Dalziel Lianne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9521] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and to advise the House that the Opposition will be supporting its referral to select committee. 
I want to make a significant point about this legislation: it has a regulatory impact statement. I do not understand why the Government which says that it is interested in regulatory reform has decided not to have regulatory impact statements in its bills from here on in. It has decided as a Government to make sure that the regulatory impact statements are available online but not where we need to see them at the time we are debating the bill. I want to commend the Government on this bill and I ask it to rethink its position on regulatory impact statements because I find those parts of the bill the most important when we are having debates such as this. 
Paul Quinn 
: Be quiet. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Now I know that the individual who is interjecting on me knows more about this than anyone else but the problem is that unless he has actually read the regulatory impact statement what he will not understand is whether the analysis stands up. I think that it is quite interesting that on this particular one it certainly stacks up in my view. 
I thought that members of the Government would be quite pleased to find out that when we look at the benefit-cost ratio we see that this one stacks up very well. 
Simon Bridges 
: Excellent. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: What I think is very interesting and I will be interested in hearing the member who just interjected on me—members can obviously tell that I cannot remember any of those members’ names— 
Simon Bridges 
: New Zealand can’t remember your name. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Oh no that is right; I do remember his name. The point I was going to make was that when we look at the benefit-cost ratio on this particular legislation we see that the Government has accepted a benefit-cost ratio that looks at future benefit. which I have never seen in any benefit-cost ratio that has been signed off by Treasury. That is because this one has not been signed off by Treasury; it has been signed off by the Ministry of Justice but it is a good step in the right direction. I will give credit where it is due. I think it ought to be given. 
This particular benefit-cost ratio talks about a monetary value assigned to the future reductions in costs for participants in the court process improved efficiency for justice-sector agencies improved safety and security increased access to justice and improved quality of evidence. I say that that is a very good signal in terms of the monetary value which cannot be assigned specifically but is obviously relevant. That is why I think that this legislation has a lot going for it. 
The other thing is that in a regulatory impact analysis it is important to look at whether there are alternative options. The Government has looked at alternative options. Again I think that this is a very positive document and it is very useful in looking at what the alternatives were. In this particular case the Government looked at whether there were non-legislative options. I think that is a good thing to do. I think one should look at whether there are issues that could be dealt with by way of for example guidelines and that was precisely what it looked at. However it said that non-legislative options were not an option in this case because guidelines cannot override or adequately clarify the legal status of the video links in all proceedings. Guidance on the use of audiovisual links has already been promulgated and it is appropriate that guidance such as this clarifies operational procedures for the use of audiovisual links. The preferred legislative approach is outlined in the explanatory note. 
I think that the point the Government is trying to make—in fact it is very much like the debate we have just had—is that when one is dealing with such matters that relate to our court processes it is absolutely vital that we have a strong legislative framework to back it up. This legislation has created the option of specifying when audiovisual links can be used but it also specifies when they cannot be used. I am looking as to whether there is a preferred outcome. If there are a particular set of circumstances it will to lead to the use of audiovisual links. It will be automatic. It is kind of like having a default provision to audiovisual links but in other circumstances not having that applied so it will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. I guess that the legislation has been designed to be future-looking and that means that there may be advances in the quality of the audiovisual links options available in the future. That may mean that rather than looking just at the procedural matters they will look at other matters as well. I think that the legislation itself has been designed pretty well. It has been looked at in terms of its obligations to match the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is important to ensure that those options are there. 
There are enormous costs involved in having participants physically present at every single element of the process and obviously this proposal will reduce those costs over time. It is not just in relation to the costs of witnesses when they are required to appear in court; it is also in relation to the costs of transporting prisoners housing them at court providing security and the average unit cost to transport and escort a prisoner. All of those features of the current system are able to be addressed with respect to this particular proposition. When we look at the number of prisoners on remand and the expected growth we see that there is a flow-on demand for court appearances and associated prisoner transports. At the same time we then have pressure on defence counsel arising from the increased numbers of people entering the system which has the potential to have an impact on consultation and preparation times. All of these things add to the costs of the criminal process. Therefore this audiovisual system will create significant benefit over the long term. 
In Australia a couple of approaches have been taken to the legislation in this area. The preferred option that was chosen for New Zealand was to have an overarching statute to apply across New Zealand legislation. The alternative option was to amend existing legislation. The reason the alternative option was not chosen was that varying terminology concerning participants in proceedings is used in a range of statutes and all of them would have to be amended to clarify whether participants could appear by audiovisual link. When we looked at the range of legislation the numbers of statutes that would have to be amended the number of regulations and then the number of rules as well we saw that it simply did not stack up as an option. I think that is why the Government has quite rightly chosen the option of an overarching statute to apply across all New Zealand legislation thus creating this presumption around the appropriate use of an audiovisual link that will apply to every part of the New Zealand law. 
I am very pleased that the Government is taking these steps. I think it is appropriate that we look at the overarching costs and whether there are presumptions that could apply around the use of an audiovisual link to the benefit of all those involved. I commend the Government for undertaking this particular work but I make this point: representatives of the judiciary in their consultation expressed support for the proposals but they have emphasised that they see the audiovisual link being used predominantly in the procedural elements of courtroom proceedings and less so for the substantive components of proceedings where evidence is being physically presented. I think it is important that we stay in touch with the judiciary on this important matter. I commend the bill to the House.