Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

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

I’d like to begin this speech by talking about the select committee. I’d like to thank the chair and the members of the Justice Committee and take the opportunity to wish the chair a happy birthday today. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank all of the people who have been involved in this work for their thorough consideration of the bill. I also want to thank the submitters who took the time to express their views on this bill.

At the Justice Committee, 16 written submissions were received from interested groups and individuals. Four of these submitters also made oral submissions. The submitters raised many useful points, some of which I expect the Ministry of Justice will consider as part of the first-principles review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. Submitters were largely in favour of the changes in the bill and the continued use of remote participation in the courts. Some submitters raised concerns about the use of audio links and remote participation more broadly. I am confident that the existing safeguards in the Act and the new safeguards in the bill will ensure that the use of remote participation is in line with the principles of natural justice and will uphold the rights of parties. The Justice Committee has not recommended any changes to the bill. This reflects the targeted nature of these amendments. More substantive suggestions for change were made by submitters; however, these were beyond the policy intent of the bill.

I’d just like to touch briefly on why this bill is needed. This bill is returning to the House and it signals another step towards fulfilling the Government’s commitment to enable more remote participation in court proceedings. This work forms part of the Government’s core priorities to restore law and order. 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. The drivers for these delays are complex and have been exacerbated by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

This Government is committed to improving 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 to achieve this goal. In addition, justice sector agencies and the judiciary are continuing to work on a wide range of other initiatives to address delays. This includes improving case management, reducing adjournments, and providing for same-day sentencing.

What this bill does, in order for me to remind the listeners at home watching, is it makes three discrete changes to improve and clarify the legislation governing remote participation in court proceedings. Two amendments are to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act and one is to the Criminal Procedure Act. Firstly, the bill gives victims and their support person 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. This gives victims a safer and easier option to attend these hearings, as it enables them to avoid the stress and the potential for re-victimisation and intimidation of attending court in person. Victims may also benefit from reduced travelling time and those 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.

The second change allows for the use of audio links, such as telephone conference calls, for appropriate court proceedings. Audio links will not be 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 cannot 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 able to participate remotely. Many people in the community who are involved in court proceedings may not have access to audiovisual technology. With this change, they will still be able to avoid the time, cost, and 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.

These changes together 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. 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 first-principles review that’s being undertaken is a 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, the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill is one step towards our wider goal of enabling more remote participation in court proceedings. Passing the bill is part of the Government’s third quarter action plan for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

The question is that that motion be agreed to.

Ngā mihi, kia ora koutou. I rise on behalf of the Greens to affirm our support for the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, because it makes a change that may result in criminal proceedings being less traumatising for victims going through the justice system, and may reduce travel time and travel costs for victims as well. More broadly, we support centring the needs of victims and survivors throughout the justice process.

It’s probably already been touched on throughout the debate already, but this bill allows victims and support people to remotely observe a criminal trial and sentencing if they wish to, and other criteria are met—for example, a judicial officer or court registrar does not determine that it is contrary to the interests of justice. This is likely to be better for some victims, less re-traumatising, and reduce travel times and costs and therefore accessibility. The bill allows the use of audio links, such as teleconferences for remote court proceedings and civil proceedings. These can only be used where the defendant is not required to and does not wish to attend the hearing. Finally, the bill makes permanent a change during COVID-19, which is to clarify that courts should be able to conduct hearings remotely or virtually and that this does not impact on open justice—as in, public—and the media can still observe those proceedings remotely.

This is really great, and begins to address the issue of court backlogs. We know that there are a significantly high number of cases backed up within the justice system, and backlogs can be really traumatising to victims. It is positive that the Government is making changes to try and reduce this backlog without infringing on the rights of defendants in the justice process. When looking into court backlogs, I found that 142,000 court events have been delayed because of the pandemic since March 2020. That is 142,000 out of 2.4 million appearances, such as sentencings, bail applications, and pretrial hearings. Court backlogs can cause significant distress to survivors. One survivor of sexual violence, Rosie Veldkamp, said that as a result of the delays, she felt like giving up on her case. She said, “My mental health was getting worse. I was just always upset and honestly felt like it was never going to happen.” This point was echoed by independent victims’ advocate Ruth Money, who said, “The trauma involved in waiting for a trial or waiting for a sentencing, or even a bail hearing—it distracts you.” So, yeah, anything that can improve outcomes for victims, we support that.

In the Strengthening the Criminal Justice System for Victims survey report, they found that 77 percent of victims in a 2018 survey disagreed or strongly disagreed that victims’ views, concerns, and needs are listened to throughout the justice process. But the big thing that I want to focus on is the way that this bill might improve one aspect of the justice system, for victims navigating the system. There are ways that we can make trauma-informed adjustments to our courtrooms to protect and uplift the mana of victim/survivors. In Backbone, a national coalition of survivors of violence against women in Aotearoa New Zealand—in their survey in 2017, 496 victim/survivors from Aotearoa New Zealand reported their experiences of family court proceedings. According to the guide, 58 percent of the survey participants said they had been threatened, intimidated, or physically assaulted by their abuser while attending court-related appointments or hearings. By including remote access, we will reduce the chances of this happening, if a victim/survivor chooses to participate remotely.

