Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair for my opportunity to contribute to the Tribunal Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. We are of course speaking to Part 1 of that in this the committee stage. I'd like to follow on from the comments that Minister Sio has made and also my learned colleague the Hon Maggie Barry who focused on a couple of the different tribunals that are amended by this legislation and I'll talk about amendments that are made to a couple of other bodies. But as she did I would like to first consider some of the overarching purposes of the bill in so far as they will now enable us to assess the validity and the worthwhileness of those particular provisions in Part 1.So first the aim to create—or rather update—our system such that it is a modern efficient and effective tribunal system as well as the court system fitted within the judicial branch of Government. Having an easier-to-use system and keeping pace with people's expectations are worthwhile aims in themselves and so while some might be tempted to consider the content of these bills that we're looking at tonight the Courts Matters Bill and now the Tribunal Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill as perhaps somewhat dry in nature—one might say unkindly—in fact they're very important for those who would bring disputes before them.So looking first then at the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988—that's a piece of legislation that's going to be amended by Part 1 of this bill. It includes such gems as rostering and training of referees—so for example a gap in the system currently if I might describe it as that whereby the principal disputes referee will become responsible for rostering and training referees. The recommendation of the Justice Committee—having considered the first stage or the bill as it had been passed by way of the first reading—recommended amending a couple of clauses such that it would be the Chief District Court Judge who would be wholly responsible if the principal disputes referee position was vacant or that person was unable to perform the function. So that seems to me a useful manner of achieving a backup essentially in the event that that principal officer is unable to perform his or her duties for whatever reason.Similarly some extra thoughts have been provided by the select committee in relation to dismissing and striking out claims—a couple of section numbers which I won't trouble you with Madam Chair. But essentially the select committee wanted the ability for the disputes tribunal in fulfilling its functions to be able not only to prevent the refiling of an amended claim but also to replace the dismissal provision with the standard strike out provision. Again there's no reason that we can see on this side of the committee not to include that.In my remaining time I will focus on the Lawyers and Conveyances Act 2006 or the part of that that's going to be amended by Part 1 of this bill—in particular the Legal Complaints Review Officer. And for any of those who have practiced law the very name strikes fear into the hearts.Chris Bishop: That's right. Ha ha!CHRIS PENK: That's right. I'd like to say that I'm not familiar at all with its workings but I will move on in the interests of not straining the power of parliamentary privilege any further.So the powers of the Legal Complaints Review Officer particularly what we're considering here—we're clarifying a number of their duties and functions including that they are able to withhold evidence or the name of any witness. So whereas the publication of materials deriving from a complaint that's been made is in itself a good thing there are situations that the bill contemplates and that the legislation being amended also contemplates in which suppression orders as we might describe them would be a valid and worthwhile. So that's recognised and again that is a change that we believe is worth supporting.Similarly—well similar in the sense that it's also a procedural change—this one is actually quite a major one in numerical terms such that orders for enforcing costs which have been awarded or fines and refunds and so forth—currently $12000 would be heard up to the District Court and beyond that the High Court. In fact the change will be that actually up to $350000 can be heard by the District Court so that's in alignment with other aspects of our justice system as far as that is concerned.