Saturday, July 3, 2010

Victory for Parliamentary democracy–Greens can be proud


This week has seen parliamentary democracy in New Zealand at its best.
Most of the time, the House reverberates with two forms of adversarial action:
  • Question Time when the trick is (usually) to score a ministerial goal – and for the ministerial goalie to defend;
  • Debates over legislation in which supporting parties rationalise a draft Bill in the knowledge they have the numbers, and opposition parties heap trenchant criticism or filibuster for tactical gain.
Quintessential in its Western brand, but less than totally edifying in the greater scheme of things.
This week’s treatment of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill was an exception.
With this Bill the Government sought to introduce audio-visual links into courtroom activity.  The stated rationale was to make cost savings, improve efficiency, and ‘increase access to natural justice”.
 The Green Party, along with Labour, initially indicated support.  To its credit, the Maori Party opposed it from the beginning on the basis of their suspicions of the Government’s intent.   
In Committee, it emerged that the Bill contained a fundamental flaw.  It would also place in the hands of the judiciary the decision whether a defendant in a criminal trial might be beamed in by AVL, and not appear physically.
This would strike at the very heart of a time-honoured constitutional right – the right to be ‘present’ at one’s own trial.
In the 2nd reading on Tuesday and the Committee stage on Wednesday, we mounted a vigorous and sustained assault on this provision, section 9(1) of the Bill.  I introduced an (SOP) amendment (and Labour introduced a separate one) that would have exempted AVL from applying to a defendant in a criminal trial.
During the debate there seemed to be a chance the Bill might be voted down but ACT, notwithstanding its own distaste for this provision, steeled itself to support the Government.
At the last moment, the Minister of Justice entered the chamber, following negotiations with me (on behalf of the Green Party) and colleagues from other parties.  He introduced an amendment to his own draft legislation, making an exception to 9(1) which would grant the right to a defendant in a criminal trial to be present.     
With that, I was able to withdraw my SOP, and vote for the bill in its amended form.
A true example of parliamentary debate honing the positions of multiple parties, coming from different philosophical persuasions and with competing policies, to a point of common understanding.
The outcome was a victory for reason and common sense .