Rurawhe AdrianSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to see the enthusiasm of one of my colleagues across the House to stand and speak I'm sure for a good five to 10 minutes. National continues to oppose this bill the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. The basic principle is that it's no longer in line or in time with where the COVID response overall is. Other speakers have far more eloquently than I articulated National's position but sadly for the other side that won't stop me for speaking for another four minutes and 26 seconds. Welcome people to the delights of Parliament and how it operates. Fundamentally this was a bill that should have been progressed months and months ago. The principle of allowing our judiciary to make its own decisions of how to manage COVID—be that who can access the courts what their vaccination status could or should be how juries could be composed what might happen if someone was found to be COVID positive how would all of that be managed. It's quite right and proper in our Westminster tradition to make sure that the courts have the power to do it themselves to make those choices. We as the Parliament have to provide those instruments these legal recourses but it's to give the courts that independence and power. Again members here know it's called comity. I mean I'm not a lawyer. There are lawyers here and much smarter ones of course than me. But fundamentally the courts do need that independence. So National has no problem with a piece of law which empowers the courts to make those decisions. The only problem of course is that the COVID situation in New Zealand has dramatically changed. We're coming out of the current dynamics that we've been accustomed to. Yes I hear the debates and discussions from the other side that COVID is still with us and more things could come—that's quite true. I prefer not to be someone who lives in fear; it's just not the way I operate. Yep things could get worse but at the moment they're tracking in a pretty good direction. You don't have to believe me—I'm only espousing words. The Government itself has effectively acknowledged this. We're progressing down the traffic light system. On this side of the House we want the whole traffic lights tossed out completely but that's a whole separate discussion. But the Government itself is acknowledging that the environment's changing and yet it's pushing ahead with this piece of legislation. It's probably around the question of audiovisual links—or AVL or AV; whatever acronym you choose to use—where if you will the nub of this discussion and debate comes up and for me for at least two reasons. We've heard from previous speakers one of the concerns is that there's lots of talk about how we might use AV in our various courts. I won't list them all off—I think it was 35 I heard from a colleague—but there are a number of courts. The problem is that for all the good intentions in this legislation that the courts the judges may be able to decide to use this technology under this COVID response courts safety bill what we also know of course is that we don't have AV technology in most of our courts. I think unfortunately it's a missed opportunity by this Government. Instead of if you will having wasted ultimately I think the Parliament's time on this piece of legislation if they'd taken the time particularly through justice and the Minister of Justice to find the funds—and the Government is profligate with cash. I'm sure they could have found the tens of millions required to actually get the audiovisual technology into those courts so they could be used.My final point around all of this and the second reason why I think this is not needed is it's rushed. We're not in urgency but I think it's important for people to understand at home. The Government rushed this through select committee. It's been driving it very fast through the Parliament for reasons that don't make sense. A number of submitters have rightly pointed out that more time would have allowed for more consideration. Mr Speaker if you might indulge me for 20 seconds because this will be the last time I can make a quick acknowledgment of my colleague Louisa Wall. Actually I'm feeling a bit emotional which might seem strange to people because Louisa and I disagree on just about every issue to put it mildly. But I think—very quickly—I respected her fervour for her positions and she respected mine which meant that when we came to discuss human rights and the likes of China we united. I will miss her terribly but wish her well in her valedictory. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Tangi Utikere—five minutes.