Sharples Pita: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2874] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Here we are again with another omnibus bill before us. In fact it is a massive omnibus bill which brings together the complex and diverse legislation incorporated in the Crimes Act the Summary Proceedings Act the District Courts Act the Juries Act and the Victims’ Rights Act and provides for a new Criminal Disclosure Act. It is another omnibus bill that tweaks the detail seeking to become a smooth operator in processing people through the justice system but continuing to sidestep the big-picture problems of increased offending and prosecution. 
The purported policy goal of this bill is to maximise both the efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system. But how can it be fair that although Maori represent 13 percent of the population over 14 years of age they account for 40 percent of all arrests 41 percent of all prosecuted cases 44 percent of all people convicted and 50 percent of the prison population? The Maori Party wants to initiate real and meaningful dialogue about what justice really means and we do this against a background of statistics that reveal an uneven participation at the hands of our justice system. For example Maori are three times more likely to be apprehended for an offence than non-Maori and four times more likely to be apprehended for violent crime. Prosecution rates are considerably higher for Maori than for non-Maori—88 per 1000 against 18 per 1000. Conviction rates are 50 per 1000 for Maori compared with 12 per 1000 for non-Maori. These are the cold hard facts before us as we look to consider this Criminal Procedure Bill. 
Against this background of overrepresentation in arrests convictions and jail sentences it must be noted that now more than ever Maori groups such as iwi hapu whanau community committees wardens and special purpose groups are increasingly involved in strategies that are designed to reduce these inequalities as well as working to promote economic development and Maori success in business. Despite this effort however disparities continue to exist between Maori and non-Maori with regard to employment income health housing and education as well as in the justice system. 
 To this end the Maori Party holds that despite the current popular political climate of racial funding cleansing there is a need for specific measures based on ethnicity to strengthen the social economic and cultural rights of Maori. We remain firmly of the view that justice for Maori includes socio-economic considerations as well as underlying institutional and structural marginalisation. 
We have then serious questions to ask around the new provisions introduced in this bill. With regard to trial by judge instead of jury our concern is how we can enhance community involvement in the justice process. Reverting to one judge to rule rather than a jury of 12 peers—although it is specified that that would occur only in two particular cases—has worried us. Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. New Zealanders have grown up with the idea that we have a right to be heard by a jury of our peers—to be participants in democracy. 
Learned colleagues within this House will know that “democracy” is derived from the Greek word “demokratis” meaning “demos” or the people and “kratia” or power. Democracy has a history that started in the days of the Spartans and the Athenians of Greece prior to 500 BC. It ignores hereditary class distinctions it tolerates minority views and it embraces diversity. Democracy is also a very familiar concept with Te Ao Maori. Within our communities matters will be debated at length consensus is preferred and as anyone who has stayed within the shelter of the wharenui will attest it is open to everyone to have a say and to be heard. 
Our concern with the proposed changes to the Crimes Act 1961 is whether the decision to reduce a democratic structure to the ruling of one judge—no matter how wise and learned that judge is—may set a precedent across the justice sector. The Maori Party is aware that obviously the bill is trying to address problems with the selection of juries. The main one is that many people do not want to or cannot serve on juries and given this although a jury should be democratic and representative of the community in the way it is set up its membership may not always achieve this. But trying to address this issue with a stick—the punitive measure of fining people $1000 up from the current fine of $300—will never work. The problem could be better addressed by making jury duty more attractive through making changes to the court processes tailoring hours to fit with schools or creating opportunities to make jury service more family friendly with regard to childcare and transport. Most important of all the so-called problem with juries could have been an incentive to introduce citizenship education to teach the value and importance of being involved as a community in justice processes. 
The bill introduces the possibility of 11:1 majority verdicts. It puts in place changes to section 17 of the Juries Act 1981 which states: “Every jury shall comprise 12 jurors.” Maori have had extensive experience in the jury process. One of the most interesting features of the justice system that Moana Jackson has spoken about is that although defendants are frequently Maori juries are invariably Pakeha often because potential Maori jurors are challenged. One wonders how a Pakeha accused would feel appearing before an all Maori jury—it would never happen. 
In fact the history of Maori experience on juries bears mentioning in this House. Despite a brief period between 1844 and 1868—only 24 years—when Maori were able to serve on a mixed jury for the trial of any case in which the property or person of a Maori might be affected Maori have been prevented from taking up their democratic right to serve on ordinary juries. From 1868 no Maori could serve on a jury if either the accused or the victim was a non-Maori. The law remained in this form for nearly a century. That is right—100 years. It was only in 1965 that legislation placed Maori on an equal footing as far as jury service was concerned. So having only fairly recently gained the right to be eligible to serve on a jury the last thing we would look to do now is to look to reduce it again or to settle for a more limited number of jurors in supporting a verdict. 
The notion of a unanimous verdict is an important one. The Law Commission reminds us that the value of a unanimous verdict is that it increases community confidence in the verdict and in the criminal justice system which is—again—desperately needed. Being required to reach a unanimous verdict encourages careful discussion and increases the likelihood of each juror participating and being listened to. It is a worthy aspiration; indeed it is one that this House could well learn from. 
The third point I want to refer to is the concept of double jeopardy. The bill introduces exceptions to the double jeopardy rule. The Maori Party is opposed to any such changes coming into law. People should not be placed at the risk of being prosecuted twice or being persecuted by the police. 
Finally the Maori Party is in support of the need for criminal disclosure and we support the recommendations from the Law and Order Committee to reaffirm an accused person’s right to fair process. The criminal disclosure parts of the bill will ensure that adequate and timely disclosure to and by defendants will occur so that they can prepare their cases and determine how to plead. This will include the imperative for the police to also present their case to the defence in order to ensure that defences can be properly constructed. Disclosure requirements are codified in this bill and we support the intention behind doing this. 
The House must be aware that the spotlight of the world is on us in the aftermath of the very poor report card we received from the United Nations special rapporteur. We remind this House of the rights of indigenous peoples recognised in article 33 of the draft declaration: “Indigenous peoples have the right to promote develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive traditions procedures and practices and juridical customs in accordance with internationally recognised human rights standards.”