to our laws and some pretty important clarifications. I would also like to commend the Justice Committee, under Raymond Huo, who is the chair, and—as Mr Bishop said in his previous address—the officials, because I think to trawl through the detail of these amendments and changes is pretty mind-numbing, actually, and it speaks to the calibre of the officials that we have that they can come up with tidying-up legislation of this sort.

The Courts Matters Bill—to start with that—there’s a couple of high-level matters I’d like to touch on there. I’ve actually never been in a court, it occurred to me when I was preparing for this bill, and I’ve never had an ambition to be a lawyer—for good reason—but the powers going to the court security officers are I think a really important provision within this bill. Giving the court security officers the ability to remove and detain people, and increasing those powers since the Act of 1999—that meant that courts were manned by security guards more, and more so than by police officers. There were actually 78 weapons intercepted in courts in 2014-15, and 327 people were removed from courts. It’s really important that courts, of all places, are safe and secure places, where people feel free to express their opinions.

The other one within the Court Matters Bill is the audiovisual provisions within the court system, and I think that’s really just bringing this up to date with the 21st century. There are already audiovisual provisions for defendants, but now witnesses and counsel can also beam in through audiovisual means. So I think that’s a really important step up, because justice not only needs to be done but it needs to be seen to be done, and I think this is a good example of us advancing that cause.

With the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, there are actually 21 tribunals under the Ministry of Justice, and 30,000 New Zealanders access those services every year. Some of them are quite significant ones, like the disputes tribunals and the Tenancy Tribunal. Of course, one we focused on here within this bill is the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and we have seen quite a backlog building up. As of June this year, there were 135 cases waiting to be heard, and that backlog has jumped by 144 percent since 2014. So this was a building problem, and this legislation bolsters the ability to deal with those backlogs. We have brought in the new role of deputy chairpersons so that we can clear that backlog, and we can add some efficiency and speed into our disputes tribunals.

Also, the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal—they’re lifting the threshold for fines in that to $100,000 for losses incurred through poor performance, and I think that’s a really significant lift. When we look at the value of real estate transactions now, where even a modest home is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars—and pushing towards a million dollars, I see in Wellington during the week—$100,000 is not unreasonable, I would have thought, in terms of losses incurred through shonky real estate dealings.

It also provides for District Courts to oversee cases for fines under $350k and I think that’s up from $12k—anything over $12k used to have to go through the High Court. Now, the District Court can deal with cases under $350k. So I think that’s a step forward in the right direction too, to add flexibility to our system.

So I’m only really giving a very short, high-level overview of what is an incredibly complex set of clarifications and changes to regulations. It is actually really impressive work by the officials and the select committee, to wade through that. We’re accepting that you’ve been very accurate with your job, because there’s a lot in there—hopefully, nothing’s slipped through. I don’t think there are any New Zealand First members on that committee, so we’ll take your word for that, surely. I’m glad—actually, I’m not, because it looks dry as old chips, the stuff that’s going through there. But, with that confidence in the select committee and confidence in the parliamentary process and the officials who have got this bill in good shape, I will, on behalf of New Zealand First, commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the third readings of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. I just want to start by acknowledging a couple of fine young security officers that are down working in the Gisborne court. I was down there about six weeks ago with the Hon Anne Tolley. We went to the court and we met all of the staff there, and they were telling me about some of the issues that they have to deal with—bearing in mind that there’s plenty of unsavoury characters, also, that have to actually access and use our courts. They are often carrying—and the last speaker made reference to it—all manner of weapons, knives, etc. They carry a fair bit of risk in their job.

I want to acknowledge Cary Walker, who is working there as one of those guards and actually had a long and distinguished career in the Gisborne police as a police dog handler, and I was lucky enough to work with him as well. He is now working at the courts as a court security officer. They were very happy and very pleased to see the changes that were being made to extend the powers of court security officers to deny entry and to remove and detain people who possess illegal drugs or who act threateningly or abusively, or commit minor crimes on court premises. Up until now, they didn’t have the powers to be able to actually act and detain and to be able to deal with those people. So this is a very, very good change that is contained within this bill.

