Hughes Gareth: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12372] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Chair. It is a privilege to be here tonight. In my short 5 months as an MP in this Chamber I do not think I have found a bill that is more important than this Courts (Remote Participation) Bill tonight. I was not going to take a call but like Mr Hipkins I could not not speak in all good conscience. Of the 114 bills that Mr Graham has said that Parliament has passed in this term I think that this is the most fundamental; it goes to the heart of our constitution in New Zealand. 
Like Mr Harawira and a few other members of this Committee I have been a defendant in court cases. Because of my environmental activism I have faced minor criminal charges in a court. Although the cases were not the substantial cases we are talking about tonight where people can go to jail for an awfully long time I thought that I would share some of my experiences with this Committee so that members get a flavour of what it is like to be a defendant in a court. Court is a confusing noisy crowded place full of tough-looking people and full of procedure pomp and protocol. It is so foreign to people like— 
Chris Tremain 
: What about the member? You’re not that tough-looking. So you’re just a pussycat? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: No I am not a pussycat but I am talking about what court is and about its environment. As a defendant the person is going to a foreign place about which he or she does not have any experience. The defendant has lawyers—of whom we have enough representation in this Chamber—who understand what is going on but a defendant is confused and does not know what is going on. The defendant has only the direction of his or her lawyer. Tonight we are talking about taking an already confusing place and a place that is already foreign to many people and making it more confusing more foreign and harder to understand. It will be near impossible for people who do not have any experience with courts to defend themselves and to follow what is going on through a tiny screen potentially in their cell. 
Potentially there will be technical problems. This bill will give an awful amount of power to the videographer so what will happen? It will be the defendants who will suffer. Videographers will have so much power. They will choose what will be filmed and what will not be filmed. By the power of omission they can vastly influence a defendant’s right to a fair trial and they can influence what the defendant will experience. The defendant could be being abused or be acting under duress in his or her cell but the jurors and other people in the courtroom would not know. 
Jurors will suffer. They will have no access to those all-too-human qualities. Mr Bridges can claim that body language is not important but as human beings we know that it is. It is an essential part of who we are. As Metiria Turei said earlier it is an important part of our humanity to be able to look our accusers in the eye. Jurors will find it essential to be able to talk to see and to view the defendant and the accused. 
As members have discussed tonight it is so much easier to find a person guilty or to send him or her to jail for a long time if that person is not even in the same room. Studies in human nature have shown that that is consistent and is what will happen. We will see more people being convicted and facing longer times in jail because of the decisions made in this Chamber tonight. This legislation will affect the poorest and most vulnerable Kiwis—Maori the young and the poor. Those who least understand the legal justice system at the moment will be taken further away from it. It will be those who cannot afford a lawyer—or two lawyers; one lawyer to sit beside the defendant in the cell advise him or her and explain what is going on and the other lawyer who is in the courtroom—who will suffer and ultimately justice will suffer. This bill is taking away our centuries-old right and taking away a cornerstone of our transparent fair justice system. It is a right and a fundamental civil liberty to be present at one’s trial. This bill takes away the accused’s choice. 
The Green Party supports videoconferencing. As Greens we encourage its use because of the considerable environmental benefit but an accused person needs a choice. I celebrate the justice system which is investing $2 million in audiovisual link technology but I say that defendants need a choice. 
Why are we debating this bill tonight? Ultimately the reason is cost savings. We are trying to make things cheaper for the justice system but that is cheapening justice. What we will get is justice on the cheap. 
We have heard speaker after speaker from a host of parties in the Committee condemn this bill in the strongest language not because of political reasons but because it has a fundamental injustice. I urge the Government to take a breath take a cup of tea and put the legislation on hold for a week. If the Government does not then I urge the ACT Party to stand up and vote against this bill. This is a travesty and an injustice. Kia ora.