Flavell Te Ururoa: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6558] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Kia ora no tatou katoa. Last night I talked about the Evidence Bill bringing together decades and volumes of judicial decisions and reforms relating to the concept of evidence into one comprehensive scheme. I acknowledged the work done by the current Law Commission and its recommendations especially around its taking into account Te Ao Maori—the Maori dimension. We endorse concepts such as promoting fairness to parties and witnesses protecting rights of confidentiality and avoiding unjustifiable expense and delay. We also support the amendments to the hearsay rule; the removal of clause 33(3)(f) which refers to a person’s reputation for being untruthful; and the amendments to clause 40 to provide that no evidence can be given or question put relating to the sexual reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. The Maori Party also supports the amendment that provides for judges to recognise the rights affirmed by section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 
The right to remain silent is an issue that has been confronting the nation face on in the midst of the media frenzy around the death of the Kahui twins. If the talkback shows are a gauge of public opinion the shockwaves that rumbled throughout Aotearoa with the reluctance of the family to come forward would certainly indicate that as a nation there was universal condemnation of the delay. But as the defence lawyer stated the family members were entitled to remain silent whatever the nation thought. It is a basic principle of our law that no matter how controversial or how popular—or unpopular—the issue everyone has the right to remain silent. 
The Evidence Bill sets in place a massive amalgamation of the various aspects of the law which I have already talked about in the sense of the concepts of logic fairness to parties and witnesses and the rights of the public interest. I was interested in the speech delivered by Mr Fairbrother in the first reading when he reminded the House: “in the criminal law where the State is the prosecutor we are really not in a battle about truth but in a power relationship. … that imbalance of power underlies many of our rules on the law of evidence and most of those rules will still be carried forward in this new Evidence Bill.” Ngati Kahungunu lawyer Moana Jackson in his legendary report  
The Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 
gives further explanation of the power relationship in suggesting that the idea of a cultural and independent justice is always fraught and that law as with any other social practice is culturally bound. That being the case when this bill enters into the Committee stage the Maori Party will be interested to understand and to see clarification of the nature of the power relationship that Maori were able to enter into in contributing to the discussions around the evidence. 
Although the list of individual submitters included some familiar names—Annette Sykes Maui Pomare and organisations including Te Puni Kokiri and the Maori Land Court—it is disappointing to see there was no formal forum by which hapu and iwi or Maori justice organisations were met with. It is that “consultation” word again. It is plain common sense that evidence law affects every statement made by every witness in every court. So it is important not just that rules are clear simple and accessible but that they are culturally relevant. 
The Maori Party in our very parliamentary presence stands for the values of democracy as a form of Government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power. We will be supporting the Evidence Bill at its second reading because of our respect of the voices from the people within the Law Commission the Maori advisory committee and those who have been consulted. Kia ora tatou.