Courts (Remote Participation) Bill

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a third time. This bill enables the wider use of audiovisual links in New Zealand courts. The bill sets out criteria that must be applied to any decision to use video links. These criteria are specifically designed to protect the fair trial rights of defendants and other participants in the court process. I shall take a moment to go through these criteria, as they are pivotal to the operation of the bill.

Clause 5 sets out general criteria that must be considered in any decision to use video links at any type of proceeding. The court must examine the nature of the proceeding—for example, whether it is procedural in nature or a substantive matter. The court must also look at the technology available and how use of that technology will affect all participants in the case. Clause 5 also enables the court to take into account any other relevant matters. Such matters might include the views of other participants such as the child in a Family Court proceeding, or whether the accused represents a significant security risk.

In the more specific case of a criminal proceeding, clause 6 provides additional criteria that must be considered, which go to the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the defendant’s ability to comprehend the proceedings, participate in the defence, consult and instruct counsel privately, access relevant evidence, and examine witnesses for the prosecution.

I listened carefully to the debate on the second reading, and last night to the debate of the Committee of the whole House. I was persuaded by the arguments put forward by a number of members that more explicit protection is needed for the appearance of a defendant at his or her actual trial. Last night I tabled an amendment to clause 9, which states that audiovisual links cannot be used for the appearance of the defendant in a trial that determines his or her guilt or innocence without the defendant’s consent. These changes mean that it is defendants who will decide whether they appear by video link at their own substantive trial. Other participants, including witnesses in substantive matters, will still be able to appear by video link. In my view, this preserves the fair trial rights of the defendant while still enabling the wider use of video links in New Zealand courts.

Notwithstanding the debate that has taken place this week, it is important to recognise that this bill is not just about defendants appearing by video link; that technology will be available to a wide range of participants in the court system. In allowing for this, the bill enhances access to justice not just for those involved in criminal proceedings but also for individuals, families, and businesses trying to resolve their civil disputes. It will mean that a day in court is not contingent on every participant being in the same place at the same time, regardless of whether that is convenient, efficient, reasonable, or safe. Enabling the greater use of video links through this bill will benefit a wide variety of court users, minimise the costs and risks associated with transporting prisoners, and contribute to this Government’s reform programme, which has a wider goal of a safer, more efficient, and effective justice system.

What a difference 24 hours can make in Parliament! I close by stating that I appreciate the very genuine way in which members across the House put their case for a change to this bill, and that was the spirit in which I considered their arguments. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

I begin by congratulating the Minister of Justice on doing as he has described. I think that the way in which Parliament has conducted itself in respect of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill in the last week has been exemplary. It is the sort of interchange we should have in respect of legislation, and the sort the public wants us to have. We have actually built public confidence in this institution this week. Were there to be another ranking of the most trusted New Zealanders next week, compared with our ranking last week we would maybe come up a notch, although I suspect that we still would not be in the top half.

Returning to the merits of this legislation, I point out that there has never been disagreement that we ought to take advantage of this technology for things that do not adversely affect the interests of parties to litigation. The use of audiovisual technology to make it cheaper, quicker, and more convenient for people to participate in civil proceedings, and particularly in call-over proceedings for criminal matters, is to be applauded. The area the Opposition was very concerned about was in respect of the ability of a judge to have discretion to conduct a trial without the accused having the right to be present. I will dwell a little on why that seemed so clearly to be wrong, but perhaps more on the process that led us to being so close to abrogating that civil liberty, because I think it pointed to a mistake that was made within the ministries.

When I started to think about this issue, after we had heard from the Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Law Society as to their opposition to it, and tried to think about how injustices could be caused to the accused, it quickly became apparent to me that there were a number of ways in which an injustice could occur. I have listed them previously in other stages in the debate but I will mention some of them now. For a start, the right of the accused to participate by audiovisual link could be frustrated at the Department of Corrections end if Department of Corrections officers wanted to be disruptive. There could also be technological faults; it is a matter that I have not previously raised, but there is always the possibility of technological failures, which we have seen often enough at select committees when we hear submissions from a distance by way of audiovisual link.

In addition, various things happen at a trial that an accused must be able to see, not only to protect the interests of the accused but also to maintain the sense that he or she has been dealt with fairly by the justice system. That is important in terms of maintaining public confidence in justice. One particular thing that would worry me if I were an accused would be if the person giving the main evidence for the prosecution could not see me staring at him or her at the time that witness was about to give evidence that was adverse to my interests and that I knew to be incorrect—and therefore I knew the witness was perjuring himself or herself. I think that having to stare at the accused—at the person who will go behind bars if convicted—affects the tension upon the witness. Therefore, it affects the demeanour of the witness when he or she gives evidence and whether the evidence will be believed by the judge or the jury. That is one instance when it is important that the accused is there and able to face the accuser.

