Graham Kennedy: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12420] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 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.