Parker David; Salesa JennyCOVID-19 RESPONSE (COURTS SAFETY) LEGISLATION BILLFirst ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) (remote) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 March and that the committee has the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day in which the House has been sitting and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196.I'm sure we agree across the House that access to the courts is a cornerstone of a fair and democratic society and that the judiciary must be able to achieve access to justice while keeping the courts and all participants as safe as is possible. In the near term as the country responds to the impacts of Omicron more proceedings of courts are happening remotely. None the less in-person hearings remain very important and this bill is necessary to support safe physical in-person court proceedings. When people attend court they must have a reasonable assurance of safety. This bill will help enable this in a number of ways. It will remove current legal barriers facing the judiciary and the Ministry of Health when addressing health and safety risks in the courts and in some tribunals whilst also ensuring access to justice and that the rights of people are preserved. Physical court proceedings do present a risk of COVID-19 transmission. However there are many instances where the physical process is the fairest way to decide cases and therefore must be able to continue where possible. This bill will not change a person's entitlement to access the courts when they are legally compelled to do so—for example if they are a criminal defendant even if they don't meet the proposed entry requirements. It's important to note that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies and will continue to apply to the actions of the judiciary and the ministry meaning that all of the requirements will need to be consistent with that Act. COVID-19 has largely been kept out of the courts prior to Omicron even when it has been circulating in the community. However the safety measures used previously are not sustainable long term. They came at the cost of postponing many hearings particularly jury trials and restricting the number of people accessing the court. It is untenable to keep postponing hearings particularly jury trials. This is true for those defendants in custody while awaiting trial and also for victims families and others involved in court proceedings. Ongoing delays can of course delay the exercise of justice and prolong the distress that is occasioned by proceedings. So this bill allows the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to address the COVID-19 risks in the courts.It is the judiciary and the ministry that are responsible for the safe running of the courts. They have prepared the courts as far as possible to operate under COVID. They've introduced new measures including more remote participation vaccine requirements for ministry staff and contractors staggered court hearings and entry requirements. They've delayed some jury trials and I'd note that some of these actions have been taken by the judiciary themselves not by the Ministry of Justice. However they are encountering some legal barriers some of which I suspect were accidental at the time and this bill is necessary to strengthen and clarify the ability of the judiciary and the ministry to manage issues which arise. It's also necessary to remove the legislative barriers that are preventing the judiciary from implementing safety requirements they believe are necessary to support safe jury trials. Without these changes people who are attending court many of whom are legally compelled to could be exposed to a heightened risk of COVID-19. Without changes some people may be unwilling or unable to attend court because of safety concerns. Surveys indicate there is a public concern about serving as a juror in the current environment and representatives of the legal profession have indicated significant concerns amongst lawyers about the safety of some court processes which also threatens to undermine the safe functioning and efficient functioning of the courts. Some people may also seek to challenge the outcomes of their cases because of the impact of safety measures without these changes. If these risks eventuate then further delays in access to justice could occur disrupting court business and increasing the already lengthening number of cases awaiting jury trial. I would like to reinforce that the bill will not change a person's entitlement to access courts where they're legally compelled to do so even if they don't meet the general entry requirements. The bill is an omnibus bill and it makes three sets of changes. Importantly the changes allow the heads of bench that's the senior members of each court or tribunal to impose safety requirements for those divisions or courts. This means that requirements can be introduced consistently across for example a court or tribunal. All of the provisions are temporary. They will only exist for the period required to manage the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the bill will be repealed when the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. A few transitional provisions relating to the deferral and excusal of people summoned for jury service will continue in effect for a further two years. The three classes of change firstly go to the judicial and ministry powers as to managing entry in the courts. This is achieved by amending the Courts Security Act 1999 clarifying that the judiciary and ministry can set and enforce conditions for entering and remaining in courts and in some tribunals to take into account COVID-19. The second class of changes are judicial powers to permit the judiciary to safely manage jury processes. The bill amends the Juries Act 1981 to allow judges to set additional requirements for selecting and managing juries to reduce the mix of close and prolonged mixing of proposed jurors and juries. It also permits a registrar or judge to excuse or defer a person's jury service if they confirm they do not meet the requirements. The bill enables jury selections to take place in venues other than the court building to reduce mingling in the courts. Thirdly the bill clarifies how safety measures relate to open justice protection. The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to clarify that the right of the public and media to be present at criminal hearings does not affect the ability of the judiciary and the ministry to conduct hearings remotely or to set requirements relating to entry and remaining in the courts. Without these changes there is a risk that remote hearings could be inconsistent with the existing law and open to challenge. The bill carefully balances access to justice and safety requirements or considerations. It strikes this careful balance by making the changes temporary and including a number of safeguards. Notwithstanding the new general rules the judiciary and the ministry can only set new requirements where reasonably necessary and in the interests of justice to respond to COVID related health and safety risks. As I said before the requirements even then need to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The bill also includes a safety valve so that judicial and ministry safety requirements do not inadvertently compromise a person's rights. The bill gives a discretion to the judge to direct that a person can enter or remain in a court or participate on a jury where this is necessary in the interests of justice even if the person does not comply with the safety requirements. The judiciary and the ministry will set the requirements subject to the safeguards I've described. I understand they have two key priorities: strengthening the foundation of existing entry requirements and setting new requirements to support the safe selection and running of jury trials. I understand the judiciary's considering requirements under which all potential jurors will be asked for evidence of vaccination but an alternative will exist: a recent negative COVID-19 test and willingness to undertake testing during the course of a trial. A person could also be deferred or excused from jury service if they are not willing to meet these requirements. A judge will also have a discretion to allow a person who did not meet these safety measures to none the less be a juror if this was necessary in the interests of justice. A person who has been deferred or excused from jury service can appeal against that decision. For the vast majority of people these changes won't change the way—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The Minister's time has come to an end. The question is that the motion be agreed to.