I’d just very quickly like to also refer to the change that’s being made around the threshold for a claim that’s going to the disputes tribunal. The monetary limit has been has been lifted from $15,000 to $30,000. The reason why I really like this is because this was my member’s bill that I brought to the House, and it was picked up and it was included in this bill that we’re now speaking to. It actually originated with one of our policy groups, with one of our National Party branches in Auckland. They brought this as a remit to our regional conference and we thought it was a very, very good bill. We picked it up and I had it in the biscuit tin as my member’s bill. The reason why it is so good is because, actually, the disputes tribunal means that essentially small to medium sized businesses can have access to a tribunal process which is much quicker and more efficient, and it’s also a lot less costly than having to take a claim to court. Often, if they had a claim under $15,000, when you think about it, it really didn’t probably make sense for them to take it to court, because the costs of actually going through that process were probably going to cost them more than the actual claim and the money that they were trying to get back. So it also, by increasing the threshold, means that, again, instead of them giving up a claim, they can now have the confidence that they can actually bring that claim to the disputes tribunal and it can be dealt with—anything under $30,000.

So I’m very happy to stand, take a short call, and support and recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to this omnibus of laws that we are passing tonight, given that they fix a lot of longstanding gaps and holes and areas of the criminal justice system where we’d fallen behind, so as to make our system more efficient, more productive, and, hopefully, more fair as well, since we should always be prioritising interests of fairness over expediency. There are some interests of expediency that do serve fairness, and we’re addressing those in these bills, as well.

Everyone has said repeatedly that these are technical and complex changes, but one of the ones that jumped out at me, because I’ve had experience of it in the criminal justice system, is the reversal of the procedure whereby a defendant might be found unfit to stand trial. This was always a really problematic area, especially in defending someone that might be unfit to stand trial for mental health reasons, where the court required that the person essentially go through a hearing where they’d be found, on a balance of probabilities, to have committed the offence before they could access the two psychiatric assessments that they needed to show that they couldn’t, in fact, fairly stand trial. So it was always difficult and felt almost unethical as a lawyer, in dealing with someone that might have really serious mental illness, to take them through that process where they, effectively, had to admit that they might have committed an offence—where you are dealing with people, for example, with dementia, where the fairness issue arose because they couldn’t tell you if they had an alibi and they couldn’t tell you where they were at a certain time. So to put them through that process before they could even get the psychiatric assessment seemed a little bit perverse. But we’re correcting that with this bill. So that’s one thing that, even though it’s very technical, is a real fairness issue that we’re addressing tonight.

We’re giving security guards powers to detain people for disorderly behaviour. I think it might look, on paper, like something that—and it is a very minor charge, but when we bring it into the context of the court and we look at the very sensitive issues and the really traumatic process that people are going through, whether they’re a defendant or a witness or a victim, that disorderly behaviour can really mean that our process is unfair. It might mean that a defendant is unable to properly process what’s happening and instruct counsel. It may mean that a witness is intimidated and isn’t able to give evidence in the way that they should. For victims, it can cause lifelong trauma. So it is important that we have powers to conduct proceedings in a way that’s safe, and we’re providing for that as well tonight.

Apart from all of that, there’s the audiovisual link (AVL) and some of the more, sort of, technology-based changes that we’re making. So hearings might be held through a screen, essentially, zoomed into the courtroom. We’re still living in the 20th century in most New Zealand courts. Some people have to physically come in, even for the most minor appearances. So two changes that’ll help with expediency there are the AVL systems, and I would guard against expanding that beyond the very minor hearings that we’re applying them to in this bill, given that, of course, people do have a right to be present at their hearings and to properly instruct counsel and to be involved in the hearing in real time. But where there is a very technical appearance, requiring someone to come to court can be really arduous and time-consuming as well.

The other change that we’re making on that kind of level is that pleas can be entered for offences that carry only a maximum of a community-based sentence in writing. So to bring someone to court to enter a plea, they can wait around for hours, it adds to the court list of oral hearings that day, and our courts are hugely overworked. We’ve seen court staff go on strike only this week, and that is because most courts are now sitting well beyond hours because of the caseload and the backlog. So for people to be able to enter pleas in very minor types of charges is going to really help with that.

