Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill – Committee Stage – Part 1 – Video 3

Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill – Committee Stage – Part 1 – Video 3

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


so all of these are major improvements that the public will I am sure welcome crispy thank you madam chair for my opportunity to contribute to the tribunal powers and procedures legislation bill we of course speaking to part one of it in this the committee stage and I’d like to follow on from the comments that the minister has made and also my learned colleague the Honorable 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 edge and so far as they will now enable us to assist the validity and the with wildness of those particular provisions in part one so first the aim to create or rather updates our systems such that as a modern efficient ineffective tribunal system as well as the court system fed fitted within the judicial branch of government having an easier to use system in 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 Metis bill and now the tribunal powers and procedures legislation bill is somewhat dry perhaps in nature when might sound kindly in fact they’re very important for those who would bring disputes before them so looking first in at the Disputes Tribunal act 1988 well it’s a piece of legislation that’s going to be amended by part one of this bill and it includes such gems is rostering and training of referees so for example a gap in the system currently if I might describe it as that we’re by the principle disputes referee will become responsible for rostering and training referees and the recommendation of the Select Committee having considered the first stage or or the bill as it had been passed to by way of 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 all that person was unable to perform the function so that seems to me a useful manner of achieving a backup essentially in the in the event that this principal officer was unable to perform his or her duties for whatever reason similarly some extra thoughts have been provided by the silic committee in relation to just 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 and fulfilling its functions to be able to prevent refiling of an amended claim but also to replace the dismissal provision with the standard strike out provision and again there’s no reason on this side of the house that we can see not to include debt in my remaining time madam chair I’ll focus on the lawyers in conveyancers Act 2006 all the part of it that’s going to be mended by part 1 of this bill in particular the legal complaints dispute tribunal and for any of those who have practice law the very name strike fear into the hat it’s right I’d like to say that I’m not familiar at all with its workings madam chair but I will move on in the interest of not straining the power of parliamentary privilege and you fear that so the powers of the legal complaints Review officer particularly what we’re considering here we’re clarifying a number of the duties and functions including this they are able to withhold evidence or the name of any witness and so where is the publication of materials deriving from a complaint that’s been made is itself a good thing there are situations that the Act contemplates in it the legislature being amending amending that also contemplates is that there might be situations in which suppression orders as we might describe them would be valid and worthwhile so that’s recognized and again there is a change that we believe is worth supporting similarly well similar in the sense that also a procedural change this one actually quite a major one in numerical terms such that orders for enforcing costs having been awarded of all fines in refunds and so forth currently twelve thousand dollars and would be hood up to the district court and beyond that the High Court in fact the change will be that actually up to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars can be huge by the district court so that’s a in alignment with other aspects of our justice system as far as that is concerned I’ve called oh thank you very much minimus here look the tribunal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *