Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5656] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatau katoa e te Whare. Ko taku i te tuatahi i a tatau e korero nei mo te ahuatanga o te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Penei te ahuatanga i runga i te marae me poroporoaki te hunga kua ngaro atu i nga wiki i nga marama i nga tau kua hipa. Kua areare mai nga taringa ki te ahuatanga o nga korero a tena a tena mo te hunga kua kohurutia. No reira ka tangi te ngakau mo te ahuatanga o nga korero ka mutu hoi ano i a tatau e noho nei i roto i te Whare Paremata i tenei po waiho ratou kia moe. 
Ko ta tatau he whakatikatika i te ture kia whai i tetahi huarahi hou kia kore tenei Whare Paremata e korero mo nga take nga raruraru kua puta i te po nei a nga tau kei mua i te aroaro. Ko ta te pire nei he whakatikatika i te Crimes Act. Kei roto tonu i tera wahanga e mea ana he momo karo tenei i te whakakarangirangi te matatoa ranei mo nga hara nui mo te kohuru tonu. I raro i te ture i tenei wa ka whakaitingia te whakapae a-kohuru ki tera o te whakapae a-mate tupono mena ka mate tetahi i raro i te korowai o matatoa o akiaki ranei. Ka tau tonu tenei ahuatanga o te kohuru engari ka ahua whakarapopotohia te roa o te noho i te whare herehere. Hei ta te purongo o te Komihana a-Ture o te tau 2007 me whakakore i tera wahanga o te ture e mea ana ara ko tenei mea te matatoa. Ehara i te mea he maha nga wa kua kokirihia taua huarahi ehara i te mea i waimaria. O nga kehi kohuru e 81 i waenganui o nga tau 2001 ki te 2005 e 15 i whai i tenei momo huarahi e rima noa iho i waimaria. I whakapapa mai tenei wahanga o te ture kaua i tera rau tau engari no te rau tau e 17 ke i kawea mai tenei tikanga i roto i te Criminal Code Act 1893 a ko tona putake mena ko te kohuru tona mutu mai “he kohuru tonu na runga i te mura o te ahi he mahi a-ngakau he mahi ohorere”. 
Kati ko te mate ke kia mohio mai tatau ko te tau 1893 te tau i whakaaetia kia poti tonu te wahine i Aotearoa nei. Koia nei te porangi o tenei momo ture. He mea nui tenei whakatau i te mea hei tetahi ahorangi a-ture nei i te Whare Wananga o Wikitoria hei ta Elisabeth McDonald me ana rangahau i te nuinga o nga momo kehi a-matatoa nei koia era ka puta i te wa ka mea tetahi tane i patu i tetahi kia mate na nga mahi whakaiti whakahe ranei a tetahi ki a ia na tana pohehe ranei he ngoikore te ure he koretake te ure he ure tautau enei momo ahuatanga katoa. No reira he whakaiti tonu te titiro ki enei momo tohe. I nga ra o mua mena he whakakairanu te mahi he moe wahine tahi rua toru ranei a ka patua te wahine he “crime of passion” tera. Ara ano nei e tika ana kia mate te wahine. Hoi ano i nga tau 90 ko ta wetahi whakataunga Koti Pira kao. Ahakoa he whakakairanu te mahi ehara tera i te karo i te whakautu ranei mo te mahi tiwewe a te tangata. No na tata nei kua kokirihia tenei momo karo a-matatoa nei i te kohurutanga o te hunga moe whakaeneene a-tane nei ka mutu kua puta te korero ara te “homosexual panic defence” 
.  