Another instance relates to what can go wrong in a courtroom. On occasions—and it is very rare—there can be inappropriately cosy relationships between the defence and the prosecution. That sort of thing is less likely to happen if the accused is present, and if it does happen, it is important that the accused is there to see it, so that the accused can say that it is not on, and sack his or her counsel. Inappropriate things can happen in relation to a jury. A juror could fall asleep. Jurors could be handing around pictures that are irrelevant or have not gone through the normal evidence process, and the accused has a right to see whether that is happening, so as to protect his or her interests. The accused has the right to see whether someone in the gallery is showing signs that might be pejorative of the accused. The judge may have had prior dealings with the accused and be tempted to make snide or inappropriate remarks about the accused when he or she is not present. The accused has a right to know whether those things are happening, so that the accused can protect his or her interests both at trial and at any subsequent proceedings like appeals.

I think it is pretty obvious that this change was a substantial abrogation of the current civil liberty we all have to personally attend a trial where we are accused. I was very gratified that members of the Government acknowledged some of these arguments. I thank Simon Bridges for digging out some cases, which were also referred to in the report to the Attorney-General by Crown Law. He noted that there were some instances where the accused was not able to appear at his or her own trial. But when we dug down into those cases we found that the accused was not there because the accused did not want to be there and had absconded from the trial. That shows those cases to be different from the more general principle that could have been brought about had the Government not agreed to an amendment right at the end of the Committee stage.

I have read the report dated 27 November 2009 to the Attorney-General from Crown Law. It said in paragraph 5: “The use of AVL for the appearance of an accused person at trial appears to be uncommon in comparable jurisdictions, at least without the accused person’s consent,”. So it actually noted that there could be a problem. But I have to say that there was an incredibly once-over-lightly response once that problem was identified. Not one of the instances of possible injustice that I have referred to in this short speech was referred to in the analysis from Crown Law to the Attorney-General, and I personally think that was a mistake. I will not call it slack; I just think that it made a mistake. It was a mistake not to be aware of what I think were pretty obvious possibilities of injustice arising from that legislation. Crown Law should have been alert to those from the fact that even in its own report it states that it “appears to be uncommon in comparable jurisdictions, at least without the accused person’s consent,”.

I for one have a little less confidence in Crown Law than I did before I read this report, because I think it made a mistake. I hope it has learnt a lesson from this legislation and that it has seen that when this bill was debated in Parliament, Parliament saw fit to be a bit more protective of our civil liberties than Crown Law thought was appropriate when it was assessing this legislation in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

In terms of the advice that came to the Justice and Electoral Committee, I thought that the Ministry of Justice departmental report was less than perfect, as well. Again, its analysis of paragraph 65 and around there was a bit general. It tried to bluster that these things were happening overseas when, in fact, if one read it in detail one could see that there was not much justification based on overseas jurisdictions. Canada cannot have remote participation without the consent of the accused, and it is the same in most parts of Australia. Maybe Australia is a wee bit different because of the huge geographic distances. That point was never brought out, either. We never heard what the case was in the United States, but I would be very, very surprised if one can have a trial there without being personally present. The United Kingdom has only some pilot trials, so it certainly does not have this rule, either. So we were going out on our own, in my opinion, and that was not clear from the departmental advice that was provided to the select committee. We as committee members had to dig in order to find that.

In respect of the conduct in this House, I also thought that Wayne Mapp in the chair made an appropriate acknowledgment at one stage when he conceded that the change from having an unconditional right to appear at one’s trial to that effectively being at the discretion of the court, albeit with some protections built around that discretion, was a significant change. I think that was an appropriate acknowledgment for the Minister in the chair to make, and I thank him for doing so. But it then raised a question. If the Minister in the chair can see that, and if we in this Parliament can see it, why could Crown Law not see that it was a significant change that actually required some proper analysis in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

We then came to the intervention of the Minister of Justice. He had been listening to the debate—he was presumably in his office—and was sufficiently moved by the importance of these issues to come to the House. I thank the Minister for doing that. I know that on both sides of the House at times that does not happen. It is pretty hard to change track when one has departmental advice that one is right, one has been to Cabinet, and Cabinet has been convinced that one is right. It is actually quite hard to change one’s mind in that process, and it shows strength of character on the part of the Minister that he was able to do so. It shows also the respect that he is held in by his Cabinet colleagues that he had the confidence that he could do that and his Cabinet would support him. I put that on record.

