Flavell Te Ururoa: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6487] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker kia ora tatou katoa. One of our favourite sayings which this House may well have heard on a number of occasions is “Nau te rourou naku te rourou ka ora te iwi”—through a united effort our people will prosper. As we see it the Evidence Bill does exactly that. It brings together decades’ worth of volumes of judicial decisions and reforms all relating to the concept of evidence and draws them into one comprehensive scheme. 
I see that the bill also follows the recommendations of the Law Commission a body that has earned considerable credibility for its ability to provide independent and systematic review reform and development of New Zealand law. In 1989 the Law Commission was asked to examine the statutory and common law that governs evidence given in proceedings before courts and tribunals and to make recommendations for reform. In that regard I want to mihi and acknowledge the current Law Commission: the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer Dr Warren Young Helen Aikman QC and the Hon Justice Edward Taihakurei Durie of Ngati Kauwhata and Rangitane. 
The Law Commission is honour-bound in making its recommendations to “… take into account te ao Maori (the Maori dimension) and shall also give consideration to the multicultural nature of New Zealand society;”. I give that context to explain that because of that transparent and explicit commitment to consider te ao Maori the 10 years of research and consultation undertaken by the Law Commission on the Evidence Bill therefore give its recommendations all the more weight. We also acknowledge the role of the Maori advisory committee which assists in facilitating consultation with Maori on the identification of projects to advance te ao Maori and to encourage the reflection of te ao Maori in the work of the commission. 
With such a strong basis for examining the relevant statute and case law about evidence I ask members to let me turn to some of the detail of the bill in the time we have left—and obviously we will not cover all of it. As members may or may not know I am not a lawyer. But the Evidence Bill promotes some key concepts that the Maori Party totally endorses. There are concepts such as promoting fairness to parties and witnesses protecting rights of confidentiality and avoiding unjustifiable expense and delay. 
We are rather intrigued by the proposal for facts to be established by the application of logical rules. Well what sort of evidence could any court hear without it being logical? That is the question we would ask. This is where the revelation from the Law Commission is so startling. The Law Commission report states that the reforms proposed by the code will not achieve their purpose unless they are accompanied by a change in approach on the part of practitioners and the judiciary. In other words the radical reform must be that practitioners are now to apply common sense to determining what is relevant and what should be included. What sort of sense did they apply before? That is the question we ask. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: You’d be surprised. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Ha ha! In line with this new common-sense approach it was very heartening to see the amendments proposed by the Justice and Electoral Committee which are exactly that. Firstly the hearsay rule is amended to provide that a party that intends to offer hearsay evidence must give written notice to the other party setting out why the evidence is being admitted its applicability and the circumstances that provide a reasonable assurance that the statement is reliable. We believe that that is very sensible. Secondly there is the removal of clause 33(3)(f) which refers to a person’s reputation for being untruthful. It is common sense we would have thought that a person’s reputation is irrelevant and should not be considered when assessing the veracity of his or her evidence. Thirdly clause 40 is amended to provide that no evidence can be given or questions put relating to the sexual reputation of the complainant in cases involving sexual matters. The committee considered that any reference to a person’s sexual reputation is irrelevant and should not be admitted. 
The Maori Party also supports the recommendation from the select committee that provides for judges to recognise the rights affirmed in section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I think it is important to revisit some of those fundamental rights: the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court; the right to be tried without undue delay; the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law; the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt; the right if convicted of an offence to appeal according to the law to a higher court against the conviction against the sentence or against both; and the right in the case of a child to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child’s age. Those are basic fundamental rights—the rights of a democratic justice system. We are also very interested in the new restrictions that have emerged on the right to remain silent so as not self-incriminate which is to be available only to those who face prison sentences. 
Debate interrupted.