Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand to give the initial response from this side of the House and I can confirm to the Minister and others who will be interested in our position that we do support the legislation. The Minister is correct to say that across the House—or certainly I can speak on behalf of National we do support the notion of access to justice being fundamental to maintenance of the rule of law.We do have perhaps some points to make around the timing of this legislation and in fact if anything we're bemused to see that the press release put out by the Government earlier in the week describing the importance of the legislation suggested that it would be important to avoid disruption and avoid delays and avoid backlog in response to the Omicron outbreak. In fact we've seen those things already. They are to be fair longstanding problems in our justice system. They have been exacerbated by the Government's response to COVID-19. So it is now that in March 2022 we are seeing for the first time a legislative response to the problems that have been apparent for some months if not years. And it was obvious to anyone who has any involvement in the court system and also to those on this side of the House that such measures would be needed.Indeed we raised concerns exactly such as the legislation is aiming to address when the House passed the COVID-19 Protection Framework legislation the traffic light system and colleagues such as Chris Bishop and I asked the Government at that point whether it intended to include within that framework and that regime the courts and tribunals that make up our judicial branch of Government. The legislation itself was silent on that matter but on questioning the Government stated that it would not be appropriate for Parliament to insert itself in the affairs of the court to that extent. I think that was a reasonable position as far as it went but it was disappointing that the Government hadn't turned its mind to the question at that point and certainly hadn't provided for that to take place and so it has been that in the last several months the courts themselves have been asked to fill the vacuum to formulate their own policy and a number have done that of course in an inconsistent fashion at least with each other.So to be really clear we do support measures that will improve access to justice and the Minister is right to acknowledge some pretty gnarly issues some challenging issues in relation to the fact that we have participants in the court system who are compelled to take part. We shouldn't take lightly the fact that we are placing them in an environment that might be challenging from a public health perspective even at the same time as we require them to do so and that fundamental rights such as the ability to be tried by a jury of one's peers are also affected. So we don't say on this side of the House that these matters are simple but we do say that they deserve addressing and what's more they deserve to have been addressed some time ago. Nevertheless we are where we are as they say so not only the access to justice point we would emphasise but also similar points regarding certainty and consistency.I've touched on consistency and it's been disappointing to observe at a distance but relying on advice from contacts within the legal profession that courts have developed almost in an ad hoc fashion their own procedures in a way that is different from other courts who likewise have been seeking to fill the legislative gaps. Certainty is important because as the Minister has alluded to we need certainty in the court process for those involved not only so that they can participate with some confidence at the time but also for the integrity of the system such that we will not see large numbers of challenges to the results or the judgments of courts on the basis only that procedural aspects have not been properly provided for and requirements such as this legislation provides haven't been put in place. So that's a pretty high-level discussion about the issues at stake. I've said my piece on the timing. My colleague Chris Bishop may wish to say more including recalling those points that we'd made at the committee the whole House stage.But I will move on in a prospective way at this point and talk about the fact that we need to be clear that the rules that are being made and being allowed to be made are going to be fit for purpose. The select committee process will be important for that albeit that it will be a truncated process. The Minister has stated that he will seek that the select committee report back by the end of this month and to meet the publicly stated aim of having the law in place by mid-April that will be necessary. So it will be something of a scramble unnecessarily so in terms of not having had this action before now. But in the sense that it is needed now without further delay National will support that relatively short process. We'll welcome the participation of all those who are affected by the court system and who have great knowledge of its workings.It will be interesting to see for example if the practical requirements around providing ID outside courts will be enforceable. For those participants in the court process who might not have access to current valid ID that might be problematic for example.We would say on this side of the House consistent with our position on matters COVID and restrictions more generally that we don't want to see restrictions placed for longer than is necessary from a public health point of view although the point's been made by the Minister about the fact that we will need some period of time for the arrangements to be followed through—and I'm paraphrasing but certainly that point was made in the legislation itself and I think there's a two-year period for that. I do have some sympathy for that argument notwithstanding as I say that general principle that the arrangements shouldn't be required longer than is actually necessary.Having said that I think that actually we do have an opportunity now as a Parliament and the justice system more generally has an opportunity to think about ways that we can use technology better to enable remote participation not only in the context of a global pandemic but actually following through beyond that period of time to allow the huge delays and the backlogs to clear and to enable people to interact with the justice system in a much more timely fashion a much more efficient fashion and in a much more cost-effective fashion as well. We will be asking for example that the Government consider amending the Courts (Remote Participation) Act to clarify that which is probably already in place to allow judges to have evidence heard—or a hearing perhaps I should say more accurately—in relation to sentencing matters where the parties consent and therefore might have a right to an in-person hearing but be prepared to waive that right in the sake of efficiency and not give up their fundamental freedoms in doing so. So on these kinds of practical matters we will be interested to explore or work constructively with the Government for any matters that will improve the justice system as a whole into the future as well as in terms of the short-term response to the COVID-19 problem.So I think it's worth just touching on before I resume my seat the relationship between the courts and Parliament. I've referred to that already in the context of the Government's reticence to legislate too heavily into this space. I think it's right to be cautious in that regard so I don't think that the Government's been unreasonable on that. I think leadership now is important to ensure that the courts have the measures and the certainty and the comfort that they need to be able to run their own affairs. So it's a fine distinction. It's not Parliament taking its hands off the wheel completely but it's also not trying to be a backseat driver necessarily. It's giving the Government the ability to drive its own affairs to provide the rules and the architecture for those rules the secondary legislation that will allow that.On the note of secondary legislation of course wearing a different hat than court spokesperson for the National Party namely the chair of the Regulations Review Committee I know that my colleagues and I will be interested to see the regulation-making powers and in due course regulations themselves will be of interest too. So for those reasons we have much to look forward to and let us hope that throughout the passage of the legislation starting today and proceeding no doubt in the week following the select committee's consideration we'll have the opportunity to strengthen the access to justice as is so currently challenging provide more certainty in the court processes and some consistency across the board. These are worthy aims and so the National Party at the first reading does support this legislation.