Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee—we have another piece of legislation that has been referred to our select committee and as my colleague Andrew Little has highlighted it is in incredibly relevant and important areas to do with court matters and also tribunal powers and procedures. I just specifically want to talk to those tribunal powers and procedures because in the legislation we have specifically talked about the disputes tribunal and the raising of the threshold from $15000 to $30000. We have also looked at the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal and the ability to award monetary compensation up to $100000 and specifically mention has been made of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Licensing Authority.The other aspect of the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill has been about the standardisation of powers and procedures for the other tribunals. I just want to note what those tribunals are. They are disputes tribunals the Tenancy Tribunal licences and certificates tribunals the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal immigration tribunals the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal the Abortion Supervisory Committee accident compensation bodies the Copyright Tribunal Customs Appeal Authority land valuation tribunals the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal the Legal Aid Tribunal the Social Security Appeal Authority the tax authority Trans-Tasman Occupations Tribunal the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and the Waitangi Tribunal. I just want to highlight that I did not even know that we had a students tribunal but that tribunal exists to appeal Ministry of Social Development decisions on student allowances.The tribunal I specifically want to focus on is the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Human Rights Review Tribunal reviews decisions by the Human Rights Commission the Privacy Commissioner and also the Health and Disability Commissioner. The reason I specifically want to speak to the Human Rights Review Tribunal is that there was a minute dated 10 March 2017 and that minute which was written by the chair of that tribunal Rodger Haines highlighted these particular issues—it highlighted that the workload of the tribunal has increased from 38 cases in 2014 to 81 cases in 2015 to 93 cases in 2016. The relevance of that increased workload is that because of the jurisdiction of his role he is actually empowered under Part 4 of the Human Rights Act—section 104(4). He is the only one who can sit on any case and determine any interim orders.Because of the legislation there seems to be an issue and so in that minute Rodger Haines highlighted that the Act allows the appointment of a deputy chair only when he is unavailable. So in fact what we have seen for example—and I will use a case that I had in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I took a case in July 2013. We had a hearing in July 2014 and in fact the written judgment came out only in May 2017. So it took 2 years and 10 months for a decision to come out of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.The reality of the situation is that there must be an amendment to section 102(1) of the Human Rights Act and in fact in the minute Rodger Haines has suggested what that amendment should be. Section 102(1) should read … the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister may appoint a deputy chair or chairs of the Tribunal …". What that would do is actually enable the tribunal to manage its workload. I also think it would enable the Minister and the tribunal to appoint specific tribunal chairs under the areas of human rights privacy and health and disability.I bring this to the House because I do not think that those changes can be accommodated in this piece of legislation and so I am highlighting that whilst we support these two pieces of legislation to select committee already I have identified another tribunal that needs another specific amendment. So what I am hoping is that through this process and through the ability of representatives of those other tribunals that I have read out they will be able to come to the select committee and make specific recommendations about further amendments that would actually enhance the ability of the tribunals and the courts to do their job because that seems to be the emphasis of this piece of legislation—to make our courts and to make our tribunals more accessible for the public and to actually expedite decisions.In fact what has happened in my particular case is that I have appealed the decision because after 2 years and 10 months there are some issues in terms of accuracy of the judgment that was passed down. I am having to go to the High Court to challenge that decision and so it seems to be an inefficiency in the system that I have had to do that. I do believe that just as the High Court has some very specific goals around how long it should take for judgments to be issued—90 percent of High Court cases within 3 months—I think it is also valuable for us to look at other amendments at this early stage that could possibly be made to this piece of legislation.So I will leave my contribution there but I also hope that I will be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee or whatever it may be called in the future because it is a committee that I think has been incredibly collegial. We have worked in a really constructive manner to make sure that the pieces of legislation that go through our select committee actually take on board recommendations through the select committee process because we want the best legislation in order to enhance the functioning of our courts our tribunals and ultimately our justice system. Kia ora."