Sharples Pita: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2383] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 There is an expression in Te Ao Maori: “Me he maonga awha” which describes a lull in the storm like a sudden pause in a furious debate. This bill returns to the storm of debate that has been in somewhat full lull since the torrid tirades that took place in this Chamber last night to justify locking up 12-year-old children in jail. The bill before the House last night promoted a view that the best solution for social dysfunction is punishment and seclusion from society. The bill before the House this afternoon is simply a variation on the same theme—another promo for prison. 
The Maori Party continues to oppose this bill because although it is branded in such a way as to address the issue of access to justice it instead perpetuates the ridiculous “lock ’em up” thinking that has led to the spiralling arrest conviction and imprisonment rates that bring international shame to this land. With this bill for criminal legal aid a new test will be introduced that places emphasis on likelihood of imprisonment. The bill as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee declared that when considering whether to grant an applicant legal aid the agency must have regard to whether the applicant has any previous conviction whether the applicant has been charged with or convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment and whether there is a real likelihood that the applicant if convicted will be sentenced to imprisonment. 
As Mr Harawira asked during the second reading debate is it right that the Legal Services Agency usurps the role of judge and jury? What cultural values will be called into play? Our key concern with this bill as with the bills in this suite of law and order legislation is that it reinforces and endorses an approach that focuses on imprisonment rather than on restoration and healing. Instead of putting up only one system perhaps it is time for the administration of legal aid to represent other forms of litigation. I talked last night about my experiences with restorative justice approaches. The success of restorative justice is dependent on the ability to produce a climate of reconciliation and healing together with the acceptance of responsibility that a wrong has been done and needs to be set right. It is also dependent on a demonstrated and genuine attitude of commitment from all parties present as well as on regular monitoring. These are strategies that can work—strategies that do other than increase the incarceration data. If imprisonment is the only answer we are forever on a downward path of punishment. 
There are other systems that Aotearoa could turn to for precedent. For over 1000 years Maori have had their own criminal justice system—a system based on social responsibilities that link people to the wider community. At the heart of the system was the recognition that everybody had a responsibility to the wider community. Important too was the belief that all people have a tapu that is not to be abused by others. The Pacific practice of ifoga is similar to marae justice. The offender and whanau take responsibility for the crime and work to find a point of reconciliation in order to restore the mana of the victim and his or her whanau. Another example is that of the Navaho Indian tribe who have their own police force courts and prisons. Jurisdiction is shared with the State but the philosophy and the procedure are Navaho. Over the Tasman Aboriginal courts and circle sentencing courts are being trialled with the broad aims of reducing Aboriginal overrepresentation in prisons reducing the incidence of failure to appear in court and reducing the rates at which court orders are breached. 
How do we today put a stop to the criminal overrepresentation of Maori in the justice sector? Perhaps part of the answer lies in alternative models to seek restorative justice. The Maori Party has promoted the idea of a cross-party review of prisons and justice and we will join with Nandor Tanczos and others to begin this process. The Maori Party has always believed in the power of the collective and indeed has called for cross-party collaboration on issues such as the methamphetamine or P problem peak oil and addressing family violence. Indeed we issued our own challenge on 15 February 2006 about developing long-term community involvement in addressing offending. As I said on that day the solution to our overcrowded prisons and our excessively high per capita prison population lies within the community and not in bricks and mortar. We have to return to our communities—the very essence of our society—for both the short-term solutions to prison overcrowding and the long-term solutions to decrease the incidence of crime in Aotearoa. That is the big picture. 
I noted the release slipped out by Damien O’Connor yesterday that stated he welcomed the review into the regional prison development costs at the Spring Hill and Milburn prisons. Applying scrutiny to this project is commendable—indeed it is about time—but how much better it would have been to review the whole system once and for all. Just over a month ago the Salvation Army called on politicians to show what it called “ethical courage” and sign up to a multiparty accord that would stop the issue of crime and punishment being a political football. 
In its report on prisons and reoffending the Salvation Army made a number of recommendations including the development of a multiparty agreement to deal with issues of crime and punishment in a non-partisan way. Major Campbell Roberts director of the Salvation Army’s social policy and parliamentary unit commented: “Getting tough on crime longer and longer sentences might sound good but in fact they are ‘do nothing’ choices.” 
Major Roberts challenges this House with his statement: “Emotions will always play a part in any discussion of crime and punishment but our politicians should be leading us beyond rhetoric not encouraging it. Let us have reasoned researched debate about positive ideas. If we don’t then as a society we are doomed to spending more and more money on failed holding tanks. Prisons don’t make us safer they just make us poorer in every way. It is time for some principled courageous leadership to turn prisons around.” Now is the time to lead beyond rhetoric and to snap out of the mindset that prison programmes actually combat crime. Finally I am a firm believer in the view: “E kore tana puweru e maku i te pata ua!”. In other words a storm a shower of rain does not need to drench the spirit. 
So although we oppose this bill I want to leave the House with three ideas to consider. The first is that I am aware that the Legal Services Agency has introduced an annual survey of the supply distribution and assignment to legal aid providers. The Maori Party believes this will be a valuable monitoring tool for all parties as to the progress we can achieve in turning round the disproportionately high imprisonment rates. The real measurement of success in this new policy will be not in how many legal aid grants are given out or in how much funding legal aid providers receive; it will be in the downward trends—how many people are prevented from imprisonment how many offenders are inspired not to reoffend and how many families are saved from the impact of crime. The second good idea would be to vote down Ron Mark’s bill to build a prison for 12-year-olds. Finally the Maori Party joins with the Green Party and the Salvation Army to call again for a cross-party accord on reducing crime.