Penk Chris; Salesa JennyCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I respond on behalf of the National Party in relation to the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. We have made tolerably clear throughout the legislative process that whereas our position at the first reading was to support the bill in the belief and expectation that it would be fit for purpose and necessary at the time of its passing clearly that is no longer the case. So I do want to focus in my contribution on why that is so.So a bit of history first of all. It was late last year that Parliament passed the so-called traffic light legislation more formally the protection framework etc. At that time National members in the House having noticed even in the short period of time that we were given to scrutinise that bill before it was rushed through with indecent haste—it became clear to us that there was no specific mention of how the regime of traffic lights vaccination mandates passes and so forth would apply if at all to courts. So we asked the question: did it in fact apply and if so what specific provision would be made for the particular circumstances that are so important in relation to Kiwis' access to justice the right to be safe when compelled to attend hearings and so on? The response at that time which was reasonable as far as it went was that that legislation didn't apply and that something separate was appropriate for the court system. We accepted the Government at its word that it would be providing something bespoke in that space in due course—one would have thought at the same time would be appropriate but perhaps as soon as possible thereafter. So imagine our surprise when it was not until the following year namely 2022 in March of this year that the Minister finally got around to introducing into the House legislation that would provide some guidance as to what procedures and certainty and clarity might be provided to those working in the court system in the context of an Omicron outbreak of COVID-19. The fundamental question really for the Minister and the Government in seeking to justify the ongoing passage of this legislation noting that we're at its third reading today of course is whether there have been defects in the system in the meantime caused by the fact that this hasn't been on the statute book and how that can be justified and how the delays in the Minister getting around to introducing the legislation can be justified.Alternatively if it was not needed for the last three or four months then why is it needed now? The great irony is of course that it was needed previously but is much less needed now. Members opposite of course may not wish to take my word for it in terms of what is required in relation to COVID-19 response but they should at least take the word of their own party leader namely the Prime Minister who announced on I think it was late March but in any case before 4 April that on that date various restrictions in relation to vaccine mandates and pass requirements would be lifted. And so that at the time seemed like a milestone. Of course with this bill having been introduced but obviously made redundant by that announcement it seemed clear that surely the Government would walk away from what it had provided too little too late but at least realise the error of its ways at that time. So the facts changed and the National Party updated its position accordingly. The same could not be said ultimately however for the Government who through the select committee and its members on that are determined to push through with this legislation none the less which is now imposing restrictions that were needed to provide the clarity and certainty that the Minister is now talking about in late last year. I do want to acknowledge the select committee process though because on a more positive note I was pleased to be able to join the Justice Committee a body of which I'm not normally a member but was able to participate in those proceedings. So I thank its chair and its members the officials the advisers and of course all those who submitted into the select committee process: a mixture of practitioners professional bodies for the legal profession but also ordinary New Zealanders who were interested to know how they would be affected by this. There was some positive commentary there was some negative commentary but overall it was a very worthwhile process. So I do just want to acknowledge that we have had positive interaction in the democratic process through the select committee albeit as I say rather late. The whole thing has been rather late and the select committee process indeed itself was shortened in a bid to spare the Government's blushes in relation to the late passage of this legislation. At the committee of the whole House stage—as recently as last night so not even 24 hours ago—the Minister made a couple of points that he I suppose thought were valid in relation to the National Party's position. One is that he accused us of crystal-ball gazing which as I said at the time I found remarkable given that at the time that the original traffic light legislation was passed it was we who brought to the attention of the House the fact that there was nothing tailored to the courts [Audio issues] Secondly he made allegations of essentially a political stance being taken which is pretty amusing to say the least given that we'd supported at first reading in good faith the bill because we could see that at that time only a month ago but [Audio issues] at least somewhat made sense and was worth exploring in the select committee process. For that reason as I say we supported the bill and decided of course as always that when a bill has passed its reading and is going into a select committee process that if changes can be made that are positive then whether or not we support the overall passage of the bill it would be worthwhile engaging in that discussion constructively and so we did. Some positive changes were made and we supported those accordingly with amendments at the select committee stage. But we did none the less have questions and we do still have questions that relate to certain key aspects of the bill—that it doesn't seem to us the Minister has been sufficiently on top of it to give us much confidence and more to the point the justice community and those involved in it the confidence of how this thing should be operating going forward. A key example as highlighted by a submitter at the select committee is in relation to court security officers. Under the bill they're expected to provide legal advice in effect about why they are excluding persons from the ability to attend court or denying them access or indeed removing them and that seems to us a strange way to go about dealing with fundamental rights and freedoms of New Zealanders in a courtroom context. We're also not satisfied that the Minister has given much if any attention to the practical implications of providing audiovisual link and audio link facilities for courtrooms and tribunals throughout the country. Now to be fair that's outside the ambit of this bill. One wouldn't expect that to be included in the legislation per se but it's part of the overall network and framework of justice that the Minister and his Government are responsible in conjunction with the courts themselves for providing and it's clear that little attention has been given to that or indeed to making positive changes through this bill that would have a permanent nature and survive the temporary passage and then repeal of the legislation. In my remaining time I did just want a note on the subject of comity that is to say the relationship between different branches of Government—of the judicial and the legislative branches—we are anxious to ensure that our courts do have the ability to control their own affairs of course in relation to COVID-19 and other matters and the Minister and other Labour MPs have made noises along those lines too. Again that is all sensible in so far as it goes. But the Minister does need to explain that if this bill is providing the ability of courtrooms to arrange their own affairs now and it is to be repealed then what remains after that. I think it would be helpful for the Minister perhaps in subsequent legislation or by engaging with the judiciary in some other way to make clear the expectation that the clarifications and the certainty provided by this legislation supposedly will survive its passage and repeal.In my remaining time Mr Speaker I do just want—excuse me Madam Speaker I think; it is always difficult to gauge remotely not engaging physically with the House. But at last count we are disappointed that opportunities for change such as suggested throughout the submission process aren't being picked up as permanent features. The Minister and the Government have said that they will consider these in due course. The time is now. The time was last year. It's too little. It's too late. We cannot support the passage of this bill through the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.