Ko etahi kua ki ko nga karo a-ture nga tikanga a-iwi me ki na te mea no tetahi iwi tetahi. I te Koti Pira i puta te korero ko te “slow-burning anger or passion” 
he ahuatanga o te iwi o Hamoa na te whakapapa ranei na te ira ranei o te tangata i pera rawa te tangata hara. Kare matau i te kite i te tika o tenei momo whakaaro. He rangirua te mutunga mai. Kei roto i te Sentencing Act 
wahanga 27 tetahi korero e tono nei ki te koti kia rongo i nga korero a-whanau a-hapori a-iwi tonu o te tangata hara. Ma tenei ka kitea ko te tikanga o enei korero a-whanau a-hapu nei ki tona hara ka mutu ko nga momo huarahi hei whakatikatika i te he. Tera pea ka whai wahi ko te tangata hara me te tangata i rongo i tona hara kia noho tahi. No reira he korero nui enei kia whai wahi te wahanga a-tikanga iwi i roto i nga whiriwhiringa. No reira kei roto i te ture ara te Sentencing Act 
tetahi wahanga e anga tonu atu ana ki nga tikanga a-iwi kare matau i te kite i etahi painga o te noho o tenei mea a-tikanga nei i roto i tenei ture hou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all the House. The first thing for me to do as we debate this matter is to acknowledge those who have passed away. This is the custom on the marae where we farewell and acknowledge those who have died in the weeks months and years past. Without a doubt references by those in the debate so far about murder victims have caught the attention of those listening in. So while we lament the nature of what has been stated let us who are seated about the Chamber this evening spare a thought for those who have passed on from sight and allow them to rest there.  
The task before us in this Chamber tonight is to amend the law seek out a new path and debate issues and problems for the years before us. This bill amends the Crimes Act by repealing sections that provide for the defence of provocation. In current law a person charged with murder can have the charge reduced to manslaughter if he or she caused death under provocation. It is partial defence in that the defendant is still charged with the killing but able to avoid longer sentences. The Law Commission’s 2007 report recommended that the partial defence of provocation be abolished. However it is not used often and often has not been successful. Of the 81 murder cases between 2001 and 2005 15 used the defence of provocation of which five were successful. It is another case of a law that has its origins not just in the last century but the 17th century and was brought here in the Criminal Code Act 1893 which required that homicide should have been committed “in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation”.  
But the trouble was and as ironical as it may seem 1893 was the year that women in New Zealand were allowed to vote. That is how ridiculous this type of law is. This is a crucial statement because according to research by Victoria University law professor Elisabeth McDonald the majority of provocation cases are when a man argues he killed because of a perception that his sexuality or sexual pride was being threatened. Formerly provocation was the “crime of passion” implying that infidelity was a valid justification for a man to kill and as a consequence the woman being killed. More recently in the 1990s some Court of Appeal judgments stated that infidelity is not enough to deprive the ordinary person of self-control. More recently the defence of provocation has been used as a defence in the killing of gay men leading to an outcry that this is a “homosexual panic defence”. 
We are mindful that cultural factors have been described in the context of the defence of provocation. In the Court of Appeal the description “slow-burning anger or passion” was used as being a characteristic of the Samoan people implying that a racial or ethnic tendency towards sudden passion may well be seen as a characteristic of the offender. We cannot see the sense in this line of thinking. Confusion is the outcome. Section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 makes it explicit that offenders may request that the court hear views on the personal family community and cultural background of the offender. That can ensure that the background may be related to the offence and importantly processes are available to resolve issues relating to the offence involving the offender and his or her family or community and the victim or victims of the offence. These are really important provisions that allow for social considerations. Therefore because there is already provision within the Sentencing Act albeit provision that is tragically underused we do not think the concerns around cultural knowledge justify retaining the defence of provocation. 
] 
Just in closing then and to summarise some of the points we have tried to make I firstly congratulate the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Maori Party on putting forward this bill to address this issue. I have heard the many discussion points from other speakers tonight and I concur with many of the sentiments. 
I make it very clear that the Maori Party does not want to take away any legal mechanisms that serve to protect women and children from violence. We know that provocation has been a difficult defence for battered women to prove. The principle that has been most in question has been the requirement for the loss of control. The implication for the defence of provocation is that the response is a sudden angry outburst rather than a slow-burning build-up. Yet how crazy is this? The defence has been used to reduce the responsibility of men who have killed their wives because their wives have reported a severe beating to police after promising under threat of violence not to do so. 
We are a party that has a vision and talks a lot about whanau ora and that aligns with whakapapa whanaungatanga wairua mana and mauri. We know that the defence of self-defence—namely section 48 of the Crimes Act—has actually been far more effective for the specific case of battered women in domestic violence situations. Given all the factors discussed tonight by all the speakers the Maori Party will be supporting this bill to the next stages. Clearly some major issues need to be tidied up within the law around this aspect and we hope that we get time to talk about not only the specific issues named by members of the House but also the bigger issues about finding a cultural angle that might be able to give some assistance to the discussions as the bill goes through the select committee process. Kia ora tatou.