Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’m pleased to be here to speak to the third reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. This bill returning to the House signals another step towards fulfilling the Government’s commitment to enable more remote participation in court proceedings and achieves our target of passing the bill into law this quarter. This work forms part of the Government’s core priorities to restore law and order and to improve court performance and access to justice so that people can move on with their lives faster. The greater use of remote participation can help us achieve this goal.

As we know, our courts are under pressure, and delays in court processes have a significant impact on court participants—particularly those who are vulnerable, such as victims of crime. The drivers for these delays are complex and have been exacerbated by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of technologies makes courts more efficient and accessible and will play a key part in helping us to achieve our goals. This bill reflects one step in that direction.

In addition, remote participation can provide benefits such as reduced travel time and reduced costs for participants in the community. Remote participation of defendants who are in custody reduces the risk of violent incidents being perpetrated by high-risk defendants during transport to the court or in the court itself. Remote participation can also reduce transport and security costs for Corrections and Police.

To remind everyone, the bill makes three discreet changes to improve and clarify the legislation governing remote participation in court proceedings—two amendments are to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 and one is to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Firstly, the bill gives victims and their support people the option to observe criminal trials and sentencing remotely instead of in person, if suitable technology is available and a judicial officer or court registrar considers this to be appropriate. Remote observation will not be appropriate or available in all situations. For example, natural justice requires that where a victim is also a witness in the trial, they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses before giving evidence themselves.

This amendment will give victims a safer and easier option to attend criminal trials and sentencing as it will enable them to avoid the stress and the potential for revictimisation and intimidation from attending court in person. Victims may also benefit from reduced travelling time and associated costs. However, I anticipate that some victims will still want to attend in person, and, importantly, they are still able to do so if they wish. This amendment will come into effect six months after Royal assent. This additional time is needed to allow for the development of new court processes and supporting material.

The second change allows the use of audio links, such as telephone conference calls, for appropriate criminal, civil, and Family Court proceedings. I’m confident that the existing safeguards in the Act and the new safeguards in the bill will ensure that the use of audio links is in line with the principles of natural justice and will uphold the rights of parties. For example, audio links will be able to be used only when the judicial officer or court registrar is satisfied that the parties will be able to effectively comprehend and participate in proceedings. This recognises that audio links would usually not be appropriate for participants who are vulnerable due to their age, cognitive ability, or language comprehension.

Further, the bill prohibits audio links being used in criminal proceedings that defendants attend, because it is critical to the delivery of justice that defendants can engage effectively in proceedings that affect them. Likewise, proceedings under mental health legislation that will determine whether a person needs to be compulsorily detained and treated will not be able to be held using audio links if the person is required to attend the hearing.

The use of audio links will increase the number of people that are able to participate remotely. The Act currently authorises the use of audiovisual technology only. Many people in the community who are involved in court proceedings may not have access to audiovisual technology, and with this change they will still be able to avoid the time, the cost, and the effort of travelling to court for short procedural hearings.

The third change makes permanent what was a temporary amendment to the law during the pandemic. That change clarified that remote participation in criminal proceedings and remote observation by the media and the public are consistent with the principle of open justice. Open justice enables public scrutiny of criminal proceedings and promotes public understanding of and public confidence in the criminal courts. With the growing use of remote participation in court proceedings, this statutory clarification needs to be permanent.

We are also undertaking a first-principles review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. This review aims to identify a clear, enduring regulatory framework that will enhance access to justice, promote efficiency, and enable more remote participation in court proceedings without compromising the interests of justice. The Ministry of Justice will be engaging with the judiciary and other agencies as the review progresses.

In conclusion, these three changes strike the important balance between providing more efficient and accessible ways to participate in court proceedings, fair trial rights, and the fundamental constitutional principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers. The bill maintains judicial control over the use of remote participation in courts and recognises that it will not always be appropriate or possible for technology to be used in some court proceedings. The Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill is one step towards our wider goal of enabling more remote participation in court proceedings.

