Flavell Te Ururoa: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17959] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. I have to say that it is a bit of an irony for the Maori Party to be considering yet another bill that presents for debate a set of rules in this case to help determine and assist the practice and procedures of the High Court. Further up the Order Paper we discussed the development of a code of responsible conduct for users and landholders in the context of the Walking Access Bill and here we are debating rules that will facilitate the “expeditious inexpensive and just dispatch of court business” through the revision of the High Court Rules. The irony of course is that we in this House are debating appropriate codes of conduct when the majority of the members of this House themselves have been unable to sign up to the code of desirable conduct. 
We think the nation noticed that it was only the Maori Party the Greens ACT and United Future that were prepared to sign up to the standards of behaviour and appropriate codes of decorum that uphold integrity honour and respect in this House. Fourteen months ago those four MMP parties united to sign a voluntary code of conduct and invited other parties to follow suit. We were concerned that the behaviour of some MPs in the House had for some time created a poor environment for political debate—unfortunately—and we are of the view that it is not surprising that the general New Zealand public have such little confidence in politicians when they observe the abusive slanging matches and the level of rudeness that sometimes shape the parliamentary Chamber. So it is a little bit rich we say to be sitting and considering legislation to assist the due administration of justice when some parties themselves in this House are unprepared to abide by desirable standards of behaviour. 
The Maori Party was proud to sign up to the code of conduct as the code is consistent with the standards we have set for ourselves. The Maori Party as members will know from the numerous speeches given by us is driven by kaupapa Maori by values and principles that have been passed down from our tupuna so the concepts of rules that regulate the practice and procedure of the High Court are concepts that we readily understand. 
We are also pleased to accept recommendations that have come we understand from consultation within the sector. I noted that the draft went through a 3-month consultation process which especially targeted the New Zealand Law Society the district law societies and the New Zealand Bar Association. I am not a lawyer in any way shape or form but I presume that if anyone can understand the significance of the revised rules it will be those sorts of groups. Yet here is the thing: the Law Commission report states that pending wider constitutional discussions to consider a more just relationship between tikanga Maori and Western law the law could be more bicultural. 
In this bill we have a whole heap of amendments to make the justice system and therefore the courts more accessible. Others have outlined some of these issues and this in itself we think is a response to the Law Commission’s 2004 report  
Delivering Justice for All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals. 
 The question we ask however is whether it is a case of justice for all. How are the views of tangata whenua of Maori legal experts of whanau hapu and iwi incorporated in this bill or is the assumption that the only ones interested in the procedures of the High Court are the judiciary and the legal professionals? Successive Governments have sidelined constitutional discussions and have failed really to take up the opportunity to entrench the Treaty in legislation. Tangata whenua have frequently raised the issue that the very structure of the court system pays inadequate respect to Maori tradition and is insensitive to our needs. Too many Maori simply do not feel that the justice system can be relied upon to deliver justice to them. 
Members might be aware that 20 years ago Moana Jackson’s ground-breaking report at the time  
He Whaipaanga Hou: A New Perspective  
described the issue of Maori responsiveness with particular reference to the courts. That report stated: “Of all our institutions the courts are probably the most determinedly monocultural. The trappings of horse hair and silk the ritual of procedure and the very language of the law are obvious illustrations of their essentially English origins.” The report continues: “They are seen to deny real Maori access to justice to effectively exclude defendants’ whanau from the process to favour Pakeha who have power and status and to be culturally biased in the presentation and disposition of cases.” Fortunately some of those things have changed dramatically over the two decades to improve access to justice for all. The traditional bleached hair wigs and 18th century headwear have been out of sight since they were abolished I am told in 1996. The language of the law has with this bill today come around and we welcome not only plain simple English but also te reo rangatira the language of other peoples and sign language. 
We are pleased to see that recommendation 100 has been taken up where attention is paid to clarity and simplicity of language and to proportionality of procedure. The complex and prescriptive rules as they previously stood acted against due access to justice so it is very positive to see that we now have rules that make plain sense. We in the Maori Party have always supported any moves to create a system that is more responsive to and effective for all New Zealanders and we say that creating plain language is a pretty good place to start. 
We support the focus seen in Part 3 relating to the use of Maori language translations and sign language in any proceedings conferences or hearings. There is also consideration within the rules to enable the translation of documents into te reo Maori and indeed there is provision for an affidavit in any language other than English to be filed in a proceeding. 
There are still unresolved issues as set out so clearly in that statement from  
He Whaipaanga Hou 
 Moana Jackson’s paper. Maori have spoken about the desire to incorporate key Maori cultural practices in the courts such as the ability of whanau to speak in court and to support victims and defendants in culturally appropriate ways. Ongoing emphasis has been placed on the capacity to put culturally relevant factors before the court and there has been a strong desire to move the court experience away from the process focus towards the making of court appearances meaningful and resolution-based which includes community involvement. 
This bill like any other bill could have been an opportunity to do something about these concerns; again it has not done so. But we will support this bill because we agree with the principal focus of the revision of this legislation which is to enhance the accessibility of rules to all court users. We support easier-to-understand language we support the pretty practical changes the pragmatic changes such as rules to enable electronic filing of documents and we support the overall concept that court procedures must be simplified and costs minimised. But we remain of the view that there is still much to be done in enhancing access to justice for all. Kia ora tatou.