I think that in the end this legislation shows that this Parliament can work to protect civil liberties. We have done so in this case. I was very concerned until the last that we were not going to get there. We had put up an amendment with a similar effect to the amendment that the Minister put through last night, which was voted on first. The indication was that our amendment would not have been voted for by the Government. I thank Mr Garrett and members of the ACT Party, members of the Māori Party, and the members of the Green Party for their involvement in this debate. In a process sense, I probably could have raised that issue earlier a bit more clearly with some other parties.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

I will not speak for very long, because we are in a position of consensus on this bill, the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. It is very clear that with this bill we are taking advantage of a technology that is available to us as a society. I think we can all agree that there are safety benefits in relation to prisoners and their transfer and the like, there are efficiencies to be gained, and, through that, there are, of course, cost savings. That is not the be-all and end-all in justice matters by any stretch, but it is a matter worth noting—there will be cost savings.

I think it was David Parker who said in the second reading debate that Labour members agreed with 99 percent of the bill and that it was with regret that they were holding out on one point. I will not relitigate that, but I agree with David Parker that what we have is a situation where the Minister of Justice listened carefully. It is to his credit that he, in weighing up those arguments, was persuaded by—I think we can say—strong speeches from the Labour Opposition and Kennedy Graham of the Greens.

I suggest that we have seen a Parliament that is working—sometimes pretty robustly, but working well. I certainly do not want to say to the House that this debate is somehow all for our own edification, and that we do all this to be educated, but I think that David Parker would agree with me that this has been to some extent educational. We have all learnt something. We have picked up some different perspectives, and perhaps a number of members in this House who have followed the debate closely—as I have, and as David Parker, Kennedy Graham, and David Garrett have—will come away better, more educated, and with a finer sense of the mood of the House on issues like this. I think the process has been very good and very robust. Now we have a bill that, as I understand it, will have unanimous support. I think that is very good.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand along with my colleagues and every member of this House to speak, this time, in support of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I acknowledge the Minister of Justice for changing his mind and for listening to the debates. I also acknowledge Kennedy Graham from the Green Party, who shared the view of the Labour members on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I acknowledge the ACT Party, which listened very carefully to the arguments and played a part in the National Government’s change of mind, I acknowledge the Māori Party, and I also acknowledge Chester Borrows, who did a very good job of chairing the committee.

At any select committee it is very important that submitters are treated with absolute respect, and that they know that their voices are heard. I think the most compelling submissions on this bill were those from the Human Rights Commission and from the Law Society, which raised the concerns initially. When the bill went through its first reading, it was certainly positive in terms of access to justice and efficiency, and there were some very valid arguments. But it was the Law Commission that was so strident in its opposition to remote participation without consent being required. The commission’s submission raised our concerns and alerted us in the Labour Party to why it was really important to have further protection. We talked in earlier debates about whether we should use a trial period, which, as David Parker pointed out earlier, is being used in the UK, I think. When we are getting into new technology, it is really important that it is tested. David Parker also said earlier that in many other countries consent is generally required for the use of the technology.

I can remember—as can many other members in this House, I am sure, who are around my age—when answerphones first came into use, and how difficult it was for people to use them. Adjustment as we move forward is needed for people to feel at ease, and we had that with leaving a message on an answerphone.

As other speakers have said, there is a difficulty at times for submitters to select committees to give evidence through remote participation. Many submitters are a little more nervous and uncertain in that situation, because they cannot see us. Most people feel much more at ease being able to speak in person. From the accused’s perspective, which David Parker so eloquently outlined, there are many, many instances where the accused could be disadvantaged. They may not be able to see what is happening with the jury, they may not be able to see body language, and they may not know what is happening between counsel within the court situation. All of those things could be quite a disadvantage.

There is also a disadvantage for victims in relation to the right of victims to face the accused. So taking all of those things into account, requiring consent for remote participation in a trial is a really important thing. I am really pleased, as I said before, that all members of this House, of every single party in this House, have acknowledged that that is important.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this

I rise to join others in recognising the progress that has been made in this House in the last 24 hours on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and, by implication, the progress that has been made more generally. Simon Bridges put it well, if I understood him correctly: we have, essentially, a more refined understanding of each other’s positions, policies, and viewpoints. Certainly in my limited experience in the House, this was the best example I have seen of political parties coming from different philosophical vantage points, bringing their different policies to bear on a pretty complex subject, and refining them through debate to the point where we found common ground. Let us hope that we can undertake that more often. We are winding down a little from last night and we are all a little spent in our passion on this subject, but it was because of that passion that we got to where we did.

