SpeechHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair thank you very much. It might help Paul Goldsmith the member who just resumed his seat to understand that there are no parts of this bill so you might actually want to read it. We're debating this clause by clause so we're actually debating the title: clause 1 of the bill. The member referred to Part 1 which makes me think that the member hasn't even read the bill himself which would pretty much be the case because he didn't refer to the title at all during his first contribution. So I'm looking forward to the following contributions from the member.I also want to embed the track record that the member has with numbers because as we know his track record as the finance spokesperson—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Ah ah—Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —I'm getting to the point—for the Opposition was sketchy. The member quoted a number—29 facilities I believe. That is wrong. Again the validity of the member's numbers have been called into question because they are wrong. It is 12 and by the end of the year we will have addressed nine of those court facilities to make sure that there are audiovisual links in there in order to do the kinds of things that we need to do to make sure that our court facilities are more efficient. So for those who may have stuck around for the five minutes of that contribution which in most parts was irrelevant to the piece of legislation before us I think you can take it from the fact that the member doesn't know that there are no parts in the bill and has got his numbers wrong that the validity of pretty much everything that the member says in this debate is worth zero.So can I thank the judiciary and can I thank the senior leadership and the staff of the Ministry of Justice and also the practitioners of law represented through the New Zealand Law Society for the effort that they have put in over the last two years to ensure under challenging and trying circumstances that justice has continued to be served. I think out of a crisis you always forge stronger relationships and I think that's certainly been the case for those making sure that justice can be served.Obviously under the alert level system it was a very rare occasion for participants to be physically in a court or tribunal room. It was only the most serious of cases that may have been dealt with in a face-to-face manner and as we moved to the COVID protection framework on which we've made announcements today there were more in-court hearings held. This piece of legislation will ensure that we can support the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary and those working in our courtrooms to continue to be able to have certainty about how they run the day-to-day operations of courts and jury trials and I think that's important. There is a backlog of cases that came about because of the cessation of cases during the lockdown and we need to make sure that we deal with those. So in a very simple way this piece of legislation gives certainty to the judiciary about some of the decisions that they make noting their independence and also too the likes of security operations staff who are employed by the Ministry of Justice about what they can and cannot do in terms of making sure people who are entitled to and who want to enter our courthouses and tribunals around the country can do that in a safe manner.I'm sure there'll be questions that come about and I might try and pre-empt those because of some of the contributions that were made in the second reading speeches last night particularly those of the ACT Party and Nicole McKee—who I have a lot of respect for. I think she always arrives at this House and argues points as opposed to politics. I'm always happy to debate both. But there was some concern. While they have fundamental differences with the Government's continuation of this passing of legislation—and we think we need to make sure that it is there—there was a fundamental question about the length of time that some of the temporary measures may be in place especially in and around deferral of jury service. My understanding is that the maximum period of deferral of jury service as it stands now—the normal operation is that that can be deferred for up to two years. So the ability once this piece of legislation is repealed along with other COVID legislation potentially later on is that that continuation of deferral will continue basically because the current settings allow deferral of up to two years.Again I think the main point of debate that has been had up until this point in terms of this piece of legislation is whether it is still required. It is. While we are certainly pulling our way out of the current COVID situation we don't know what's going to happen and between the passing of this legislation and any expiration or the lifting of the measures within this piece of legislation I think the judiciary and those who operate our courts will welcome the support to enable the full and effective and efficient and safe operation of our courtrooms. I'm happy to answer any questions that members may have.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith and I'll just remind members that this is a debate on clause 1 which is the title.