Parker David: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Parker David: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
[Volume:648;Page:17262] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I also commence by expressing the deep condolences that I think everyone in this House feels—obviously for Debbie Ashton herself who lost her life but also for her family. We are all members of families and I think we can all identify with and have great sympathy for the family of Debbie Ashton. We can imagine the horror of the time they have had as they have tried to get to the bottom of this. I reiterate the Hon Annette King’s commendation of Dr Smith’s part in this. I think that Dr Smith has been from the start appropriate in his efforts to shed light on what happened here and has tried to ensure that it will not happen again. I think that reflects well on Dr Smith as a local member of Parliament who has done the right thing by his constituents. I also say that no one defends the actions of the prisoner here. He is the person who has acted absolutely irresponsibly and has caused the death of an innocent young lady. He is the greatest villain in all of this and I think we ought not to forget that. 
I also would like to reflect a little on what went wrong here. At its heart what went wrong was that people were confused as to what they ought to do because they mistook the fear that they had for the safety of the person on the witness protection programme with the duties that they had to be open to the court. These matters could have been dealt with in a way that appropriately protected the interests of the person who was on the witness protection programme. It could have been done in a closed court. Appropriate suppression orders could have been made surrounding those matters but the full background to the offender’s position including his prior offending under other identities could have and should have been made known to the court. 
The recommendations of the report from Kristy McDonald QC show where those failings were. They show how they can be avoided and indeed the systems have been largely changed as a consequence. Some other changes are on the way like changing some computer programs in a way that enables the easier linking of names into the future. I do not say that in a way that intends to minimise the enormity of what has happened to the family here; it is a terrible tragedy. 
I want to address the matter raised by Simon Power as to why it took the time that it did to get the report made public. It has been absolutely clear that the Government has wanted this report has wanted it to be independent and has wanted to get to the bottom of it and Dr Smith kindly acknowledges that the report does that. I think it has also been clear that the Government has wanted to be open about the contents of that report. That report was completed by Kristy McDonald QC on 14 December. She then met with me and the Minister of Police Annette King on 17 December. At that time we were advised by both Crown Law and Kristy McDonald who thought that the report was not able to be released in its then form. The following day 18 December an edited version of that report was taken by Annette King to the family of Debbie Ashton. 
By the end of January—because 18 December of course is just a day or two before Christmas—the different agencies met including the police Crown Law and the Department of Corrections to decide upon the application that in view of the Crown Law advice and that of others needed to be made to vary the suppression orders in order for the report to be disclosed in a way that made reference to the witness protection programme because at that time we were being told that we could not make reference to the witness protection programme. Without that disclosure being made in the report it was meaningless to those who read it or less meaningful than it would otherwise be. 
The first application that was made by Crown Law—by the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government if you like—was filed in February. There were some delays in the court processes and the eventual decision was made by Justice France on 8 July. He found that notwithstanding the prior advice that had been given by Crown Law and others the events relating to the witness protection programme had not in fact been suppressed in the first place. A suggestion has been made by Heather Roy that we always knew that. That is not true. Indeed those of the view that the witness programme details were suppressed included the Police Corrections Crown Law and the offender himself through his lawyer. I believe that Dr Smith thought the same because that is also why Dr Smith did not make reference to those matters at the time. I think Dr Smith was acting responsibly because he believed that to be the position at the time. 
Similarly the Fairfax Media group were not reporting about the witness protection programme at that stage because they believed that was the effect of the order as well. Indeed they were one of the parties that were seeking to have the court vary the witness protection programme suppression orders and of course they would not have had needed to do that if they did not think they were of that effect in the first place so even the media thought that. 
I will deal just a little with what Heather Roy has said today. I heard her speech. It was all about her. It really was not about the terrible circumstances here. Heather Roy is not the person who has actively pursued these issues. The two people are primarily Dr Smith and secondly Annette King. 
Hon Annette King 
: And the family. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes; on behalf of the family first and foremost through Dr Smith and more latterly through Annette King. They are the ones that have been pursuing transparency in this; they are the ones who have been trying to get to the bottom of this. All Heather Roy did was turn up at 1 percent in the polls say something that no media were at that time reporting and seek to achieve political advantage from it. She did not need to say the things she said in order for this to come into the public domain. She went a step too far. We have great privileges in this House. We have the absolute privilege of being able to say virtually anything we want. We can breach court suppression orders and we can defame people but we should not do that irresponsibly. The point I was making and the point I still make is that it was unnecessary for Heather Roy to say what she said. She did it on the understanding that it was suppressed at the time—that was everyone’s understanding at that time—and in doing so she put her political ambition ahead of the interests of New Zealanders. 
People on the witness protection programme are not angels. They are generally themselves criminals but they bring to justice even worse criminals and they are put on the witness protection programme because having given Crown’s evidence they are personally at risk of retribution from the people who are worse than they are and have been convicted. That retribution can be some form of torture some form of blackmail a threat to their families or even a threat of death to their own person. In the light of the sorts of serious issues that can arise for people it is unwise of members of this Parliament to override court processes and pre-emptively disclose those people’s names. 
I heard Ron Mark say that people lose their rights if they offend when they are on the witness protection programme. Well to a certain extent I agree—the offender here has only himself to blame. But we do not have the death penalty in New Zealand. Nor do we accept torture as an appropriate penalty for wrongdoing. This person suffered a penalty as a consequence of his offending—he has been imprisoned as a consequence. He ought to have been recalled from parole or imprisoned for his prior offending had his full offences been then known and Debbie Ashton’s death would not have happened. It was a terrible thing but it would not be right for this offender as a consequence of what he did on this occasion to be at risk of torture or of a threat to his life. I think we have to exercise our responsibilities as members of this Parliament very carefully when it comes to these breaches. 
I know even now in this debate today that people have breached some of the suppression orders that still exist in respect of Mr Barclay. I will not make a great song and dance about it. That breach occurred in a rather tangential way. I do not think any great harm will come of it and I do not think that it was intended. But I think that as we assert our privileges in this House we must take great care that we do not cause our institution to undermine other important institutions like the witness protection programme. If people cannot be properly protected on that programme then why would they give evidence? I return to the point on which I started: I give my condolences to the family of Debbie Ashton. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.