Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Good evening Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party at this the second reading of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. Such is my dedication to the legislative process that I've contracted COVID specifically to make a point more strongly in relation to this bill! But I do actually want to make the point while I've got the opportunity to participate remotely about what has changed in fact in the real world since the time of the first reading of this bill.I acknowledge the points that the Minister of Justice has made in bringing this bill back to Parliament following the select committee process and of course as appropriate for a second reading contribution I do want to focus heavily on the select committee process itself: the submissions the excellent ideas that we heard from a number of different contributors. But I also think it's fair and right to acknowledge the fact that the world is a different place now since the time of that first reading. Certainly the world is a different place since the time that the equivalent legislation which was the framework legislation establishing the so-called traffic light system that was established late last year. And of course the ideal time for legislation such as this to have been brought in would have been then back in late 2021.So since the time of the first reading at which National supported this bill a number of things have happened. I will come back to the legislative process and more particularly the select committee aspects of the last several weeks but in the real world and the shape of the pandemic things have changed greatly as well of course. But equally significantly from the point of view of the usefulness or otherwise of this legislation the Government policy in respect of COVID-19 and our appetite somewhat for risk and our acknowledgment of the reality of the Omicron outbreak is such that the laws pertaining to the world outside the courtroom door have changed vastly. Therefore it's appropriate to examine whether this bill is now still fit for purpose and whether the intent that it came to this House with in the first reading a month or so ago remains valid.National believes that in fact this bill's time is now past. It would have been useful as I say late last year significantly less useful a month ago and now it is useless. For this reason I advise you in the House that National cannot support this bill at its second and subsequent readings. In the committee of the whole House stage we will suggest ways in which the court system—by which I mean courts and tribunals but more particularly the courts proper—could be reformed in ways that take advantage of the lessons we've learnt through the COVID-19 pandemic and how the justice system operates. But that will be as I say for that later stage of debate I think we are expecting as early as tomorrow. So just to acknowledge then the different stance that National is taking now reflecting the fact that the facts have changed and we are living in a different world from that which we entered this parliamentary process for this bill.For the Justice Committee—and I do want to commend the members of that committee. I'm not a regular member of that myself but I was pleased to be able to act as a substitute for at least one National colleague at different periods of time in order to have the benefit of the advice that we received from officials and to receive the collective wisdom of various submitters. And I do want to acknowledge them and thank them for participating in the democratic process as always. And the discussions with colleagues were fruitful as far as they went. But as I say the context is very much that changes that would have been helpful some time ago when we were anticipating an Omicron outbreak—and then in the Omicron outbreak as it was ramping up as opposed to the point at which it is ramping down so to speak; and certainly Government policy is ramping down the response but it colours the way that we must all consider the usefulness of this bill at this point.The select committee process if I can just mention that: a number of changes were proposed by submitters that were very very thoughtful and useful so far as the bill itself was concerned. National's approach in relation to the passage of the legislation is that we acknowledge that with Labour's majority in the House any debate will pass regardless of the attitude of other parties. So from our point of view it was worth supporting amendments that would improve the bill and we entered into that discussion and process in good faith. The select committee report will record that National supported changes that other committee members also wished to put forward in order to make the bill a better one knowing that it would ultimately be passed notwithstanding that our support for the bill as a whole cannot stand.So if we're to understand the purpose of the bill in the first place—and the reason that I go back to this—as traditionally one does emphasise a first reading speech more so than a second reading—is that as I say the world has changed and it is a significantly different proposition that we have now in terms of the way that we allow fellow New Zealanders to access all manner of public and private institutions. There can be surely no more important institution than those of the courtrooms of this country dispensing justice and I think we hardly need to belabour the point that this is a fundamental issue of human rights civil and political rights for every Kiwi. I'm sure there is not a member in the House who would disagree with my proposition that this is an incredibly important area and so it's right that the House take the matter seriously and consider whether we are doing the right thing by the court system and therefore in the interests of justice for all New Zealanders.Reflecting then on that initial purpose of the bill coming to the House and measuring that against the real-world scenario with which we are now faced National supported the bill for three reasons primarily. These are outlined in our differing view or minority report as it would sometimes be referred to within the select committee report. The first of these was in relation to consistency the second in relation to comity and the third change—and I've deliberately chosen three shorthand ways of referring to some somewhat complex and interrelated topics.But at its heart I think the consistency element is largely understood by reference to the fact that the world outside the courtroom door was being modified in ways that the Government brought forward in so-called traffic light legislation to use the colloquial phrase in late last year. So consistency with that world and the world of the court room was desirable to enable New Zealanders to have a degree of certainty and understanding of what might confront them in that legal context as compared with others within their public and in private lives.The second point is comity which is of course the way we often describe the fact that relationships between the branches of Government should be respectful and should acknowledge the separation of powers so that the legislative branch namely Parliament doesn't interfere unduly with the way that the judicial branch or the courts want to operate. We were presented with a bill that would allow the judges the certainty of being able to determine in their own courtrooms the way things would be handled from a security or safety perspective in relation particularly to COVID-19. So we thought that that was a worthwhile thing to encourage in the spirit as I say of comity.The third was in relation to change and this was I suppose an opportunity that National was keen be taken in relation to reforming the justice system. We have huge backlogs in our court system. Access to justice has never been more challenged or challenging in this country. Major system reforms are needed. We're seeing very little evidence of an appetite or willingness in the Government to confront those issues. They are longstanding issues to be fair. They have been exacerbated by COVID-19 to be fair. But that's not to say that they shouldn't be taken seriously and tackled. So there are opportunities that the COVID-19 pandemic and the courts' response to that provide in relation to reforming our court system and National thought that this bill might provide an opportunity for such opportunities to be taken. It appears that other parties are less willing; certainly the Government majority on the select committee was least willing. So that's a topic to which we will return in the committee of the whole House stage of debate.In my remaining time then allow me to summarise by saying the National Party cannot support this bill any further. It is no longer needed. It was well needed some time ago. More recently it was somewhat needed. Now it is not needed at all. For that reason National at this the second reading does not support the passage of this bill going forward and further contributions from this side will emphasise that. We look forward to the continuation of the debate on this matter. Thank you.