I pay tribute to colleagues, beginning with Minister Power, who has the statesmanlike quality of being able to think on his feet metaphorically, and even literally, and to adjust the position that the Government has taken at the moment that it is necessary. Timing is, obviously, everything. I would not say that the Government has made a mistake with this bill, necessarily, but if it has, then I will say that we can all make mistakes and we all do, in every party. But I commend Minister Power. I also commend the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage, Minister Mapp, for very ably handling the subject at a critical moment, on behalf of his colleague Minister. Not least, I commend the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Chester Borrows, who guided us through, and played a critical part behind the scenes in our arriving at a common position. It is an absolute pleasure to serve in a select committee under his chairmanship, and I commend him for both his capabilities and his style of parliamentary work. I also thank Simon Bridges, who eloquently put the Government’s case, and other colleagues as well.

I have a couple of quick points to make. We reached common ground, but I also note Peter Dunne’s thoughts on the matter. It is a shame that he is not here. I do not know whether other members have picked up on this, but Mr Dunne issued a press release this morning, in which he commended the position we arrived at. He said that he will, as I understand it, support the position, but he still had some critique of it. I note his concerns—I will take it upon myself to articulate them since he is not here—with a degree of sympathy. If the discretion resides with the defendant to appear via an audiovisual link and not appear physically, a pattern could arise, for whatever reason, where the defendant could be weak-minded, or lethargic, or totally indifferent, having essentially given up the ghost. At the other extreme, the defendant or someone charged could be very wealthy and use their wealth to personal effect in a criminal trial. So Mr Dunne’s concern is that we could get a pattern of non-appearance that could undermine the principle. I will not say “absolute principle” but I will say “constitutional principle” as I see it. I will not say any more. So I note Mr Dunne’s comments and I share the concern, but in so far as he is prepared to support the bill, the Green Party had independently arrived at a position of support earlier, on the basis of the Minister’s moves.

David Parker made the point—I think it is a very important point—that the New Zealand Government may have gone a little far out in front of other similar jurisdictions, and was almost on a fishing expedition to find areas of justification for the bill. He wondered about the situation in the United States, and I can certainly confirm that the United States is arguably the strongest of all when it comes to a defendant’s right to appear in court. It is there in the US Constitution, it is there in an 1884 case, and it is there in a 2004 case. In the United States it is not an absolute right, but rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does state that the defendant must be present at the arraignment, at the time of plea, and at every stage of the trial, including at the empanelment of the jury, the return of the verdict, and the imposition of the sentence. He or she may, however, waive that right, can be dismissed through disruptive conduct, and so on. So it is clear that the United States particularly is very strong on this point.

Last night, in the full flush of pursuit, I challenged the Government to come up with New Zealand cases over the last half-century that might have been heard in absentia. We had very limited time in which to do that. Simon Bridges focused on a few cases and we undertook our own research in the short time available. I take this opportunity, again, to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Library’s services, which we, and I particularly, use a great deal. I am extremely well served by the individual researchers in the Parliamentary Library. We are able to say, based on that research, that there have been 11 criminal trials heard in absentia. Four cases were about single defendants absconding while on bail, and another four cases were of multiple-defendant trials, where a small minority did not appear, as they had absconded as well. So there were, essentially, eight cases of defendants absconding while on bail. There were two cases of illness, where the judge formed the view that the trial could proceed. Finally, in 2003, I think, there was an extraordinary case where the defendant was in prison overnight before sentencing and was forgotten. Staff had failed to feed him, clothe him, or anything. He was in severe distress the next day and was registered by a medical practitioner as unfit to attend the trial. None the less, the judge proceeded to hear the case. That was the 11th case; but cases were few and minor. So we would have been proceeding against all manner of precedent and principle in New Zealand law had we gone ahead on that basis. I think that is sufficient comment.

I pay tribute again to the Minister of Justice for his initiative. I believe that last Tuesday night’s second reading and yesterday’s Committee stage on this bill represented New Zealand parliamentary democracy at its best. Let us hope we can continue with that level of debate. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

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.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, tēnā tātau katoa e te Whare. Ko tāku i te tuatahi ko te whaiwhai haere i te kōrero o ēnei nā, me mihi ki te Minita ka tika. Kātahi anō au ka kite i tērā momo āhuatanga. Te taenga mai o te tangata ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, mēnā ka whakarongo ia ki ngā kōrero, te nuinga o te wā, ka pātai te pātai, he aha te tika o ēnei mahi i roto i te Whare Pāremata. I te roanga o te wā kua noho au ki roto i te Whare Pāremata kua kore au e kite i tērā āhuatanga, arā, ko te aro mai o te Minita ki te ia o te kōrero ka kōrerohia i roto i te Whare Pāremata. Nō reira ki te Minita, ka nui te mihi ki a ia, otirā ki te pai o ngā kōrero i puta i te Whare, huri rauna, huri noa i te Whare, ngā kokonga me ngā taha katoa. Ā kāti, he rawe ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero. Nō reira, tērā kōrero tērā. Ka waiho ki reira me taku mihi anō rā ki te Minita.