Trauma isn’t just present in a few unique or exceptional cases; it’s a pervasive theme running through our entire criminal legal system. By recognising that trauma and actively accommodating people who have experienced it, our courts have the potential to break cycles of harm in people’s lives and in our communities. In a quote from the Centre for Justice Innovation, the Chief Victims Advisor report to the Government in 2019 said that we could look to making changes to the physical layout of the courtrooms to increase security and protection of victim survivors. This could include creating safe, blocked-off waiting areas for survivors, as well as secure entrances and exits to courtrooms. Some survivors have called on the courts to implement totally separate facilities for victims in the courthouse, to keep them away from their perpetrator to prevent violent encounters or traumatisation. Some further suggestions for trauma-informed approaches to courtrooms include lowering the judge’s bench to not have it towering over survivors, having well-lit car parks, and warm, welcoming artwork. These suggestions can help make a courtroom be more inviting and less sterile to traumatised survivors. We want courtrooms to be safe places, particularly for victims, children, people who do not speak English, and people with disabilities, as has been recommended in Turuki! Turuki!, by the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group.

I want to finish off my contribution in the House today by talking about my own work that I’ve done supporting survivors of sexual violence. A few years ago, I supported a large group of women who had been victims of sexual assault and harassment by local musicians here in Wellington. When I was supporting those women, we talked extensively about what pathways they had available to them. They could either go down the legal pathway route and press charges, or there were other pathways working with different organisations that respond to harm and support survivors through their healing. Some of them chose to go down the legal pathway, but some of them also chose not to because they did not feel safe within the justice system, they didn’t want to participate in a system where they felt that the odds were stacked against them, and they felt that they wouldn’t be believed. Not all people who experience harm choose to take up a criminal proceeding against the perpetrator, and a big reason for that—and a core reason behind the #MeToo movement—is that victims often feel the justice system re-traumatises them. They feel that they will not be believed if they come forward. So any small steps that we can take towards making our justice system safer for victims are important steps. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Happy birthday.

JAMES MEAGER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I acknowledge all the well-wishers today—that’s probably about enough joy to be spread my way. I’d just like to spread a bit of joy to some of my friends who share a birthday today as well: to Jamie and James who are mini-me’s—sons of colleagues of mine who share my birthday—Richard Menzies; Charles Henley; Ollie Newton, who I went to university with; and my high school science teacher, Ian Willis; and Tim Costley’s sister—happy birthday to you all. What a great day—what a great day it is.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Something was in the water that year!

JAMES MEAGER: And I hear there’s an impromptu happy birthday later on. But this is a good, solid bill, supported across the House. It is traditional to thank the Justice Committee members for their hard work on this bill, so once again I’d just like to reiterate my thanks to Dr Webb, the Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori members for their constant constructive and supportive work on the Justice Committee, and also to colleagues on the Government’s side. Can I thank the 16, I think, submitters who made written submissions and the four who presented to us orally. Such is the nature of this bill that everyone was in favour and it is one which is well supported across the House. Can I just acknowledge the work of the Justice officials across both Parliaments who have worked on this bill also.

The bill does a couple of simple things: it continues a series of Government initiatives to try and modernise and speed up the court system, because, as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. And one of the big issues we have in our justice sector is the delays felt through the court system. This will go one small way to doing that, so I congratulate the Minister for bringing the bill through the House. The other way that we will be achieving this is through Te Au Reka, which is the court’s digitising system, and the Justice Committee has an open briefing on that that we are going to be following as part of our own scrutiny plans.

Just finally, I’d like to touch on the fact that the bill has gone through without changes. It’s very difficult, as the chair of a committee whose job it is, to outline to the House the changes and the additions that were made to a bill when it comes back without any amendments. I’ll do my best just to briefly touch on some of the other submissions made by contributors. People did raise some concerns around the ability to roll this out across different courts and some of the resourcing that would be required. Some submitters said it didn’t go far enough, and actually we needed to improve the accessibility into the courtroom. I think that’s a fair point, because there are some physical constraints about our courtrooms that mean that some individuals still aren’t able to fully participate in the justice system. And I include things like wheelchair access for people who may want to be sitting on a jury and other such accessibility issues.

I think, in saying that, it’s a bill that’s well supported across the House. It will go some way to unclogging parts of our justice system. It will mean better protections for victims to participate in legal hearings without having to be physically present. So with that I would like to support the bill through to committee of the whole House stage and through the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call, which doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. So the next one on the bill is—oh, sorry. Apologies, the Hon Casey Costello—sorry if I jumped ahead into the future.

Mr Speaker, I’ve blended in with the furniture! I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First—

Greg O’Connor: In a cloud of smoke!

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Oh, perfect! It won’t be, soon. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on behalf of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First believes in practicality. We support front-line efficiencies and we are about practical approaches, and this bill definitely offers a practical solution to reduce court delays and enhance the efficiency of the justice system.

I spoke last night regarding the impact of victims of crime and the power and control relationships that occur and the stresses of going through a justice system. I think it’s timely that we look broadly at all the opportunities that we have to reduce the stresses and pressures of a justice system. I think this is a step in the right direction to allow us to provide some alternative practical options as to how we have witnesses and victims not only participate in the court process but also view and watch.

Unfortunately, with the nature of the level of crime now, courts have become highly secure environments, and I think, as the member across the House said earlier, they’re not the easiest place to be or to visit or to be part of a court hearing. Just with the nature of the environment and the type of people, it does become onerous, especially if you don’t know the system that you’re entering into.