This is the first bill that I have taken through all stages in this House as a Minister of Government. It was pleasing to see this bill gain full support across the House yesterday, as all parties recognise the benefits it will bring to our under-pressure courts and victims impacted by delays in justice. I know a number of other bills I may bring to this House may not receive the same sort of support as they progress, but I am very glad that this one has. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a pleasure to speak on this bill. Before I do, might I just recognise Lucy Callaghan who’s made some of these daffodils that some of us are wearing today. I know her family’s been personally affected by cancer, and this is her way of contributing. So well done, Lucy.

SPEAKER: We perhaps should have recognised that earlier in the day—it’s a huge effort, and I’m very pleased to wear one as well. Would anyone else like to stand up and show they’re wearing them? [Members stand] That’s very good, thank you. That’ll cover that. And that all comes out of your time, of course.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Very happy—very happy for that because I’m not going to take long. It is good that the Minister is bringing a bill—her first bill to completion—that is supported across the House. I can confirm that that won’t be the case for a number of other bills in her name.

Look, this is a good bill. It’s a pragmatic bill. I do think, you know, I’ve expressed concerns in the committee stage of this House on this bill that the Minister responded to in a very fulsome way. The concerns about this bill are essentially that the technology won’t keep up with the demands. I was assured by the Minister that in her executive capacity, she’s going to make sure that that happens and that there are processes in place. Practically, we’re concerned that the rights of defendants; whilst written in the law, they’ve got a right to attend, in practice they might be encouraged not to attend court even if they want to. That’s another important consideration.

Also, and probably most importantly for victims, we want to make sure that this piece of legislation doesn’t erode the right of victims should they choose to do so, to essentially look the perpetrator, the offender in the eye and see them at the different stages of the criminal proceedings. Of course, importantly, sentencing—there’s no suggestion that sentencing will occur in the absence of the perpetrator, but other aspects of the proceedings as well.

The bill itself—and I won’t go through the details of it; that’s been done most ably by the Minister already. The bill itself does increase administrative efficiency, but more importantly in many ways, it increases the effectiveness and openness of the justice system so that more people can participate in it more easily. For that reason, we will be supporting this bill.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing us to get up and support this bill, which I understand has support across the House. I really just want to reaffirm the statements that we made last week on the second reading of this bill to say that, yep, the Greens support this bill. We think the key benefit from this bill is that it will allow people who have been victims of harm to be able to observe proceedings from a space that makes them feel safe, whether that’s at home or with their family or with their friends or anywhere that allows them to be safe and to prevent that physical contact between themselves and the perpetrators of the abuse.

We noted that this might improve the court backlogs that are currently being experienced by the courts. Repeating a fact that I made last week that when I looked into the court backlogs, I found that 142,000 court events have been delayed because of the pandemic since March 2020. That’s 142,000 court events out of 2.4 million appearances for sentencings, bail applications, and pretrial hearings. When I looked into the psychological impact on those backlogs for people who have been harmed and are awaiting their time in court, I found this quote from a survivor of sexual violence, Rosie Veldkamp, who said, “My mental health was getting worse. I was just always upset and honestly felt like it was never going to happen.” I know that waiting for the trial can be quite psychologically harmful for people who have been victims.

There’s not a whole lot more to add about this bill. I think it’s pretty straightforward. I guess the only thing we wanted to raise too is that, yep, this bill presents benefits for victims who are participating in the justice system and in the courts, and there have been many recommendations about other ways that we can improve our courtrooms to make them less traumatising, less triggering for people who have experienced harm. Some other suggestions that have been made to have a trauma-informed approach to courtrooms include lowering the judge’s bench to not have it towering over survivors, well-lit car parks, warm and welcoming artwork, making sure that there are safe blocked-off waiting areas for survivors, as well as having secure entrances and exits to courtrooms. Some survivors have even called on the courts to implement totally separate facilities for victims in the courthouse to keep them away from perpetrators.

There isn’t a whole lot more to add to this bill, except to say it’s great that we can have a moment of unity. We support the bill and kia ora koutou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill represents a significant step forward in modernising our justice system. It improves access to justice and addresses many challenges that have long plagued our courts—challenges which were well laid out by the previous member, Tamatha Paul, in her contribution.