Kātahi anō au ka rongo i te āhuatanga o te kupu e kī ana ko te “oxymoron”. Kua kōrerohia tērā kupu ki roto i te Whare Pāremata nei ko te “oxymoron”. Kāore au i te tino mārama ki te tikanga o tērā kupu, te oxymoron, engari ki taku mōhio i roto i te Ao Māori, ā, ko ngā kupu e noho taupatupatu nei. Nē? Ko ngā kupu, ko te wairua o te kōrero e noho tukituki nei, taupatupatu nei. Ā, pēnei i roto i te reo Pākehā, “a wise fool”, tērā momo kōrero. Arā ko te “legal murder”, tērā momo kōrero. Arā, ko te kōrero oxymoron tērā. Ki taku mōhio, ā, e āhua pērā anō hoki tēnei pire. Ko te oxymorone kōrerohia ake nei ko te “remote”me te “participation”, kei te āhua tukituki ēnā kupu nē? Nō reira, kua mārama au ki te tikanga o tēnei kupu o te oxymoron. Tērā kōrero tērā.

Mō tēnei pire, tino rata au ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero katoa engari, hei whaiwhai haere i te kōrero a taku hoa a Hone Harawira inapō nei, me taku kī atu, tērā kōrero i kitea te taumatatanga o tēnei mea o te kōrero, o te whaikōrero. Nō reira ka mihi ki a ia. Ā, ko tana kōrero ki te Whare e pēnei ana. E taea ana e tātau te kite i te tūkinotanga ka taea e wai rānei i roto i ngā spacies parlours. Ka kitea mai ai ngā tamariki, ka pēhia te pātene, kua mate te tangata. Nā te pēhi i te pātene, ko tana kōrero, ngāwari noa iho ki ngā tamariki ki te haere ki ērā momo whare, ki te kāinga rānei, noho ki mua i te aroaro o te pouaka whakaata, mā te PlayStation, ērā momo mea, ā, ka mahi tēnei mea ko te mahi whakatumatuma. Nō reira kua kite tātau i te whānui, i te whāroa o te āhuatanga o te ao technology nei. Ka taea mā te pēhi o te pātene te whakatuwhera i te kūaha o te kareti, ka taea te kati i ngā ārai, ka taea te whakatika, te whakakā i tō pouaka whakaata, ēnei āhuatanga katoa. Nō nātatanei kua puta te joystick, kei te mōhio ētahi ki te āhuatanga o te joystick. Engari anei au e noho nei me te rangirua he aha te tikanga o te joystickmēnā, ko tōna mutunga mai he patu i te tangata. Kei te āhua oxymoron tonu tērā momo kōrero. Ka joystick mai, engari ko tōna mutunga mai he patu i te tangata. Kātahi te mahi rorirori ko tērā. Nō reira tērā kōrero tērā.

Kei te mōhio pea ētahi o tātau ko te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te Grand Theft Auto. E ai ki ngā kōrero, whitu tekau miriona ngā kape me kī, kei a tātau kei te ao. Ko tāna mahi, me kī, ko ngā momo tāngata kino nei, ko ngā hara nei, ā, ko tā rātau mahi haere i te ao. Mā te patu i te tangata kua piki haere ngā taumata o tēnei mea o te kino. Nō reira, koinei te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te Grand Theft Auto. I ētahi wā, ko te mahi o tērā kēmu, ka kite atu i te pā kūhā a te tāne me te wahine, anō nei kei te mahi i tērā mahi. Nō reira, koinei te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te technology. Heoi anō, koinei te āhuatanga o tēnei ao.

Ā, ka pēhi te pātene, me kī, pēnei i tā Hone e kōrero nei, māmā noa iho te noho ki reira i te mea, ehara i te mea kei roto i tēnā ao. Ko tā Hone ināpō, pēnei i tana haerenga i te motu, kāore tētahi i paku whakahē i mua i tana kanohi, i hē tō kōrero Hone Harawira, kāo, engari i te pouaka whakaata, ka karawhiuwhiuhia ngā kōrero katoa whakahē nei i a Hone engari ki mua i te aroaro o te kanohi, kāo. Kāore tētahi i paku kōrero. Nō reira koinei te āhuatanga me kī, kei roto i tēnei whiriwhiringa o tātau. Nō reira kāti, waiho tērā ki reira.

