Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): 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.