Sharples Pita: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9967] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The urgency of this legislation is perhaps underscored by the greater context in which this bill sits. On the one hand the bill is all about sorting out a technicality. We all appreciate that the Evidence Act 2006 is scheduled to come into force on 1 August 2007. Given the short lead-in time until the bill becomes a reality it is therefore also appreciated that an urgent amendment is required in order to avoid serious implications for trials involving multiple accused charged with serious criminal offending. We recall also that the Maori Party supported the passage of the Evidence Bill in which this rule was meant to be included so our support today is consistent with that original position. 
However it is the particular case of the multiple defendant methamphetamine trials that has certainly grabbed my attention to this matter before the House. As we understand it the problem relates to section 27(1) of the Act from which the co-conspirators rule has been unintentionally deleted. So why is that so important? The Minister has clarified the context in that under that rule statements by one defendant are in defined circumstances admissible as evidence against another defendant. The most usual circumstance of this is in drug trials where the intercepted statements of one may be used against others who are also involved in criminal enterprise or even gang offending. 
The House will know that these issues are very dear to my heart. My involvement with campaigns targeting drug offending was given particular focus through the Patua te Ngangara or Beat the Demon drug education programme that we initiated from Hoani Waititi Marae in 2003. It was a joint initiative where we invited the participation of the police. We produced an education programme to take around the districts and we trained the police officers—one from each district—in talking to this display. We gave them a script and sent them back to their districts then we went around the districts to help them set up the programmes. 
We used graphic images including photos of brains with holes in them caused by the street drug known as P which burns out nerve receptors in the brain and the personal testimonies of people affected by drugs. We took the programme out to marae to the Royal New Zealand Police College we came here to Parliament to appear before the Maori Affairs Committee we went to Waiwhetu Marae in Lower Hutt and all over the motu. But we did not present just to marae; we went to schools to hospitals to community centres and to town halls. We presented to the Mongrel Mob Hell’s Angels and Black Power. We talked to them all about the consequences of being involved in the conspiracy world that is associated with methamphetamine from Kaitaia in the north to Invercargill in the south. 
So I come to this take—the technicality around the co-conspirators rule—with their voices in my head. I remember whanau grieving about how P methamphetamine broke up the family. They were stories no one wants to hear—about young girls prostituting themselves to feed their parents’ habits. The substance intrudes upon the normal patterns of everyday life. I think of the tears shed by grandparents talking about their children being unable to focus on the tasks of parenting—feeding changing and washing their babies while under the influence of P methamphetamine. When I think of children I know too of children as young as 9 being sold P in fruit-flavoured tablets. As MP for Tamaki Makaurau and as an active participant in the Hoani Waititi Marae Patua te Ngangara programme it is particularly those children who drive me forward in our campaign to stamp out methamphetamine. 
Almost half of Manukau City’s population—42 percent—is under the age of 25. A survey carried out by the Manukau City Council a few years back found that 39 percent of the youth respondents said that dealing with drugs and alcohol was a major issue for them. Along with alcohol violence and dishonesty drugs topped the list of crime issues that they were most concerned about. So when we came to this Evidence Amendment Bill and contemplated the implications for major drug-dealing organised criminal enterprises or serious violent offending we believed this amendment to be crucial and critical. 
I really commend the local councils that are working with iwi with police and with Government agencies to remove the pushers the crooks the suppliers of this drug. I think that today’s action in remedying the omission of the co-conspirators rule in including the common law exceptions to the general rule is another vital step in making change. As I understand it the Justice and Electoral Committee always intended to maintain the rule but section 27(1) of the Act clearly abolishes it—a rule that has always been part of the common law and that was intended to be retained in the Act. 
So it would seem that the most logical remedy for this situation is to amend the Act under urgency before it comes into force on 1 August 2007 and we are happy to do that. We support any moves that will help our nation to rid itself of the damage caused by people manufacturing distributing and selling methamphetamine. Indeed we welcome today’s urgent action as a response to a call that I made in this House on 23 February 2006 that Parliament could lead a campaign to stamp out P. We know that some incredible efforts are occurring at a community level. In Murupara the townsfolk have vowed to clear the streets; to declare P-free zones. The iwi of Tauranga ran a high-profile campaign including advertising on local radio and television resulting in P-related crime in the region dropping by 20 percent. Communities came together and marched to Parliament last February in the fight against P; there have been marches in towns all over our country. Other tribes have put up a rahui—a ban—in effect prohibiting the manufacture supply and use of methamphetamine in that area. A rahui is generally reserved for the protection of ocean and land generated as a method to conserve future generations of resource. 
It seems entirely appropriate also to protect our future generations against P. Therefore the introduction and first reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill today builds on the community efforts and consolidates the application of common law of ensuring criminal trials will not be obstructed in following the course of justice. Urgent enactment of the Evidence Amendment Bill will ensure that the common law exceptions relating to the admissibility of evidence will have major implications for criminal trials involving multiple accused such as is commonly found in drug trials or trials involving gang-related criminal activity. 
The admissibility of evidence of co-conspirators and persons involved in joint criminal enterprise was based on a code drafted by the Law Commission. Of course one would expect the same standards of rigour and integrity to apply in the examination of evidence as we would expect of any evidence admissible in a court of law. All things considered we are happy to support the urgent legislation amending the Evidence Act 2006. 
Finally I am reminded of one of the slogans associated with the campaign of speaking out against methamphetamine P—namely “There is no P in community”. I am pleased that this bill today moves another step forward towards ensuring that any criminal-related activity associated with multi-defendant trials is able to be heard in the context of sound legal rules for the pursuit of justice for all. Kia ora.