Results During the year, the Director of Human Rights Proceedings made a total of 79 decisions on human rights and privacy matters against an estimated measure of 60–80 matters, compared with 70 in the previous year. The Office of Human Rights Proceedings (OHRP) exceeded its identified performance measures for timeliness, with over 80 per cent of applications being dealt with in a timely manner. One hundred per cent of applications received during the period were sent an initial response within five working days. For 83 per cent of applications for representation, a determination of application pathway was made within 10 working days of receiving material from the Human Rights Commission. Over 80 per cent of matters were substantially progressed within one year. These were new measures so no comparative data is available. Feedback on the quality of the OHRP’s standard of service was a new measure. Feedback was received from 15 applicants. Of these, 13 applicants made positive comments. One applicant was dissatisfied with the result of the Director’s decision and one former applicant was dissatisfied with a response to an email. As a result, 87 per cent of applicants were satisfied, falling just short of the identified performance standard of 90 per cent. The OHRP set a performance standard of 80 per cent satisfaction with the thoroughness of decisions, measured by exception-based reporting. During the period, the OHRP did not receive any feedback from applicants expressing dissatisfaction in the thoroughness of the Director’s decision, which is the same result as the previous year. Similarly, no feedback indicating dissatisfaction was received from the courts, thereby exceeding the performance standard of 95 per cent satisfaction, and meeting the 100% compliance of the previous year. One hundred per cent compliance was achieved with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 during the period, meeting the same result as the previous year. However, full compliance with Tribunal and Court timetables was not achieved. One timetabling order was not met with regard to a direction that copies of pleadings and briefs of evidence be provided to new parties added to a proceeding. The reason for the delay was due to confusion caused when the new parties ceased to instruct counsel and became self-represented; 100% compliance was achieved in the previous year. 68 Human Rights Commission