Ko te tikanga o taku kōrero e kī ana, e mea ana, pēnei i tā tēnei nā, ko te kanohi ki te kanohi he mea nui tērā i roto i te Ao Māori. Engari, ko te mate kē o te kanohi ki te pouaka whakaata, he kore wairua, he noho wehe tērā momo āhuatanga. Nō reira, ki taku mōhio, he oxymoron te pūtake o tēnei momo pire. Ā kāti, waiho tērā ki reira i te mea, arā anō ētahi āwangawanga o te Pāti Māori mō tēnei pire. Ka kī atu mātau, ē, me kaua tātau e whai i tērā āhuatanga. Ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, kanohi ki te kanohi, me whai i tērā āhuatanga. Nō reira, koia te mea i te pūtake o tēnei take ki a mātau. Mō te Pāti Māori, ko tēnei mea te ture, he mea nui tērā ki a mātau. Me whai te ture ki tōna mutunga, ki tōna tika, ki tōna teiteitanga.

Kua roa mātau e kōrero ana mō te tika o te whakahaere o te ture, mō te whakatinanatanga anō hoki o te ture i roto i ngā kōti. Koinei tā te Pāti Māori mō tēnei pire. Ko tēnei mea o te ture, i kitea mai ai i roto i te āhuatanga o tēnei mea e kī ana, ko ngā tikanga ā-tangata, arā, i te reo Pākehā, human rights. Ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, he pai tonu kia whai te human rights i roto i te pire me kī o Aotearoa New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Ka tae ki te mutunga, ā, kāore mātau i te tino kite i te āhuatanga o te whakatinanatanga o tērā mea i roto i te pire i mua o te wā i hoki mai, ā, i te wā i kōrerohia i te wāhanga komiti nei. I āta titiro mātau ki te āhuatanga o tēnei pire, ā, ko ngā tikanga whakahaere o ngā whakaaturanga ā-pikitia. I āta titiro mātau ki ngā tikanga ā-pīra. Ko te tino pūtake o te raruraru, ko tērā e pā ana ki te kupu whakamutunga, ki te whakaaetanga rānei o te kooti, o te tiati rānei. I reira te raruraru. Pēnei i tā Kennedy Graham, mēnā ka riro mā te tangata kotahi e kī atu, āe, kāo. Koinā te pūtake o te raruraru. Nō reira, koirā te pūtake o tā mātau raru. Ā, ko te mate kē, ko te pāoho o ngā—

[Greetings to you, and to us all, the House. First, I want to follow up on the sentiments expressed by those before me. The Minister must be acknowledged. It is the first time I have seen that sort of thing. When a member comes into the House, and if he listens to the contributions, most times questions raised are about how such actions affect order in the Chamber. In the time that I have been in the House, I have never seen a situation where a Minister took the nub of a contribution in the Chamber into account. So I commend the Minister highly. I commend the quality of the contributions throughout the Chamber, on all sides, as well. It was wonderful to listen to the speeches. I leave that statement there, with my acknowledgments to the Minister once again.

I have just heard the word “oxymoron” used in this Chamber. I really do not know what that word means, but my understanding from a Māori perspective is that it is about words that clash with each other, is it not? It is words in which the concepts contradict each other, like the English words “wise fool”, or “legal murder”. That is what an oxymoron is. To me, this bill is a bit like that. “Remote” and “participation” are the oxymoron here. Those words somewhat contradict each other, do they not? I am clear about this word “oxymoron” now. That is that statement.

As for this bill, I am quite satisfied with everything in it and the way it is worded, but to follow up on my colleague Hone Harawira’s address last night, it was from the top drawer, and I commend him for it. The essence of what he said to the House was about the damage that anyone can do in spacies parlours. Children can be seen annihilating people by pressing a button. He said that we have made it easier for kids to go to those kinds of amenities, or to stay at home in front of a television with a PlayStation or gaming consoles and be an armchair terrorist. So we can see that technology has extended beyond the boundaries of human imagination. We can open the garage door, shut electric blinds, and turn on the TV, all by remote control. And now we have the joystick, and some of us are aware of what it can do. But here I am in a state of confusion as to the meaning of joystick, which ultimately is about killing people. That sort of talk is somewhat of an oxymoron to me. What a crazy game that is!

Some of us know about the Grand Theft Auto game, of which it is alleged that there are 70 million copies available worldwide. It is an action game where one becomes a big-time criminal carrying out all sorts of organised crime throughout the world by killing people. That is the nature of this thing called Grand Theft Auto. Sometimes there is even the opportunity for simulated sex. So this is the nature of technology, and the reality of this world we live in, where by the mere press of a button, or through remote control, as Hone Harawira alluded to, it is very easy to become disconnected from the world and reality, and become desensitised to the reality of terror, as well.

