Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I take it there are some amusing heckles that I'm not privy to. I stand in favour of this bill as a former justice sector worker—as a former defence lawyer in the courts—who is also immunocompromised and who has been thinking this whole time of my former colleagues the court takers the registrars the prosecutors the cops and the judges who've had quite a hard time of it as essential workers and as people who interact with large groups of members of the public often in distress. That distress has certainly been exasperated by the COVID crisis—and the Minister of Police even referenced this in our discussions earlier in questions—as things like domestic and sexual violence were heightened in their rates and as we face more and more pressure in all sectors. The courts are really where we see that all come to a head. So to allow the courts to regulate their own settings for both staff and members of the public who are trying to participate and access justice—whether as witnesses as victims as accused persons as their support people or as jurors—I can't think of a more essential piece of legislation to come through even if it is quickly.It's funny to me to hear the Opposition talk about using Zoom. It's only very recently that we've used Zoom in this House. I recall their former leader insisting on travelling even under level 4 lockdown from Auckland to Wellington to be in the Chamber in person because that was so important but people like the victims of very sensitive very personal crime witnesses giving evidence in those contexts and jurors who are to come together to make decisions by consensus should be expected to use Zoom. It also speaks to a real lack of understanding of how well resourced people are who are most often coming before our courts—in particular in the context of serious crime in the jury trial jurisdiction. This bill takes account of all that and allows for judges who are the most experienced at conducting proceedings in their own court rooms to come up with ways of minimising the risk of COVID. That includes things like distancing the requirement to wear masks and other types of practical limitations that might mean that people like me as an immunocompromised person might feel more comfortable sitting on a jury for example or that I wouldn't have to for example choose between representing a client and my own health or the health of family members. That is what essential workers all over New Zealand have had to do which is why we've supported the supermarket workers for example having mask mandates placed on members of the public that they interact with as part of their workplace health and safety requirements. As such in even this House we have our own safety protocols which we're very grateful for.This makes sense. I would just note two ways that it makes particular sense. We are doing away with the vax mandates and we have never had them for essential services like courts. So to acknowledge that the next barrier of support for people like me—for immunocompromised community members—is to require things like masks and distancing when we are interacting with essential services but also to recognise that our courts and our justice system as a whole vastly targets Māori disproportionately to other populations and that is a group who is most vulnerable. So to say that we wouldn't have the power as judges to make good faith rules about how to keep people safe in their own court rooms that we wouldn't take account of the fact that we're actually protecting Māori is sort of obscene to me.What I would just hope is that the Government does take up the Green Party call to make all N95 and NK94 masks—the best masks; the ones that really protect against Omicron—freely available to everyone including everyone who is accessing our justice system which is the next step in ensuring that essential workers and everybody accessing essential services is safe. I do commend the bill.