Hipkins Chris: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12370] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I actually came down to the House to take a call on the next bill that is on the Order Paper. However when I sat down and listened to one or two of the speeches and then picked up a copy of the bill and read it I was absolutely shocked and appalled by the legislation that the Committee of the whole House is currently debating. I could not sit here in good conscience and not say something about it. 
It seems to me pretty fundamental that when somebody is accused of something and is facing a court trial the accused should be allowed to be present. There should not be the ability to prevent the accused from being present. If the accused chooses to opt out and says that he or she is happy to do it by audiovisual link OK I am comfortable with that. But the accused should not be forced into the position where the only way that the accused can participate in his or her own trial is by way of an audiovisual link. 
I guess we should not be surprised given the Government’s history when it comes to democracy and to individual human rights. We have seen the Government do away with local government in Auckland without as much as a second thought for the principles of democracy. We saw the Government do away with a whole democratically elected council in Christchurch without as much as a thought for democracy and it was done under urgency. Paul Quinn has a bill before the House at the moment. He wants to remove the right or should I say the duty of prisoners to vote. That basically sums up the Government’s attitude to democracy and human rights. This bill in its present form is yet another attack on people’s human rights. As Lianne Dalziel pointed out it is absolutely inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I am absolutely shocked and appalled. 
Generally speaking I support the idea that an audiovisual link could be used much more widely not necessarily just in the criminal justice system but across the whole of Government. Actually there are huge savings to be made. But we are not talking about a teleconference to approve some minutes or to organise the staff social function. We are talking about something that can have a fundamental life-altering impact on somebody. It could be any one of the members of this House in a court case. It could be any of our families. It could be any one of our neighbours our friends or our constituents. Anybody can be the subject of court proceedings. This measure could apply to anybody and it could have a fundamental impact on that person’s life. If we pass this bill we are saying that we do not think that person should be entitled to be present for those proceedings if the person chooses that that is what he or she wants. I think that is absolutely outrageous. 
I agree that in some instances audiovisual proceedings are appropriate. We have talked about some of the more minor procedural matters that can be dealt with through an audiovisual link; I have no problem with that. But it comes down to a fundamental point of principle. Why should the accused not be there and not be able to see what is going on? The accused should be able to hear in person what other people within that proceeding may be saying about him or her. The accused should be able to hear what the lawyers are saying and be able to read the body language of the people in the courtroom. 
I do not care what Simon Bridges says; I think that body language is important. We have teleconferences for select committee meetings where submitters come through on an audiovisual link. I find that the teleconferences in a select committee meeting are far less valuable than being able to sit at the other side of a table and actually hear what somebody has to say to read his or her body language and to be able to engage in some real meaningful discussion with that person. I appreciate that for some select committee proceedings we have to accept that that is the reality—that teleconferences are the only practical way to do it. But again it is a whole different scale. What we are talking about here is much more fundamental than that. We are talking about people potentially going to jail. We are talking about a whole lot of things that can have a huge impact not just on a person’s life but also on the lives of the people in that person’s family and on everyone around that person. As I said that person could be any one of us. 
Let me tell members if it was me I would want to be in the courtroom to hear what is going on and to see what is going on. I would not want to be forced to attend that proceeding through a video link where all I could see was whatever whoever was controlling the camera at the other end decided was fit for me to see. I do not think that is right and I do not think that most New Zealanders would think that is right. If any New Zealander was in that position and had to make the call whether he or she wanted to be sitting staring at a TV screen or be in the courtroom where he or she could see what is actually going on I think most New Zealanders would say that they would like to be present in the courtroom.