Pillay Lynne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12282. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill along with my colleagues. I share their concerns. 
We have heard the previous speaker and other speakers talk about the efficiency gains this bill will bring. But I would say to the House that we have not really seen any evidence of inefficiency under the current system. We in Labour are not fundamentally opposed to the use of remote participation. Rather we believe that in this instance with new technology with new ways it is really important to err very much on the side of caution. We have heard the arguments of efficiency and access to justice on one side but on the other side we have the very important principle that justice should be seen to be served. The question my colleagues have raised and I raise concerns the right of the accused to be present in the court to put his or her case and to participate fully in the court process. With remote participation one is not able to participate fully. Also victims have the right to confront the accused. 
Certainly we on this side of the House have no problem whatsoever if the parties consent to an audiovisual link being used in substantive criminal proceedings. Our concern is that the consent of either the accused or the victim is not required and at this very early stage that is very risky. Certainly this Government has taken some risks and has let nothing stand in its way in terms of implementing legislation no matter how unprincipled or how inappropriate that legislation may be. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s right. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right says my friend and colleague Darien Fenton. Look at the ridiculous “three strikes” legislation—an absolute joke of legislation. The Ministry of Justice was prevented from providing good advice to the Law and Order Committee. What do we see happening around Christchurch in terms of disbanding Environment Canterbury? Again we see the Government riding roughshod not applying caution and not applying the key principles of democracy and justice. Of course on my home turf there is the abysmal situation of the Auckland super-city where all the concerns that Aucklanders raised have been largely ignored—as have the concerns raised by many people throughout the select committee process of this bill. That is not good for democracy and it is not good for justice. It is indeed a very very worrying trend. 
We are not saying that there are no worthwhile measures in this bill and that audiovisual links are inappropriate to use—we are certainly not saying that. But we are very disappointed. We in the Labour Party—certainly the Hon David Parker Jacinda Ardern and I—believe that we are well considered— 
Darien Fenton 
: Very reasonable. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We are very reasonable people—very reasonable. Nobody in this House would say that David Parker Jacinda Ardern and I are unreasonable people. I do not think there has ever been any evidence of that. It is rather sad that the very constructive points we raised—which were actually raised by the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society—were largely ignored. Perhaps if there had been more of an open-minded attitude from the National Government and some minor changes had been made the bill before the House would be one we are very happy to support. I think the loss of National’s ability to listen and take those concerns on board is a lose-lose situation. It is a loss in terms of the good parts of the legislation going forward and it is also a loss in terms of justice not being served not only on behalf of the accused but also on behalf of the victim. I think that that is pretty rich from a Government that boasts ad nauseam about how committed it is to victims and victims’ rights. 
Su’a 
 William Sio 
: Hogwash. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Su’a William Sio says it is hogwash and I agree with him completely. If this Government was committed to seeing justice served and seeing victims truly cared for then we would not see the debacle that we are seeing at the moment with accident compensation. I find it inappropriate that we have a Minister for ACC who is an absolute shocker. I would say that out of all the Ministers for ACC there have been and there have been some doozies from National Nick Smith would be the worst. Why? Because that Minister has completely disregarded the voice of victims in New Zealand. I can see Paul Quinn nodding his head and looking really perturbed because he is a man with a conscience. [ 
Interruption 
] OK maybe I have gone a little too far. But I know he is sympathetic. I also wish that the Minister of Justice spent a little more time listening to victims and a little less time hurrying through legislation that at the end of the day will not see justice served fully in this country. 
I acknowledge the Law Commission because it gave a very very good submission as indeed did the Law Society as did many other submitters. Nobody including those submitters objects to efficiency and as I said before to access to justice. Rather their concern is that and I quote the Human Rights Commission submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee “The Bill represents a substantial departure in judicial process is broad in its scope and does not appear to be based on evaluative evidence of potential impact.” That is quite true. 
I thought that the Human Rights Commission put up a very common-sense suggestion and that was that there should be a trial period. What would be wrong with a trial period? It is like national standards in schools. If we are going out on a limb if we are proposing something that looks like it will not be a winner then surely it is logical to have a trial period. Why? Because if there is a trial period and it is not working then it can be rectified. Members on this side of the House are very interested in working with the Government where things are not working. The only problem at the moment is that nothing is working whether it is in education law and order justice or health. It is all a shambles. There comes a point when this Government must take note of the damage that it is causing. Although this bill certainly does not have the implications of many of the Government’s policies had the Government been prepared to listen the concerns of Labour could well have been met and we could have had a meeting of minds on it. I am really sad that we are not able to support this bill. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Believe in it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We do believe in justice we believe in access to justice and we certainly believe in efficiency. But this bill is untested unproven and cuts into the very rights of both accused people and victims in New Zealand. I hope that in a short while the Government will give careful consideration— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.