Hone Harawira (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau):
Courts Remote Participation Bill; Wednesday 30 June 2010

When the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill came up for first reading debate, as soon as I read it, I knew exactly what it was going to mean. I did not understand all of the “substantive this, substantive that”, but I knew it was going to be this kind of a bill, and it scared the hell out of me.

It scared the hell out of me because I have been a defendant in many, many cases—many, many cases. I knew that I would have ended up in jail on quite a few of those cases if they had been done by video link. The reason is that people find it easier to send somebody to jail if they do not have to face them.

It is just like how kids find it easier to shoot somebody in a videogame, but if we put a gun in their hands and they freak out. But when they can do it by video, they will do it. Kids use video to rape people, to maim people, to kill people, because video takes away one’s connection to what is being done. It takes away one’s decision to the decision that one has to make. That scared the heck out of me.

That is the reason that we spoke against it at the very first reading. We know exactly what it will mean. I will use as another example—it is nothing to do with courts—my comments last year about the “white M-Fs”. Apparently hundreds of people felt really, really comfortable writing to the newspapers, writing to the Race Relations Commissioner, slagging me off on television, on the radio and everywhere else.

But, do members know what? I flew all around the country, I went all over the place in those couple of months, and not one person—not one, not one—came up to me face to face to say “I did not like what you did.” Do members know why? It was because people find it easier to push the button another way. They find it easier to vent their anger against something that they do not have to connect with. They find it easier to dispense of people if they can do it by video. There is no justice, none whatsoever, in a defendant being stuck down in a jail.

There is no connection between that person and what is going on in the courtroom. Somebody mentioned that the defendant cannot nudge his or her lawyer and say “Hang on—that is a bloody lie.” It is different for me, of course; I have never ever had a lawyer. I defended myself in all those cases. How would that happen? I am not a lawyer, but I have always defended myself. But if I were being held in—I am a bloody good bush lawyer; I have lost only one case. That is better than every lawyer I know. So I tell all the lawyers here not to go patting themselves on the back that they do a good job, because basically they do not.

I defend myself because I have been to court so many times and have seen lawyers stand up, after doing a really poor job and after their clients have gone to jail. But they have got up and the first thing they have said was “May it please your Honour …”.

I sat there as a young fella, as a 19-year-old, watching that going on in courts when I was working for Ngā Tamatoa and being a friend in court. But I thought to myself “Hell, I ain’t ever going to let nobody get me sent to jail and get up and say “May it please your Honour ...”, so I taught myself to defend myself in court.

But what would happen to me? Would they hold me in custody as they have in the past? Would I get a chance to actually argue my case? Where would I do that from, if down in the separation wing at Mount Eden Prison? How does that happen?

This is scary stuff, I tell the Minister, and all the people over there on the National side and in ACT, as well. This is not just about efficiency; this is a scary step down a slippery slope that we will not quickly come back from. We may never come back from this; that is why I am so scared about it. I can fight things, but this is scary.

Once we disconnect ourselves from defendants, we disconnect society from justice We walk away from the rights that the defendant has to be there. This bill is all about the rights of the State and the rights of victims, and that is fine. They all have rights. But so have defendants, because they are not actually guilty until they have been convicted. But in this case defendants do not even get the chance to defend themselves because they are locked away in front of a little television screen.

Yes, it can be said that that might be at the whim of a judge, but why should a judge bother to go through the hassle of having somebody called up from Rimutaka Prison to go all the way up to Auckland for a call-over date—which may end up being turned into a court case because the police will say at the last minute that they are ready to go—when the judge can do it just by video? As soon as judges know they can do it by video, everything will become video.

Once we get there we get into that push-button kind of justice, where kids can kill somebody because it is by video, and where people who are too scared to face those they supposedly have to dispense justice upon, are quite happy to shut them off and wipe them out, because they are locked away in a little TV box

That person becomes like an ad that we do not want to watch any more, and we can just turn it off. I mean, the quality of justice will be determined by the quality of the screen, and when the screen starts to get all fuzzy, we will stop looking at the screen. When the sound gets a bit hazy and we are a bit tired, will we ask for the sound to be turned up? If we are on the jury, will we ask for the video to be stopped until such time as it is fixed? Hell, no! The judge will say that we can hear it, and that we do not need to see the person because we know the person is there.

Before we know it even the defendant will clearly not have to be on a video; the court will be able to say that the defendant is actually in his or her cell but the TV is focused on where the defendant would be if he or she were not in the cell. That is not justice. This legislation is not about justice, and it should not be just about money.

I mean, in relation to efficiency, and all the rest of it, I say that justice is not about models of industrial efficiency; justice is about rights. This bill is a scary piece of legislation. If ACT is not ready to vote against this bill, I would support David Parker’s recommendation that we report progress and have this bill stood down for a week so that everybody—particularly National—can have a chance to have a really good think about it, have a deep breath, and realise that it is scary.

I know that Dr Mapp does not even want to go ahead. Somebody mentioned the Attorney-General. I happen to know that the Attorney-General does not support this legislation. If the Attorney-General does not support it, why is it going ahead? For one final time I say that this is a scary piece of legislation. I spoke against it at the first reading; we will be speaking against it at every reading. I sincerely hope that we all come to our senses on this and vote it down. Kia ora tātou.

ENDS

© Scoop Media