Pillay Lynne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12419] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand along with my colleagues and every member of this House to speak this time in support of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I acknowledge the Minister of Justice for changing his mind and for listening to the debates. I also acknowledge Kennedy Graham from the Green Party who shared the view of the Labour members on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I acknowledge the ACT Party which listened very carefully to the arguments and played a part in the National Government’s change of mind I acknowledge the Maori Party and I also acknowledge Chester Borrows who did a very good job of chairing the committee. 
At any select committee it is very important that submitters are treated with absolute respect and that they know that their voices are heard. I think the most compelling submissions on this bill were those from the Human Rights Commission and from the Law Society which raised the concerns initially. When the bill went through its first reading it was certainly positive in terms of access to justice and efficiency and there were some very valid arguments. But it was the Law Commission that was so strident in its opposition to remote participation without consent being required. The commission’s submission raised our concerns and alerted us in the Labour Party to why it was really important to have further protection. We talked in earlier debates about whether we should use a trial period which as David Parker pointed out earlier is being used in the UK I think. When we are getting into new technology it is really important that it is tested. David Parker also said earlier that in many other countries consent is generally required for the use of the technology. 
I can remember—as can many other members in this House I am sure who are around my age—when answerphones first came into use and how difficult it was for people to use them. Adjustment as we move forward is needed for people to feel at ease and we had that with leaving a message on an answerphone. 
As other speakers have said there is a difficulty at times for submitters to select committees to give evidence through remote participation. Many submitters are a little more nervous and uncertain in that situation because they cannot see us. Most people feel much more at ease being able to speak in person. From the accused’s perspective which David Parker so eloquently outlined there are many many instances where the accused could be disadvantaged. They may not be able to see what is happening with the jury they may not be able to see body language and they may not know what is happening between counsel within the court situation. All of those things could be quite a disadvantage. 
There is also a disadvantage for victims in relation to the right of victims to face the accused. So taking all of those things into account requiring consent for remote participation in a trial is a really important thing. I am really pleased as I said before that all members of this House of every single party in this House have acknowledged that that is important. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: That’s right. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I thank Dr Choudhary very much. Let us face it: it was at the eleventh hour that the Minister put forward a handwritten amendment. But that is what democracy is about. It is about not being too proud to say that yes we did get it wrong or that something can be improved; we should listen and we should change it. I have seen a media release from the Human Rights Commission that was very appreciative of the change of heart from the Government as are the members in the House who supported the commission’s concerns at the select committee. 
The use of audiovisual links despite the fact now that consent is required to use it in a trial will be a real asset in terms of court processes. We all know that everybody in this House supports it because we want to see situations where the justice system is not held up and where there are no unnecessary delays. 
When the previous Government held our inquiry into victims’ rights we found that there were concerns about those rights. I acknowledge Nandor Tanczos who put forward that inquiry into victims’ rights. We learnt a lot during that inquiry; we learnt a tremendous amount. We learnt that victims needed more support and more information and that is why Labour introduced the 24-hour helpline whereby victims had access to information. But submitters told us that what was particularly upsetting for them were court delays. They had in their minds that they would be going to a hearing but then there would be a delay. So anything that helps the efficiency of progress in the court has to be good for victims. 
The victims’ right to face the accused who has done them harm in some way is also another very important part of justice. We want to see justice served in our judicial system and this bill with the amendment that has been supported by all parties in the House goes a long way towards that. It is a pleasure to speak in support of this bill. Thank you.