Moving on to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, one thing that I would celebrate hugely is that we are about to address the backlog in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and again we’ve heard over and over again that now the backlog is up to about two years—so people are waiting—and there’s 135 cases in waiting. And it’s really important to remember the kinds of cases we’re talking about. You know, it’s discrimination. and it’s members of very vulnerable communities. My personal experience of dealing with people that have been through the tribunal has been in the family carers’ case, where family members of profoundly disabled persons took a fair pay claim against the Government and won. They won at the High Court and won at the Court of Appeal, and the Government kept appealing, but they won. They had a right to be paid fairly, because members of the disabilities community have a right to choose to live at home in the community and to have their care provided for. Of course, we know that the previous Government passed a law to cut them off from the Human Rights Review Tribunal—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Under urgency too.

—under urgency, with no consultation, to cut this vulnerable community off from the Human Rights Review Tribunal. But this bill is addressing just that kind of issue. People have a right to access that tribunal. The right to justice includes the right to timely access to justice. And tonight we’re providing for that, and, of course, we have committed to repealing that little piece of legislation that cut the families off, as well. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, thank you for the opportunity to be able to take a short call on—

💬 Simon O'Connor: No, take a long one.

—I’ll take a long one then, shall I? I’ll seek leave for another five minutes as well, shall I? No, I won’t do that—the Courts Matters Bill and Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, which are going through their third readings. I think these are bills which are cognate and cover a range of different issues, but the issue that I’m keen to touch on is the issue regarding the Courts Matters Bill, which in particular is about ensuring that we have open justice but we also ensure the safety and security of our court systems. I think the principle here, which is important to note, is that we have open justice. Justice must be done but also seen to be done. But we also must ensure that our justice system is kept safe and is kept secure so that it can work on behalf of all New Zealanders and make the decisions which are required.

I think some of the very important changes that it makes here are really around clarifying the powers that court officers have in being able to enforce the rules and to ensure that our court system operates in a fair and appropriate manner. It also ensures that those who do seek to disrupt the courts are able to be held to account for doing that. It is a serious offence to be holding our courts in contempt, whether it’s disrupting what they’re doing or the important work that they’re doing, and there’s a range of different players in that who could be trying to cause that disruption.

This bill gives some clarity around the area of the court definition, in terms of the space that it holds between the building and the road. Now that will be included. It ensures that the court officers have more powers around what they can do, giving them the ability to use reasonable force when pursuing an escapee. Court security officers will be required to allow persons removed to re-enter if the officer is satisfied. So all of these are, I think, well balanced in terms of saying that we want to ensure that those who do offend are held to account but that we also allow them access back to the courts if there is an issue. I think also, importantly, it adds drug paraphernalia from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to the list of offences allowing court security officers to act.

So, essentially, this is updating what it allows our court officers to do. It allows them to intervene where necessary and to be able to ensure that the smooth running of the court isn’t disrupted, and, where it is, that appropriate action is taken to ensure that those who are disrupting the courts are held to account, but then they are allowed to have that access back into the courts as soon as possible once they’re satisfied that person won’t reoffend.

So I commend this bill to the House. There’s a whole lot more involved in these bills, in the cognate bills, which I won’t be covering here tonight. But I just want to thank all those who have played a part in bringing this legislation to this stage, and I commend the bills to the House.

I understand this is a split call. Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I must start by endorsing the comments of Chris Bishop, the member from Hutt South, who talked about the very hard-working Justice Committee. We do have rather a lot of work going through, but it’s quite good to consider a bill like this, because it does cover quite a range of issues. I was quite surprised when I saw it. The Court Matters Bill and Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill—before I opened them for the first time I thought this is going to be pretty dry and this is going to take a long time. But, actually, it was quite interesting, because so much of what life goes about it was actually dealing with—so many of the things that do irritate people on a day-to-day basis.

I would just like to sort of point out two parts of it that particularly those listening at home will wonder how we can get sort of so excited about such a bill, get so interested, and wax lyrical for so long about such a bill. One of the issues was the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Clearly, in our modern age, so often people do seek redress for those things that they find offensive or irritating or merely annoying, and they look for review, for tribunal, for some sort of redress, and the Human Rights Review Tribunal often is that place. As a result, there’s been quite some backup under the current legislation. There’s a chair. Last year there was the ability to appoint a deputy chair, but that didn’t seem to make any headway. So Minister Aupito William Sio took a paper to Cabinet, a very sensible paper, which has now been included in this bill, which gives the ability to appoint one or more deputy chairpersons—something that you might imagine is very commonsensical—and that is designed for one reason: to reduce the backlog. I’m not in any way casting aspersions on any of the cases that have come before that tribunal, but it certainly means that those cases that perhaps do need a little more time than others do get the requisite attention—so, again, a very sensible part of the legislation.

The second is to do with the Courts Security Act. As a younger police officer, it was always almost something of a disciplinary duty to end up in court looking after court duty. It was actually a good time. We actually built a relationship with those that came through the courts. It often held one in great stead later on. But that’s been replaced now, and it’s court security officers. In fact, you may have read, Madam Assistant Speaker, just over the last couple of days that there was quite a major incident in New Plymouth court that had to be sorted out by court security—and, of course, ably assisted later on by police. So it is a very volatile environment, and it’s important that we give those that are looking after that environment the powers to do so.

Again, this Act, the Courts Security Act, is to be amended to make sure that those court security officers who are tasked with a very difficult task of keeping warring factions apart—it sometimes, some of those, makes the Middle East look like almost like a boy scout playground with some of the incidents that can happen there. So we do need to empower those people, and that’s what this legislation actually does: giving the ability to seize drugs and to seize weapons, and, interestingly enough, also it includes—because a lot of these things can go outside, and, of course, inadvertently it means that the court security officers lose their security as soon as things move outside—verges and grounds outside. So it’s a very commonsensical piece of legislation that I have no hesitation in commending to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to thank you for your great role as an Assistant Speaker of this House as well. That’s two Speakers in two days that I’ve praised—the first one I didn’t really want to have to, but I had to—but this one’s genuine praise.

When we come to this bill, it’s very good to see that there is support amongst the House for this, because when it comes to the courts and tribunals of this country, they play an important role in making our justice system work. I just want to first of all pay tribute to all those people that are involved in our courts and tribunals system, whether it is the advocates on the prosecution or defence side, or the judges, or all those staff that make sure they tick along nicely. You deal with some of our most difficult situations that can be quite personal and can be quite difficult to deal with in the heat of the moment. I think this Parliament owes those people a moment of gratitude and thanks for the good work they do. Anything we can do in this Parliament to assist them in their work to make their job easier is something that I think we should be very proud of.

This bill has, essentially, got two main parts to it. One is the Courts Matters Bill and the second one is in regards to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. So, basically, together those pieces of legislation really simplify and enshrine a better system so that we have a more effective courts and tribunals system.

I also wish to pay tribute to Chris Penk, who is an exemplary new member of this House, who has done a lot of work in the courts area. As we go into the election campaign in a few months’ time, I’m sure that you will see Chris Penk’s—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: A few months’ time? A by-election! A by-election!

Is that something over there from New Zealand First?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Hang on—settle down. Settle down. Let’s carry on with this debate, thank you.

Yes. It’s a shame when New Zealand First has to interrupt speeches, when their great leader would never do such a thing. But I’d like to pay tribute to Chris Penk, who’s doing a great job in this area as well. I’m sure we’ll see many more reforms come through under his name that will be just as good as this but, actually, better, more advanced, and for the betterment of our system. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I was a bit upset with the whip for New Zealand First who said that this material was as dry as old chips, when in fact this is just like a steaming piece of fish, really, because it’s a fantastic bill.

