Parker David: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12359] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence said in his contribution that it should not be an absolute right for an accused to appear at his or her own trial. He said it should be a matter of discretion. He also acknowledged that this was an important change from the status quo. I am not misrepresenting the Minister on either of those propositions which he stated from the chair. He is right; it is a change of principle. 
I want to address the issue of why then we do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet should be given where there is a derogation of the civil liberties that are mentioned in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That Act says that we should have the right to be present at the conduct of a trial so that we can face our accuser. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Plain English. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is plain English. I heard the Minister in the chair then have a flick at the previous Attorney-General whom the National Party criticised for giving a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that was in favour of the Electoral Finance Act. The previous Attorney-General actually went to the trouble of doing a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet for that Act and justified his logic as to why it should have one. In this case we do not have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet because the Attorney-General has not seen fit to address the issue of this derogation of my civil liberty and the civil liberty of everyone else in New Zealand to have the unconditional right to be at the trial if he or she is accused of a crime. It is an outrage. I agree with the speaker for the Greens Kennedy Graham that this is the most significant attack on civil liberties we have seen in this Parliament. It is an outrage that the Government is just pushing on remorselessly. 
We bear some responsibility here. At the first reading all of the parties other than the Maori Party voted for this bill because we were not cognisant of the fact that this would apply at substantive trials but that became clear at the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Human Rights Commission raised it with us and the New Zealand Law Society raised it with us so the select committee looked at it in more depth. We found that there was no mischief here to be overcome because at the moment there is no problem with letting the accused appear at his or her trial. What the Government really wants to do here is speed up preliminary matters bail hearings and adjournments and not have the unnecessary expense of the defendant—the accused—always turning up. We agree with that but the National Party should take a breath. It is wrong to proceed remorselessly with taking away this civil liberty. It is wrong. 
The Minister also said that the judges would not do this; that there would be prejudice. That is a facile superficial analysis of it. The judge will not know what the judge does not know at the time the application is made. How can one know at the start of a trial what is going to happen during the trial? We do not know what we do not know. We cannot know what we do not know. Injustices that could happen later in time cannot be known to the judge at the time that the application is made—for example a juror falling asleep an inappropriate relationship between the prosecuting counsel and the defence counsel inappropriate signs from someone in the gallery the judge falling asleep the incompetence of a lawyer the inability of the accused to get a decent view of the screen because he is being blocked in the prison by a corrections officer and the inability of the accused sitting in a prison cell to say in respect of a particular piece of evidence “That’s a lie cross-examine them on that.” How can that be done from a prison cell? This is so obviously unjust. 
I ask the National Party to take a breath. I ask the ACT Party to vote in respect of a procedural motion that we report progress now. They should take a breath report progress now and let everyone reflect on this for a week before we push the button. If the Government still wants to use its muscle with the support of the ACT Party and vote it through then it can do so in a week but what is wrong with waiting for a week on this? What is wrong with waiting for a week on this in order to reflect on whether a mistake has been made? I think that this has crept up on the Government. I saw the advice that the departmental officials gave to the select committee which I am sure will be similar to the advice given to the Minister. I have to say that it was “once over lightly” in respect of the constitutional principles. As Kennedy Graham has said it was approaching this issue from a point of view of administrative efficiency rather than constitutional principle and that is where this has gone wrong. I do not blame the Government for that. These things do go wrong as evidenced by the fact that all of the parties except for the Maori Party voted for this at first reading. But now that we are alert to this issue it is time to take a breath and slow down. 
In a short period of time I am going to move a motion that we report progress. I encourage the Government to think about reporting progress now before this goes to the vote. We can avoid making a mistake here by taking a breath and just reflecting on this. I am sure that the Solicitor-General was not the person who was responsible for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet; it would have been someone lower in that organisation. I am also sure that the Attorney-General who gets advice from the Solicitor-General on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets like this came to the select committee a week ago and said to us that he would look at it again because he saw our concerns. In fairness to the Attorney-General because this has come up on the Order Paper so fast he has not yet had the opportunity to do that and to get back to the select committee where this was raised as part of the estimates process a week ago. I would like to give the Attorney-General the opportunity to do that because I know that he takes his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet responsibilities seriously. I would be most disappointed if the Government does not agree to report progress before this matter goes to a vote tonight. 
The control of that lies not just with the Government but also with Sir Roger Douglas. I know that the ACT Party thinks that it has done a deal and that it has an obligation to support this legislation but I suggest to Sir Roger Douglas that in this situation it would be appropriate to report progress now and just let the bill come up on the Order Paper again. This is not a matter on which the Government will rise or fall. This is not a matter that goes to Budget or that needs to change this week rather than in 2 weeks’ time. I suggest that that is the appropriate thing for this Parliament to do in the face of the criticisms from the Human Rights Commission the Law Society and all of the parties except National. I know that even the ACT Party is nervous about this and it just feels that it has an obligation having made a commitment to vote for it. I suggest that it is time to take a breath.