Dalziel Lianne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12367] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to follow on from my colleague Hone Harawira’s comments earlier about the success he had in court. I can say that I have defended someone in a High Court trial once in my entire life and we lost. I have a 100 percent failure rate in terms of my career in the legal profession. 
Hone Harawira 
: Don’t want that recorded in  
Hansard 
. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have it recorded in  
Hansard 
 because I am just taking off my hat to that member. He has obviously been very successful in defending the most colourful client I would imagine that any lawyer could hope to have on any occasion. 
However I want to be serious about this issue because we are dealing with a very important matter here. I repeat that I did not believe for one minute that we would be dealing with the Committee stage so soon after the second reading of the bill. The reason I did not think we would be doing the Committee stage so soon is the serious issues that all Opposition parties have raised about the elements of this legislation that are of concern to us. I am in the middle of reading a book called  
The Rule of Law 
 written by Lord Bingham. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Still reading it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am still reading it because I left it in Wellington. I have only just picked it up again. I know that several colleagues are now lining up to read it and Charles Chauvel will be the first one to have the book after I have completed it. I would have brought the book to the House tonight if I had known that this bill was going to come up on the agenda again today. The reason I would have brought it is that it is a very simple description in book form of an incredibly complex set of precedents history and the law that has come together to protect some fundamental human rights in the rule of law. We all use that phrase “the rule of law”. It flicks off the tongue quite easily but it is not so easy to define. This book defines the phrase exceptionally well and talks about those protections that are put in place to make sure that people are not subject to the arbitrary whims of either a judicial discretion or indeed a lawmaker or decision maker of any form. It is a very important principle that we must uphold in this country. I think that what has been forgotten in this debate is that a fundamental part of the rule of law is the right of the victim to confront the accused and also the right of the defendant to be present in the court. 
That right to be present is written out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The right to be present at trial is provided for in section 25(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is stated in the law. I still cannot understand for the life of me how anyone can say that there was nothing to report to this House in terms of section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The absence of an accused from the courtroom is an issue that will have to be confronted. As the Human Rights Commission addressed in its submission it is likely to colour any jury’s perception of the accused and the trial regardless of any direction to the contrary from the presiding judge. This raises serious issues in relation to the right not to be compelled to confess guilt or to testify under section 25(d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
A number of other comments have been made. I think my colleague Keith Locke made a very good point about the nature of video presentations and how they can colour the proceedings and they can. I think this is a very important point. I recall very clearly talking to somebody from Grey Power about what it was like to make a submission to the select committee by way of an audiovisual link. That person said to me that it was not possible to tell from the exchange over the audiovisual link whether the submission was having any impact on the members of Parliament who were hearing it. That person felt that the hearing was respectful—there were not people shuffling around or anything like that—but was unable to read the body language down the audiovisual link. All that person could do was take from the language that was being spoken what was being said but that did not necessarily indicate what was meant. I think the difference between what one says and what one means can be captured only by a face-to-face assessment of the demeanour. 
There is an expression in Maori—and I know that I will pronounce it badly so I apologise for that—kanohi ki te kanohi which means face to face. It is a critical part of Maori culture. If that is the case then that makes the statements that Hone Harawira made even more important to the debate that we are having tonight. It suggests that we know that Maori are disadvantaged within our legal system now. I have made this statement before and I will keep on saying it until somebody realises that it is right. A Maori is much more likely to be stopped in the street if a crime has been committed; or if a Maori is seen in a fight he or she is much more likely to be stopped by the police. A Maori is much more likely to be arrested if he or she is stopped. A Maori is much more likely to be charged if arrested and is much more likely to face more serious offences if charged. A Maori is much more likely to be found guilty and is much more likely to be sentenced to prison if found guilty. 
The entire justice system is predisposed against our tangata whenua. Taking away kanohi ki te kanohi as a matter of judicial discretion is offensive on such an important level that I believe that this Government must stop the process of this bill proceeding tonight. It must consult not only Maori but also other parties in this Parliament that have raised I think very legitimate concerns about the nature of the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I suspect also our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty does refer to our equal rights under the law. I do not believe that this bill supports equal rights under the law at all. In fact it will further disadvantage those who would rely on that approach being adopted. I believe that Parliament needs to think very carefully about what the New Zealand Law Society said: “While it is desirable that AVL systems should be used to the fullest extent possible they should be used only where appropriate. The Society disagrees with the suggestion that because AVL systems are installed they should be used. AVL systems are useful but only to the extent that they improve judicial decision making and outcomes. A focus on achieving efficiencies should not override the need to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a fair and just way in which the rights of all parties are protected.” 
That is the reason why our party cannot support the continued passage of this legislation. I believe that if everyone could take a deep breath pull this off the Order Paper tonight and take the time to reflect on how we could make a minor amendment to clause 9—that is all we have to do—then we would have unanimity in the House for the procedural matters where this audiovisual link system would work extremely well and would make the savings that the Government is looking to make under these particular circumstances. I believe that that would satisfy the rule of law and I believe it would satisfy every party in this Parliament. I believe it would satisfy the objectives that the Government set out with legislation designed to save money but we do not have to save money at the expense of giving up one of the rights that we hold dear under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.