I think this bill provides a great opportunity to broaden the way in which we move forward using technology to our advantages, but particularly remove some of the constraints and delays that occur through a court process. Anyone who has been either a witness or on a jury or part of supporting an offender or any process that you go through in the court system, it is extremely stressful and torturous when you go to the hearing and, for a variety of reasons, court hearings get deferred and delayed, and you have to go through the process repeatedly. Having worked on court escorts in my past, where you’re transporting people to and from the court, there is nothing more frustrating than when you have had a defendant who was in custody have to sit in the court cells for a long period of time, only to have the hearing deferred, then transport them back. It is an unpleasant environment for everybody involved. Any opportunity to reduce the risks and the pressures on both defendants in the court system should be welcomed, and I think this is an impressive step in that direction.

We have, as we’ve heard repeatedly today, a massive backlog. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied. This opportunity to look at ways of building up efficiencies in the system is impressive, but also the opportunity to be able to observe the court system and support an open justice system. I think this House has proven that an open access democracy is supported brilliantly through online participation—that people at home can observe without having to go through the process of coming into the House. I think that democracy has been well served by that. I think this is another step of ensuring that we can move forward with the times, using technology to our advantage and improving our justice outcomes.

New Zealand First believes in taking a pragmatic approach, and this is a pragmatic approach, ensuring that no one is excluded from court processes due to technological barriers. I appreciate that there will need to be some capital investment as we move forward to ensure that these standards are maintained and that systems are protected. We believe the bill maintains judicial discretion, ensuring that remote participation is used appropriately and does not compromise the fairness of court proceedings. The bill clarifies that remote hearings do not undermine the principle of open justice and ensures the transparency for the public and media.

By making permanent the temporary pandemic era provisions, the bill guarantees that remote hearings can continue without compromising the public’s right to observe justice being done. I think, as we move forward with technology, we can gain significant advantages and we can see—and I have visited custody units that use audio-video links well, and it is well received by defendants who are able to expedite their court hearing quickly. It was proven successful during the pandemic period and I think we can continue to build on this with the programme of work moving forward.

New Zealand First supports the bill to third reading, as it balances modernising court processes with safeguarding the rights of victims, defendants, and the broader public. It is a pleasure to have yet another piece of legislation that we have come together to support for the benefit of our communities and law and order generally. We commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā anō hoki tātou. Aku kōrero mō tēnei pire ka tukua ki te reo Māori, nō reira mena kei te hiahia ētahi ki te whakarongo ki ēnei kōrero, meinga ko tō whakarongo ki te puare o tō taringa.

Ara ake nei au ki te tuku i ngā kōrero mō tēnei o ngā pire e kīia nei ko te Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, ngā whakaaro me te anga o Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire.

Tuatahi ake kei te tū tautoko a Te Pāti Māori me tāna e ōhākī ake nei, e oati ake nei kia tika ngā mōtika o te pārurenga i roto i ngā tikanga whakahaere i ngā kōti i tēnei whenua. Kātahi rā te whai tikanga hāpai tangata, te whai tikanga whakatika i te hē, me ēnei āhuatanga e riro mai ai te ngako o tēnei mea te tikanga ture i a te tangata.

Me te manaaki anō hoki i te hunga e aupēhia nei, e pēhingia nei rānei e te kaihara mā roto i ngā tikanga whakahaere o ngā kōti. Nō reira ka pai te kawe mai o tēnei o ngā ture.

Kia tiki atu au, tērā ētahi taha o te ngako o te whakaaro o tēnei ture kei te akiaki mātou o Te Pāti Māori i te Kāwanatanga kia whānui ake, ne, te kākano o tēnei o ngā ture. Arā ko taua kākano ko te āta whakatika i ngā hē o te whare o Te Tāhū o te Ture.

Me tā mātou mōhio kua roa, kua roa te whare o Te Tāhū o te Ture e pēhi nei, e ngaukino nei i runga i te iwi Māori. Kua roa tērā āhuatanga i roto o Aotearoa, kāore i tua atu i a Moana Jackson mā ki te whakamārama i ēnei āhuatanga. Mēnā e hiahia ana he paku wāhi kimi kōrero, rangahau, nama rānei hei atawhai, hei tiaki i a koutou i roto i tēnei mahi whakariterite ture mō te motu.

Nō reira kei te akiaki mātou i a koutou kia pānui, kia pānui i te whakatikatika i te huarahi o te ture. Kia hōrapa te whakatika i ngā huarahi o te ture, i te mea e mōhio pai ko tēnei mea, te kaikiri ā-whare, he āhuatanga kua roa, kua roa e noho nei i roto i ngā tikanga ture o tēnei kāinga nei, o Aotearoa.

Nō reira kia kaha rā ki a tātou i roto i tērā āhuatanga.

Hoki nei, kapo ake nei au i tēnei kōrero a tērā taha e mea ana ko te “justice delayed ko te justice denied”. Anā ko te iwi Māori ia e roa ana e tatari ana kia kite i te justice nō roto mai i tēnei Whare. Tukuna ki a rātou mā runga anō i te aroha o tēnei Whare. Me taku mōhio i tū mai tēnei Whare i runga i te aroha o te Māori, me tana kupu whakaae, whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Nō reira kia hoki rawa mai taua āhuatanga, taua aroha ki roto ki ngā ture o tēnei Whare, tēnā pea ka ea haere te wāhi ki a tāua.

