Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Minister I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. I understand we're probably sort of getting towards the tail end of this but these are important questions I want to ask and hope to get answers from you about.So in Schedule 2 inserting new Schedule 1AB in the Criminal Procedure Act—we're looking at pages 8 and 9 in front of us—it talks about audiovisual links and it says in particular on page 9 audiovisual link or AVL in relation to a proceeding means facilities that enable both audio and visual communication between or to be received by participants when some or all of them are not physically present at the place of hearing for all or part of the proceeding" and my question here is: does the Minister envisage that where appropriate things like Zoom or Microsoft Teams could be used because I note that the courts tend to have a preference for secure communications in their audiovisual link. But this seems to leave it open for a broader application for using tools that are commonly used now—and in fact we're using in the House—for something like Zoom for example. So that's my first question.My next question is over the page on page 10 under Schedule 3: Part 1 "Temporary amendments to Juries Act". I note that it says that "(2) The temporary provisions set out in clauses 3(2) and 21 of Schedule 2 apply during the period—(a) beginning with the repeal of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020; and (b) ending on the second anniversary of the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed." So my question here is: why has the Government decided to end those provisions two years after the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 ends? My third question Minister is—moving to pages 14 and 15—referring to the powers of judges. So in particular down the bottom there at clause 4 in new Schedule 2 being inserted in the Juries Act it states that "(1) A head of bench may make a protocol setting out additional requirements" and then I'll go over to clause 6 "Judge may impose requirements on jurors for particular trial". I note it says "(1) A Judge may on their own initiative impose requirements on jurors for a particular trial if the Judge thinks that the requirements are reasonably necessary in the interests of justice and to protect the health and safety in the courts to take account of the effects of COVID 19." Now I acknowledge that on its face that seems fine but my question is: has the Minister considered New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications here for a juror who feels that their freedom of movement or association or other freedoms have been impacted by the judge's decision and consideration given to recourse to appeal the judge's decision because I note that a judge may hold a juror in contempt. It has been done in the past and they have been imprisoned. So there is a potentially significant issue for a juror if they feel that a judge has imposed requirements on them and then they've been found to be in contempt of those conditions that have been provided for them. So I would appreciate it if the Minister could refer to those three points in particular. Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): The clauses that the member referred to around audiovisual and audio links is just embedding what is already there. I guess in response to the member's general question you want to make sure that it's secure as possible. I'm not sure which platform the Ministry of Justice uses but I'm sure you'd want it a little bit more secure than any old Zoom link for security purposes. The second question around the different time frames: we obviously want this piece of legislation to expire at the same time as the primary legislation around COVID. The maximum amount of time that you can defer someone's jury service I understand is two years. So technically if someone has deferred their jury service at the very end of this piece of legislation then the ability to control that deferral will need to be able to go for another two years. I think the member's third and final question was about the protocols that a judge can have and that can change in a particular case. If a protocol was in place in a courtroom or within a tranche of courts—whether that be the High Court or the District Court for instance—each member of the judiciary has the ability to manage that courtroom in the way in which they see fit. So if they believe that a jury member should stay there despite their adherence to the safety rules which is in the interests of justice—if they can manage that then it is within the purview of each member of the judiciary to manage that in the way that they see fit."