"Even the guilty defendant is entitled to know that the process that brought about their conviction and punishment was conducted fairly and there is no substitute for their being present in the court."
This was one of several critical comments that emerged in the wake of the announcement last week by Justice Minister Simon Power of what he described as the biggest shake-up in the sector in 50 years.
It came from unexpected quarters: that of the highest legal officer in the Government, the Attorney-general, Mr Power's Cabinet colleague, Chris Finlayson.
Mr Finlayson's role, and that of his office, requires him to gauge proposed legislative changes for their conformity to the Bill of Rights Act, but in this case he seemed more than usually forthcoming on the potentially adverse effects of the new Bill.
Close observers, aware the Attorney-general seems to be placed in this position with increasing regularity with respect to the Government's legislative programme, might even divine the merest hints of impatience in his comments.
Or perhaps his was a pre-emptive move as a foil to the harsher criticisms that he, at least, must have known would come.
Come they duly did.
Dunedin lawyer and vice-president of the New Zealand Law Society Anne Stevens, for instance, labelled the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill an "extremely worrying piece of legislation" and described it as setting up the kind of "efficient regime that totalitarians dream about".
To put all this in context, however, Mr Finlayson and, to a lesser extent, Mrs Stevens were confining their comments at the part of the Bill recommending allowing courts to proceed with a trial or hearing in the absence of the defendant if the court was not satisfied the court had a reasonable excuse for their absence.
Critical though this clause is, it is but a small section of the overall thrust of the changes.
Introducing the Bill, Mr Power said the intention of it was to "fix" a clogged justice system by saving 450 court days each year.
"It is unacceptable that there are at least 43,000 unnecessary court appearances each year, and that it takes an average 16 months to complete a jury trial in the High Court, and 12 months in the District Court," Mr Power said.
He is quite right.
The system must be overhauled in such a way as to radically reduce such waiting times.
There is weight in the old saying "justice delayed is justice denied".
Several of the proposals in the Bill make sound sense.
Requiring the defence to identify and disclose issues in dispute before a trial, for instance; allowing the court to impose cost orders against the prosecution, defendant and defence counsel if it is satisfied they have failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with procedural requirement; promoting out-of-court discussions between parties so there are fewer adjournments and shorter hearings.
These should all speed up the wheels of justice.
And nor should they hold sway who run the argument that tradition and its tried-and-tested methods are best left alone.
As society evolves and changes, so too should the laws that govern it.
Part of the Attorney-general's point, however, is that a respected and smoothly functioning justice system requires the confidence of the people over whom it is poised - the citizens of the country.
The Bill of Rights Act, he said, recognised the right of a person charged to be present during the trial and to present a defence; further, and specifically, public confidence in the verdicts of the courts was enhanced by the knowledge that defendants had opportunities to defend themselves.
It is all very well to push ahead with broadly constructive change, but if speed is at the expense of accuracy, and has implications that contravene even a common-sense approach to the law, then there is a risk that the entire project is undermined.
Care is needed when making sweeping changes.
What is convenient, speedy and cheap does not necessarily inscribe a robust, principled and built-to-last justice system.
As a scholar and learned lawyer, Mr Finlayson will appreciate the latin dictum festina lente - make haste slowly.
Perhaps some of his colleagues do not.
