DAVID GARRETT (ACT): I rise to lend the ACT Party’s support to the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and to echo pretty much the comments from all around the Chamber.

I too can say that in my short time here, which parallels that of Dr Graham, the debate on this bill was the best example of parliamentary democracy that I have seen. I do not think it would be treading on any toes—I hope not—to say that last night lessons were learnt all around the House and in the wider precinct. What should have been a straightforward procedural change to the law threatened to cause, or potentially cause, some very serious damage to the integrity of our justice system.

I again echo others in paying tribute to members on all sides of the House who argued passionately throughout the Committee stage to make some very important amendments to the bill—the obvious one being to exclude trials from the ambit of audiovisual links without the defendant’s consent. I think most members would not regard me as an obsequious person, but I wish to put on record that I found David Parker’s speech truly inspiring. I think it was probably the best speech, or certainly one of the best speeches, that I have heard in my time here.

The substantive change that, as others have said, needed fixing, and was fixed in the final analysis, was the defendant’s right to appear at his or her own trial. I will not repeat the reasons why that is so important, as other members have done it as well as, or better than, I could. A defendant must be, and always has been, considered innocent until proven guilty—that is a foundation block of our justice system. As Parliament is effectively the highest court in the land, it is the job of this House to ensure that nothing goes through this place that undermines that fundamental right.

For this reason, I join in the chorus of praise for the Minister of Justice. He said, and I take him at his word, that he was persuaded by the quality of the debate—and it certainly was an excellent debate—that it was necessary for him to take the most unusual step of making a handwritten amendment.

For those both within and without this place who think that parliamentary democracy is out of fashion, I would like to think that what has happened in the last 24 hours has restored their faith in it. Obviously the crucial clause, as it now reads, is that audiovisual links must not be used for the appearance of the defendant in a trial that determines his or her guilt or innocence, unless the defendant consents to that use. If the defendant thinks he or she stands a better chance of being found not guilty by being in the courtroom where the judge and the jury can see the defendant’s body language more effectively, or vice versa, then it must be the defendant’s right to appear in person at his or her trial.

As members on the other side of the House have noted, though, it was not just for the defendant’s sake, important as his or her rights are—in fact, the defendant’s rights are paramount. It was Lianne Dalziel who said during the Committee of the whole House that many victims and their families prefer that the defendant is forced to face them in person. I have not had the pleasure of witnessing marae justice, but I understand that the face-to-face aspect of the victim confronting the wrongdoer is a big part of that process.

It is important for victims to gain a sense of closure. Having the defendant in court, hearing the victim impact statements in person, if the victims are able to read them, and seeing what damage he or she has caused can be both therapeutic for victims and—sadly, less often—one hopes, occasionally a wake-up call for those who have caused hurt.

I have just drawn a line through the next section of my speech, because I was going to score a point. As everyone else has been so magnanimous, I shall continue in that same vein.

This bill is recognition of the role of modern technology and what it has to offer us. As usual, the corporate world is streets ahead of the public sector when it comes to using technological advances to increase efficiency and achieve better outcomes. Rather than flying around the world for a meeting, with audiovisual links one can sit in the Auckland office and negotiate substantial business deals in London. It is cheaper and, as Gareth Hughes said in his speech, it is better for the environment—if one believes in the evils of air miles and carbon footprints, and we all have some divergence of opinion on that.

Governments are often slow to adopt best practice from the business sector. In my view it is high time the justice system properly embraced and used the benefits of audiovisual links. We have a justice system that I think all parties would agree has been clogged for a long time. Delays in trials can be more than 2 years, I understand, and that is entirely unsatisfactory, on a whole heap of levels. Increasing the use of video links at earlier stages of proceedings can only help speed up that process. That is beneficial for everyone in the system—criminals, victims, and, indeed, litigants in civil trials.

Anything that will reduce the amount of time spent waiting for justice to be delivered must be a good thing, as long as justice is delivered fairly. That was the crux of the debate last night. Thanks to the last-minute courageous amendment made by Minister Power, this bill does just that. ACT members are delighted to support it, along with every other party. Thank you.