I rise to join others in recognising the progress that has been made in this House in the last 24 hours on this Courts (Remote Participation) Bill, but by implication more generally. I think that Simon Bridges put it well, if I understood him: we have, essentially, a more refined understanding of each other's positions, policies, and viewpoints.
I think that certainly in my limited experience in the House, this was the best example of political parties coming from different philosophical vantage points, and then bringing different policies to bear on a pretty complex subject and refining it through debate to a point where we had common ground.
Let us hope that we can undertake that more often, but certainly in my time in the House it was the clearest example of that happening. I think we are winding down a little from last night; we are all a little spent in our passion on this subject. But I think it was because of that that we got to where we did.
I would like to pay tribute to colleagues, beginning, of course, with Minister Power. He has that statesmanlike quality of being able to think on his feet, metaphorically and even literally, and to adjust a position the Government has taken at the moment that it is necessary. Timing is obviously everything. I would not necessarily say the Government has made a mistake but if that is the case, then I have to say that we all can and we all do, in every party, but I commend Minister Power.
I also commend Minister Mapp for very ably handling the subject at a critical moment on behalf of his colleague.
Not least, I commend the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Chester Borrows, who let us recognise the issues, guided us through, and played quite a critical part behind the scenes in arriving at a common position. I have to say 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 just a couple of quick points to make. The select committee reached common ground, but I do 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 he issued a press release this morning, I think, in which he commends the position we arrived at. He said he will, as I understand it, support our position but he still had some critique of it. I will take it upon myself to articulate his concern as he is not here, and I note his concerns with a degree of sympathy.
If the discretion resides with the defendant to appear via an audiovisual link and not appear physically, we could get into a situation where a pattern could arise, for whatever reason. The defendant may 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 the 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 any more, and I will not say "absolute principle" but I will say "constitutional principle", as I see it. 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 has 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 got a little far out in front of other similar jurisdictions and was almost on a fishing expedition to find areas of justification for the draft. He wondered about the situation in the United States, and I can certainly confirm that the United States is arguably the strongest of all in this area.
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 do say that the defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of plea, at every stage of the trial, including empanelment of the jury, the return of the verdict, and the imposition of sentence. He or she may, however, waive that right and 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 talked about cases in absentia. I challenged the Government to come up with the cases over the last half century that might have been heard in absentia. I know there is a very limited time in which we can do that. Simon Bridges focused on a few, but we undertook our own research in the short time available, and I take this opportunity to again pay tribute to the Parliamentary Library, which I use a very 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 11 cases have been tried in absentia in criminal trials. Four were about single defendants absconding while on bail. Another four in multiple-defendant trial, that single minority, did not appear as they had absconded as well. So that is eight basically 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 he was basically forgotten. Staff had failed to feed him or clothe him, or anything, and 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. So that was the 11th case. So we would have been proceeding against all manner of precedent and principle in New Zealand had we gone ahead on that basis. I think that is sufficient comment.
I want to 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.
Subscribe to email newsletters
