Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I appreciate the ongoing dialogue but there are obviously a number of important issues yet within the bill that we do need to canvass. So I look forward to the opportunity to continue that interaction with the Minister.I didn't receive a response or an addressing of the question even let alone an answer in relation to court security officers. I asked specifically about new clause 6 of the new Schedule being inserted in the Courts Security Act by clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the bill that talks about the Duty of a court security officer to inform of consequences when person denied entry or removed." This is an important matter. We've got a situation where a person may be denied entry to or removed from a court under this legislation by a court security officer who in performing their role naturally has to be given the ability to remove persons from a court or deny them entry. I don't think anyone would quibble with the fact that ultimately we do need to have people given the power if necessary to do that. But to then expect that security officer who I suppose we might refer to as a bouncer in a courtroom setting and I don't mean to diminish the importance of the role by saying that—either role in fact whether at a courtroom door or a nightclub door. But the fact of the matter is these are important rights. They're fundamental rights for New Zealanders to attend court all things being equal where other legitimate restrictions on open justice do not apply. Where if it's determined under this legislation that a person should be denied access to the court then under this legislation we have in the following clause a requirement that the court security officer—not a duty lawyer not a judge not a registrar—should give effectively legal advice to the person so removed or so denied. We hear that they "must at the same time tell the person the gist of clause 5." and I presume that means something like the nature and meaning of effect. I presume that the plain language mafia have got to this one to the extent that statutes and any other Government documentation is more easily understood in plain language that's all well and good. But the fundamental point is and the substantive point remains that to ask court security officers to tell people why they are being denied access to courtrooms in which they might have a legitimate interest in proceedings seems to me not good enough and I want to know from the Minister—and this is why I'm asking him again—whether he thinks it's good enough.I also do want to ask a couple of other related questions. I do expect the Minister to at least address them—whether or not to my satisfaction I do request that he at least try. One is that he has talked about changes to improve the court system that he and the Government have made well beyond the four-year mark. I'd like to know what those are because actually on every measure access to justice in this country is getting worse. Yes it's been a longstanding problem. Yes it wasn't perfect under National. Yes it's getting worse under Labour. Yes COVID-19 has played a part in the Government's response to that. But I do want to hear the Minister justify—seeing as he has brought up in this debate changes that the Government has made to improve the court system—exactly what they are. These will be news to a lot of Kiwis who have been denied their right to access justice in this country these past several and further years. I do want to know beyond vague promises that there may or may not be better funding of the system—I mean it's all very well to say cheerily and collegially that he can't make promises about cheques that the finance Minister won't write but in that case what changes can be made of a non-financial nature that might improve the system? What stroke-of-the-pen changes are represented as an opportunity within this bill that are not being taken up and that he would actually seriously wish to take forward that he would brief his Cabinet colleagues on and that could be made? For example as suggested by the Auckland District Law Society in the submission process via Samira Taghavi: will the Government contemplate an opportunity for people to appear remotely and participate remotely with their own consent at their volition perhaps for other matters than are currently contemplated? The bill makes some nods in these directions but I do want to know from the Minister which specific changes he will contemplate making.By the way Minister—excuse me Mr Chair but I can't see the clock. I don't know how close I am getting to five minutes but please regard this as a call for a continuation. I won't have much more to say but I do want to at least finish this thought and have a response from the Minister in that time. These are important issues. They're fundamental issues and we haven't canvassed them properly before this bill is rushed through seemingly in this week. So my final question there on which I do also request a response is in relation to vaccination status as it affects the ability of people to participate in the court process. I think most people have acknowledged the fact that—[Bell rung]"