Harawira Hone: Evidence Bill — Third Reading 
Harawira Hone: Evidence Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6808] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. First I congratulate Nandor Tanczos on being the only non-lawyer on the committee. It is something to be congratulated on. Often we give too much credence to the words of academics and lawyers when in fact reality is best served by ordinary people. 
In a paper delivered to Te OruRangahauMaori Research and Development Conference in 1998 Justice Eddie Durie spoke about values and ethics and Maori research based on his experiences as a Judge of the Maori Land Court for 20 years and as chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal for 14 years. Judge Durie’s conclusions about evidence law and Te Ao Maori are relevant to our reading today of the Evidence Bill. He said: “Part of the problem even today is that the judges through no fault of their own have been called upon to assess the mores of a society still largely foreign to them. This leaves scope for those who would profit from the situation with dubious but compellingly presented evidence to pull the wool over the judge’s eyes. … Conversely reliable evidence may also be improperly used or badly understood by judicial officers.” 
These statements are very much in line with the findings of the Law Commission that a change in approach by judges and lawyers is needed to achieve the desired reforms in evidence law. Their recommendation that common sense should be applied as to what is relevant and what should be included may require them to look again at their own existing knowledge because a question arises as to what is relevant and who defines it. 
Again I refer here to Justice Durie: “Researchers must set aside their distortions of past judicial precedent and its present-day effect. They must come to a better understanding of Maori society if they are to measure past conflict and conduct in a cultural context. To understand that society they must look inside its thought concepts philosophy and underlying values and avoid interpretations from an outward appearance. … It will be important to consider the poetry the songs the legends the proverbs the idiom and the forms of speech-making.” I have taken the time to quote from the good judge because his views are critical at this point in our history as we strive to ensure that knowledge is culturally relevant. If we are to move to a justice system that reflects Aotearoa properly we need to ensure that the Maori world view is integrated and respected throughout including the provisions of the evidence code. 
In that light both Parliament and the judiciary could benefit from a landmark study completed by Dr Nin Tomas earlier this year. Dr Tomas is Ngati Kahu and the first Maori to have completed a PhD in law at the University of Auckland. Her topic was Maori custom law—tikanga Maori—and its influence on land in the Tai Tokerau and in particular the Papatupu hearings held early last century. The hearings were held in te reo Maori before committees of rangatira steeped in the tikanga of Tai Tokerau and were about the Maori system of land entitlement. During the course of her study she found a coherent system of principles based on whakapapa whanaungatanga mana and tapu supported by the concepts of mauri and wairua. She explains the relationships between these principles practices and values as being integral to an understanding of law. 
Dr Tomas’ thesis also describes contemporary situations in which legal arguments seem to have plucked tikanga Maori out of thin air to support evidence without considering the framework of values needed to give coherence to the argument. Her thesis is a vital addition to the knowledge pool that can enhance the quality of debate in schools in courts and indeed in our parliamentary chamber. These are weighty issues and if we are to make our laws coherent and workable for the 21st century we must also ensure that tikanga Maori is considered properly and not by random choice. 
I also wanted to pick up an issue raised by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell during the second reading about consultation. He recognised the contribution of the Law Commission the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer Dr Warren Young Helen Aikman and Justice Durie. He commended the Maori advisory committee and acknowledged the contribution also of important submitters such as Annette Sykes Moana Jackson and Maui Solomon. I also acknowledge the comments that both Russell Fairbrother and Richard Worth made in recognising the significant role that our Chief High Court Judge the full Supreme Court Justice Baragwanath and the Hon Dr Robert Fisher made in enhancing the final outcome. 
But the issue that arose between Mr Flavell Mr Fairbrother and Mr Worth struck at the core of the cultural clash to which I am referring. Mr Flavell said that although he recognised the contribution of the various bodies of experts it was disappointing that there was no formal forum in which hapu and iwi or Maori organisations were met. This goes back to comments made by Justice Durie and Dr Nin Tomas about cultural context and about understanding the principles of mana tapu whakapapa and whanaungatanga and what they mean to tangata whenua. As Mr Tanczos rightly noted consultation should not be just with judges juries lawyers and lecturers if it is to have any real meaning within Te Ao Maori. The laws of evidence have meaning to whanau hapu and iwi as well and they have as much right to be heard as the legal or academic fraternity. 
I look back at a Law Commission report from 1999  
Te Tikanga o te Ture: te Matauranga o ngaWahineMaori e pa ana ki tenei—Justice: the Experiences of Maori Women 
 which included the following statement: “The Treaty guarantees three things: protection partnership and participation. But we are never allowed the participation or the partnership for Maori. You haven’t got protection if you haven’t got participation or partnership.” It says a lot about how Maori see their participation in the world and their desire to ensure that whanau hapu and iwi are actively involved as part of the effective operation of the Treaty partnership. 
The Maori Party will be supporting the Evidence Bill at this third reading because we believe that the enhancements are useful the recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee are helpful and indeed that Messrs Fairbrother Worth Finlayson and Tanczos have done a good job. But we hope that the issues raised about matters such as tikanga Maori Maori customary law consultation and the cultural basis or bias of knowledge will continue to exercise the minds of all members in this House. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a third time.