Clendon David: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12364] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. This debate on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill is troubling on many levels clearly. What we are talking about here is the fundamental right of the accused to face his or her accusers. That is a right that has been enshrined for centuries and now it appears that on a matter of convenience efficiency and cost savings that right has been placed under threat. 
It is concerning to see almost a trend emerging. Earlier in this sitting we were debating the issue of prisoners’ and victims’ compensation and within the context of that debate I proposed that there was an absolute responsibility on the State to protect the human rights of an inmate in prison. But that was challenged. A question was raised that perhaps the human rights of an inmate could be diminished or compromised in some way that was still legitimate. The arguments about justice about rightness and about absolute rights —or not—have been engaged in at quite an articulate level. I will not endeavour to respond or to reiterate them. 
The Minister of Justice when he spoke a little earlier referred to clauses 6 and 7 creating a very high bar of criteria to assure that only in the most exceptional circumstances would a prisoner not be there to face his or her accuser. I refer to clause 6 which talks about the defendant being able “(a)(ii) to participate effectively in … his or her defence;”—participate effectively. I suggest that it is almost an oxymoron to suggest that a person could participate effectively in a trial at the end of a camera on a screen. 
I have been very intrigued to sit here observing the Minister in the chair the Hon Wayne Mapp during the course of this debate and to see the extent to which non-verbal communication is such an important part of this ongoing discussion. With all respect to the Minister I hope he will excuse my treating him as an item under observation. At the moment he is smiling and nodding. At different times in the discussion he has nodded quite thoughtfully accepting points made. At some points he has arched his eyebrows very clearly signalling that something of interest something surprising has been said. At other points he has shaken his head quite firmly indicating that he has not agreed with a point being made. Those are visual clues that can inform a debate enrich a debate and give a person a genuine means of effectively participating in a debate. If we remove those non-verbal cues and clues then a person is clearly at a major disadvantage in engaging in a discussion or an event that could have very serious and long-term consequences for that person’s well-being. 
I am not a lawyer. I have taught resource management law; I have no familiarity with criminal law. But I do have some experience with videoconferencing. In my previous incarnation as a sustainable business adviser I used to advocate videoconferencing particularly for large organisations that routinely sent their employees—be they lawyers architects or consultants—around the country. Videoconferencing is a very effective means of communicating even at a quite high level on serious and complex issues. One can achieve that communication by videoconference. However the requirement for underwriting that is that there must first be a relationship established. I deny that anyone can have a meaningful purposeful and satisfactory engagement by videoconference with someone with whom he or she has not formed an initial relationship. That is a key underpinning to the effectiveness of videoconferencing. So I argue that by simply putting a prisoner in front of a camera and having a courtroom looking at a screen a relationship cannot be established. The non-verbal cues are not available to that person. It is undoubtedly an absolute compromise and a denial of the notion of effective participation. 
I will say in passing that the Greens absolutely support David Parker’s proposal to suspend this debate to allow for a moment in which to think to breathe and to look for better options. But there is a very easy remedy to the debate this evening. We have on the Table Supplementary Order Paper 150 from my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham. It states quite simply in new clause 9(1): “AVL must not be used in any criminal substantive matter for the appearance of a defendant unless the defendant so elects.” The amendment puts the right back where it belongs; it gives the defendant the right to choose. 
Mr Bridges made the point earlier that the right of appearance in a court could be taken away through misbehaviour. In fact that right would not be taken away or denied through misbehaviour; that right would be surrendered. I have a right as a member of Parliament to stand and speak in this Chamber. It is not an absolute right but it is a very very powerful right. If I were to stand here and hurl abuse at the chair or at a colleague or if I were to begin throwing glasses of water about—I assure members I do not propose to do that—the right to appear in this Chamber would not be taken away from me; rather I would be surrendering that right through my misbehaviour and my abuse of this place. It is exactly the same situation as the few instances that Mr Bridges was able to muster. 
We have not yet heard a substantial reply to the challenge put by my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham. Let us have a list of the criminal cases in this country in the last 50 years that were conducted without the defendant being present. 
The question has been posed—and I will finish by posing it—about the need for haste. What is the need for haste? What is the need for urgency in this matter? The House is not in urgency. This is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation or it could be. It has been around for a wee while. A few weeks would not make any significant difference to the outcome—whether the bill is passed in its present form or in an amended form. We would most certainly support a motion to suspend the debate and on that point I thank members for their attention. Kia ora.