Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. The thing that springs to mind is that there's nothing so permanent as a temporary solution. This is proposed as a temporary solution—a COVID-19 response bill that will expire when the other rules and regulations around the COVID response also expire or in fact I think two years after they expire in this case for a number of reasons.The Government passed the traffic light system in late 2021 and it became clear that that regime could not apply to the court system. The Government proposed that rules would subsequently be provided in relation to court situations where it was problematic to exclude participants on the basis of vaccination status; for example accused persons witnesses jurors etc. Last month in March 2022 this bill was introduced and passed its first reading. It was referred to the Justice Committee with a shortened report-back period 31 March in order to enable the Government to pass the legislation by mid-April. However later in March the Government policy changed in relation to the implications of the vaccination status and other key aspects of the COVID-19 response with most restrictions being removed on 4 April 2022. So things are changing rather rapidly as the country learns to deal with Omicron and the response to it. However this bill continues despite that and the National Party is of the strong view that this bill is no longer required. The bill no longer makes sense. It is intended to enable courts to align with non-court settings in relation to vaccine passes—rules that will no longer apply for many people at most places by the time that this bill becomes law. Given that the mischief which this legislation's attendant remedy is now moot the question becomes this: is it really necessary to proceed with a shortened report-back period and the heightened sense of speed on this bill that could impact procedural fairness for criminal litigants?As another speaker on the other side of the House said we need to be careful to tread in some spaces where angels fear to tread. One of those spaces is in the operation of the courts as a key thread that goes through our system is the right for defendants to be heard and the rights of defendants to appear before the court and to face their accusers and to have a fair hearing before a jury of their peers if they choose to elect a trial by jury. We need to be very cautious in interfering with any of those processes to ensure that people who are accused in our country face a fair process. I was also interested to hear a comment about the Star Chamber from a speaker on the other side of the House and this makes me think of unintended consequences which we need to carefully think about when we think about a bill like this and a bill that has moved through the House very quickly. The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically powerful people that ordinary courts might hesitate to convict of their crimes. However it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded. So it is a very good little example of unintended consequences of something that might have a good intent but ends up having the wrong outcome. That's something certainly I think we need to be very cautious of with a bill of this nature which affects an important part of our constitutional framework which is the courts. I agree with my colleague Mr Penk who spoke earlier the shadow Attorney-General as well as the submissions of the Auckland District Law Society that we should thoroughly examine whether it's desirable to obtain permanent benefits from what would otherwise be merely a temporary COVID-19 related measure. For example the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 could be amended permanently by this bill to enable the hearing of pleas and sentencing of willing defendants. National would support such a change being made and I can say having spent the best part of a decade working as a trial lawyer and working the courts across the country from Auckland to Tauranga to Christchurch to Gore Dunedin Invercargill Queenstown and Alexandra amongst other places that I've worked in all of these courts some which had audio-visual link facilities some which didn't—I have to say that the provision of an audio-visual link does provide a very valuable service. I would say with caution though that there should always be the exception that if someone wishes to appear in court kanohi ki te kanohi face to face then they should have that option. However an audiovisual link or AVL facilities do provide an opportunity for defendants to have faster access to justice. For example I can speak of many many occasions in our courts in my region where it was not possible to get a judge to travel the two hours or more to get to the court from say Invercargill or Dunedin. However we could arrange an audio-visual link for a bail application to be made—not always successful sometimes successful—and that made a big difference for that person and their family. One of the important principles out of a justice system is ensuring quick access to justice. Justice delayed is justice denied" is a saying that's well known and something that is unfortunately very common in our justice system as our justice system is frankly overloaded a lot of the time and it is very difficult to get speedy access to justice particularly in more remote areas. So the audio-visual link facilities are very very valuable in my experience. And also from the perspective of a defence lawyer it's an extremely useful way of connecting with clients if people are incarcerated for whatever reason at a distance from various courts. It enables a lawyer who might have to travel two to three hours—and I've personal experience of this—one way to get to a prison to connect with their client and obtain instructions much more readily than they otherwise could and it makes a big difference to representation and a speedy way for those defendants and their families. So I'm certainly someone who is very much in support from a practical experience point of view of the audio-visual link process and I trust that that's something that will be looked at more further down the track. I think I will bring my comments to a close just noting finally that rushed law can unfortunately turn out to be bad law and there are many many occasions where we have seen that happen. It's regrettable that an opportunity has been missed here in my view to pass a better quality Act that could be relied on permanently by practitioners and provide our justice sector with greater certainty. With the reduction of the COVID-19 response settings this bill is just really not needed any more and we look to the Government to recognise that and to start to indicate to the country the response that we can now take to move on.I'll finally just say—it's probably entirely on point—that I'm looking forward to seeing people coming back from overseas tomorrow. That's an indication that the country is moving on. That's a very positive thing and I look forward to seeing more of that. Thank you Mr Speaker."