In Hone’s speech last night, he referred to his travels around the country, when no one confronted him personally to reject his assertions—not at all. On television, everything he said was criticised and rejected—but face to face, not at all. No one said a thing. This, then, is the nature of this negotiation process of ours. So enough, leave that there.

What I am really trying to say, I guess, is that working on a face-to-face basis is important in Māoridom. The problem with a face-to - television screen approach is that it lacks the personal and emotional touch. It is devoid of any feeling. To my understanding, oxymoron is at the root of this kind of bill.

Enough, leave that there, because the Māori Party has other concerns about this bill. We advise against pursuing the remote control aspect in criminal matters. The face-to-face approach is what we favour. That is the crux of this matter for us. Justice is an important thing for the Māori Party. It must follow due process, it must be just, and it must be pursued at its highest level.

We have talked at length about how justice must be administered correctly, and that the implementation of the law in courts must be just. This is what the Māori Party seeks in this bill. The justice issues that arise in this bill are purely and simply about human rights. We say that human rights for New Zealand through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is fine, but in the end we did not find any reference to that in the bill before it came back, or when it was debated at the Committee stage. We studied the criteria that would influence the way in which audiovisual links are to be used. We looked at the right to appeal. The real problem for us was the question around judicial discretion, where the judge must take into account whether the parties, including the defendant, consent to the use of audiovisual links. It was as Kennedy Graham said, whether it would be for one person to say yes or no. That was the crux of the problem, and where we came unstuck. The problem with evidence being beamed from —]

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

When people believe in something so much that they put their heads above the parapet and get elected to this House, one of their biggest frustrations once they get here is to have to compromise. Compromise is affected by who is putting forward legislation, whether that person is in one’s party, and whether that person supports one’s party, and the arguments begin.

A number of people come to this House and take on issues as if they were fighting in the front row of the All Blacks. As someone who never had the privilege of playing for the All Blacks but spent about 25 years in the front row, I do not believe that that is the attitude one should bring to this House. And the public, the people who put us here, do not want us to have that attitude when we are debating the issues.

It is a privilege to be the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and to work in a very collaborative way with members who have the integrity of the members who have been spoken this afternoon: the Hon David Parker, Jacinda Ardern, Lynne Pillay, Dr Kennedy Graham, Simon Bridges, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, Hekia Parata, and Paul Quinn. I thank the various members of the committee for their kind words this afternoon in respect not only of the committee and the way that it works but also my chairmanship of it. It is very much a privilege to work on this sort of legislation—legislation that, with a reasonable amount of collaboration, an expectation of fair play, and a willingness to engage, will have an enduring nature to it because it will work past the political divides.

The Courts (Remote Participation) Bill—whose title is indeed an oxymoron, as my friend Te Ururoa Flavell has mentioned—does a number of things that a lot of people outside the system would be very, very pleased with. Firstly, remote participation allows for cheaper court cases. But I believe very strongly that justice should never be measured in terms of how much it costs. Justice is something that, as scripture tells us, rains down upon all the Earth, on the just and the unjust. In a civilised society, justice is meted out to those who deserve it and to those who do not. That is how we know we are living in a just country, and that is why I am so pleased to be living in this country instead of Cuba, Fiji, Georgia, or some other country where the extent of justice is based on who can pay for it and on whom one knows, rather than on the premise that a person who asserts must prove, and one is innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that people will be able to appear as witnesses before the court via an audiovisual link is a good thing. It has significant advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The fact that we deal with media in the way that Te Ururoa Flavell outlined to us earlier is exactly the point. As somebody who has been the officer in charge of trials involving the sexual abuse of young children, I can say that having a young child appear before the court and give evidence by an audiovisual link has some definite advantages, because it encourages the child to get the words out.

But it also has a distinct disadvantage, which is that in the world that we live in we are, unfortunately, used to seeing horrible things on television. So when a child witness is giving evidence of the terrible things that happened to him or her—the most disgusting sexual crimes, for instance—it is all too easy for members of a jury to be removed from and remote from the full effect of that evidence because they are watching it on a television monitor, and, unfortunately, we are used to seeing bad things on television. I would encourage people appearing as witnesses to be in the room if they can, because the weight of the evidence carries far more effect if the witness is in the room.