I wanted to state for the record my congratulations to the Minister for bringing her first bill, one of many I’m sure, through the House to near completion. And I just wanted to also acknowledge the Justice Committee for the hard work they did on this bill as well. It is the committee’s careful consideration, and this House’s careful consideration, which ensures that the bill we are presented with today is both robust and responsive to the needs of our justice system.

At its core, this bill is about three fundamental principles: efficiency, accessibility, and protection. Efficiency is paramount in our justice system. As we have said many times in this House, by many members, justice delayed is justice denied. We currently face a significant backlog in our courts. The member opposite referred to over 100,000 incidents of delays. Some cases in our courts take up to 500 days for a jury trial and some 18 months for victims of serious crimes to have their day in court. This is unacceptable. This bill will go some way to enable the greater use of remote participation, help streamline court processes, reduce unnecessary adjournments, and ultimately speed up the delivery of justice.

Accessibility is the second key principle of this bill. Our justice system must be accessible to all New Zealanders regardless of their geographic location, physical abilities, and personal circumstances. Remote participation opens up new avenues for engagement with the court system. It means witnesses in remote areas can more easily access the justice system. I’m aware that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking further programmes to improve the level of accessibility in our courts.

Thirdly, our principle of protection—one which is particularly important to this side of the House and is particularly crucial when it comes to protecting victims of crime. Now, this bill does give victims and their support persons the option to observe criminal trials and sentencing remotely. This is a significant step forward in victim protection and support. For many victims in our country, the prospect of turning up to court, facing their perpetrator in court, can be particularly re-traumatising. Providing that option of remote participation helps empower victims to engage with the justice process on their own terms in a way which feels safe and manageable to them.

Look, in conclusion, it’s been traversed quite often, quite regularly, in all stages of the House. It’s supported across the House today. The bill represents what we think is a very balanced and pragmatic approach to modernising the court system. It enhances efficiency without compromising fairness, it improves accessibility without undermining the gravity and importance of court proceedings in our legal system, and it provides additional protections for victims without infringing on the rights of victims.

I commend the bill to the House, and I urge all members to continue giving it their full support.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First, like all other parties in the House, supports this bill. It is common sense, and a bill that has been traversed through the Justice Committee. I am a member of that committee, and the support for that through submissions—it was well supported, with some minor concerns that were raised that I will touch on as I go through this speech.

The bill represents a targeted yet critical step towards modernising our court system and increasing access to justice in New Zealand. The court system faces significant delays, and those significant delays we know are something that we want to speed up in the court system, particularly in criminal and family jurisdictions within the District Court. These delays affect all participants in the justice system, especially victims. If we think about the victims, if we can make the court system move quicker and more efficiently, it is better for our victims getting a result through the courts.

New Zealand First is a champion of the victims in our justice system and we are willing to do whatever we can to help put them first. By expanding remote participation, this bill addresses several challenges by making the court process more efficient, accessible, and safer for all that are involved. We strongly support the victim-centred approach of this bill.

The first amendment that the chair of the Justice Committee has just outlined is the amendment that creates a presumption that victims can observe criminal trials and sentencings remotely. This is a vital step in supporting victims’ rights, offering them more control over how they participate in the justice process. Victims who wish to observe proceedings remotely can do so when suitable technology is available, while preserving judicial discretion to ensure the integrity of the court process. For many people, this will reduce stress, travel costs—as we know, travelling to courts across the country is not cheap—and it’s also around safety risks for victims.

The second amendment allows for the use of audio links such as teleconferences for remote proceedings in certain circumstances. This flexibility is essential for participants who may have to access audiovisual technology. Importantly, in criminal cases, defendants will still be required to appear, and I think that is really important to stress. There is the ability for judicial discretion over when this technology is used, but there are the cases where defendants will need to still appear, to ensure fairness, while in civil matters, remote participation will be allowed only if all parties can effectively participate.

