SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Oh only five minutes. It'll be a great disappointment to the other side! Look it's fantastic to hear the member resuming her seat Dr Emily Henderson trumpeting the great benefits of the British legal tradition that New Zealand's inherited. And I look forward to her engaging her colleagues maintaining that as our courts and law professors are discussing how they might change and subvert things.Dr Emily Henderson: French?SIMON O'CONNOR: The thought that comes to mind—actually I was going to use a piece of French. They must have actually seen my notes here. I was going to use the wonderful French quote: plus ça change plus c'est la même chose"—Kieran McAnulty: What's French for "sit down"?SIMON O'CONNOR: —the more things change the more they stay the same which I had to translate for the likes of Kieran McAnulty who we're not even sure can speak English. The whole point is that this bill isn't changing much despite its attempt to change things. And the whole point of that—and speakers on this side of the House have already touched on it. This is a temporary piece of legislation which is meant to end when the COVID restrictions end. And it's been lost I think on some members of the Labour side that this is not a piece of legislation which is bringing about permanent changes into our judicial system. The initial clause of this bill is very very clear: these powers granted to the judiciary yes under-hold principles of comity and all of that are meant to expire when the Government lifts the COVID rules. Now logically ipso facto if these rules are going to end we're pretty much headed in that direction already and a number of speakers on this side have already eloquently put that forward. We are rushing through this House under urgency a whole series of changes which by and large are already expired of no use or of very very limited use.The second of course if you're the slightly more conspiratorially minded is that it's a hint that the Government—even though this bill is meant to expire when the COVID Acts go—are sort of still wanting to cling on to all the sort of authorities and controls which they've got used to over the last two years. When you listen to the other side you don't get the feeling that this is meant to be temporary. There's always something else to fear and worry about down the line. I sit on the side that says we want to get back to normal. It doesn't matter if it's in the courts or in this Parliament I want to see the end of masks I want to see these stupid screens go. I want people back face to face. And that's one of the reasons—as the speaker who's resumed her seat would know—that actually why the likes of AV and AVL haven't been used all that often is more because of the judges than anything to do with Ministers of Justice. They have their statutes they have their approaches they prefer face to face. I think they say kanohi ki—oh I'm not even going to try it. The nose to nose. I'm getting all my Māori mixed up tonight which is unfortunate. Tangi Utikere: We know that.SIMON O'CONNOR: Ah yes the purveyors of fake news are still here tonight. But actually that's where we want to get back to. And yet we have a piece of legislation here which is just entrenching some of the controls that are not needed—they're not needed.The final point that I'd make is there's been talk again about AV and AVL. It's all well and good that this bill touches on how it might be used but as my colleague Paul Goldsmith who was here earlier pointed out what's the point of talking about all this AV technology when it doesn't exist in most of our courts? For a variety of reasons I sort of have a bit of understanding of what the courts are like up north—north of Tāmaki that is. People struggle to get to the courts. All this talk of access makes no or very little sense if you don't actually have the equipment in place. And that's probably the final point. We hear the Labour Government wax boring—rather than wax lyrical—about what they're trying to do but where's the funds Minister to put this technology in? If you're in power and it's through the supposed temporary bill why are you not funding that the technologies available to be used? So for argument's sake if the courts the judiciary decide they want to implement some of these schedules well that's all well and good but they don't have the funding for that technology to make it so. So as many a member on this side has noted it's an interesting bill. There's elements we did support. But as actually the COVID response changes or it should be changing the need for it wanes. And certainly the fact that this is being used and rushed through urgency should be something which people at home understand and fundamentally more time should have been given to properly consider aspects of this bill. As I say the more things change with this Government the more they stay the same."