Flavell Te Ururoa: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12276. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker tenatatau katoa iteneipoi a tatau e koreroneimo te ahuatanga o teneipire. I tonapanuitangatuaruaaneitonungawhakaaro o te PatiMaori. Kai te noho ahuarangiruamatou o te PatiMaoriiteneiwa. Tino pai ki a au te ahuatanga o ngakorerokuaputai te ponei na taha e rua a tae rano ki a matau e noho nei a ki tenei mema ikorero ki muai a au. Pai ki a au te whakarongo ki anakorero kitonawhakamarama otira ngakorero o te RopuReipa a Honore Lianne Dalziel. Ka mutu ki te honore mema a David Parker imuai a ia ka mutu ki te Minita. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and greetings to us all as we address aspects of this bill tonight. Here are some views from the Maori Party in its second reading. At this point in time some of us in the Maori Party are somewhat uncertain about it. For me personally I enjoyed what I heard from speakers on both sides tonight including ourselves seated here. I liked what the Hon Lianne Dalziel had to say in terms of what the Labour Party think about the bill and her explanations. I enjoyed the Hon David Parker’s contribution as well earlier on and then the one from the Minister. 
] 
It is clear from the Minister of Justice’s speech on the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill that the bill’s purpose is to enable greater use of audiovisual links in New Zealand courts. We know that information technology advances are being seen everywhere so it is probably appropriate that we move in that direction. I have really enjoyed tonight’s debate and the views that have been put forward. I suppose that it is balancing out the benefits versus the downsides of this legislation and that is where the Maori Party’s view sits at the moment. 
I say to the Minister that the Maori Party is prepared to let the bill go further on its course and to give it some support knowing full well that we certainly want to advance some of the ideas put forward by Dr Kennedy Graham. I understood his korero because it was along the same lines. These are some of the concerns. Peneii a matau o te PatiMaori e peraano hoki ngawhakaaro. 
[ 
We of the Maori Party share those views 
.] 
If we are to look at the benefits I think it is clear that costs will be reduced in the court process if the participants are not required to travel from one end of the country to the other or even to travel half the country. Instead the court will go to them. That is good. Pai tonutera. We have an expectation of improved safety and security for all of those involved in criminal cases. Pai ano hoki tera. [ 
That is fine as well. 
] We recognise that increased access to justice will come because the audiovisual links will enable matters to be heard in provincial areas without the need for the judge to travel on circuit. We know that a large number of court cases have been backed up for some time. In my area in Waiariki getting to court has sometimes been a long long time between drinks. 
We reckon that there might be an improved quality of evidence by making it easier for witnesses to participate. We hope that there will be enhanced efficiency in relation to the evidence of expert witnesses and interpreters. We hope that the system will assist victims and witnesses to appear in court without being confronted in person by the accused. 
I certainly latch on to the discussion from Kennedy Graham and Labour members in respect of the fundamental right they have talked about—that is the accused has the right to attend his or her case in person. I hear that debate. 
These advances all appear to be relatively non-contentious and straightforward but—and of course there are obviously some buts—the hub of our concerns rests with clause 6 in Part 2. It can be said that our concerns revolve round the safeguards that protect from the impact of technology the right of the defendant to a fair trial in criminal matters which is pretty much the debate at the moment. Of course we in the Maori Party believe in the pursuit of justice—te whaingai te tika nga te pono—and we rest a lot of faith in the legal system’s ability to deliver that. 
The strange thing is that in looking at the submissions—and I understand there were about eight submitters—we saw that the Human Rights Commission’s sole concern seemed to be about the speed with which this initiative is progressing. In the short time available to make a submission on this bill the commission was unable to complete a full analysis of all the types of cases that would come under the broad categorisation that the bill anticipates. The human rights implications in any non-criminal case involving detention or other penalties need to be carefully considered. 
From our perspective we want to be assured that the use of audiovisual links actually improves court efficiency safety and security and that it does so without causing harm to any person. When we were looking over the submissions the New Zealand Law Society brought to our attention the statement in the explanatory note that the bill will ensure that all audiovisual link facilities are installed in courts and that they can be used to their full potential but that they must be treated with caution. It suggested that although it is desirable that audiovisual systems should be used to the fullest extent possible they should be used only where appropriate. That is a minor detail but in that sense it is still a caution to note on our part. 
We will be looking for advice on the writ of habeas corpus—that is the writ to protect persons from being harmed by the judicial system. This again is an important legal instrument that safeguards the rights and freedoms of the individual and we hope that it will not be sacrificed by any of the moves being made in this bill. 
We have said a number of times in this House that the Maori Party supports a restorative justice system where victims are empowered. We want to know that court proceedings will be conducted in a safe environment that will ensure the physical safety of all court users. 
Finally I will turn to the submission from the Whitireia Community Law Centre. It told the select committee that it agrees with the overall purpose of the bill to provide for the greater use of audiovisual links. However the centre queries the effectiveness of the measure and queries how audiovisual links will be used within courts especially when used for participants in criminal proceedings. 
We have heard stories of defendants who have attacked the judiciary court officials and others. We will support this bill at its second reading but we want to know that safety is assured for all in the court and that the right of a defendant to a fair trial is protected as well. We will be looking out for advice on that matter during the Committee stage. 
I say in closing that we will be paying close attention to the discussion and hopefully picking up on the key points. I am not a lawyer but I do understand the general principle that was stated earlier by a number of members. We hope that those members’ concerns can be addressed. We look forward to having some Supplementary Order Papers and also to working constructively with the Minister and with other parties to see whether we can come to a place where we will all be happy. In those circumstances we will be supporting this bill at its second reading but with the proviso that we will be taking a very careful note of what happens at the Committee stage and into the third reading. Kia ora tatou.