Nō reira kia wetekina nei ngā aupēhitanga kua roa e kaikiri nei i runga i te iwi Māori kia tika te takoto o ngā ture katoa e whai wāhi ai ngā mokopuna, ngā whakatipuranga i roto i ngā whakahaeretanga o tēnei motu, atu i te whare herehere, atu i te tukituki ki ngā pirihimana, atu i te noho ki ngā whare kōti.

Me taku akiaki anō hoki kia rite, kia rite te hanga o ēnei momo Whare ki te nuinga o te iwi ka tae atu ki a ia. Kua taetae au ki roto i ngā kōti o ngā rohe, hanga Pākehā tonu, Pākehā tonu te āhua o ngā whare katoa. Me ō rātou tikanga whakahaere, ērā āhuatanga. Engari mehemea ko te nuinga o te tangata ka tae atu ki ērā whare he Māori, kia Māori mai te āhua. Kia whakaahua atu i te wāhi ki te Māori, ā, i te wāhi ki te Pākehā i roto i tēnei mea, te whakahaere i tēnei o ngā whenua e noho nei tātou.

Nō reira kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, mō te tōroa rānei i ngā kōrero, engari kia hoki nei au ki tēnei kupu āku: kei te tautoko ake, ā, kei te akiaki i tēnei taha, tēnei taha tōna katoa, kia hōrapa haere te whakatika i ngā tikanga ture o tēnei Whare. Kei te tuku mātou i tēnei o ngā pire ki te Whare, tēnā rā tātou.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all. I will deliver my speech on this bill in the Māori language, so if anyone wishes to listen to these statements, I encourage you to put your earpiece in your ear.

I rise now to speak on this bill, known as the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, and to share the views and position of the Māori Party on this bill.

First, the Māori Party supports this bill and its commitment to ensuring the rights of victims are upheld in the judicial processes of our courts in this country. This is essential to upholding human dignity, correcting wrongs, and ensuring that the essence of this thing, of justice is available to all. And also to care for those who are oppressed, suppressed or harmed by offenders through the judicial processes. Therefore, we welcome this legislation.

I would like to highlight that there are aspects of the intention of this bill that we, the Māori Party, encourage the Government to expand on, right, the seed of this legislation. In particular, that seed is to focus on addressing the systemic issues within the Ministry of Justice.

We know that for a long time, the Ministry of Justice has oppressed and mistreated the Māori people. This has been an ongoing issue in Aotearoa, and no one has explained this more clearly than Moana Jackson and others, if you are seeking information, research, or statistics to assist and protect you in the preparation of this legislation for the nation.

So, we urge you to examine and amend the paths of the justice system. Let these amendments be widespread, as we know well that institutional racism has long been a part of the justice system in this home of ours, New Zealand.

Therefore, let us be strong in addressing this matter.

I want to echo this statement from the other side that “justice delayed is justice denied.” And Māori have been waiting a long time to see justice from this House. Let it be delivered to them with the compassion of this House. I know this House was founded on the compassion of the Māori people, with their assent and authorisation of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Therefore, let that characteristic, that compassion, return to the legislation of this House. Perhaps then, the balance can be restored for us all.

So let us dismantle the longstanding oppression and racism that has burdened the Māori people, so that all laws are just and fair for our grandchildren and future generations to ensure that they can participate in the governance of this country in ways other than in prisons, clashes with the police, and sitting within the court system.

I also urge that these institutions be shaped to reflect the majority of those who come into contact with them. I have visited courts in different regions, and they all are very Pākehā, in their appearance and their procedures. However, if the majority of those entering these courts are Māori, they should reflect the Māori people. It should represent both the Māori and Pākehā presence in the governance of this land we live on.

So I do not wish to repeat any comments nor prolong my speech, but I return to this point of mine: we support this bill, and we urge this side, this side in its entirety, to make broader corrections to the judicial processes of this House. We commend this bill to the House, and thank you all.]

Kia ora. Tēnā koe, otirā tēnā koutou katoa i roto i tēnei ahiahipō. He tū tēnei mai i te Rōpū Kākāriki ki te tautoko, nō reira me reo Māori ahau i tēnei wā kia whai ahau i taku tūngāne, i a Tākuta, ki roto i tēnei tū whai āhua me te pire e pā ana ki te Court (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill.

Tāku e kite nei, tēnei mahi a te kōti he mea whakamātautau, he mea whakawā i te hunga Māori. Āe, ko te nuinga ko te Māori. Anō ko te hunga e patua ana i ētahi wā he Māori tonu. Ko tētahi o ngā raru kua kite tonu ahau i roto i Te Taitokerau, he tawhiti rawa te wāhi kāinga o te whānau i ngā whare kōti.

Ki roto i Kaitaia, Te Hiku, tētahi ki roto i Te Kaikohekohe, anō ki roto i Tākiwira me Whāngarei. He tawhiti rawa mō wētahi. Nō reira tēnei pire he mea pai mō Te Taitokerau kia noho te whānau ki te tautoko i tō rātou tangata e kōrero ana ki te kaiwhakawā me te kore e mataku.

Anō, mō te hunga kōrero, te hunga kaikōrero, kia whai pānga ki roto i ēnei mahi kia kōrero mā runga ipurangi kia whai wāhi, kia whai reo rātou ki roto i ngā whakawākanga a te kōti anō.

