IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL HRRT 076/2015

UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993

BETWEEN TE RINGA MANGU NATHAN MHAKA

PLAINTIFF

AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND

CORPORATION

DEFENDANT

AT WELLINGTON

BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms DL. Hart, Member Hon KL Shirley, Member

REPRESENTATION:

Mr TRMN Mihaka in person assisted by Ms K Raue as Maori Agent

Ms L. Theron and Ms S Shaw for defendant

DATE OF HEARING: 3 April 2017

DATE OF MINUTE: 3 April 2017

MINUTE OF CHAIRPERSON RECORDING DECISION BY HON KL SHIRLEY TO STEP ASIDE

1.  Our apologies for keeping everyone waiting. At 6.31 am this morning Mr Mihaka filed With the Tribunal a document which revealed neither its source nor its date; nor was the identity of the author given. It has taken the best part of the morning to ascertain these details. It was possibly an opinion piece by Mr Shirley published in the New Zealand Herald on 24 February 2005, some twelve years ago. Based on this article Mr Mihaka advances a new recusal application. It is the third such application and all three have been directed against Mr Shirley.

2.  These repeated applications have consumed a substantial if not inordinate amount of time.

3.  Mr Shirley has consequently come to the decision that to allow the case to proceed to a hearing without further distraction or diversion he will step aside.

4. The other members of the Tribunal respect this decision. In so doing the Tribunal must emphasise as strongly as it can that it does not accept that there is any basis for the extravagant and offensive allegations which have been made against Mr Shirley. His decision is entirely a pragmatic one and done to expedite the proceedings.

(5) The hearing is accordingly adjourned to 9am tomorrow morning by which time a replacement for Mr Shirley will have arrived in Wellington. At the present time the best that we can say is that the replacement member is Ms Wendy Gilchrist of Christchurch.

(6) We do not intend entering into a debate or to ask the parties to say anything in relation to Mr Shirley's decision. What we do need to ascertain is that all parties understand that this hearing will resume at 9am tomorrow morning and it will resume with the giving of evidence by Mr Mihaka who as the plaintiff in these proceedings carries the burden of proof.

7. In response Ms Raue and Ms Theron confirmed they would be ready to proceed at 9am on Tuesday 4 April 2017.)

8. We must underline to everyone that in view of the fact we now have only one day left for the hearing (being tomorrow) the parties will be expected to move in a workmanlike way through the evidence and submissions. It is not in anyone's interests that the hearing of this case be protracted any longer.

Rodger Haines, Chairperson