Pillay Lynne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12361] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I agree with absolutely everything that David Parker said and also with my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel who spoke before. She did not refer to the Human Rights Commission submission until later in the piece because she had a lot of other things to say before that. I will be honest: it is a great submission. During the dinner break I took it away to read again and unwittingly I deprived Lianne Dalziel of her reference notes. But I acknowledge the Human Rights Commission and again the Law Society for their common-sense approach towards this bill. David Parker and other members have talked about the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and certainly no one in this Chamber has any opposition to the smooth running of courts access to justice or efficiency. Justice being served fairly surely has to be the first principle. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Not seen to be done. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I completely agree with the member. That has to be the first principle. 
We have seen in this Committee many many doubts raised. The solution is not as hard as that. There are some very good Supplementary Order Papers and amendments on the Table. I know that the ACT Party may feel bound by some sort of relationship with the National Party—God knows what has happened to achieve that—to support this bill in its entirety without looking at some very sensible amendments. I say to the Committee that if this bill goes through as it is there is no trial period and it will be brought into effect in its entirety. 
What does that mean? In many instances there will be lots of efficiencies. But concerns have been raised from this side of the Chamber and from the Green Party about those situations where the accused does not consent to remote participation. What is the downside of that? Let us look at it firstly from the defendant’s perspective. We all know from sitting in select committees how difficult it sometimes is for people to participate. I can see many members—the member from the Maori Party is almost nodding his head— 
Hone Harawira 
: I’m going to sleep here Lynne. Give it up. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am sorry that I cannot keep the Maori Party member awake but it is his job to stay awake in the Chamber. He could go walkabout to wake up; it is his job to stay awake in the Chamber and to listen to this debate. 
When it is about a fair trial from the defendant’s perspective it is about their being able to face their accuser. All we ask for is the ability for remote participation to happen by agreement. In many many many instances remote participation will be appropriate. But as my colleagues have said in a trial situation somebody may feel completely intimidated—we have seen it in select committee let us face it—by the sound which may not be as good as it should be or by the flickering video coverage. It throws people off from what they are saying; they are distracted. What do they do? What does it look like? It looks like they are a bit shifty. All of those things can have major implications in these situations. Do members agree? 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Absolutely. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Rajen Prasad agrees with me. 
We have seen so many situations that have given the Government an opportunity to fix this bill so that every member in this Committee can support it. The Human Rights Commission advised that there should be a trial period. What is wrong with that? We have seen many situations where the Government has imposed new legislation that has been absolutely disastrous—nothing short of a disaster. If that is the case I ask why in this situation if the Government is so confident that this legislation will work it does not have a trial period. Why not? Why not look at the sensible amendments from David Parker and from Kennedy Graham of the Green Party that say that these are substantive issues and we should have agreement between the parties? In many instances that agreement will be achieved. Let us do it as a first step. If it works once it has been tested things can move on. But this Government is determined not to have a Bill of Rights Act vetting and not to listen to the people the Human Rights Commission or the common sense from the Law Society which says that there are some problems with this legislation. 
It is just like how there are problems with national standards just like how there are problems with the accident compensation scheme and just like how there are problems with the Government’s law and order “three strikes” policy. All of those problems could be avoided if Government members would put aside their big egos—I am talking about Wayne Mapp—and listen to the people. How hard is that? Let us listen to what the people say. The people say that we need to test this legislation. We need to make sure that justice in New Zealand—or “New Zillun” as the Minister Wayne Mapp would say—is delivered in the way it should be in the way that we are proud of in our country. I heard David Parker. What a common-sense suggestion from David Parker. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to give Lynne Pillay some time to recover from her coughing fit. That is why I am taking this point of order. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If the member does not mind I would like to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No the member has the call. Just give her a moment to compose herself. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Mr Assistant Chair I would very much like Hone Harawira to take this call. I am really choked up about this.