The bill brings huge advantages in respect of the safety of those required to transport prisoners to and from court, and we have heard about and recall to mind the death of Liam Ashley. The default position is that for procedural matters people appear via an audiovisual link in order to avoid a threat to the safety of officers and fellow prisoners, and that is a good thing. We can agree with that.

It was, however, of real concern to a number of us that this bill sought to remove the fundamental right to be present at one’s own trial. It bothers me that over recent years huge traction has been gained by a section of people in this society who live remote from the judicial system, have no contact with it, and want the court to get harder and harder on those who appear before it.

I was pleased to hear my friend from the ACT Party, David Garrett, finally admit that the rights of the defendant are paramount within our justice system—and so they should be. In a recent media study of police stories in our newspapers, 80 percent were neutral, reporting only that the police were involved in a particular case—the reports were neither bad news nor good news—10 percent were negative for the police, and 10 percent were positive. Calling to mind any of those neutral newspaper articles or any of the positive newspaper articles is a very, very difficult thing to do. Yet we can recall to mind quite easily the abhorrent cases that are reported in respect of our law and order issues. All that does is gain traction for those people who want to attrit the rule of law as it applies to people who appear before the court.

I am incredibly proud to be part of this Government and to work under the leadership of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power. He is prepared to listen to a debate, to consider the arguments, and to change his position, even with the prospect of some degree of attack from another side or from the commentators I have already referred to. He is prepared to do what is right and just in a situation, and to protect the rule of law. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

I will take only a reasonably brief call on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill, because I think most of the things that I wanted to contribute have already been contributed by other members. I will not take up the House’s time repeating those contributions.

I will pick up on the initial comments that Chester Borrows made in his contribution about the importance of parliamentary debate and not taking entrenched party-line positions unnecessarily on things. That is a two-way process. One of the things I was heartened by last night in this debate was that the Minister of Justice came down to the House, took calls, and actually listened carefully to the debate and engaged in it. We often see situations in this House—and it is something I am sure the current Government would say happened under the last Government as well as under this one—where Ministers do not engage in the Committee stage of a debate. They sit there and try to push things through as fast as they can. I think that if we go back to the principle of what we are doing here, why we are here, what is our role here, we see that the purpose of the Committee stage debate is for us to go through a bill line by line, and every party in Parliament can speak on it even if that party was not on the select committee that considered it. That is where amendments like this can be considered, argued, and thrashed out. I think we saw that happen last night with this bill. I welcome the Government’s contribution to that debate and the willingness of the Minister to come down to speak.

I had not intended to be involved at all in this debate. I came to the House last night to speak on an entirely different matter. I was pretty disappointed when I sat down and picked up a copy of the bill that was being debated and saw what would happen under the status quo of the bill without the amendment that the Minister put forward. Effectively, in some situations it could have led to somebody not being able to be present at his or her own trial. That seemed to me to be wholeheartedly unjust.

I congratulate all of the members who took part in the debate, particularly the leadership of Lianne Dalziel, David Parker, and Simon Power in negotiating the compromise agreement that was reached. I know that the Green Party took a particularly strong position and spent some time giving us time to sort it out. I thank the Green Party for that, and also the contributions of the Māori Party and the ACT Party. It is relatively unusual for parties to all work together in the collaborative manner that we did last night. I think that is quite sad. I think the public would like to see a lot more of that from us. I hope that this new spirit of goodwill emerging right before the school holidays will continue through the holiday period, and perhaps when the House resumes after the holidays we might find that we can continue with other legislation in the same vein.

With that, I conclude my comments and simply wish everybody all the best for the adjournment. I am sure they will all be busy in their electorates.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I agree with all the previous speakers that the amendments to the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill is a very good sign of democracy. New Zealand is a democratic country and good government always listens and makes changes to its policies for logical reasons. This is another very high standard set by this Government. The Hon Simon Power made up his mind to make the necessary changes that were demanded in this House. Clause 9 states: “AVL must not be used in any criminal substantive matter for the appearance of a participant unless a judicial officer determines to allow its use for the appearance of that participant …”, and the defendant consents to that use.

This bill will improve efficiency, safety, and security for the accused and for those working in the courts, and improve access to justice. It will improve the quality of evidence heard in courtrooms. It is estimated that the reforms we are proposing in this bill have the potential to save thousands of court events and court sitting hours.

This bill sets out the criteria under which audiovisual links can be used. The criteria will protect the rights of all participants, including the defendants and the witnesses. They will allow judicial officers or the registrar to require any participant to appear by a video link in a criminal procedure matter, where evidence is not being presented.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Labour members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their support. As a first-time member of Parliament I have the great advantage of gaining experience from the committee’s members, like the Hon David Parker and the chair, Chester Borrows. I commend this bill to the House.