Chauvel Charles: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9524] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Courts (Remote Participation) Bill does a number of significant things. It sets out the framework by which decisions on whether to use an audiovisual link in court proceedings can be made. It stipulates a default position—and I am speaking further to a point made by Lianne Dalziel—that a decision should be made in favour of using an audiovisual link in any criminal procedural matter unless the judicial officer feels that there is sufficient reason not to or there is an objection from another party. In a criminal substantive matter an audiovisual link is allowed by application as long as the judicial officer is satisfied that the criteria for the use of an audiovisual link would be met. And an audiovisual link can be used in civil matters; in those cases it can be used even if a party objects as long as the judicial officer considers that the criteria can be met so that an audiovisual link is appropriate under the circumstances. 
There are five clear benefits which other speakers have mentioned in the use of an audiovisual link. First is reduced costs through not needing to pay for transport for participants from one location to another improving court efficiency by not having to wait for the transportation of the parties. Anyone who has sat through a criminal call-over in the District Court will know how inefficient that process is in terms of judge or judicial officer time lawyer time and the time of potential witnesses as well as the parties. As Chester Borrows indicated there could be if this system is administered properly increased safety and security. There ought to be the facility for increased access to justice. It is wrong that people who live in centres where there are many courtrooms and many judges have the expectation of speedier justice than those who for example live in rural areas and rely on circuit judges or have to travel to larger centres for the administration of justice and it ought to be able to improve the quality of evidence heard in courtrooms assuming we get the technology right. 
The main concerns with extending the facility for an audiovisual link will be the difficulty of participants to truly interact with a judge with counsel and with witnesses. Any lawyer in the House and many other members will know that in cross-examination in the giving of evidence-in-chief and in re-examination the reactions and the emotions expressed by a witness or any other participant in civil proceedings let alone criminal proceedings are vital to a judicial officer or a jury making decisions or assessments of fact. It will be essential to make sure that the technology that is deployed in this area does not compromise that facility. 
It has been said that similar steps have been taken in Australia particularly I think in New South Wales. Clearly this is an idea whose time has come. As Lianne Dalziel said the Labour Party supports the legislation to select committee but we will be looking very closely at the question of how this system will be rolled out what sort of technology will be made available and those practical deployment issues so we do not lose the essential fairness that we need in the justice system when we are making assessments about whether a witness in particular is telling the truth.