Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Well kia orana Mr Speaker—I wasn't expecting to perhaps get to my call so quickly. I want to wish a happy birthday to Dua Lipa who has got a birthday happening at the moment and Mr Meager as well—in fine fine company. I want to acknowledge the work of the committee that Mr Meager does chair the Justice Committee for the work that they've done around this bill. It's very clear that members on this side of the House will be supporting the bill's second reading this afternoon. It's one of those extraordinary situations where the actual report from the select committee is rather brief and the recommendation is unanimous and that's because it's gone through that process without any amendments. To have that go through the process on a unanimous sort of point is something that we don't get to see very often—Hon Rachel Brooking: But we'd like to see more of it.TANGI UTIKERE: —so I want to acknowledge the work around that—and we would like to see more of that for good pieces of legislation.I want to just touch on a few things. The court spokesperson on this side of the House for the Labour Party Greg O'Connor has talked about the fact that courts are a really important part of democracy here in New Zealand and what's really important is that there is an ability for those who are part of the democracy to be involved in the process—whether it's as a defendant whether it's as a witness whether it's as a victim whether actually it's as a member of the public who may just want to go along and understand what is happening in their community. So it's really important that when it comes to participation in courts around this country it's accessible for those that that need to or want to be involved.I know that Mr O'Connor spent some time in the fine city of Palmerston North last week and I know that he took the opportunity to visit our local courthouse while he was there. Now it gave an opportunity to not just appreciate the different logistical issues I guess that arise from time to time but the facilities that exist. Certainly in our community—as you will know Mr Speaker—we've had some changes in our local courthouse to reflect the changing times. Whether it's the general layout whether it's the way in which the accessibility aspect is targeted there have been some changes.However there are some aspects of the court system and structure where things haven't changed and it has taken quite some time for people to get on board as part of that. The reality of course is that as we move along and end up with technological change and advancement and innovation it makes things a little bit more easier to grasp and get on board with. I reflect that perhaps 10-odd years ago it would be a very different approach if we were talking about the use of remote participation and what that might mean. I'd hazard a guess and suggest that you wouldn't see someone on a screen beaming in to a courtroom in that particular sort of phase of things.One of the responsibilities that I've had in a former role before coming here was as a judicial justice of the peace. I'm very familiar with the insides of courtrooms and have conducted hearings via audio visual links (AVL). There have been some limitations. I recall actually when I was dealing with an arrest matter in Palmerston North and the defendant was in the Levin police station where there's a requirement to basically sight the bail bond and the conditions that are signed. At that time it wasn't very easy to effectively discharge that duty—when you've got a defendant who is holding up a copy of the bail bond up against the screen which is then being beamed down the camera through to courtroom number three in Palmerston North. So with the introduction of this opportunity there needs to be a guarantee that there are appropriate and adequate logistical resources when it comes to not just AVL but IT and the like to ensure that it is a smooth process.One of the fail-safes I guess in terms of this particular bill is that it allows for the judicial officer—whether that's a judge a JP a registrar or someone else; a community magistrate perhaps—who is making those decisions to still consider the interests of justice for all participants particularly actually for the defendant who may not have been convicted at that particular point in time because of course the presumption of innocence is what is expected in this country. And so knowing that a court registrar or a judicial officer still has the right to be able to basically pull the plug and not allow remote access is something that is to be protected and something that continues in this particular piece of legislation as well.The interesting thing that often is kind of set to the side is the role that victims can play in court proceedings. One thing that this bill does is it provides an opportunity for victims to participate in proceedings on their own terms. They don't have to be in the courtroom physically. They can effectively be beamed in but don't have to have all sets of eyes looking at them if they don't want that. It doesn't mean of course that for some victims that opportunity is removed—there is still that opportunity for victims in addition to a victim impact statement. But despite this legislation it would still be open to a victim if they chose to front up in court and wanted to whether it's to deliver a victim impact statement or otherwise in the presence of whoever is in the courtroom at the time—the opportunity for them. So what's pleasing I guess is that it's not a default that suddenly all victims who will participate in this process will suddenly only have remote participation as their only choice.An important aspect I also think—and those that have been to courthouses around the country will know that many of the courthouses are quite different in terms of the infrastructure kit. When we look at the Taihape courthouse it's very different from the courthouse that's located in Marton which is very different to the courthouse that is located here in Wellington. And so what's going to be important is ensuring that the infrastructure to allow remote participation whether that be by audio visual link or otherwise is actually up to spec because that also assists in ensuring that the nature of justice that is going to be available to those participants is not mitigatable—there's no risk there. So it's a pleasure to be able to support this bill. We look forward to its passage past second reading. I commend this bill to the House.