SpeechCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. This bill aims to strengthen the existing ability of the judiciary and the ministry to set and enforce conditions for entering and remaining in courts and some tribunals. It also enables the judiciary to set additional requirements for selecting and managing juries to reduce close and prolonged mixing of jurors. It clarifies that the health and safety measures in remote hearings are consistent with the legislative open justice protections. It embeds in legislation the ability to use an audiovisual link which is currently already being used extensively and I suspect this is the reason for this bill—to avoid any future litigation of any technicalities that haven't been thought of yet and the technicalities that probably should have been thought about. The bill also gives more power to court security to check and remove those who don't comply with the rules.Clause 6 of the new schedule refers to as was mentioned heads of bench and there are 38 examples of identified positions not just judges but presiding judicial officers who have the discretion to make the conditions of a hearing and who attends those hearings. The heads of bench are a wide range as was mentioned before: from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the chair of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and it just makes you ask why CEOs and employers and managers of businesses those who care about the welfare of their staff and are trying to run a business aren't trusted with similar discretionary powers—for example allowing staff to work if they have a rapid antigen test so they can keep trading and keep paying their employees.The timing of this bill is interesting because currently the courts are running relatively well with the number of COVID provisions already in place—for example people without a vaccine pass who enter a court that requires a vaccine pass just have to have a negative PCR test and that's adapted from 72 hours to 48 hours currently. If their attendance is required at court they can have a rapid antigen test and that's available until 30 June 2022. In terms of health and safety there may be a limit on the number of people allowed into court—it's already being achieved—and who can be physically present.The High Court has already gone to the red setting and it's just assumed that they do remote participation along with the Youth Court to get through their workload. Criminal and civil jury trials have continued and the health and safety measures include rapid antigen tests for jurors and other participants. At the end of January under these protocols 87 percent of scheduled court events were able to take place. This is currently what's going on and just last month the Chief Justice said It isn't business as usual but I'm really pleased that we have been able to conduct a considerable amount of work over the last 10 days."We're two years into this pandemic and the Government is just sorting out the court system. It really makes you wonder what they've been up to besides little jigs and patting themselves on the back. Schools have had to adapt. Every business has had to adapt and if they can't they can just be regarded as collateral damage. Even Parliament has had to adapt. We've got COVID-positive healthcare workers able to return to work and around the world restrictions are being relaxed or dropped completely. Supermarkets have put up screens to protect workers from the customers. I've been in many courtrooms and there's plenty of room for Perspex screens.While justice delayed is justice denied we have to ask whether this bill is really necessary. The Prime Minister has said that Omicron would peak mid-March and then restrictions would be reduced. This bill will come into force in mid-April. ACT believes it's time to move on from the fear and take back control of our lives and with that in mind we won't be supporting this bill."