Human Rights Commissioner, HRRT GATEKEEPER

Ideal Outcome/ resolution

The HRC appears to be quite a fickle beast, with an apparent disregard for human rights, especially equality [which is ironic as the only human right they allege to uphold is “the right to be free from discrimination” and obviously this system fails when the agency discriminates against you, as you have no actual recourse- not dissimilar from the catch 22 of the Privacy Commissioners concealing your information/ breaching your privacy- the general “there’s nothing you can do about it“- throw away line is. .. “feel free to make a complaint to the Ombudsman” [This must be some “in house” running joke that seems to be hilarious for government agencies.]

The HRRT is bound by the regulations: Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002

So once a form is filed and notice of filing issued, the defendants MUST file a notice of defence/ opposition within 22 working days as per s15 of the rules:

15 Filing and service of statement of reply

(1) A defendant who intends to defend the proceedings—

(a) must, within 22 working days after the day on which the notice of proceeding is served on the defendant, file with the Ministry of Justice a statement of reply to the plaintiff’s claim;

(b) must serve a copy of the statement of reply on the plaintiff and any other party.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2002/0019/latest/whole.html#DLM110856

UNFORTUNATELY, The Tribunal appears to be quite “lax” on these clearly worded and unambiguous wordings and instead accepts a common delay tactic of solicitors to simply override this requirement with a strike out application which:

1. Obstructs the proceedings with an intention to have them thrown out
2. Works not only as a delay to actually address the application on it’s own merits, but over rule any requirement to comply with the regulations of the tribunal.

This is proving problematic in 2 cases before the tribunal that Ponsonby Chambers filed in August 2023:

1. HRRT 32/2023 Dunstan v Oranga Tamariki
2. HRRT 33/2023 Dunstan v NZ Police

The first case had a completed HRC s14 form, the second didn’t.

*It is unclear why the HRRT prioritised a case without the HRC completing their role, when 2 other matters [involving the NZPB and MOJ had s14 forms but remain ignored now 12 months since filing]

Both matters have been delayed with requests to file amended statements of claim, which were done (partially refused by the HRRT chairperson, unclear on what jurisdiction this “right” to amend proceedings was limited?) and neither have been responded to now well outside a 3 month period.

The defendants strike out applications do not contain any affidavit, therefore no “evidence” the tribunal can rely on the make a just decision.

As such, the plaintiff has sought a hearing in accordance with s19(4) of the regulations of which the defendants have waived any right to oppose or even attend:

19 Hearing

(4) The Tribunal may refuse to hear the defendant if, by the time of the hearing, the defendant—

(a) has not filed a statement of reply within the time required by or under regulation 15(1) or (2), or in accordance with leave of the Tribunal granted under regulation 15(3); and

(b) has not applied for the leave of the Tribunal, under regulation 15(3), to file a statement of reply outside the time required by or under regulation 15(1) or (2).

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2002/0019/latest/whole.html#DLM110861