COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill

Members, we now come to the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. This is the debate on clause 1, “Title”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave has been requested for all provisions to be—leave is denied. The question is that clause 1 stand part. all those in favour say Aye—sorry. Sorry, I’m getting ahead of myself. I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So here we are, dealing with yet another piece of urgent legislation from a Government that has been very poor at managing itself over the last few months.

💬 Hon Members: What did you just do?

Well, I don’t know what you’re—I’m getting heckling from Ministers on the other side who don’t understand how the operations of Parliament operate. The only thing I’d say is that what we’ve seen is the constant introduction of bills that are rushed through the House under truncated periods where, ordinarily, New Zealanders would have had a chance to look at bills properly and debate them properly. But this one has been rushed through in order to try and bring about some rather minor improvements to how the courts could operate under the COVID-restriction environment. What we have come to expect from this Government is that if this bill finally works its way through Parliament and comes out the other side as enacted, it will be in operation too late to make much of a difference, because we have—as all New Zealanders are keenly aware—finally opened up and reduced some basic restrictions that were in place that were making life more difficult.

So this bill, in Part 1—there’s lots of discussions going on elsewhere. This bill focuses on three areas in Part 1, which are around the security side of things in order to try and reduce the barriers to the court security officers dealing with all the many things that come up in the COVID environment. But what the bill doesn’t do and what isn’t in Part 1 is any sort of significant change to the way that technology could be used to speed up the work of the courts, and I think what most people looking at the justice sector at the moment in this country—two things they’ll be asking themselves. One is why is it that we’ve got this substantial increase in violent crime across New Zealand, which is causing many New Zealanders great concern—and I heard a yawn from the other side. They’re not particularly interested in violent crime as an issue. It doesn’t fit with their overall sort of view of the world that crime is something that we should be concerned about and the victims of crime are something that we should be focused on.

Secondly, people looking at the justice sector look at the broader issue of the very slow movement of justice through the sector, the very long delays that New Zealanders are facing to get justice, and, in particular, the lives on hold for month after month, year after year, trying to get resolution to court practices. What has been astonishing in this process has been the slow uptake of technology within our court system. We heard yesterday and we saw the details yesterday that at least 29 courts in this country, up and down the country, have no access to any audiovisual facilities that would make it easier for them to get the work done during lockdown-type situations.

We’ll hear from the Minister of Justice, no doubt, saying, “Oh well, even though this bill is too late”—and it’s too little, too late—“you never know, we might go back into a COVID sort of lockdown.”, and yet two years into this situation, they’ve still made very little progress when it comes to the basic technology that would help so much of the work of the courts to carry on rather than being stopped, as they have been over the last few months. I mean, it only took the protesters and rioters over the street—which this Government refuses to have any accountability for and doesn’t want the Justice Committee to ask basic questions about—to shut down the Court of Appeal for a week or so and to knock off cases that people were wanting to get the outcomes to. Everywhere you look, you have examples of the courts not being able to operate.

So here we are, and we’re left with what we’ve got. The bill does a few things. It makes a few little tweaks. It will come in too little, too late, and yet the things that would actually make a difference, this Minister hasn’t got around to dealing with. So there’s a lot of work to do on that score.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. It might help Paul Goldsmith, the member who just resumed his seat, to understand that there are no parts of this bill, so you might actually want to read it. We’re debating this clause by clause, so we’re actually debating the title: clause 1 of the bill. The member referred to Part 1, which makes me think that the member hasn’t even read the bill himself, which would pretty much be the case because he didn’t refer to the title at all during his first contribution. So I’m looking forward to the following contributions from the member.

I also want to embed the track record that the member has with numbers, because, as we know, his track record as the finance spokesperson—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Ah, ah—

—I’m getting to the point—for the Opposition was sketchy. The member quoted a number—29 facilities, I believe. That is wrong. Again, the validity of the member’s numbers have been called into question because they are wrong. It is 12, and by the end of the year, we will have addressed nine of those court facilities to make sure that there are audiovisual links in there in order to do the kinds of things that we need to do to make sure that our court facilities are more efficient. So for those who may have stuck around for the five minutes of that contribution, which in most parts was irrelevant to the piece of legislation before us, I think you can take it from the fact that the member doesn’t know that there are no parts in the bill and has got his numbers wrong that the validity of pretty much everything that the member says in this debate is worth zero.

