Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to begin the contribution on this side of the House in relation to the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill taken as a cognate debate of course. I will say at the outset that my party supports the intent of this legislation—and indeed the legislation itself I should clarify. Indeed it was originally from our side of the House or at least our party when in Government that this legislation was proposed so I acknowledge Minister Adams as she then was but also the current Minister and his colleagues who have seen the continuation of the legislation to this stage.There are a number of different purposes of these bills and I intend to step through those now rather than delve into the detail of each those two specific bills. No doubt my colleagues on this side of the House and indeed the other will get into that detail—Rt Hon Winston Peters: This will be fascinating.CHRIS PENK: It is a case very much that the devil is in the detail. I don't know what brought that phrase to my mind when I looked up but perhaps the interruptions coming opposite put the word devil" into my mind. There are as I say a number of different purposes of the bills and I think perhaps at a sort of a higher level it would be appropriate to talk about those each individually and then see where we come to terms of time whether we should get into perhaps the Courts Matters Bill at that stage.The first thing is that the bills will reduce the time that it takes to hear and resolve matters. That's an important aspect of our justice system of course. It's a well-known phrase to the point of being a cliché or perhaps a truism that justice delayed is justice denied.Chris Bishop: That's right—well said.CHRIS PENK: That's right. I think that the reasons for that are many the first of which is actually a practical reason. It's harder to determine the truth of a matter some time after an offence or a possible offence or an act or an omission in a civil context have actually taken place so the sooner that matters are able to be heard by our courts and indeed our tribunals the more likely it is that we will have a just outcome.The second reason is that the players of the game those involved whether litigants—again in a civil context or in a criminal context. For their sake it's important that these matters are heard quickly and so the bills to the extent that they are able to reduce the time that people are affected by our justice system to the extent that these bills do achieve that purpose they are very worthy changes. Similarly in terms of reducing the costs associated with the service the administration of justice this too is a worthy aim because naturally the State—and indeed it is always the State involved in these matters when a dispute of some sort does reach our courts. It's to the benefit of the State and therefore the citizens of the State that these matters are heard quickly and efficiently.Finally the stakes are increased often when matters are delayed and so in a civil matter for example if a matter is not resolved quickly there might be interest for example applied to an amount that's in contention and so the longer a matter goes on—the more time in other words that it takes to be heard by our courts—the harder it will be perhaps for a resolution to be found. I've heard from a very good lawyer who's a friend of mine that a bad lawyer can delay a case for weeks but a really good one will delay it for months. So perhaps in that spirit with a bit of tongue-in-cheek involved I note that it is in the interest of almost all players in the justice system to have speedy resolution of their cases—Greg O'Connor: Are you extending or delaying this debate?CHRIS PENK: So I move now to the relief of all present no doubt including even Mr Gregory O'Connor to the second purpose which is to improve users' experience of the courts and tribunal system. It is an intimidating process to be involved in no doubt for many and so to the extent that these bills can provide some relief and some remedy in relation to the substance of the case but also relief in terms of the process and the smoothness of that again we regard that on this side of the House—and I think they do on that side of the House too—as a very positive thing indeed.Third to enable a greater use of modern technology. This is pretty well self-explanatory so I shan't dwell on it any further except to say that efficiency and effectiveness which I might define as the passage of a dispute in the most expedient way possible and effectiveness meaning on the other hand the most robust process possible to achieve the right result in any given case and timeliness which I've already touched on and I do not intend to belabour that point further.The fourth is that we will simplify and standardise the statutory powers and procedures of various offices by passing this legislation albeit that it's subject of course to a further reading and indeed a committee stage at which some changes might be made. But I do acknowledge at this point that the select committee the Justice Committee has paid considerable care and attention to the legislation that had come to them after the first reading. Many submitters gave their time very freely and generously in suggesting amendments and so it is I think that in terms of simplification and standardisation we have a better result now for that process having taken place. No doubt colleagues again on both sides of the House will have an opportunity to set out some of those changes that they agreed to actually in their select committee report and as reflected in the departmental report often as a direct result of various key players in the profession and in the industry if I may use that word as to the reality on the ground for these different courts and tribunals.Finally to provide better consumer protection and redress and greater access to justice. So much for the purposes; as to the substance I won't go through it all in detail—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why not?CHRIS PENK: —and indeed I would've if time had allowed but it certainly doesn't. Some of us are on a tight time frame Mr Peters. We don't have the luxury of as much time as you seem to take to get things done. The Courts Matters Bill amends—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!CHRIS PENK: —excuse me Madam Assistant Speaker—no fewer than 14 Acts—Chris Bishop: How many?CHRIS PENK: Fourteen that's right—that's right; no fewer. Courts security criminal procedure fines enforcement and other court processes. So there's a lot in there obviously and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill naturally relates to tribunals as the name would suggest.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do tell.CHRIS PENK: The clue's in the title; it does what it says on the tin. And I shall tell. I shall at least tell to the extent of saying that there are 21 tribunals that are affected and there are even more pieces of legislation than that on our statute book that will have consequential amendments. Of course I won't go through them all but they range very widely from the Accident Compensation Act Customs and Excise Act Immigration Act Social Security Act and Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. I'm sure that many members of this House and indeed the vast number of New Zealanders who are watching this debate will be able to think in each of those cases of specific tribunals that relate to each of them.It's a measure of the nature of the bill I think that the departmental report on the Courts Matters Bill alone contains an entire page of acronyms and abbreviations. Any piece of legislation that includes a CSA a CDA and a CPA I think is a force to be reckoned with and we'll continue reckoning with it in this House by grappling with its subtleties its intricacies getting these things right because they are important for the people of New Zealand.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who wrote this?CHRIS PENK: Who wrote this stuff Mr Peters asks. It's all up here sir—it's all up here. Yes sir it is. Mr Peters I don't know where Mr Peters gets his speech from but I think I can guess.With that note I will draw my speech to a conclusion. I look forward to hearing other members' contributions and indeed to the legislation continuing its passage through this House. Thank you."