Tāku e whakaaro nei e pā ana ki tēnei pire, kua rite, e rite ana ngā kōti mō tēnei tirohanga hou, tēnei mahi hou ki roto i te kōti. Anō ko te pūnaha; kua rite te pūnaha mō tēnei tū whai āhua hou. Koia tētahi o ngā pātai e tautoko ana au i taku whaea, a Casey Costello, me ōna āwangawanga kei te rite te kōti mō ēnei mahi hou.

I roto i te wā o te mate Korona, e kitea ana ko wētahi o te nohoanga a te kaiwhakawā ki runga ipurangi. I pērā mātou ki roto i te Kōti Whenua Māori, e pērā tonu ana. Ka noho te whānau ki mua i te kaiwhakawā mo ngā take whenua nei, nō reira kua tae ki te wā ko tēnei tētahi pire e taea ai e te whānau te tautoko, ki te whakawaha i ā rātou kōrero ki mua i te kaiwhakawā.

Rau mano tāngata, rau mano tāngata ki roto i Te Taitokerau e hanga tōmuri ana nā tēnei mea, te mate Korona, anō mō te noho ki te whakawā ki roto i te kōti. Nō reira mai i tēnei ture hou e taea ai e ngā kaiwhakawā, me kī ngā whānau, te whakatutuki i te noho tahi ki roto i te kōti kia oti katoa ngā herenga ki te kōti. Me taku whakapae ko te hiahia kia tuku te Māori kia haere te Māori ki te mahi i tāna mahi kia kore he here ki roto i tēnei ture a te Pākehā, anō ki roto i te ture a ēnei o ngā kōti.

Tētahi atu kaupapa kua kite ahau ki roto i wētahi o ngā rangahautanga, te rangahau, te tangata taea ki roto i te kōti, kātahi ka mataku i te mea ka kite rātou i te nanakia, i te tangata i tūkino i a ia. Nō reira ko tētahi mea nui ki a au, i te mea kua kite au i ētahi whānau, kahore rātou e puta ki roto i te kōti mō te nohoanga nā te mataku. Tēnei mea te noho ā-ipurangi nei, ka taea e te whānau me te tangata te whakapuaki kōrero ki mua i te kaiwhakawā kia kore rātou e mataku.

Anō mō te whānau tautoko, tērā pea ka noho te whānau tautoko ki roto o Muriwhenua. Kahore rātou e wātea ana ki te tae ki roto o Whangārei nā te kaha tawhiti, nā te nui o te utu, engari i taea e rātou te noho ki runga ipurangi ki te tautoko i tō rātou whānau, te tangata, aha raini.

Mō te mahi tahi ki te rōia. Ēnei rōia whai rawa nei, e awhi ana, e mahi ana ki wō tātou whānau, taea e rātou te noho tahi ki te whānau ki te tutuki i ēnei mahi mā runga ipurangi kia iti tonu te utu.

Nō reira koia ahau, te Rōpū Kākāriki, e tautoko ana i tēnei wā. Kia ora.

[Greetings. Hello to you, and also greetings to everyone here this evening. This is a speech from the Green Party in support, so I will speak in Māori at this time to follow my brother, Tākuta, in this stance on the Court (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill.

As I see it, the work of the court is to test and judge Māori people. Yes, the majority are Māori. Even those being harmed at times are also Māori. One of the issues I continue to see in Te Tai Tokerau is how far away family homes are from the courthouses.

In Kaitāia, Te Hiku, one in Te Kaikohekohe, and another in Dargaville and Whangārei. These are all too far for some people. Therefore, this bill is a positive move for Te Tai Tokerau, allowing families to support their loved ones as they speak to the judge without fear.

Additionally, for those who speak, for the speakers, it provides an opportunity to participate in these proceedings online, allowing them to have a voice in court hearings.

In my view, regarding this bill, they are ready, the courts are ready, for this new perspective, this new approach within the court system. Also, the system; the system itself is prepared for this new way of doing things. That is one of the questions, and I support my elder, Casey Costello, and her concerns about whether the courts are truly ready for this new method.

During the time of the coronavirus pandemic, we saw judges holding hearings online. We experienced this in the Māori Land Court, and it continues. Families sat before the judge to address land matters, so now it’s time that this bill allows families to support and present their cases to the judge.

Thousands of people, thousands of people in Te Tai Tokerau, have experienced delays due to the coronavirus, including delays in court hearings. So with this new law, judges, as well as families, will be able to come together in court and fulfil all the obligations. I would say that the desire is to allow Māori to go about their work without the constraints of this Pākehā law, or the law of these courts.

Another issue I have observed in some research is the fear some people have in court when they see the rascal, the person who harmed them. Therefore, one important aspect for me is that I have seen families who do not appear in court for their hearing because of fear. This ability to participate online allows families and individuals to speak before the judge without fear. 

Furthermore, for the support of families, it may be that the supporting family members live in Muriwhenua. They might not be able to attend in Whangārei due to the distance or the cost, but they could participate online to support their family member or whoever it may be.

Regarding working with lawyers, these well-resourced lawyers who support and work with our families could sit with them to address these matters online with less cost involved.

So that is why I, on behalf of the Green Party, am in support at this time. Thank you.]

It gives me great pleasure to rise in the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, and it’s great that uniformity and support has broken out on this Government bill across the House and around the House, Minister Watts. It’s great to have Minister Watts and Minister Bayly here to witness this historic moment, where everyone is in support of a Government bill.