So can I thank the judiciary and can I thank the senior leadership and the staff of the Ministry of Justice, and also the practitioners of law, represented through the New Zealand Law Society, for the effort that they have put in over the last two years to ensure, under challenging and trying circumstances, that justice has continued to be served. I think, out of a crisis you always forge stronger relationships, and I think that’s certainly been the case for those making sure that justice can be served.

Obviously, under the alert level system it was a very rare occasion for participants to be physically in a court or tribunal room. It was only the most serious of cases that may have been dealt with in a face-to-face manner, and as we moved to the COVID protection framework, on which we’ve made announcements today, there were more in-court hearings held. This piece of legislation will ensure that we can support the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary and those working in our courtrooms to continue to be able to have certainty about how they run the day-to-day operations of courts and jury trials, and I think that’s important. There is a backlog of cases that came about because of the cessation of cases during the lockdown, and we need to make sure that we deal with those. So, in a very simple way, this piece of legislation gives certainty to the judiciary about some of the decisions that they make, noting their independence, and also too the likes of security operations staff who are employed by the Ministry of Justice about what they can and cannot do in terms of making sure people who are entitled to and who want to enter our courthouses and tribunals around the country can do that in a safe manner.

I’m sure there’ll be questions that come about, and I might try and pre-empt those because of some of the contributions that were made in the second reading speeches last night, particularly those of the ACT Party and Nicole McKee—who I have a lot of respect for. I think she always arrives at this House and argues points as opposed to politics. I’m always happy to debate both. But there was some concern. While they have fundamental differences with the Government’s continuation of this passing of legislation—and we think we need to make sure that it is there—there was a fundamental question about the length of time that some of the temporary measures may be in place, especially in and around deferral of jury service. My understanding is that the maximum period of deferral of jury service as it stands now—the normal operation is that that can be deferred for up to two years. So the ability, once this piece of legislation is repealed, along with other COVID legislation, potentially, later on, is that that continuation of deferral will continue, basically, because the current settings allow deferral of up to two years.

Again, I think the main point of debate that has been had up until this point in terms of this piece of legislation is whether it is still required. It is. While we are certainly pulling our way out of the current COVID situation, we don’t know what’s going to happen, and between the passing of this legislation and any expiration or the lifting of the measures within this piece of legislation, I think the judiciary and those who operate our courts will welcome the support to enable the full and effective and efficient and safe operation of our courtrooms. I’m happy to answer any questions that members may have.

I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and I’ll just remind members that this is a debate on clause 1, which is the title.

Well, if that’s the case, I feel the need to just respond to the Minister of Justice’s answer—the previous answer—where he chose to question the numbers around the courts and their audiovisual facilities, and this is in relation to a bill called the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. He said that my figures were wrong. They’re based, obviously, on his answer to a written question, and he said that there’s only 12 courts that don’t have the video equipment. Maybe he could just listen and tally up, and maybe his maths will be good.

So Dargaville doesn’t have one—that’s one—Kaitāia doesn’t have one—that’s two. Papakura doesn’t have one. Pukekohe: no. Huntly, a satellite court: no. Morrinsville: no. Te Awamutu: no. Te Kūiti, a satellite: no. Ōpōtiki: no. Thames: no. Waihi: no. Taumarunui—I think we’re up to 12 already—Tokoroa, Hastings, Ruatōria—there’s none there, so you’ve got to get on your horse and come down from Hicks Bay if you want to go to the court there. Waipukurau is not there. Wairoa, Hawera—not there. Marton’s not there. There’s nothing in Taihape. There’s nothing in Dannevirke. There’s nothing on the Chatham Islands, of course—which would be useful if it was. Nothing in Wellington’s Employment Court. Nothing in Wellington’s Māori Land Court. There’s nothing in the Wellington tribunals. Nothing in Kaikōura. Nothing in Westport. Nothing in Ōāmaru. Nothing in Alexandra. Nothing in Gore. Nothing in Queenstown. I think that list adds up to more than 12, and so if the Minister wants to come into the House and—none of them have the full video.

