Pugh Maureen; McKee NicoleCOURTS (REMOTE PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we start with the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8 Amendments to Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010" and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I am pleased to be here to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill and I'd like to acknowledge the parties across the House for their support of this bill. This bill forms part of the Government's core priorities for this quarter. Improving court performance and access to justice is in the interests of all New Zealanders. The use of technologies to make the court more efficient and accessible will help us to achieve this goal and this bill reflects one step in that direction. Remote participation can reduce travel time and costs for participants in the community. Remote participation of defendants who are in custody reduces the risk of violent incidents by high-risk defendants occurring during transport or in court. Remote participation can also reduce transport and security costs for Corrections and Police. This bill improves and clarifies the law in relation to remote participation while preserving the ability of the judicial officers and the court registrars to control court proceedings. For instance it enables the court to impose conditions to protect the integrity of the court process. We will begin today by turning our attention to Part 1 of that bill. Part 1 contains two targeted changes to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act to enable greater use of remote participation in court proceedings. The first of these changes will allow victims to observe criminal trials and sentencing remotely if suitable technology is available and they wish to do so with the ability for a judicial officer or court registrar to direct otherwise if they consider that this would not be in the interests of justice. Remote observation will not be appropriate or available in all situations. For example natural justice requires that where a victim is also a witness in their trial they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses before giving evidence themselves. This amendment will give victims more options for how to choose to engage with the court process and help avoid the re-traumatisation that is often felt by victims in the courtroom. Importantly victims will still be able to attend in person if they so wish to do. This amendment will come into effect six months after the Royal Assent. This additional time is needed to allow for the development of new court processes and supporting material.The second change allows the use of audio links such as telephone conference calls for criminal proceedings that defendants do not attend and for appropriate civil and Family Court proceedings. The Act currently authorises the use of audio-visual technology only. This change will expand the number of people who are able to participate remotely and many people in the community who are involved in court proceedings do not have access to audio visual technology. With this change they will still be able to avoid the time cost and effort of travelling to court for short procedural hearings. Audio links will be able to be used only when the judicial officer or registrar is satisfied that the parties will be able to effectively comprehend and participate in the proceeding. Audio links would usually not be appropriate for participants who are vulnerable due to their age cognitive ability or language comprehension. In addition audio links will not be permitted for mental health proceedings which determine whether a person needs to be compulsorily detained and treated if the affected person is required to attend."