Thinking back and looking back on where this has come from, let’s have a look at the New Zealand Herald story “Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith on reducing court delays as Government key priority” The first opening line of this New Zealand Herald story in January: “Justice delayed is justice denied: 500 days for a jury trial, 18 months for victims of serious crime for their day in court.”—and wait for it—“The new Government is taking a laser focus on improving the timeliness of the system.” The New Zealand Herald, by an objective journalist. We are delighted that that laser focus is turning now into a Government bill, it’s got its second reading, and it has support around the House.

And just to reiterate the key features of this: this is where, going forward, the justice ministry and our court system are going to use audiovisual technology, where appropriate, to ease the pressure that we’ve talked about extensively this afternoon on courts and increase access to justice. It means more options for attending court for victims and other participants such as lawyers. The proposed measures—and this is an important one; I know it’s very important to Rima Nakhle, who is our number one advocate for victims on our Justice Committee—will also help reduce the risk of victims being intimidated or revictimised, which can happen, as we know, and examples have been given when they are having to attend court in person.

The Justice Committee has worked very diligently and conscientiously under the leadership of Justice—James Meager—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): He got promoted for his birthday!

CAMERON BREWER: Well, the only way we’re going to get him out of Rangitata is to promote him! I commend the second reading of this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of my myriad duties as the member of Parliament for Ōhāriu, Assistant Speaker, and many other jobs I have here, is I’m also the Labour spokesperson on courts, so it gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity to examine this piece of legislation and to do so in what would appear to be a climate of agreement.

However, I am particularly reflecting on the comments of the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, that this is a relatively simple bill that does bring changes to the system—I don’t think anyone would actually doubt that. I don’t think it’s going to quite have the impact of turning the justice system from being the quite sluggish, very slow system it is now—a very careful use of words—to something that is going to race our defendants and speed justice up, because it simply won’t do that. But what it will do is ensure, particularly looking after our victims, to give them some opportunities to be heard elsewhere.

Before I go into the further details, I think it’s an important thing to remember about the core of our justice system, and Mr Meager will know that as a lawyer, the number one court or the registrar’s court—it has different names these days, but it’s actually the entry point into the justice system, and it’s a very important part of it. In each town and city there is this court where, when you run foul of the law or you need the assistance of the law, things are channelled through this place and we have a judge who sits there, so there’s an understanding of the equality of the system so that everybody gets access to the system.

You’ve got to be careful about introducing remoteness to the system whereby things can be done in different places, because once you do that, justice can become different things to different people. While I’m very much in favour of these provisions of this bill, I think we should go to amendment 3, which is clarifying the relationship between virtual participation and open justice. Now, obviously this was brought about and the Labour Government brought this in during the COVID pandemic, which certainly accelerated—as the pandemic did in so many of our professional lives or lives in anything—the use of audiovisual, of video, and words like “Zoom” entered into our lexicon.

It was a great opportunity for us to start to understand the opportunities for this, but anyone who’s ever worked on a computer project—and I’m sure Mr Bayly in his business life has seen computer systems being introduced, online systems being introduced that are going to change the whole way we do business. We were going to go paperless and we were going to become so efficient. I personally remember INCIS as being this system—actually, many of these provisions weren’t that much different, because all of a sudden, this is way back in the 1980s, we were going to introduce this system into justice that was going to include courts, include our judges, include our prisons, include everybody, so you would only ever enter a name once. You’d arrest someone on Courtenay Place on a Saturday night, enter their details, drop them off at the watch house, and that was the last anyone would ever have to enter another detail. Well, it never quite happened that way. I think the INCIS mainframe was last seen weighing down a yacht out in the middle of Cook Strait somewhere, and that was where it all ended up.

But seriously, I’ve seen many attempts over the years, and not only in the justice system but in many places, where we are going to solve everything with technology. Well, that’s fine, but often the people who introduce the technology are not the people who actually understand the business on either side. So never lose sight of—while we’re seeking to go online to use better technology—what the nature of our business is, and the nature of our business is to ensure that people receive justice—the justice being the criminal who comes into the system, the defendant, that they have the justice.

A lot of that is ensuring that they’re actually seen by a real person at some stage, and so I’d hate to ever see the system where—and I see already Mr Meager mentioned Te Au Reka. I’m pleased to see you’ve had a briefing on that; it’s going to be a system where everybody will be online, the lawyers will be online. Good luck with that, with getting defence lawyers online, I’ll say. It was hard enough getting the judges to even have a laptop on their desk when this was first being mooted. In fact, I was just very recently talking to someone who’s a judge’s assistant and whose job was actually to do everything, to actually turn the computer on, the lot, for one of these judges—hopefully, a judge long since retired.

I know that getting everybody online into a system—and this comes back to the point of this bill, and I know the Speaker in the Chair will be looking for me to do that, which is to make sure that when we do start to put everything online, there is someone in the system that they will actually see, and they will understand that there are real people involved in this, and that our witnesses, when they do come to court—and we talked about victims. I know the member from the Greens Tamatha Paul talked about victims. Victims should be at the centre of our court system, but actually don’t assume too much about victims, because, having dealt with a lot of victims, going to court is an important part of the process for them. A lot of our victims actually do like to sit in the back of the court and actually see the defendant standing there in the dock, justice being meted out to them. So don’t ever make assumptions. What really worries me is that the more online we get, the more we will take that centre-point of the District Court, of the High Court, out of the system. So all of a sudden, everything has been done online.