So, after two years when the rest of the world has discovered something called Zoom and the other half of the world has discovered something called Teams, the court system still carries on as if nothing has happened, nothing has changed. I know, Madam Chair, Madam Speaker, Mr Speaker, or whoever you are—Mr McKelvie—that you might be wanting to narrow this debate, but the point is, just in response to the Minister’s question, that what we’re trying to get to with this piece of legislation is what we’ve got here. They’ve brought in a piece of legislation which is not doing very much. It will arrive too late, given the fact that the restrictions have been withdrawn, and yet meantime, the things that actually would have made a difference in terms of improving New Zealanders’ access to justice, swift justice, so that they can move on with their lives—such as the implementation of audiovisual facilities. They haven’t done the—well, I think the better title would have been the “COVID-19 Non-response Bill” and then we might have got somewhere. But that’s not what was delivered at all so far.

[Audio missing]—the bill is, of course, highly relevant to this—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Can I just—excuse me. Order! Can you just start again, because we missed the first bit—sorry.

Thank you very much. I don’t know whether that was a connection issue or what, but thank you for allowing me the chance to engage again on this, the first clause of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill, and I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Minister in the chair tonight, albeit remotely in my case. The title of the bill is indicative, I think, of the attitude of the Government towards the court system as it pertains to COVID-19 response in a couple of key ways. I do want to highlight that in a way that the title of the bill is apt, but actually a serious piece of the puzzle is missing, and it’s in relation to the fact that we are talking about court safety, but not court efficiency.

The phrase “(Court Safety)” is in the title, of course. That’s within brackets after “COVID-19 Response”, and it indicates a desire on the part of the Government—quite rightly, of course—to ensure a court system that is safe for its participants. The public health perspective is obvious. COVID-19 brings with it serious challenges from that point of view, and it’s right, of course, that the Government takes into account those and commits as best it can for the safety, and, of course, I use the word “Government” in its broadest sense. That’s the different branches of the Government, so of course the judiciary is part of that.

The Government of the day, as represented by the Minister of Justice in this case, is looking to make the courts more safe, but, of course, there should be a dual purpose in all of these COVID-19 response types of bills which acknowledges the need for not only safety but also efficiency. If that seems as though it’s an emphasis that’s misplaced, I suppose it would be an easy and obvious criticism but a misplaced one in itself if there were criticism that we should be considering efficiency in the same breath as safety. The reality is we have a court system that is hopelessly slow. It’s outdated in ways that my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has described. The situation has considerably worsened over the last several years, and so for any legislation to come before this House affecting the operation of the court system and not to take seriously and—as reflected in the title—not to include that twin imperative of efficiency as well as safety, I’m afraid, is an indictment on the Government’s approach.

My question to the Minister, obviously, will be seeking a response to that, and I will proceed to the second point that I did want to make in relation to clause 1, the title clause. It’s in relation to the lack of acknowledgment of the tribunals that we have in this country. We have a court system, often referred to as such—sometimes “the judicial branch of Government” is the way we refer to it—but, of course, we have a huge network of tribunals, authorities, and the like in this country. They’ve been woefully neglected by the Government in general terms and, certainly in response to COVID-19, there’s been little or nothing that has been done to make them more efficient and, until recently, more safe either. So the Government’s lack of attention and care in regard to the tribunals and authorities and the like in this country that perform such important roles within our justice system, sadly, is reflected in the courts, but not the courts and tribunal moniker for this legislation. So I would welcome the Minister’s explanation as to why he didn’t see fit to acknowledge and include their important role in our system.

We are debating the title clause, and so I thank the member for making a reference to it in his contribution. As with safety goes efficiency. If there were disruptions abounding because of the lack of safety measures being taken in our courtrooms, then you would get the kind of disruptions that the judiciary and the Minister of Justice would not like to see because of the interruption to the safe and efficient operation of the courts. So I think I will leave that point at that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to speak to clause 1, the title clause of this bill, which will soon become an Act with the majority that Labour has in the House.