The third amendment clarifies the relationship between remote participation and open justice, ensuring that the courts remain transparent, even when proceedings are conducted remotely. This amendment makes permanent a temporary change enacted during the pandemic, enforcing the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

New Zealand First supports this bill as it balances innovation with the need to protect the rights and interests of all participants in the justice system. The bill brings our courts into the modern era, making them more accessible, efficient, and fairer for everyone. By enabling more remote participation, we are not only improving court performance but also upholding the fundamental principles of justice and fairness that define the New Zealand legal system. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to echo some of the sentiments around the House this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge Lucy for the beautiful brooch. My mother died of melanoma also, and I was 40 years old, and to lose your father at 14 is a cruel fate in life. I wish I’d thought of something as meaningful to do at the time as you have thought of in producing these beautiful daffodils.

One thing I want to acknowledge is that the quality of the technology is really important. As we well know in this House, bad audio is a problem. The audio in this House is excellent, and it’s challenging to consider that for both defendants and victims and the whole courtroom process it’s very important that there is proper investment in the actual audio technology so that people can hear what’s going on in this remote audio legislation. I would urge the Minister to consider that because that is a thing that risks harming the justice for all parties in the court process.

We support, very much, further supporting victims from worsening exacerbation of the trauma that they have suffered in being the victims of crime, from their perpetrators. I’ve been before the courts myself a few times, not for crimes of moral turpitude, but I’ve always been struck by what it must be like for victims to have to actually share a room with the person who has committed harm against them. To have to get out of bed that morning and think about it for weeks to come and turn up in court and walk into the same little room and have to look in the face the person who’s harmed them. There are many people who rightly do not want to do that and should not have to do that. For that reason, we commend this legislation.

There are others who will want to do that, and they should retain the right to do that. Likewise, I think the other risk is for defendants who may want to appear in court. Many may not also want to appear in court, and that is fair enough. I think my colleague here made a legitimate point that the defendants need to be protected from the risk that they will come under pressure to not appear in court. If we are to have natural justice, if we are to have a thorough process where we recognise the principle that all accused are innocent until proven guilty, then we need to make sure defendants know that they have that right to appear in court should they wish to—even though we know that will cost the justice system more in practical terms and effort to get people to court. That is something that I think needs to be watched and scrutinised to make sure that defendants are not coming under pressure to not appear in court.

Justice delayed is justice denied; I echo the sentiments of my colleague James Meager. Justice delayed is justice denied for all parties, for both victims and for defendants. I happened to be involved in a matter that was before the court during the COVID time, when the courts shut down for a prolonged period. And when I heard from lawyers of their clients—in their language—“rotting on remand” because they were waiting for weeks and weeks and months and months for their hearings to come up, it was an example of where justice delayed is justice denied for both the accused and for the victims. I echo those sentiments that, if we can deal with that backlog, if we can speed up the process by which these issues come to the court, that is a good thing for all and that is a good thing for justice in this country. We will be, as the Green Party, supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise, also, to add my support to this bill, the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I’d also love to start by congratulating the Minister for Courts, the Hon Nicole McKee, for this being your first bill which you’ve taken through from genesis to now, hopefully, the end.

James Meager: Oh, Genesis again!

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes, the genesis. Thank you for shepherding this bill. To our listeners at home, including my beautiful husband—well, he’s at work—what we’re doing here today is, essentially, the third reading where we’re allowing more remote participation to take place in our courts. [Change in presiding officer] Welcome, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE: In essence, this amendment bill is what we call an “omnibus bill”, where it’s a combination of more than one bill and where the effect, the ultimate goal, is the single broad policy. In this situation, it’s implementing these amendments in this bill to increase remote participation in court proceedings.

Now, there’s a lot that has been said about this bill. Here, I’d like to acknowledge our very able and excellent chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager.

Before I wrap up the third speech on this bill, I would like to highlight the Disabled Persons Assembly (New Zealand) submission, which I didn’t get to highlight last time, in the second reading. What they said is: “Covid has highlighted the importance of remote participation … Remote participation also allows disabled people to participate more effectively in multiple avenues that have previously been inaccessible to them.” I’m glad that they feel this way about this amendment. I’m looking forward to this becoming enacted into law. We commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m more than happy to take a very quick call on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill, as has already been said, mainly because it’s a relatively simple and straightforward way to modernise our judicial system. It lends itself to the pilot, so to speak, that was done via the COVID-19 pandemic, which, like in various other sectors, provided us with some genuine innovation and some examples of things that we could do better in the future. Therefore, I commend the Minister for Courts and all those involved in ensuring that this is one of those areas.

