Webb Duncan; Kuriger BarbaraHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. The enthusiasm with which the Minister for Courts congratulated herself for having the last piece of the 100-day plan tabled a little under two hours ago is a little concerning. I'm standing here having to express my party's view on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill having had only less than two hours to look at it and this isn't something that should be rushed. The idea that we should be using technology to assist the courts goes without saying but the balance to be struck between fair trial rights and the expediency at which the court system can churn through its workload is actually really really important. I've read the bill once having spoken on an earlier bill today and much of it seems to have merit. Certainly allowing victims to observe proceedings through audiovisual or audio-only links is a good initiative and I congratulate the Minister on that because we know that being in the same room as an offender perhaps at a sentencing or trial is problematic but at the same time the victim's choice to be part of the proceeding is an important one that may be important to that victim in their own journey. Again the suggestion that there is use of technology in civil proceedings—important deserves examination but clearly doesn't quite reach the same threshold when it's someone's liberty at stake.As someone who has practised law over a long period of time I'm always cautious about the substantive procedural distinction. The idea that technologies can be used because it's only procedural is kind of an easy escape because all we are considering is whether or not to admit a piece of evidence It's procedural."; "It's just a routine question.". Lawyers take those procedural points because cases stand or fall on them and in many a case it's really important that the defendant is there in person with their lawyer providing instructions and giving context for many reasons but also for the pretty fundamental reason that the right to a fair trial and the right to open justice is one that is very hard to translate to the virtual sphere.Let's be honest. Let's just understand what "virtual participation" means for an accused—and I've seen it; I've been to Christchurch Men's Prison and seen where they do it. It means sitting in a little cubicle with a screen in front of you where the camera is pointed usually at the person who's speaking. Now if you're in a courtroom and you're looking around you can see a whole lot of things and understand a whole lot of things. You can see the Crown lawyer raise an eyebrow in disbelief at an argument that's being made and that's important because it enables you to understand what's going on. You can hear the sigh of a judge whilst the Crown prosecutor is speaking and it tells you what is going on in the courtroom. Now I just want to be clear: I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but we've got to be really really cautious because we are dealing with open justice and the right to a fair trial.So yes we want to look at this. We absolutely want this to go to a select committee—absolutely. But I just want to express here in the House that we want to make sure that the balance is struck between an absolutely fair trial the right of a defendant to be an active participant and the pressing need—and I'm glad the Minister recognises it—to address the backlog of cases in both our Family Court in particular and our criminal courts. Because justice delayed is justice denied and justice at the present time is absolutely and most certainly delayed. Thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was supposed to say at the beginning of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's speech that the question is that the motion be agreed to but I'll say it at the end and I'll call Tamatha Paul."