McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on behalf of the ACT Party on the third reading of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. ACT continues to oppose this bill and we did clearly outline in both our first and second reading speeches our reasoning why which includes our position that we continue to maintain that this bill is simply not needed. But let me go a little further on what the adverse impacts of this bill will do.The passing of this bill will allow for the heads of benches to make decisions as to who can access the courts and under what conditions they may enter. They will call these decisions protocols" and this legislation does not tell us what the protocols will contain. The details will be written at the discretion of the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge. These protocols will become secondary legislation and what is secondary legislation? It is law that is made by someone other than Parliament and it's made under a power that Parliament has formally delegated in a particular Act. What does that mean? Well quite simply it means that the Government has transferred the ability for lawmaking to be done outside of this House of Representatives and outside of those members that the voting public put into this House to be lawmakers on their behalf. Submissions received from the New Zealand Law Society and our own Regulations Review Committee had concerns about the secondary legislation and the by-product of that legislation and I commend the New Zealand Law Society for their considered recommendations to try and help alleviate what those concerns may bring. In fact they did give I believe three different options on how to amend it; however the officials advised that in their opinion it's OK to allow secondary legislation to occur and that they believe it is appropriate. The ACT Party disagrees. It goes further though because additional requirements can be set by other heads of benches and this includes decisions which can include restrictions on accessing other venues such as the courts tribunals or where there is a constituted dispute resolution body. The bill specifically lists 35 entities and allows others not named on that list to also be included. Therefore the additional requirements which include rules for who can partake in proceedings will be decided by adjudicators authorities and chairpersons not just judges. So this bill is not about access to the Family Court the District Court or the High Courts alone; it includes access to public services such as those ones listed in the bill. So we understand about the Supreme Court even the Court of Appeal High Court District Court the Employment Court the Environment Court the Māori Appellate Court the Māori Land Court. But what about the Court Martial Appeal Court or the Court Martial the Disputes Tribunal and Principal Disputes Referee the Tenancy Tribunal Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority the Licensing Authority of Second-hand Dealers & Pawnbrokers the Alcohol Regulatory & Licensing Authority the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal even the Human Rights Review Tribunal Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal the Copyright Tribunal the Coroner the Customs Appeal Authority and the Immigration and Protection Tribunal? It just goes on and on but we even have the Legal Aid Tribunal the Social Security Appeal. What about the Student Allowance Appeal Authority the Taxation Review Authority the Victim Special Claims Tribunal the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and the Waitangi Tribunal? Another point that I would like to make and I think it's important for the public to know is this legislation actually has a clause within the temporary provisions schedule that allows court staff to use reasonable force if you do not comply with whatever these protocols or additional requirements may actually be. And if you don't adhere to the protocols or additional requirements legally placed upon you then a security guard working for any of these Public Service entities any of the 35 that I should have named—but I think I only gave you 30—they can manhandle you to remove you. And it's an interesting concept especially when this week we've heard how patched gang members are getting jobs as security guards around the country even when our police had objected to it. This House is legislating reasonable force on compliance of behaviour and are expediting their ability to do so. What about my learned colleague Mr Goldsmith pointing out that out of all of the courts in the country 29 of them do not have access to audiovisual (AV) equipment to run virtual court sittings? A large part of this bill is about ensuring that remote hearings can continue. We are legislating under urgency something that is already happening; at least it is where the facilities are available. I recall Mr Goldsmith stating that Ruatōria doesn't have AV equipment. I've been inside that fully ring-fenced District Court the one where a judge has a corrugated-iron roller door between his bench and the rest of the court. I guess there's no need for gang-patch security guards when you can bring down the internal garage door instead. But the point being made by Mr Goldsmith at the time is quite valid. If you have someone living in a remote a rural or an isolated piece of New Zealand and they make their way say from Hicks Bay to Ruatōria for a court case or a hearing they may be turned away if they don't meet the protocols. So if no AV equipment is available for a remote hearing to take place then this House is allowing a delay to justice and it appears to me that the cart has been put before the horse.Should we not make sure that we have our courts able to execute their business with the equipment that they need before legislating their ability to prevent access? This Government is expediting this law in the name of COVID-19. It is giving power to the judiciary to set protocols that depending on what they set could be considered unreasonable to those seeking justice and could be viewed by many as State-sanctioned mandates. And all of this is happening at a time when the restrictions are easing and the peak of the Omicron pandemic has passed. The Labour Government really should stop treating the people of New Zealand like little children who need to be constantly told what to do. Stop interfering so much in our lives and let everyone move on. ACT continues to oppose this bill."