Quinn Paul: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12283. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I will start by commenting on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think we have reached the stage during the course of this parliamentary session where we have enjoyed each other’s company and we have respected each other’s views. As David Parker referred to we have developed an excellent working relationship. But occasionally we have disagreed and this is one of those occasions; I can accept that. Basically the issue that we disagree on in this bill is the second aspect of what it tries to achieve. There are three aspects: firstly the use of audiovisual links in criminal proceedings; the second aspect is the criminal substantive hearings; and the third part covers civil matters. 
I get a bit annoyed when Opposition members stand and lecture us as they have this evening instead of acknowledging in a civilised manner the fact that we have differences. We are a Government that was elected to govern. Opposition members stand and say that we are using power not wisdom when they made an art form of that very phrase—an art form of it. 
Lynne Pillay 
: There’s no need to be nasty. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I suggest in the spirit of our normal camaraderie I say to Lynne that Opposition members have to accept and respect the fact that this Government has been elected to govern and that is exactly what it is doing. 
I will make just a couple of comments. I can summarise Opposition members’ arguments in the debate this evening by saying that they have focused on the extraordinary exceptional case that may occur and blown that up as though it will be the norm. I am a fair-minded New Zealander and I agree that one can never say never. But the simple fact of the matter in respect of criminal proceedings is that we have a justice system as Mr Parker referred to that is independent and professional. Should the case arise that a defendant has been served an injustice then he or she has the right to appeal. A defendant can go to a higher court and have his or her case heard. But that seems to have been lost by Opposition members. 
The simple fact of the matter is that our courts are inefficient they are clogged up and they are years behind. We have an excellent Minister for Courts who is doing a wonderful job of bringing new and innovative solutions. She has picked up some difficult issues and is addressing them and I see the Government has continued to address them in the last Budget. But I think it is important that we look at the practicalities of it. 
Another observation I make in this debate is that the contribution from this side of the House and in particular from Chester Borrows and Simon Bridges came from people who had experience in the field of endeavour that we are talking about as opposed to Opposition members who as per normal stood up and talked about theory. To me if the members have not walked the walk and talked the talk then it is time that they get some experience. So I suggest to the Opposition that its members should come down from the academics and the theory and listen to the practitioners because they are the people who are in a much better place to share the experience and the practicalities. 
I want to focus on the criteria in respect of criminal procedures which are contained in clause 9. Clause 9 is particularly relevant because it specifies that a judge is the one who makes the decision to use audiovisual links in respect of criminal procedures. I think that provides every safeguard going forward. So with those few words I commend the bill in its second reading to the House.