Webb Duncan; Tuiono TeanauHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. First of all I suppose I should wish James Meager a happy birthday. He's had a tough morning so I thought it'd be appropriate.Look I recall when this came to first reading and we supported it then and we support it now but we did it cautiously and we remain—well I certainly remain—cautious about how we use technology in the courtroom. But having said that of course it is a very powerful tool and we know through our annual reviews and more widely that the courts are groaning under the weight of their workloads. The last Government and this Government are working on moving cases more quickly through the courts particularly the family and criminal jurisdictions but across the entire court framework and I absolutely commend that.I do think that we need to think in a principled way about the use of technology and particularly remote participation in the courtroom. It is actually quite interesting that in terms of the actual utility of looking at someone face to face to tell whether they are telling lies or not—whether they're trustworthy or not—all of the evidence says it's one of the most unreliable factors. Nevertheless we still have a strong sense that important parts of legal proceedings should be done in person.In terms of the criminal aspect which is the one of course that I was most concerned with there's kind of two aspects to it. First of all it can only occur in proceedings where the defendant is not required—procedural matters where the defendant is not required to attend. So that could be scheduling it could be evidential matters could be any range of proceedings.But the really important second thing is and the defendant … [doesn't want] to attend". Any defendant who wants to attend a criminal proceeding is entitled to attend so they can go and do things which are really important like listen to their lawyer talk to see whether they think they're of a reasonable quality; look at the judge and try and understand what the judge is thinking or which way they're leaning. They're all really important things for defendants—and see the prosecution witnesses and advocates and what have you as well. But having said that in terms of the criminal framework it's a relatively narrow exception in respect to those procedural matters.In terms of enabling victims to participate remotely—that is to say: observe trials remotely—that's a great innovation. The idea that a victim can essentially switch the proceeding off if they like is actually a really good thing because for many victims it's both cathartic and important and traumatising in equal measures to be part of that proceeding. It's actually a really good innovation that they can do that. So absolutely concur with that.In terms of making sure—and it's a funny thing that anyone can walk into a criminal trial just out of a sense of a curiosity and watch it. But that's actually a fundamental principle that justice—in this jurisdiction and largely around the world in developed nations—is done in public. Anyone can go and have a look see what the charges are what the evidence is how the procedure goes and actually be reassured in doing that that we have a robust and fair justice system. That's a presumption across the justice system not just criminal justice. There's carve-outs for family law and other matters but it's actually a general presumption. So making it clear that open justice is both consistent with and must be maintained in respect of audiovisual remote participation proceedings is also a really good thing.So it was a good committee process in the sense that we went through it we listened to the various experts and submitters and essentially were reassured. So I won't trouble the House any longer other than to say it's a good step. This is what we should be doing wherever we can working across the House to address things which might not be particularly exciting but are actually really important. Certainly speedy access to justice for everyone fits within that category. Kia ora.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that that motion be agreed to."