Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak in this the committee of the whole House stage of COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. Like colleagues on this side of the House from at least a couple of parties we do have significant questions about a piece of legislation that is being rushed through. The ink is barely drying on it and we have the prospect of this becoming the law of the land in a hugely complicated hugely significant way potentially in less than 24 hours plus the time it takes to have Royal assent given.I have very significant misgivings which I would like to be allayed by the Minister's responses to questions I have in relation to the courts and tribunals of New Zealand. This is a portfolio area of mine but should also be of interest to every member of Parliament and all those who care about the reasonable conduct of public life in New Zealand as protected by the courts. So my question which is an overarching one which I'll break down into a number of more specific points is: what effect does this legislation have on the courts of New Zealand? For example are judges who are duly appointed—and are not subject to political or indeed other branches of Government interference as to their employment—affected by the vaccine mandates or the operation of these orders in a way that would cause them to conduct the affairs of their courtroom in a way that is effectively directed by the Executive? For example is a witness to a court case required to be vaccinated and if he or she is not is he or she able to participate or not participate in accordance with this so-called traffic light system which we'll use by way of shorthand? Likewise defendants plaintiffs those who deserve to have their day in court—a constitutionally protected right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which along with other rights and freedoms contained therein you would not necessarily know if you're a casual observer but which we were assured by the Government it bears in mind as the Minister has stated perhaps in slightly patronising tone those on this side of the House who have been Ministers before know that such advice is privileged. Well others know that too and that doesn't lessen our desire to see the working see the justification at least to understand where the Government's head is at in terms of some of these restrictions.Of course it may be possible that there are justified limitations but the thing about justifying limitations is that one has to justify them. If one doesn't spell them out and if one spells them out in the form of a letter that is arriving on the desks of the legislators indeed the Attorney-General himself only received today presumably—23 November 2021 being today—the advice in relation to the consistency of this legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it begs belief that we should be expected to believe that a robust scrutiny has taken place in relation to consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.What about jurors? Can either of the Ministers indeed any of the Ministers—and I note that the Minister for Courts is here in the House I don't know if it's within the rules of the committee to allow him to comment in that capacity. Certainly I would welcome him taking a call even unofficially to provide his advice in relation to this if indeed he's turned his mind to it. What about jurors who are supposed to be selected? Twelve good men and true"—of course we'd say "good people" in this day and age—randomly selected by way of population not subject to limitations as a zealous Government might impose for you know perhaps perfectly valid public health reasons. What is the impact? What is the effect of that? The work that they would be undertaking you know affected work perhaps specified activities—who knows?How are the courts and tribunals of this country to be conducted in relation to this? Are they separate because it's a separate branch of Government and it's not for the executive or indeed Parliament to interfere with that? Or will they be required to play ball along those lines as well? Do the dictates of open justice which would allow all things being equal that members of the public can attend court hearings? What if we have more than 100 warm bodies in a courtroom—a number of whom would be sort of participants proper others who might be observers—does that fall foul of the traffic light system in certain levels according to this legislation?Huge constitutional implications. I would be surprised but delighted if the Ministers opposite have given any thought to it and I would certainly welcome the opportunity to hear from them now about what provisions they've made for that if indeed any at all and I look forward to then being able to ask a number of other questions in different relevant areas."