Sharples Pita: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sharples Pita: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2008. Volume:647;Page:16784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Maori Party is the newest political party in this Chamber. We are always happy to share our experience of the innovations and initiatives that we have drawn on in establishing ourselves as the proud and independent Maori voice in Parliament. 
One development we are very proud of is the effectiveness of tangata whenua processes in achieving consensus which is the outcome of kotahitanga. Kotahitanga is the principle of unity and of purpose and direction. It is demonstrated in an environment where all are encouraged to make a contribution and to have their say and then together a consensus is reached. All decisions of our electorate council of our national council and of our annual hui are made by consensus. Candidates are selected by consensus. Consensus is our mode of operating. 
Consensus also helps to build whakawhanaungatanga. It honours whanau decision-making processes where collective action is strengthened and progress is made towards attracting commitment. This is not an easy option by any means. People do not necessarily agree with the outcome but they may agree to support it being satisfied that it was the best decision that the group could make at that time. 
The process of building consensus requires active participation. It demands respect it stimulates debate and it takes time. The path of true democracy never runs smoothly but it ends with a sound basis for moving forward into the future. Consensus means that all shades of the argument are heard not just the majority view the winner or the minority view the loser. The creation of a majority implies the creation of a minority. The process of consensus has a precedent handed down by our tipuna. Decisions were never made by a majority of rangatira or ariki as leaders. Hui were held amongst whanau so that collective responsibility was achieved with the group’s interests riding over those of the individual. 
So we in the Maori Party came to the Criminal Procedure Bill knowing understanding and appreciating a concept that could have been crucial in promoting the rights responsibilities and obligations of offenders and victims in the justice process. But instead we were confronted with a proposal to have trials by judges instead of juries. Rather than encouraging community involvement and ownership of the justice system this legislation puts in place the means by which the judge can dispense with a jury. The right to be heard by a jury is one of the cornerstones of our current legal system. It is not perfect by any means but having a public trial in front of a jury of one’s peers has a public benefit as well as a private benefit. 
The other related proposal is the introduction of a majority decision over a unanimous verdict. Such a proposal flies in the face of consensus and compromises on the principles of social justice by removing the need for listening and for dialogue. It is greatly disappointing to see the justice sector resort to settling for mediocrity rather than taking on the challenge of the consensus process. The majority verdict is another way of saying that we will just accept the fact that consensus could not be achieved. It is another example of the make-do mentality rather than striving to work through the differences and arrive at a verdict that everyone can sit with. 
Section 17 of the Juries Act states that every jury shall comprise 12 jurors but it says nothing about the explicit numerical balance required to support a verdict. With this legislation we are now being presented with a possibility of 11:1 majority verdicts which is the system used in some Australian and United Kingdom jurisdictions. There is no doubt that a unanimous verdict requires far more certainty than a majority verdict but there is plenty of doubt as to the rationale for making such a fundamental change to the legal system. Is it to do with the fact that roughly 8.2 percent of jury trials end in a hung trial? Is it to do with dealing to the so-called rogue juror—the jury member who no matter how persuasive the evidence cannot entertain the thought of changing his or her mind? Is it an incentive to prevent corruption or jury tampering? Is it to do with the fact that we believe in juries only when the verdict they arrive at is the one we agree with—because someone has to be found guilty? Or is it because our desire to find someone guilty has overwhelmed an accused person’s right to the benefit of the doubt? 
The really distressing thing about the context of this omnibus legislation is that some very worthwhile ideas which we in the Maori Party could support are promoted within the greater framework of the legislation with the hope that its less favourable aspects will not be revealed. All of the publicity around the legislation has focused on the initiative to allow depositions to occur based on written evidence rather than a preliminary oral hearing. The effect of this development is that victims of crime will not be forced to go through the oral depositions process as well as submitting written evidence. For many victims who appear before the court the impact of giving evidence twice adds a whole new level of trauma to the reporting of violence and criminal offending. 
We in the Maori Party absolutely support such a proposal and believe it will have many positive effects. Written depositions would not only introduce a layer of compassion and fairness for victims of crime but also enhance administrative efficiency and make for a more effective use of policy and judicial resources. The Maori Party is happy to support any moves to prevent the persecution of victims on the stand which would in effect make them feel as through they were being brutalised all over again—this time by the legal system itself. So we support Supplementary Order Paper 206 which paves the way for an oral submission to be heard before the judge or any other party. 
But we are cognisant also of the advice of Geoff Vause a Wellington advocate for Victim Support. Geoff suggests that the criminal justice system itself is at a point of collapse and he has found that the adversarial system is being bogged down in process. Vause puts forward the case that adversarial justice leaves judges with a narrow range of sentencing options which leads to a filling up of even more jails. His parting shot is: “The community is demanding to see justice done with transparency consistency and reliability.” That is not a lot to ask one would think. Perhaps we could also add the following phrase to that sentence: “in pursuit of kotahitanga collective responsibility and ownership.” 
We are disappointed that the legislation has lowered the standards in terms of settling for majority verdicts and enabling trials by judge rather than jury. Even though there is overwhelming support for the legislation we will not be supporting it. Thank you.