Going back to what I said before, and I’m being a little bit cynical; probably know too many defence lawyers myself who I just—good luck trying to get them online.

James Meager: Let’s not go back; let’s look forward.

GREG O’CONNOR: Some of your compatriots maybe, I’m sure, Mr Meager—you’ve sat in the court. Good luck trying to get some of those people to actually be able to do all their business online. The other thing, too: as soon as you go into that, you also get some security issues. Go back to this issue where witnesses and people at home can be sitting and observing parts of the court process that actually may not be able to be made public; they may be suppressed. Even that information all of a sudden is going to be online, ensuring that we’re going to have that.

Going back, from listening to me, you might think I’m totally opposed to this. I’m not. This is very good, but don’t think this is any more than what it is. It’s a relatively simple bill that actually does ensure that we’re able to utilise the technology, but without changing the nature of our business.

I see right through the process, too, anyone who’s had the opportunity—and I really commend everyone in the House to take the opportunity to go to one of the new specialist courts, because actually the specialist courts are going the other way. I was lucky enough to be in the wonderful Palmerston North and looking at what they do with the family violence court.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Great town.

GREG O’CONNOR: Now, each of us will have somewhere in our jurisdiction, a court. The drug courts are another one. Now, these are more specialist courts. Instead of having this conveyer belt of people going through the justice system, they were actually able to take a little more specialisation. One of these specialisations is the family violence court. Actually, they’re shaped differently, but the essence of it is that it’s much more personalised. It’s important that the defendant, in this case, is actually in the room with the judge, with the lawyers, and with all those others involved in the system.

While we’re doing this, we’re actually moving to another system. The drug courts are actually the same thing. Again, go to the drug courts. Those of you in Auckland—I understand there’s one opening in Hamilton if it hasn’t already—there’s one in Auckland City and one out at Waitakere. Well worth a visit because you’ll actually see another way that justice is being administered. I was lucky enough to be there when we had three of the people who had been through the courts actually graduating. As a bit of a cynical old detective, I had my doubts when I went in there. You know, it’ll obviously be—statistics over the years; we’ll see how it works. Certainly I’m convinced there is another way, but the other way wasn’t moving online. The other way, and what I was able to observe there, was actually there was more personal involvement in it.

So while, yes, let’s use our technology; yes, use this—and I look forward to Te Au Reka. I do note that Te Au Reka has had a considerable reduction in its funding. While we’re going to go online, the funding is not going—well, in fact, $31 million less funding for courts this year. While we’re going to be making these advances—[Interruption] Laptops cost money—I don’t know if you know over there: to go online, it’ll cost money.

I could speak longer about this. It’s a topic near and dear to my heart. I do recommend this, and I believe that it’s something that is the start of an issue, but let’s not forget what justice is about; what the court system is about. Thank you.

It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. Before I get into the nitty gritty of this bill, I would also like to say happy birthday to our excellent chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, who received a lot of lovely support around the Justice Committee today.

I’d also love to say to my mother: happy birthday, Mum. Behibbik kteer ummi. I love you so much. I’d also like to say a happy birthday to my niece Silia, happy birthday to my sister Nagewa for tomorrow, and happy birthday for Rima Luti two days ago.

Getting back to this bill, as I am surrounded by a number of Ministers, and talking about this bill to these Ministers—the Minister of Climate Change over here, Simon Watts, the MP for North Shore. I know there’s a climate of change coming with respect to remote video access for our courts. As I’m surrounded by the Minister of Statistics, Andrew Bayly, I know the statistics of completed court cases in a certain time frame may well change for the better. I’m surrounded also by the Minister for Land Information, Chris Penk, and the information in the departmental report is that this will help victims. So anything to get our justice system back on track—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): But is it their birthday? That’s what we want to know. Continue.

RIMA NAKHLE: Anything to get our justice system back on track. I—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Back on track—back on the bill. Back on the bill.

RIMA NAKHLE: —commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I’ve spent a lot of time in this Chamber this week, and I can tell you I have not been happy about it. There has been bill after bill just wanting to destroy our environment, and it’s been an awful time for me, someone who cares about the environment and doesn’t want to increase pollution.

Here we are on Thursday afternoon, and we seem to be having a birthday fest. Happy birthday to Mr James Meager, the chair of the Justice Committee. I have to say I’m very pleased to be speaking on a bill that everybody agrees about, and can—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Nobody cares about Freddy the Frog’s birthday.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Aw! My colleague is saying that nobody cares about Freddy the Frog’s birthday, but I can tell Dr Ayesha Verrall that I care about Freddy the Frog every day of the year—

David MacLeod: Which one?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: All the Freddies. All the Freddies, David MacLeod, all the Freddy the Frogs.

Right, happy birthday to James Meager, the chair of the Justice Committee, and well done to all members of that select committee, whether or not it is their birthday today or yesterday or sometime last week. Well done to them, too, for working through what my colleague has described as “quite a simple bill”. These are small changes, but they’re good for victims. They’re good for efficiency. So well done for having some common-sense legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this bill has been well traversed, and in the efforts to enable Mr Meager to celebrate his birthday more fulsomely, I’m happy to commend this bill to the House and get on with it. Thank you.

