Submission on

Introduction

This submission is made in strong opposition to the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, which presents significant risks to individual rights, legal protections, and regulatory fairness. While the bill seeks to improve the efficiency of tribunal systems, it introduces severe government overreach, weakened legal safeguards, and increased bureaucratic burdens. Without substantial amendments, this bill could erode public trust in New Zealand’s justice system.

Key Concerns:

1. Expansion of Government Investigative Powers Without Oversight

Issue: The bill introduces Section 104A, which allows the Complaints, Investigation, and Prosecution Unit (CIPU) to demand documents and information for regulatory purposes without requiring judicial oversight or a warrant.

Risks:

• Potential for abuse: This grants broad, unchecked power to government investigators.
• Privacy violations: Individuals and businesses may be forced to provide sensitive information with no clear protections.
• Disproportionate penalties: Failure to comply results in excessive fines of up to $20,000 for corporations and $10,000 for individuals (Section 104A(6)).

Reference: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 21) guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The bill’s provisions violate this principle.

Proposed Amendment:

• Require judicial approval before compelling information under Section 104A.
• Introduce safeguards to protect against excessive or arbitrary demands for information.

2. Lack of Transparency and Accountability in Tribunal Appointments

Issue: The bill amends Section 8 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988, giving the chief executive unilateral control over tribunal referee appointments through an assessment panel.

Risks:

• Opens the door to political influence in tribunal appointments.
• Reduces transparency, as there is no public oversight of how referees are selected.
• Threatens tribunal impartiality by increasing executive branch control.

Reference: International best practices for judicial appointments, including those outlined by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), emphasize judicial independence and merit-based selection.

Proposed Amendment:

• Require an independent selection committee with public reporting on appointment decisions.
• Ensure that appointments follow transparent and merit-based criteria.

3. Complaints Against Unlicensed Private Security Personnel – Ensuring Fairness and Preventing Abuse

Issue: The bill introduces Section 73AAA, allowing any person with "an interest" to file a complaint against unlicensed private security personnel. While accountability is important, the term "an interest" is too vague, potentially enabling frivolous or malicious complaints.

Risks:

• Encourages legitimate reporting but lacks clear safeguards against misuse.
• Potential for bad-faith complaints, such as from competitors or individuals seeking to harass security personnel.
• No penalties for filing false or frivolous complaints, which could burden the system and harm innocent individuals.

Reference: The UK Private Security Industry Act 2001 allows complaints but requires specific legal standing or direct impact to prevent abuse.

Proposed Amendment:

• Define “an interest” more clearly to include individuals directly affected (e.g., businesses hiring security personnel, law enforcement, or victims of unlicensed activity).
• Require supporting evidence for complaints, ensuring complaints are substantiated before action is taken.
• Introduce penalties for frivolous or bad-faith complaints to prevent abuse of the system.

4. Discretionary Tribunal Costs and Lack of Consistency

Issue: The bill allows the Disputes Tribunal to order respondents to pay the applicant's filing fee at its discretion (Section 43(5)), without clear guidelines or limits.

Risks:

• Inconsistent rulings on cost recovery.
• Discourages respondents from defending themselves if they fear arbitrary cost penalties.
• Potential for exploitation, where claimants use the system to extract costs unfairly.

Reference: The Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 originally emphasized cost-effective, accessible justice. The proposed amendment undermines this principle.

Proposed Amendment:

• Require clear guidelines on when cost recovery is allowed.
• Ensure that cost orders are applied consistently across cases.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Given the serious risks posed by this bill, we urge Parliament to reject it in its current form. However, if amendments are considered, the following changes are necessary:

• Introduce judicial oversight for investigative powers under Section 104A.
• Ensure transparency in tribunal appointments under Section 8.
• Clarify the criteria for complaints against private security personnel by amending Section 73AAA and adding safeguards against misuse.
• Standardize cost recovery rules in the Disputes Tribunal to prevent unfair financial penalties.

If the bill proceeds without these amendments, it will weaken legal protections, erode individual rights, and create excessive bureaucratic burdens. We strongly recommend reconsideration to ensure fairness, due process, and the rule of law.