If I could just say that particularly the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill is really, really important. What I want to really focus on here is the central place that tribunals play in access to justice. In particular, the disputes tribunal here is really being brought up to date with, for example, its own registry so that it can be managed separately from the District Court, have its own training and management of its referees, and so on—and also the ability to use audio-visual links as well. This is simply modernisation. As a member on the other side said moments ago, the increase of the jurisdiction to $30,000 is really, really important because, for many people, the disputes tribunal—a very simple, very straightforward tribunal with no lawyers—is really the only way they’re going to access the justice system in a speedy way and a cost-effective way.

The other thing the bill does is tidy up a number of things around things like vexatious litigants, litigants that don’t turn up, and really the ability to move things along. So Subpart 4 of Part 1, that deals with disputes tribunals, is one little part of this bill, but it really is indicative of what the bill does as a whole, which is to modernise tribunals, which probably serve one of the most important parts in our justice system for many New Zealanders who don’t see the higher courts at all. So well done to Minister Sio. I absolutely commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in brief to the third reading of this Courts Matters Bill. I’ve spoken at the previous readings and don’t intend to take up too much time in the House. But I think it is worthwhile to emphasise that this is a bill, along with similar pieces of legislation, which is seeking to streamline, to get rid of the old and the unnecessary, to ensure that courts run efficiently and well and safely. I think many of the measures that have been brought in are what I would describe as very common sense.

So the Courts Matters Bill amends 14 Acts governing court security. In particular, with this bill and hearing the submissions, I remain surprised that it hasn’t been done many years earlier. The idea that people would come into a courtroom environment in possession of drugs, possibly under the influence of drugs, doing violent acts and illegal acts within the court area, and that there wasn’t really the power of any of the court officials or security officers to deny entry and to remove or detain—how foolish is that. This is a bill whose time has come.

It is a group of bills that enjoys cross-party support, and was indeed begun under the last Government. A great deal of work was put in by the Hon Amy Adams in ensuring it was in a state of readiness. I commend also the Ministers on the Government side now who have ushered it through, because it is important that these sorts of sensible reforms really do get done because, I think, it improves the public’s perception of the justice system. It was said earlier that justice delayed is justice denied, and I think there have been a lot of instances where, particularly with tribunals—and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill has made a number of common-sense recommendations that are going to free up 21 tribunals.

When I was the Minister of Conservation there were a number of entities whose time had passed. This is a bill that, for example, enables the Birdlings Flat land to wind up. The commissioner has finished the work. There is no need for it to continue. Similarly, with the Real Estate Agents Act, there are strike-out powers that are inserted across 13 Acts, but they can only be applied if a party was not present or represented at a hearing where they were required to be. So adding in the transitional provisions and making the changes means that the public will get better justice from real estate agents who have not done what they ought to have done.

So I think that, in all, the way that this bill has been put together makes perfect sense. It clears up things that should have been done long ago. It makes things more efficient, safer, and more cost-effective. Who would not agree with this bill? I commend it to the House.

As a member of this Parliament who has not sat on the Justice Committee, who went through this—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Bet you wish you were now.

I do wish I had been on that select committee when I read this bill. I have to commend that select committee for the work that they have done, and also the Minister. The reason I say that is that I don't think this bill is like either steamed fish or old chips. I really believe this is a very, very good bill—I don't like either of those things—I think it’s a really good bill. The reason I say that is because I think that a test of a bill is if someone like me, that has not sat on that select committee and actually understands it, the essence of it—having read it today, I actually think this is incredible, the work that this particular select committee has done. I commend all of the members on that committee.

The fact that this bill will improve people's experiences with courts and tribunals is absolutely critical to the ongoing work of the court system in this country. Most importantly, the reduction of time that it will take to resolve matters in the courts and the tribunals, and for people to feel safer in those situations, is just a wonderful, wonderful addition that this bill is actually making.

The one area that I actually read through that I was most intrigued with was the work that the select committee did around the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the fact that they have taken on the Minister's paper—the recommendations that he took to Cabinet—to actually make that work now go through a lot quicker. We had such a backlog in that particular area that it was quite worrying, because that is an area that is critical for many, many people. We've heard those arguments here tonight and I don't need to re-go over those at all. So I'm really delighted with this particular bill and I commend it to the House.

Bills read a third time.