Graham Kennedy: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12366] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I do not intend to take up too much time. A lot of the points have been brought to the surface very well in this debate. I reiterate our support for David Parker’s call for the Committee to report progress because there clearly is a need for further consideration to be given to this. I do not think that our colleagues on the Government benches dispute the fundamental importance of this issue. So I think the Committee should report progress. 
I want to reinforce a point Charles Chauvel made. He was wont to raise the matter that however distant the spectre might be it is a spectre of tyranny. The point about protecting against tyranny is that we introduce watertight absolute guarantees against it. Just as one is not half pregnant one is not half tyrannical. We either have a democracy or we have slid into tyranny; we are on a slippery slope—the 1 percent we were talking about before. 
I see that the body language of the Minister in the chair Wayne Mapp is riveting. If I were being beamed in on an audiovisual link I would not be able to see it. I would not be able to benefit from Mr Mapp’s colourful body language. I take the points he is making with his body language and I will adjust my comments accordingly. But I could not do that if I were being beamed in on an audiovisual link. I think the point is made. 
Let me pick up on what Charles Chauvel said about tyranny. If I may I will quote from basically the authority on this subject in New Zealand which is A and P Butler’s  
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: a Commentary 
. I quote from page 850. It states: “The right to be present at trial is protected by section 376(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 which states ‘Every accused person shall be entitled to be present in court during the whole of his trial unless he misconducts himself by so interrupting the proceedings as to render their continuance in his presence impracticable.’ ”—which is the point that my colleague David Clendon was making when refuting the point by Simon Bridges. One surrenders one’s right to be there through one’s conduct; that is not a rationale for withdrawing a person’s right I say to Mr Bridges. 
Let me continue reading: “It is a hallmark” the authors say “of repressive regimes that a person can be convicted without the ability to participate in the deliberations of and appear before the tribunal empowered to convict. The right to be present in order to be effective must mean that the State cannot so organise the court system as to engineer the accused’s non-participation.” That is what we are doing with this bill. We are organising ourselves in such a way as to surrender that right through the court system. I appeal to the Minister. Where is the Minister of Justice? He wafted through here 10 minutes ago like the ghost of Hamlet’s father. He came amidst us. He continued walking and he went out of the other door. He has come in once or twice— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot refer to the absence of another member. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I refer to the presence of the Minister in the chair whose body language continues to inform me with the benefit of being physically present in this Chamber. I finish.