Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this final reading of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill which will shortly pass into law as Labour have the majority. National does not support this bill. I note that I put it to the Minister of Justice yesterday in the committee of the whole House that this bill should really be called among other things the Too Little Too Late Act 2022". I note that the pandemic began functionally in New Zealand—at least we had our lockdown—in March of 2020; we are here in April 2022 talking about putting in place a bill called the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation. It begs the question: why did it take Labour two years to do so? It's ironic that we're having the final call of this bill on the day that the country has moved into the orange setting and only yesterday Australians were able to return to New Zealand—both positive things. But the question is: why are we here now and why are we talking about a COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill so long ago? Things have moved on in a whole raft of ways. For me personally back in March 2020 I was a courtroom lawyer working in Invercargill and I had to go into court on occasion during that lockdown period. I also had various appearances from home—everyone was trying to figure out how to make it work and we were all doing various kinds of audiovisual-type links into the court from home and people were just trying to make it work. The courts have done this for over two years—the courts have regulated their own proceedings; they have found ways to keep the court system running. All credit to all the participants in that process; it's a very challenging environment for everyone involved and an important one. It's very important that people have an opportunity to appear in court and to get the certainty of the decisions that the court will provide for them. Regardless of the outcome of those decisions it's very important they have that opportunity. A lot of work goes in from all the participants to make that happen. However we're here just as thankfully the Omicron wave is on a downward trend. The Minister for COVID-19 Response made very positive comments recently about how things are looking good in that respect. And like I said we're here on the day that we moved into the orange light setting and yet we're still dealing with this COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill which is about to come into law. And I listened with interest to my colleague Nicole McKee when she talked about putting the cart before the horse. And it's made me think about some comments yesterday in the committee for the whole House stage when we were talking about Ruatōria and the quite humorous scenario which is real and I've talked to people who've been to that court and spent time there—you know people who sometimes ride their horses to get to the court. And it made me think at the time when I was talking about that that this should really be called the "Horse has Bolted Legislation Bill" because the horse really has bolted and we just don't need it. I mean that's the fundamental point. I'm using a little bit of humour here to make the point that we do not need this law.In terms of the main provisions I should probably just spend a little bit of time going through that so that anyone listening has some clarity about what is involved in this bill. So the bill empowers the head of bench of a court to create directions or requirements in respect of COVID-19 which must be complied with in order to enter a courtroom. The person making the directions or imposing requirements must be satisfied that they are reasonably necessary in the interests of justice and that they are to protect the health and safety in the courts. A court security officer may ask a person who wants to enter or is in court to show evidence that they comply with COVID-19 requirements set by a head of bench and may deny entry or remove a person who does not comply. A person who has not complied with COVID-19 requirements may enter and remain in the area of the court if the presiding judicial officer considers it in the interests of justice to permit or require the person to do so. Additionally the bill enables a head of bench to make a protocol setting additional requirements relating to the selection and management of juries that are necessary to protect the health and safety in the courts on account of COVID-19. A judge on their own initiative will also be able to impose additional COVID-19 requirements on jurors during a trial. And I'll take a moment there just to note that I did ask the Minister yesterday in the committee of the whole House stage: what would be the potential remedy for a juror who felt that the judge had imposed requirements on them that they thought were a breach of their rights and what appeal rights they might have? I don't know if the Minister had entirely turned his mind to that aspect of this. And it's an important one because a judge may regulate the proceedings within the court but if they are not complied with the judge does have the potential discretion to hold a person in that court in contempt of court and they can actually hold them in custody. So it is an important point and one I don't know if the Minister agrees completely adequately when I questioned him on it yesterday but that's another matter. The bill also enables a court registrar or a judge to defer or excuse a person from jury service if they do not satisfy the registrar or judge that they comply with the COVID-19 juror requirements.National members participated at select committee in consideration of this bill having supported it during the first reading debate in the House. Support was based on three key factors. The first was that consistency that this is needed between the court system and the rest of New Zealand society in relation to COVID-19 restrictions—for example regarding vaccination status when the Government had passed legislation establishing what is commonly referred to as the traffic light framework in late 2021 it became clear that such a regime would not apply to the court system. The second key principle was on comity and we wish to respect the ability of the judicial branch to determine its own affairs to enable comity between the separate branches of Government. The context was allowing the judiciary to implement equivalent protections of those that apply elsewhere in New Zealand society and that is certainly an important matter that we have great respect for in this House and the independence between the separate branches of Government.The third was change. We noted the potential for temporary measures introduced for the purpose of responding to COVID-19 to be made permanent features of court systems—for example remote participation by audiovisual link for sentencing matters and all cases where the accused person consents. And certainly that is something that I can say from personal experience is of great value having appeared in numerous courts throughout the country. For various reasons the audiovisual system is of great value particularly in remote areas where a judge is not available and can be two to three hours' drive from court but is available via audiovisual link and it is also helpful if someone is in custody and doesn't have to sit in the back of a van for hours to get to and from court. So that is of great value and something I have certainly seen in my time practising in the courts in previous years before coming to the House.During the time that the committee considered this bill relatively short as it has been the Government announced that various key COVID-19 restrictions—for example vaccination status determining access to certain places were to be removed on 4 April 2022. Given that this bill will not be enacted until later and we have already passed that 4 April 2022 date and it's almost likely it will be later this month or next month the first two factors noted above namely the importance of consistency and comity no longer apply. This only leaves the third factor namely the desirability of obtaining permanent benefits from what would otherwise be merely temporary COVID-19 - related measures. And as suggested by the Auckland District Law Society submission the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 could be amended permanently by this bill to enable the hearing pleas and sentencing of willing defendants. National would support such a change being made by the bill but it wasn't advanced by the Labour Government. The majority of the committee members have advised that they didn't support that approach; however preferring the permanent reforms would be subject to greater consultation and consideration than is possible while enacting this bill.As I said in my earlier comments this is a bill that has come well after two years after the pandemic began. And as we are winding things down somewhat ironically on the day that the country moves into the orange framework it really is a case of the horse having bolted and the Government just playing catch-up with a piece of legislation that is only intended to be temporary in nature and in fact is to be repealed on the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed which may well be later this year. So the question is: why it took Labour so long to put this in place."