Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17245] 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he agree with the failures identified by Kristy McDonald QC in the report he released on 9 July 2008? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 No but I agree that failures occurred as identified by Kristy McDonald QC. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in the Government’s State services when one of those services placed a dangerous criminal on parole in Nelson just 6 months after he had been sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment when he seriously reoffended just 8 days after being placed in Nelson under the witness protection programme—and neither the Department of Corrections nor the police took any action—and when he offended again just a week after appearing before the court but the Department of Corrections and the police did not advise the judge that he was the same offender and was on parole so he was able to go on and kill 20-year-old Debbie Ashton; and does this ministerial inquiry not show a reckless disregard by State agencies for the safety of the public? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The report does show that some bad mistakes were made by different Government agencies. The Government has accepted and responded to those recommendations in an effort to make sure that they do not reoccur. If I ask myself what went wrong here I think the answer is that the Government officials handling the matter got it wrong when they thought that the need to protect this person who was on the witness protection programme meant that they could not tell the court that he had another identity. That was the mistake that was made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister apologise to the Ashton family for his decision to delay the publication of the ministerial inquiry report into Debbie Ashton’s death when Justice France’s ruling on 8 July makes it plain that there was no good reason for the delay which added to this family’s trauma in that it had to fight for 8 months to get this report out in the open? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Minister of Police went to see the Ashton family the day following the release of the report from Kristy McDonald QC to the Government. The reason that the application was made to the court to vary the suppression orders was that Crown Law the State Services Commissioner the police the Department of Corrections Fairfax and even the member who asked the question who did not publicly make the link between the named defender and the witness protection programme were all of the view that the suppression orders prevented the publication of the report including those details. That is why we went to the court. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister apologise and withdraw his complaint to the Privileges Committee over his claim that Heather Roy had breached court suppression orders when Justice France refused to change any of the suppression orders and stated that he had not placed any restriction on naming the offender Jonathan Barclay saying that he was on the witness protection programme or stating that he had killed Debbie Ashton; and is the Minister not continuing the same error that was made by the police and the Department of Corrections which continue to put the rights of the offender ahead of the rights of the family and the victim in respect of this tragedy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have not put the interests of the offender ahead of the interests of the Ashton family. Indeed we have been transparent in our efforts to put as much information out there as is possible. I also make it clear that I still take care not to name the offender concerned in this arena. There is a difference between what one might be allowed to say and what one should say. Some members in this House do not judge very well the exercise of their privileges. I maintain what I said: it was irresponsible of Heather Roy to name the offender and to make links through to the witness protection programme. It undermined the viability of the witness protection programme and also increased the risk to that offender. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does it not speak volumes about what is wrong with this Government that it is far more concerned about protecting Jonathan Barclay a criminal with a very long record who was given a second chance who was placed in Nelson who repeatedly offended and who went on and killed an innocent 20-year-old woman; and is it not time that this Parliament started putting the protection of the public and victims before the protection of criminals? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That chest-beating exercise by the member should be analysed. He is effectively saying that in terms of people who have assisted in the imprisonment of some seriously bad people by turning Crown’s evidence against them—and who have been put on the witness protection programme because by turning Crown’s evidence their own safety is at risk—members of Parliament should take it into their own hands to ignore those safety risks and to use the absolute privileges that we have in this Parliament to undermine what are important institutions. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister confirm that there was a commission of inquiry and a report that set out the errors that had been made because the Minister of State Services at the time sought an inquiry worked with the family and the local member of Parliament on the terms of reference for that inquiry had the inquiry undertaken by an independent Queen’s Counsel and ensured that the family got as much information as possible? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed I can. And I would contrast the position that we take which is to respect the rule of law to respect the different interests of different people and to ignore the rights of no one. We have not covered up what happened here; we have made it transparently obvious that errors were made and taken steps to prevent the repetition of those errors. But that does not mean that it is right for members of this House to stand up as if they have no responsibilities to other people. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the ruling of Justice Simon France who had to give consideration to the issues of the man’s name— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table an edited version of a letter from— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was objection—I am sorry; if members would please just listen it would make things easier. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to serve an edited copy of a letter sent to me by the family of some of the people involved here worrying for the safety of the life of their family member— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He sought leave to serve a document and I do not know what that means. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He sought leave to serve it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well all I heard was that leave was sought. The document was identified. Was there objection? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If I said “serve” I meant to say “table”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I did not hear that. Leave was sought. Members could have objected; they did not. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the ministerial inquiry into the death of Debbie Ashton that showed such gross failings— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.