Harawira Hone: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Harawira Hone: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1776] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Maori have an expression that reminds us about matters of reporting accountability and even transparency: eharai te mea he kotahi tangata nanaiwhakaarai te po—it is not the responsibility of only one person to be alert to danger; everyone shares in that responsibility. 
Those issues are at the forefront of our thinking when we look at the bill as is the importance of reporting major judgments from our higher courts the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Land Valuation Tribunal. I take up the point raised by my colleague Mr Paraone about why the Maori Appellate Court is not included there or the Maori Land Court. It is not the case of only one person—whether that person be the Chief Justice or the Attorney-General. Justice for all requires that all have access to justice. As I said in my last speech it is about collective ownership and responsibility. It is a case of our lawmakers being held to account by those who design the law those who implement the law and those who bear the brunt of the law. 
There are three key points that the Maori Party wants to raise regarding the bill. One is how Maori benefit from the law reports. Some of my mates will think that I am off my rocker to say that there is a strong link between reports of the key judgments of the higher courts of the land and whanau hapu and iwi. But looking in the index one can see the topics Maori and Maori land. Reading further one will find such topics as alienation customary Maori rights jurisdiction of the Maori Appellate Court succession and the Treaty of Waitangi. All of those matters are relevant to our ability as a party to defend Maori rights and advance Maori interests for the benefit of all who live in Aoteoroa. These are critical matters for our history and our ongoing advancement and as such we must do everything we can to ensure that the information is accessible open and transparent. Our respect for rangatiratanga our commitment to self-determination requires that court judgments should be subject to the scrutiny of Maori through being published. 
That brings me to my second issue which is access to quality information. The bill is set up to ensure that the law reports assist judges lawyers and the public in gaining access to key court judgments. Gaining access to information should not just be a matter of presenting official reports in specialist or other publications. Gaining access to power which after all comes from information must be a bit more creative than simply opening up the reports of decisions of the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Land Valuation Tribunal. Maori have their own alternative publications that include summaries of those reports and I want to acknowledge here the contribution that the Maori Law Review has played in being a report of law affecting Maori since December 1993. And some in this House would say: “If all else fails try Google.” I am aware that the electronic coverage of New Zealand law reports starts from 1958. I am also aware that there is a very active Maori Internet presence through new sites such as NgaKorero te Wa Te Poutatara Te KarereIpurangi and Irirangi.net the network of Maori radio stations. 
But in truth Maori do not have easy access to the Internet because generally Maori do not have computers. Therefore they are not heavy users of the Internet. So I think that if this House is really committed to democratic representation to the disclosure of information and to accountability maybe we need to think a bit wider than the net that does not actually catch any fish. 
Fortunately there are ways for Maori to be able to access information other than by computer or published decisions. I have to be a bit concerned about the sneaky suspicion of law by stealth which was touched on in the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) with the possibility that judgments could be heard in empty courtrooms. For significant decisions nothing quite compares with the strength of hearing views face to face kanohi ki te kanohi—not over the wire not in specialist law journals but actually in person. Is that a radical idea? Then that is what the Maori Party is known for. 
The final point I want to raise is simply to reiterate the importance of having open judgments and a formalised procedure to report court decisions accurately. On that point we have been interested in arguments from other members regarding the development of a statutory monopoly. We believe in decisions being reported in order to uphold the critical values of integrity and fairness and we have to ask therefore about the legitimacy of the Attorney-General chairing the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting and what effect that might have on blocking any reports of unpopular Supreme Court decisions. We know full well how ministerial interventions can prevent those decisions and reports that Ministers do not like from ever seeing the light of day. We have only to look at the closing the gaps reports that Te Puni Kokiri produced across the Government sector—which never saw the light of day—to know that bad news does not actually make the news. So we raised the issue about the council’s monopoly over the publication of key judgments from New Zealand’s higher courts. Competition can help ensure the provision of quality information and the holding of law writers to account so that the unpalatable actually sees the light of day. Having access to quality information means that we do not have to airbrush stories to make them into good news. The Maori Party will support the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill in the interests of ensuring access to information. 
Bill read a second time.