Webb Duncan; McKee NicoleHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh thank you Madam Chair. I'm pleased to stand in this committee stage and recognise the good work that this bill does and recognise our spokesperson Greg O'Connor as well who's had a number of things to say on this. With the indulgence of the Chair I don't intend to drag the committee stage out but I do hope to make some general observations before we move on.Firstly remote participation is very much supported as a useful tool but we do need to make sure—and the Minister may wish to comment on these things—that the technology being used is reliable because there are plenty of instances where court proceedings haven't worked because at one end or the other the resources haven't been put into the technology there. This bill sits alongside I imagine Te Au Reka which is the digitisation programme of the Ministry of Justice. We'd really want to be aware that everyone needs to be on board with that: judges lawyers trial participants and we want to make sure that the potential for disruption really is minimised in the case of any access disruptions there.We are concerned that the courts are being asked to do this with $31 million less in this Budget than the estimated expenditure was in 2023-24. So this is once again the Government saying Do more stuff but we're not giving you more money to do it." and that's a concern. On a more principled basis this bill we think has struck the right balance and we commend the Minister on that. But we do want to express some concerns if this is the first step. We certainly don't want virtual participation to become a default position or to hinder access to justice. In that sense the concern is scope creep that over time either by law or by practise there isn't a genuine option for victims or for offenders to attend in person. And I just want to recognise that even if the law says they can the way in which that option is presented sometimes can make it very difficult—whether that might be in a corrections setting "I'm sure you don't want to attend do you?" With a clear indication that it wouldn't be good for relationships if you do; or the kind of dismissiveness that we sometimes see and should never see but we do sometimes see of victims: "I'm sure you don't want to turn up and confront the perpetrator." That brings me to another point which is that it is important that victims have the choice—always have the choice. And we certainly would be cautious or very concerned if there was any suggestion that in sentencing perpetrators could be remote in any kind of serious offending where there is a victim involved because victims have a right and should always have a right to confront the perpetrator in person in the courtroom should they choose to do so. And the reading of victim impact statements is one example of that but that's not the only example. Simply being there and seeing a sentence handed down and the judge knowing that victim is in the courtroom and essentially participating by their presence is really really important. So victims always need to have the option to be in court with the accused at the same time.I'm just going to cite from Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue who notes "Sparing a defendant the emotional discomfort of being confronted by the presence of their victim"—in remote participation that is—"runs counter to three purposes of sentencing in the Sentencing Act 2002. The effect on the delivery of a victim impact statement within the provisions of the Victims' Rights Act 2002 is also a consideration that may [weigh a court] against the use of AVL". So that's the kind of really important victim-centric approach that needs to be taken into account. And those are my comments that the Minister may or may not wish to respond to.Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the honourable member Duncan Webb for your questions and they are really good questions and deserve an answer I think straight away. I've tried to capture as much as I could there so I'll just work through some of those issues that you've raised there.One of them is about the technology and whether or not it's going to work. We are aware in some cases where there have been issues one of the things that has made it very clear in this bill is that there needs to be a few days of advanced notice given so that technology can be tested to make sure we're not in a situation where people are in court or not they are remote and the technology fails. So it's very important that all parties to the use of audiovisual or just the audio technology do make their intentions known to the court registrars or the judiciary officers that that is their intent so it can be sorted. This bill is making permanent what was brought in under COVID-19 and adding to it the ability to have the audio technology because not everyone does have access to audiovisual.In relation to victims they most definitely have a choice. I think we must always respect the fact that victims have a choice but we also have the ability by using this technology to make victims feel safer and not feel re-victimised and not feel that they have to appear in situations where they feel vulnerable. But it is important as you mentioned that they have the choice to be there. My understanding is that with the delivery of victim impact statements the victim actually does not want to be in court but wants to deliver such a statement they could do this potentially through VMR which is a virtual meeting room. That will be hosted by the court. The guests will be the participants and the lawyers and it can be streamed to observers to make sure that those ethics of open justice are available as well.I think on top of all of this is looking at the review which is a first-principles review of how this is working will be undertaken as well over—well it's already under way. This is going to look at the costs it's going to look at the effectiveness it's going to look at how we can make it better for all users including the courts the victims all participants. So this really what we're looking at doing is making permanent what had been in place over COVID-19 that was going to expire in November. Adding to it the audio as well and having that first-principles review about how we make sure that we do it right and continue to do it right and make changes if we have to in the future."