Well, kia orana, Mr Speaker—I wasn’t expecting to perhaps get to my call so quickly. I want to wish a happy birthday to Dua Lipa, who has got a birthday happening at the moment, and Mr Meager as well—in fine, fine company. I want to acknowledge the work of the committee that Mr Meager chairs, the Justice Committee, for the work that they’ve done around this bill.

It’s very clear that members on this side of the House will be supporting the bill’s second reading this afternoon. It’s one of those extraordinary situations where the actual report from the select committee is rather brief and the recommendation is unanimous, and that’s because it’s gone through that process without any amendments. To have that go through the process on a unanimous sort of point is something that we don’t get to see very often—

Hon Rachel Brooking: But we’d like to see more of it.

TANGI UTIKERE: —so I want to acknowledge the work around that—and we would like to see more of that, for good pieces of legislation.

I want to just touch on a few things. The courts spokesperson on this side of the House, for the Labour Party, Greg O’Connor, has talked about the fact that courts are a really important part of democracy here in New Zealand, and what’s really important is that there is an ability for those who are part of the democracy to be involved in the process—whether it’s as a defendant, whether it’s as a witness, whether it’s as a victim, whether actually it’s as a member of the public who may just want to go along and understand what is happening in their community. It’s really important that, when it comes to participation in courts around this country, it’s accessible for those that need to or want to be involved.

I know that Mr O’Connor spent some time in the fine city of Palmerston North last week, and I know that he took the opportunity to visit our local courthouse while he was there. Now, that gave an opportunity to not just appreciate the different logistical issues, I guess, that arise from time to time but the facilities that exist. Certainly, in our community—as you will know, Mr Speaker—we’ve had some changes in our local courthouse to reflect the changing times. Whether it’s the general layout, whether it’s the way in which the accessibility aspect is targeted, there have been some changes.

However, there are some aspects of the court system and structure where things haven’t changed, and it has taken quite some time for people to get on board as part of that. The reality, of course, is that as we move along and end up with technological change and advancement and innovation, it makes things a little bit easier to grasp and get on board with. I reflect that perhaps 10-odd years ago, it would be a very different approach if we were talking about the use of remote participation and what that might mean. I’d hazard a guess and suggest that you wouldn’t see someone on a screen beaming in to a courtroom, in that particular sort of phase of things.

One of the responsibilities that I’ve had, in a former role before coming here, was as a judicial justice of the peace. I’m very familiar with the insides of courtrooms and have conducted hearings via audiovisual links (AVL). There have been some limitations. I recall, actually, when I was dealing with an arrest matter in Palmerston North and the defendant was in the Levin police station, where there’s a requirement to, basically, sight the bail bond and the conditions that are signed. At that time, it wasn’t very easy to effectively discharge that duty—when you’ve got a defendant who is holding up a copy of the bail bond up against the screen, which is then being beamed down the camera through to courtroom number three in Palmerston North. With the introduction of this opportunity, there needs to be a guarantee that there are appropriate and adequate logistical resources when it comes to not just AVL but IT and the like, to ensure that it is a smooth process.

One of the fail-safes, I guess, in terms of this particular bill, is that it allows for the judicial officer—whether that’s a judge, a JP, a registrar, or someone else; a community magistrate, perhaps—who is making those decisions to still consider the interests of justice for all participants, particularly, actually, for the defendant, who may not have been convicted at that particular point in time, because, of course, the presumption of innocence is what is expected in this country. Knowing that a court registrar or a judicial officer still has the right to be able to, basically, pull the plug and not allow remote access is something that is to be protected and something that continues in this particular piece of legislation as well.

The interesting thing that often is kind of set to the side is the role that victims can play in court proceedings. One thing that this bill does is it provides an opportunity for victims to participate in proceedings on their own terms. They don’t have to be in the courtroom physically. They can, effectively, be beamed in, but don’t have to have all sets of eyes looking at them if they don’t want that. It doesn’t mean, of course, that for some victims that opportunity is removed—there is still that opportunity for victims, in addition to a victim impact statement. But, despite this legislation, it would still be open to a victim if they chose to front up in court and wanted to, whether it’s to deliver a victim impact statement or otherwise, in the presence of whoever is in the courtroom at the time—the opportunity for them. What’s pleasing, I guess, is that it’s not a default that suddenly all victims who will participate in this process will suddenly only have remote participation as their only choice.

Those that have been to courthouses around the country will know that many of the courthouses are quite different in terms of the infrastructure kit. When we look at the Taihape courthouse, it’s very different from the courthouse that’s located in Marton, which is very different to the courthouse that is located here in Wellington. And so what’s going to be important is ensuring that the infrastructure to allow remote participation, whether that be by audiovisual link or otherwise, is actually up to spec, because that also assists in ensuring that the nature of justice that is going to be available to those participants is not—there’s no risk there. It’s a pleasure to be able to support this bill. We look forward to its passage past second reading. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a great day in this House. It is a great day because it’s James Meager’s birthday. It’s a great day because it’s Rima Nakhle’s mother’s birthday. It’s also a great day because we’ve reached unanimous support in this House. And, finally, it’s a great day because finally the courts are catching up to the rest of our society, and that is that technology can be used for court proceedings. This is a great bill, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair, and I note the excessive birthday wishes to Mr James Meager, so it must be his shout. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 August 2024.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.