Mark Ron: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10640. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have to start by saying that the Criminal Justice Reform Bill was a rather hefty piece of legislation that has now been broken up into five bills. New Zealand First although it has not had anyone on the Justice and Electoral Committee has played some part in some pieces of the legislation. We support some of the provisions. We will support the legislation through its third reading as we have told the Government we will do but I signal very clearly and very loudly that we have some grave reservations about some of its aspects. We are putting the House and the Government on notice that we will monitor and watch very closely how this legislation actually rolls out in practice. 
Our observations of amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act in the past since I came to the House 11 years ago have been those of dismay and dissatisfaction generally. I must say to the House that there have been many occasions in select committees where we have sat and listened to criticism of bills being put through—be they members’ bills or Government bills and whether of a Government led by a blue party or of a Government led by a red party—and where citizens have expressed dissatisfaction and dismay at the legislation. 
What people sometimes fail to realise is that behind the legislation is a key number of advisers—advisers from ministries and advisory organisations be they the Law Commission the Law Society or whatever. It does not go without noting by New Zealand First that the wonderful advice many people gave about the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002—which the Hon Phil Goff trumpeted would be the be-all and end-all of all our sentencing and parole problems for ever amen and which were enacted to serve the interests of the people who campaigned so hard in support of Norm Withers’ referendum for longer and harsher sentences—has proved to be contrary to the advice given by officials to the Minister and the Government of the day wholly lacking. This legislation has not been the be-all and end-all; it has not been the panacea. The very fact that we are standing here today and debating and amending those Acts is proof of that. 
It was interesting to hear Bill English in his great speech earlier this afternoon on a different topic asking where the accountability was. Well on behalf of New Zealand First I ask: where is the accountability for this? Here we are again amending legislation on the advice without a doubt of the very same people who advised the previous time 5 years ago. So what are we doing here? 
One of the bills we are amending is the reversion of the move that reduced the qualifying period of time for parole from two-thirds of a sentence down to one-third. New Zealand First opposed that move on the day. New Zealand First supports the reinstatement of the longer provision now. But we ask the question as to why the provision was ever changed.  
We are now supporting the reversion of some of the things regarding periodic detention that were repealed in 2002. New Zealand First opposed those changes. Let me give the House a couple of examples. Periodic detention was thought by some politically correct people both in this House and outside it to be too harsh too prescriptive and too imposing on the poor offenders who were having their poor little lives turned upside down by virtue of having to report at a time they were told and to do work and complete that work when they were told. So the Government went ahead in 2002 and repealed those provisions. 
What did we find? We have had probations officers and Department of Corrections staff tearing their hair out and saying: “We don’t know on any one day how many people are going to turn up to do their community work. We don’t know whether we’re going to have one or 101. We can’t staff for it. With this provision to allow them to complete their community work within 12 months they hold out hold out and hold out; they have got all the excuses in the world why they can’t attend. Then when the 11th month comes along they are rushing and panicking to try to get their community work done. They can’t and they end up back before the courts and it ends up being remitted.” 
Well this legislation seeks to overturn some of those stupid changes that were implemented in 2002. When we look at clause 58 and clause 59 of the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) we start to see a little bit of common sense coming back in. That is why I say to Shane Ardern in answer to his question that that is why I am voting for this bill. It ain’t perfect Shane not by a long margin. Let me tell you Shane— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: I say to Shane— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he cannot use the single name of a person. 
RON MARK 
: Point of order! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is not challenging my ruling? 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The  
Hansard  
will record that I said: “Shane Ardern let me tell you …”. That is very clear Mr Assistant Speaker; I was not addressing the Chair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member will be seated. I was of the impression that the member said “Shane Ardern” once but that the second time he said “Shane”. If I am incorrect then I stand to be corrected. But it was my impression that the member used the member’s first name only. I will take the member’s word for it. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; forgive me. I say to Shane Ardern that we definitely opposed those changes and that we support these changes back. But we are watching very closely and I tell Mr Ardern that if I find myself in the position where I have to work with him in the future and if there is a view that this needs to be further altered he should have no doubt whatsoever that I will be working to make these clauses even tighter still. It is a rather ludicrous little situation when an offender who is given a community sentence starts dictating the date and time at which he or she will actually complete it. It is even more ludicrous when offenders who fail to do the sentence within the time frame then end up pleading a case to have an extension or to have the sentence remitted. But this legislation seems fine. We now have a hierarchy of sentences there and we have laid out a smorgasbord from which the learned judge can pick and choose a sentence. 
Let us be clear about fines. Fines are effective only if they are paid. We have $550 million worth of outstanding fines. We have cases on the West Coast of the South Island where three boys had $240000 worth of fines remitted because they could not pay them. New Zealand First is gravely concerned that that straightaway undermines the authority of the justice system undermines the authority of the police and undermines everything that this bill says it seeks to do. 
We welcome the conversion of home detention into a sentence in its own right but our jury is firmly out. New Zealand First supported the National Government when it introduced home detention. We had no idea whatsoever that it was bringing in back-end home detention for violent offenders. We fought against that. We now see a move to wind that back. We will give our support towards home detention continuing as a sentence in its own right to be given by the judge who hears the case and hears the evidence at the time not by some Parole Board later on down the road whose members may not have been present to see the effect on the witnesses in the court hearing. Our jury is still out on home detention because the evidence is clear. One man took a girl’s pet dog hung it on the clothesline cut its throat in front of her and said: “That’s what will happen to you.” while he was on home detention. That sort of violent offender should never get home detention and New Zealand First will be watching to see that such offenders do not in future. 
Members should look at the controversy about the Sentencing Council. We note National’s concerns and we have heard the arguments. We actually feel a little bit comfortable because we have heard a lot of people out in the arena saying they are sick and tired of inconsistency in the judiciary’s responses to crime through sentencing. Some things are worth a shot. New Zealand First believes this council is worth a shot; that is why we will give it our support. But I say again to the honourable member Chris Finlayson that we have heard the debates heard the arguments and they are not lost on us. If at some time in the future there is a view that the Sentencing Council has not proved to be what it was said to be and there is a move to repeal it or look at it again then we will look at the evidence that has been produced as a result of its performance. I give the member New Zealand First’s assurance on that. 
In terms of the other issues in respect of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill I say that unfortunately a debacle is a debacle is a debacle and there is nothing that can be done to change that. With regard to inmates who have been assaulted by guards we should be clear that New Zealand First was the party that brought the focus to bear on the gangsterism that existed in Christchurch prisons and acted on prisoners through the activities of the “goon squad” and on the blind eyes of management who did not see hear or act. New Zealand First fought that issue for 4 years because it was right to do so. Let us be clear: if it is wrong and not appropriate to give compensation to a person who is assaulted on the street then it is clearly not appropriate to give compensation to the person who made the assault when that person is in jail and gets assaulted. Clearly there is a court and a judicial process that that person can go through but unfortunately we have the situation we have now. It is New Zealand First’s fear that if this legislation is not passed someone will get compensation tomorrow but victims will not get the chance to access that. 
We are not happy that this legislation is back here again. We would have preferred to see the necessary amendments made over the last 2 years but they have not been. The Government is on notice: we will not support this legislation or such amendments again. The Government now has a period of time to get its act together and to bring forth legislation to correct this situation. I hope it does so before the next election. That is our desire.