Harawira Hone: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9689] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker a huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa i te Whare. I do not mind admitting that I am a real fan of using video technology to make things easier to judge particularly when it comes to sporting endeavour such as watching the video replays whenever Manu Vatuvei scores for the Warriors or when Serena Williams wins line calls against just about everybody except her big sister. More than that I also enjoy watching people scramble for their earpieces whenever I or Te Ururoa decide to throw some ad lib Maori into our speeches in the House as I will now. 
E tautoko ana au i tenei tikanga kia hapai nga ropu me nga whanau e tiaki ana i te hunga haua e nga tangata turi ano hoki kia taea e ratou te uru ki roto i nga mahi katoa o tenei ao. Engari mo teneki pire e hoa he mea ano tenei no reira e tika ana kia tirohia atu ona painga ona he ano hoki. I te taha tautoko anei wetahi painga. 
[ 
I really endorse this business about encouraging groups and families who take care of the disadvantaged and the deaf so that they can become part of the workforce in all manner of work that this world offers. But as far as this bill is concerned I have to say that it is something else; so it is right that its advantages and disadvantages have to be taken into account very carefully. Here are some positive benefits 
.] 
Apparently travel costs may be reduced if people can video link rather than appear in person. People may feel safer if hoodlums are video linked from jail witnesses may feel safer if they can hook in by video and apparently cases can be dealt with in rural areas by video without judges having to travel. But if that is all that the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill has going for it then that is a pretty high price to pay for what I consider to be another step down the slippery slope towards the denial of fundamental human rights to citizens of this country—and that is what this bill is. Yes people can say that it is about capacity and efficiency but what it is really about is telling defendants that somebody else will make a decision about their right to have a day in court and be heard by their peers. 
I have never been a great fan of the English judicial system for obvious reasons but one thing I do like is its principle that a man must be brought before his accusers and that any man facing the possible loss of his liberty should have the right to face those who would take that liberty from him. I believe that a decent society should safeguard that right with all the vigour and devotion it would give to safeguarding the rights of its children its women its workers its dogs and—one day I pray—even its indigenous peoples. I say all that because court by video would take that away. Court by video is not the sign of a mature society or indeed of a sophisticated society. It is not the sign of a society that recognises the value of mankind and the rights of man—not at all. 
Court by video in my view is the coward’s way of dispensing justice. Indeed it sets justice to one side and denies people their right to a fair trail for the simple reason that it might save money. Certainly court by video may improve efficiency but the exercise of justice through the court system should not be based on models of industrial competence and good organisation. Justice should always be about the rights of all players both the defendants and the plaintiffs and it should not be weighted to suit one side or the other. 
Court by video will clearly be of no benefit to those who are facing charges under the Crimes Act. Indeed video will operate against those who face the courts in those circumstances. Court by video gives society the opportunity to stand aside from its decisions to be one step removed from the tough decisions it has to make and to be faceless in its sentencing. 
I would be willing to bet that the minute we start down this road will be the minute that court decisions particularly against those facing charges under the Crimes Act get harsher. It is easier for people to condemn those whom they do not have to look in the eye and it is easier to act out one’s prejudices when those one is sentencing can be switched off at a television screen as if they were nothing more than an annoying advertisement. I can think of countless cases that I have been involved in when a judge or jury rather than go through the angst and anxiety of actually hearing from a defendant would have been happier to deal with a video and make a decision based on that. 
We would be extending to our wider society the same kind of brutal uncaring unreality that exists in the video game world where we allow our kids by simply watching that stuff to abuse assault maim rape kill and even massacre in the name of video sport. In exactly the same way that it is also easier to kill by video than in person I have no doubt that it is easier to send a person to jail or keep them there by video link than in a courtroom because one will be divorced from the harsh reality of one’s decisions by that video link. 
As for that crappy story about prisoners being better off because they can give their evidence from jail I would say that my experience is that when one is in the same old jail cell with the same exercise times the same medical times the same mail times and the same food times every single day of the year a day out to go to court ain’t exactly the hardship that some people might have us believe. Yes the transport ain’t the best and the scenery ain’t great between “the Mount” and the District Court and the decor ain’t the flashest down in the cells but it beats being in jail believe you me. 
I have no doubt that there are people in this House who are keen on this bill. But I also know that the Attorney-General himself the Government’s very own marshal opposes it on the righteous grounds that it is bad legislation that it is in breach of human rights and that it is a step down the path towards a faceless judicial process by which Maori I believe will be ground up and spat out into jails without even the opportunity of confronting those who sent them away. 
I am advised that the Maori Party will be supporting this bill at its first reading to enable everybody to put their views before the select committee but that we will retain the right to make a separate decision at the bill’s second reading based on the information we hear at the select committee. I respect that position. I intend to ensure that the party’s votes reflect that position. In the same way that Nikki Kaye opposes her party’s position on mining on Great Barrier Island and Sir Roger Douglas opposed his party’s position on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment bill I will not be supporting this bill at its first reading second reading or third reading. Kia ora.