O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support these two cognate bills to the select committee for further scrutiny. In fact we think that they are very good bills that have been a long time coming. They are part of a programme as the Minister of Justice said in her speech of legislation to improve the operation of the courts generally and we have seen some pretty substantial legislation along those lines come forward during this term. They are non-political in nature. They are work that has been done over many many years and I think that whoever was in Government would be bringing these bills forward to improve the justice system. These two are both very substantial bills when you look at them. There is quite a lot of detail in them and they will certainly need scrutiny at the select committee stage. They will also need good public consultation because the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill in particular covers things that members of the public have a great deal of interest in and they have a great deal of interest in them because members of the public themselves take a direct part in the justice system through the tribunals network—and there certainly are plenty of tribunals. So I am sure that we will get a lot of submissions and we will need to look at those very closely.Turning first to the Courts Matters Bill this is possibly the most important of the two although they are both very important. We in New Zealand First totally agree with the objective of the bill which is to ensure that the court system is independent fair and efficient. I would add accessible" to that list because that is probably the most important of all the principles upon which this sort of legislation needs to be based. When the objectives include "to reduce the time" we also have to bear in mind that that is not an objective by itself and that we must also provide a full proper and fair process to all of the participants of the system. So reducing time has to be balanced by that.I do think though as is stated in one of the objectives that the greater use of modern technology will be welcomed by everybody. There is not much point in having modern technology if it is not going to be used and the courts seem to lag behind in terms of the application of those technologies. So it is good to see that it is being sped up. I do think it is just as important though that forms and templates need to be simpler. They need to be in plain English so that not only lawyers but also participants in processes can take a proper part. I will have a bit more to say about access to justice when I come to the tribunals bill if I get time to get that far.I would like to make some comments about Part 1 which includes amendments to the court security system. I agree in part with what David Clendon said about that. We in New Zealand First do support the expanded powers for the court security officers because there are many cases of unruly behaviour in the courts and it is important for security reasons that those officers have those powers but they do need to be applied with some discretion so that we do not get infringements of people's right to observe what is going on and support other people. That is often a fine line to tread but I hope that court security officers having been given these powers will be trained in how to use them so that those rights are not infringed. But overall where New Zealand First does support those powers we think it is actually necessary. Those powers include the right to remove or detain people who are intimidating abusive or otherwise causing disruption. It is only for those reasons and it is important as I say that the officers need to be trained to make sure that they do not go too far.Also included is the authority for these officers to detain people whom they believe have committed or attempted to commit a wider range of offences. These include things like carrying illegal drugs and its associated paraphernalia attempting to commit an offence that would threaten the safety or security of people in the courts refusing to give their name refusing to leave the court when asked to do so because of their behaviour and generally refusing to obey a direction. We think that those are necessary and desirable additional powers and we will support them.Concerning Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill those are the provisions that refer to the Criminal Procedure Act. There are some good improvements there that will for example improve the ability to put offences in categories that are more appropriate. There is the provision relating to category 1 and category 2 offences where for example defendants in category 2 cases are required to appear in court. Those are the sorts of simple things that do make the courts work better.I can see the time ticking on. There are some other things I had wanted to say about the Courts Matters Bill but I prefer to go on now to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. The first thing I want to say is that the one thing that this bill does not address and the one thing that the Government has not addressed in this term of Parliament is the legal aid eligibility thresholds. Those have not been changed for some time. The thresholds are too tough. Many people fall outside them and so people with very few means are not able to get legal aid. That needs urgent attention and this Government has not done it. That is the most important way that we can improve access to justice. It applies in the disputes tribunal and currently what it says is this: for a single applicant with no dependent children the threshold for income is only $23326 per year. For a single applicant with one dependent child or an applicant with a spouse or partner and no dependent children it is only $36940 a year. For a single applicant with two dependent children or an applicant with a spouse or partner and one dependent child it is still only $53119 per year. I think most people would agree that those thresholds are too tough and that too many people would fall outside them. I know from people who come into my office and from many other sources that this is a real problem. This is something this Government should have addressed by this time and could have done so as part of the consideration of this bill.However there are many other things in the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill that we do think are worthwhile. They include such things as creating an offence of contempt of a tribunal with substantial penalty. Now many years ago—in fact decades ago—I was a disputes tribunal referee. I know that this is really a problem. It can be a real problem when you have a couple of parties there in front of you they are emotionally charged and all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. So to have those powers would be important.Similarly there is the offence of failing to comply with a summons—a new offence there. Issuing practice notes for people who are involved in operating the tribunals systems would also be a useful addition. And one that I think is very important is the liability to publish decisions. People may assume that that has always been done; in fact it has not especially in tribunals. That is actually another aspect of access to justice because when decisions are readily available it actually assists a lot of people in a lot of different circumstances. So I am glad to see that is there. Also there is the greater use of electronic hearings especially by telephone. That is already possible in disputes tribunals. It needs to be across the board for other tribunals as well. The additional powers concerning summoning of witnesses allowing the awarding of costs and other measures to deal with contempt are also all welcome additions to the tribunals system.New Zealand First does welcome these two bills. We think that there are going to need to be some changes and as I have said there are certainly some things that I would wish to pursue."