So this bill is called the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. Now, I just would suggest that the Minister could call this the “Too Little, Too Late Act 2022”. I note that the pandemic began at the beginning of 2020. The country went into lockdown in March 2022—that was over two years ago—and it’s only now in April, and we’re in the 13th day of April 2022, that we’re in committee stage talking about enacting the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. So I would suggest that the Minister could reconsider calling it the “Too Little, Too Late Act”.

I think back to 2020, and at that time I was working in the courts in Invercargill, and sometimes we were connecting by a form of audiovisual link. Everyone was trying to figure out how to make things work in the courts, and sometimes we were going into the courts and having appearances with people who were getting themselves in a bit of a strife, but everyone was trying to make it work. Everyone has made it work since then to this date, but now we’re getting to a point where today we’re going to orange, as the Government has announced—the orange setting in the traffic light framework—and yet we’re talking about bringing in a COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill which will expire when the COVID settings expire. So the Minister could also call it the “We Don’t Need This Act Any More Bill”.

I note the contribution from my colleague Paul Goldsmith, who talked about the Ruatōria court. I’ve spent a little bit of time as a child in Tolaga Bay, and so I know this area. Horses are still well used, and it’s cool to see the kids on the horses. But I have heard stories from judges of the horses turning up to court, and so it makes me think that the Minister could call this the “Horse Has Bolted Act 2022”. It would work perfectly. It really fits this bill—I mean, the horse has bolted. The country has moved on. The world has moved on. If you want to be a little more to the point, we could call it the “Whoops, the Train Has Left the Station Act 2022”.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Subsidised, at 200 bucks a pop.

But we’re not talking about subsiding anything; we’re just talking about the train leaving the station, and suddenly Labour has realised: “Whoops, two years have gone past since the pandemic began and we better do something about these courts. What about the court safety? Oh, let’s just bring in something.” Time’s over, but the train has left the station and the world has moved on.

Another name the Minister could consider would be the “Time Warp Legislation Bill”, taking us back to the beginning of 2020. But the world has moved on, and maybe that would be a good name for the bill, just to make it clear to the people in New Zealand what this bill is really about: “The World Has Moved on Act 2022”—it’s no longer needed.

I note that this is a temporary bill—well, that is the way it’s framed. It will be temporary. It’ll no longer be needed once the COVID framework is no longer needed. So maybe that’s what it could be called. Maybe it could be called something to reflect the fact it is temporary—“There’s Nothing More Permanent than a Temporary Solution Act 2022”—because if you keep on bringing in these pieces of legislative architecture, it becomes more and more difficult to remove them. So maybe that’s something that the Minister could consider.

But, look, we’re here at a point where the Omicron wave is decreasing. New Zealand is largely getting on with it to the point that the Government has decided to allow Australians back into New Zealand as of today. We’re now moving into the orange framework, and yet we’re talking about bringing in the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. Maybe another name for this could be the “Two Years Too Late Act 2022”.

I always attempt to try and address members’ questions. I don’t think I addressed a question from Chris Penk that he posed in his contribution earlier on, where he discussed the issue of tribunals. I’d like to push back on the point that Mr Penk made. There were changes to the operations of many tribunals, especially during our level 4 and 3 lockdowns, to make sure that they continued to operate, whether they did that either remotely or by papers. It was certainly something that we did to make sure that decisions were continuing to be made—the Tenancy Tribunal is one example.

I’d like to acknowledge Mr Mooney for his attempt to try and stick to the issues around clause 1, around the title, but I also just remind him that this pandemic has been around for two years. For about a year the alert level settings were in place and we are operating under a different situation right now, and look, in some ways this piece of legislation will be in place for a short amount of time—we hope—in order to give the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice some certainty. But we don’t know that for sure, and I’m sure that if we weren’t passing this legislation and things got worse, Opposition members would be crying, “Why didn’t you do something?” So we’ve got a framework here in order to make sure that if things do worsen—and we’re crossing our fingers that it doesn’t—there is a framework in which the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary can work through to make sure that justice can continue to be done.

I move, That the question be now put.