Having said that though, as has been mentioned by several other speakers, there’s obviously some things to keep our eye on, not the least of which is to make sure that it doesn’t just get used conveniently and as the default, and when it is contrary to the best interests of all those involved, but particularly those victims who may want to have their day in court, so to speak, and not wish to utilise this process. One of the risks that we’ve heard other people talk about, as I said, is that it would become the default. It is incumbent upon us to watch that process quite closely and to ensure that it doesn’t just end up being a bit of a cost saving measure. We also have to be cautious, as my Green Party colleague Steve Abel has just said, that the suitable resources are invested in this domain to make sure that the tech is available, to make sure that it’s well maintained, that it’s capable of doing what it needs to do to meet that demand. Having said that, I commend this bill to the House.

I’m very pleased to rise in support of the third reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill and want to join the chorus of congratulating our Minister for Courts, the Hon Nicole McKee, who is also our associate justice Minister and is doing a terrific job with her portfolios right across her brief, and she’s not bad on Q+A either.

It’s remarkable that here on the last day of winter—as far as our sitting goes, our parliamentary last day of winter—we come together as a House.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: It’s always winter when you lot are in power.

CAMERON BREWER: We come together, Deborah, in this House as one. And, Deborah Russell, I’m hoping with other legislation that the Hon Nicole McKee puts through the House that we’ll also come together with unanimous support. I hope this is the beginning of something great.

I also want to note that this is also a reflection of a positive aspect that came out—possibly one of the few—of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, which we saw as a society: faster enablement and enactment of remote participation, whether it be in education, in business, in Parliament, in community organisations, and indeed now in the courts. This amendment, as has been alluded to, makes permanent a temporary change that we saw in 2020 with the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. That will be repealed and this will be in place, enabling, as others have well canvassed, more virtual participation in court proceedings, which is the Government’s objective of improving court performance generally. I commend the bill, thank you.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime; this is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—just a short contribution on the third reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I have listened to the entire debate, and while the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, got quite excited and a bit carried away assuming, or hoping, that we might support some of the other legislation that the Minister for Courts is going to bring through, that won’t be the case.

In terms of this one, I do want to acknowledge that there are good reasons for this bill being introduced—the improvements in efficiencies and access to justice, and so on, that we’ve heard. I do really want to also add my caution to this House, and to us all—that this doesn’t become the default for our justice system, that we don’t see this being used more and more as a cost savings exercise, that we don’t see that this is a justification for any under-investment into our facilities and so on. So, with that, I just want to add my voice to the cautious support that we have for aspects of this bill. I commend it to the House.

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. Well, cautious support or wholehearted support, I think it’s something that the whole House should be doing. Look, this is about improving the performance of our courts more generally, and that’s why I’m supporting it. We’ve heard from the other side. We heard from the Greens about the backlog in the courts. I think we’ve hit the bingo card of “justice delayed is justice denied”, but, of course, it’s true, and we do need to work our way through that.

I do hear the concerns that were raised just before about the quality of audiovisual (AV) and the use of technology. Actually, I think the considerations are a little broader than that. It’s about how we use this appropriately, and there will be instances where it’s not appropriate, or, in fact, it may not even be possible to use AV technology. It’s important that we bring these tools in, that we continue to modernise, that we continue to innovate and give our courts the tools that they need to do the job, and as I read through this bill, that’s what I see. I see this as a great way of giving courts the option to use it where appropriate, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand as the final speaker on this bill on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill third reading, just prior to it coming into law.

I wanted to say that the court system is currently experiencing massive delays, particularly in the criminal and family jurisdictions of the District Court. These delays are felt by all participants in the justice system, but particularly the victims. Enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings contributes to the Government’s objective of improving court performance generally. Virtual or remote participation, when used appropriately, can increase access to justice and support the efficient and timely resolution of court proceedings. We’ve heard about “justice delayed is justice denied”. I say to my colleagues, to delay justice is injustice. It gives me great pleasure to be the final speaker on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House and into law.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.