Katene Rahui: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21647. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be standing in the third reading debate on Criminal Procedure Bill one of the bills arising from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. It is such great timing to be considering the concept of reform and modernisation of the criminal justice system. Just last weekend my colleague Dr Pita Sharples gave a ground-breaking speech on this subject. He brought the attention of the nation to the fact that the justice system including the police courts and corrections systematically discriminates against Maori. 
Although that is an undisputed fact made by authorities no less than the Ombudsman Mel Smith former Police Commissioner Peter Doone veteran Maori legal authority Moana Jackson or the head of Rethinking Crime and Punishment Kim Workman of Ngati Kahungunu I do want to reassert the context from which we would hope any review of criminal procedures might benefit and this is the situation by which Maori offenders are more likely to have police contact to be charged to lack legal representation to not be granted bail to plead guilty to be convicted to be sentenced to non-monetary penalties or to be denied release to home detention. 
For the same crimes Maori are arrested at three times the rate of non-Maori. Maori are four to five times more likely to be apprehended prosecuted and convicted than their non-Maori counterparts. In the case of Maori aged 10 to 13 this is six times more likely. Maori are seven times more likely to be given a custodial sentence and 11 times more likely to be remanded in custody awaiting trial. It is hardly breaking news that for most Maori justice in New Zealand is not positive; it is a system that is unfair biased and flawed with ongoing and consistent prejudice. 
What we need therefore as indeed the police admitted yesterday is a focus on crime prevention and innovative approaches to policing. New Zealand needs fresh approaches to reducing the impacts of offending on our communities and we hope that this bill can help to reduce the stress upon families who find themselves presented in the justice system. Our review of the criminal justice system will investigate and analyse the facts as the basis for better policy. 
In the course of our consultations with Minister Power about the legislation we came to the realisation that should we successfully achieve the amendments we sought there could be much in this bill that might assist our review. We support the concept of promoting discussions between parties to reduce adjournments and have shorter hearings. We endorse also the proposal that guilty pleas be entered as early as possible to help avoid delay. 
I want to bring to this debate an example that was sent into us following our comments about the need for a review of the criminal justice system. We received an email reflecting on the comments of a retiring judge interviewed on Radio New Zealand National about 2 or 3 years ago. One of the questions the judge was asked was whether he had any regrets. His reply was that he did. He was sad about one thing. He said that Maori coming before him were usually very honest and always admitted to what they had done. When somebody admits to breaking the law they are not entitled to a defence; they just turn up to be sentenced. 
On the other hand when a person states that they are not guilty they are then entitled to defend themselves and with a good lawyer they may well get off. The correspondent put it very simply and I quote from her email: “But isn’t lying fraudulent? So you commit a crime go to Court swear an oath on the Bible to tell the truth etc etc and when asked ‘How do you plead?’ you reply ‘Not guilty.’! So after swearing to tell the truth you lie and get entitled to a defense! Something is not right here!”. It is a very interesting question and unfortunately I am not convinced that this bill provides us with an answer other than whatever process is followed it will be more efficient. 
That said I do want to acknowledge the Minister for his commitment to working alongside us in order to achieve our support for this bill. It does most certainly not provide all the answers—hence our call to conduct a systematic review of ethnic bias in the criminal justice system—but it does provide some immediate responses to improve the system and for that we are happy to provide our support. 
We are particularly pleased with the decision to limit the discretion of the court to proceed to only procedural hearings in the absence of the defendant—that is hearings where determinations of guilt or innocence will not be made. As the Attorney-General himself admitted this clause was formerly inconsistent with the rights affirmed by section 25(e) in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that is that everyone charged with an offence has the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence. 
We were very pleased with the compromise position of the Minister on the reduction in the threshold for the right of a jury trial from 3 years to 2 years. We fully accept that there will be some people who feel that justice has not been served and may feel vulnerable having a sole judge grant the power of a prison sentence. David Mathias in his submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee specifically referred to this provision noting: “the right to jury trial is important for reasons based in fundamental community values and the bill should reflect public views.” Accordingly the Minister agreed to set the jury trial threshold at 2 years and to remove the exceptional circumstances put forward earlier. 
Another issue of concern for the Maori Party was the clause described as the loss of the right to silence. This was the court requirement that the defence disclose before trial issues in dispute. We welcome the decision by the Minister to remove those provisions from the bill. 
I return to the context in which this bill is located. No one can ignore that there are real issues that need to be addressed when we look at Maori overrepresentation particularly in our prisons. Ninety percent of prisoners have significant literacy issues and 90 percent have drug and alcohol issues. The Maori Party review is not an attack on the justice system; it is a search for a better way to achieve justice. We believe that a constructive platform has been established by this new reformed Criminal Procedure Bill and we are looking for a brave Government to go even further and investigate the long-held concerns around ethnic profiling and institutional racism across all levels of the justice system. 
I want to finish with one simple statement that every member of the Maori Party immediately could relate to because it is simply one of those accepted realities of the everyday life of being Maori. Kim Workman director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment has said that this is not a new issue. In fact he referred to a 2009 study by the Ministry of Justice that showed that Maori overrepresentation had reached an alarming level not only with police apprehensions but elsewhere in the system. He shared an example which was: “when the Pakeha passengers of a Maori youth won’t let him drive his own car because they keep getting stopped by the police there is something seriously wrong.” 
Believe it or not this is an ongoing reality in our lives in the lives of our children and our mokopuna` and it reflects a criminal justice system in which decisions are made on factors other than evidence of a crime being committed. A truly reformed and modernised criminal procedure bill would look seriously at situations such as those and devise solutions to achieve a system of justice that is fair to all.