Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10215] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to indicate that New Zealand First has listened to this debate. We were aware that there would be some contention between the National and Government members who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee and considered the issue of the establishment of the Sentencing Council. I have to say that there are some members in this Chamber whose debate content is such that one always listens to them looks for the gems of fact and weighs up the differences between the arguments that are put up. But some of the other members tend to stand up and accuse others of taking grandstanding moments and of seeking headlines and photo opportunities—and one would swear to God that Judith Collins was looking in the mirror while she was giving that speech. It had no content whatsoever did it? I say to Ms Collins that it had absolutely no content. God forbid I say to her that anyone in this House should campaign on political issues and seek a headline and a photo opportunity! I think she would acknowledge with a wry smile that she has done her fair lick of that. 
In this debate New Zealand First was looking for an an intellectual and a professional challenge. We expected to see that come from Chris Finlayson and Simon Power and it is good to see that Charles Chauvel has answered those debating points. I was hoping that we would hear from Russell Fairbrother but he is obviously not in a position to comment tonight on this matter. But I have to say from New Zealand First’s perspective that for years we have listened to people express their concerns about the inconsistency of sentencing. That inconsistency is a well-known fact and Mr Chauvel pointed out that in Hamilton one is more likely to be imprisoned for stealing a car than in some other part of the country. 
Let me tell the Committee and let me tell the National Party lawyers who are here in their droves tonight that in Christchurch people look forward to reading Judge Erber’s summations. Judge Erber in Christchurch is known as a pretty hard-core judge who suffers no nonsense. He does not listen to the pathetic whining of criminals but that is just the opinion of some New Zealanders who read about him in the paper. They like Judge Erber but they certainly have on their lips the names of a couple of other judges in Christchurch whose judgments make them shudder when they read about them. People do not believe those judges are in contact at all with the public’s view of the crimes they hear about and deliberate on when they issue sentences. So a lot of police officers I say to Mr Borrows a lot of lawyers and a lot of Joe Blow ordinary citizens and businessmen in Christchurch—people who do not tramp the hallowed halls of the Law Society and discuss the things of which he speaks tonight—certainly know what they like and what they do not like and they do not like there to be inconsistency in sentencing. 
What do we have here? An appointed body of lackeys put together by a Government? Well which Government are we talking about? Today we are talking about a Labour-led Government. Tomorrow if I am to believe what Simon Power has told me—he looks forward to being the Minister of Justice in 18 months; he tells me quite clearly that is what he will be—it will be a Government he belongs to that appoints these lackeys. Will we see that Government suddenly repeal this legislation? Will we see that Government suddenly look for Labour lackeys to appoint? Like heck it will! National members will be true to the form they showed the last time they were in Government: they will appoint all their own people. It might well be that Mr Worth has finally taken the nod from the president of the National Party and retired gracefully and he might find that Mr Power the new Attorney-General appoints Mr Worth to the Sentencing Council. Simon has just shaken his head and said: “No way.” I am sorry Richard; I tried to get a plug in for you but Simon has just vetoed it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: That is the point. To say that this sentencing board will be made up of lackeys—well I am reading Part 1 of the bill. I am reading clause 11(1)—paragraphs (a) and (b). What does that clause say to me? It states: “(a) 1 Judge of the Court of Appeal appointed by the President of the Court of Appeal . . . ”. Is someone in the National Party now telling me that the President of the Court of Appeal is a Labour Party lackey and a card-carrying member of the Labour Party? There are people out there who would say he is actually a card-carrying member of the National Party but I would not be so churlish or rude as to suggest that. Are the National Party MPs seriously telling the Committee that: “1 Judge of the High Court appointed by the President of the Court of Appeal in consultation with the Chief Justice:” will result in a card-carrying member of the Labour Party being appointed—some lackey? If that is what the National Party members and Judith Collins are saying then I dare Judith Collins to go outside and tell the judiciary in the street that that is what she thinks of them. She should put her conviction on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
 tomorrow instead of— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member who has just resumed his seat has absolutely misrepresented what I said and I take offence at that comment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. If the member is claiming misrepresentation she can do that only at the end of the speech and in doing so she must refer only to what the member said and then what she said. Otherwise it is not a point of order. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think you will find if you look at the  
Hansard 
 that Ms Collins realised that part-way through her point of order and she indicated to you that she had taken offence at the comment made about her. That does under the Standing Orders as I understand them require the member to withdraw the comment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If it is a personal reflection under Standing Order 116— 
Judith Collins 
: I did take personal offence. I consider that the inference from Mr Mark was extremely damaging personally and I did take offence at it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to withdraw. 
RON MARK 
: Mr Chairman I ask you to consider— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to withdraw. 
RON MARK 
: I have no idea whatsoever what I am being asked to withdraw because I do not connect that claim with what I have just said. Perhaps it would be helpful if we had the  
Hansard 
 read back to us now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I cannot read the  
Hansard 
 back. It is one member’s word against another’s. Both members here are honourable members; a member’s word is unreservedly accepted unless it is proven otherwise. The member has taken the comment as a personal reflection. I am asking the member to withdraw. 
RON MARK 
: I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
RON MARK 
: The little smile and the snicker that just came from Judith Collins is interesting to note when one considers the content of her speech earlier. [ 
Interruption 
] There it goes again. I heard a National Party member unkindly challenged say to a Labour Party member in the House this afternoon: “Get on your broom.” I guess it fits again. 
Let us get back to the claims of members who have spoken—and lawyers have been speaking for the National Party team. Qualified lawyers are saying that the people appointed to the Sentencing Council— 
Anne Tolley 
: Has the member read the bill? 
RON MARK 
: There goes Anne Tolley interjecting again. Perhaps she would like to spend some time in her electorate dealing with her electorate members who do not have the time of day for her. I say to Anne Tolley that I am speaking to clause 11 of the bill. I am speaking about the membership of the council. Would Anne Tolley please clean out her ears. I am specifically talking to clause 11(1)(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) and if Anne Tolley had taken the time to listen to me with both ears and with her mouth closed she would understand what I am saying. 
 I say to Anne Tolley that the point New Zealand First is making is that National has claimed that a bunch of Labour lackeys will be appointed. Let me read out clause 11(1)(a) to her: “1 Judge of the Court of Appeal appointed by the President of the Court of Appeal in consultation with the Chief Justice:”. I say again to Anne Tolley that the clause states: “1 Judge of the Court of Appeal appointed by the President of the Court of Appeal in consultation with the Chief Justice:”. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That member is not known for his quiet voice but the fact remains that the noise from all sides of the Chamber prevents those of us who are taking this bill seriously from hearing the member. I would ask Mr Chairman that those on all sides of the Chamber including the officials who were milling around the Chairperson’s table prior to this point of order allow the man to have his say. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Although I have some sympathy for the issue the member has just raised I think his comment about the officials is completely unfounded. There are no officials milling around there have not been any officials milling around and at most there has been one official somewhat behind me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Minister. 
RON MARK 
: I appreciate Simon Power’s attempt to ensure that I am heard but let us look at clause 11(1)(c) which states: “2 District Court Judges appointed by the Chief District Court Judge in consultation …”. Now I say to Anne Tolley that such a person is not a Labour Party lackey. 
Anne Tolley is most concerned that I have not been referring to the bill but I say to her that clause 11(1)(d) states: “the chairperson of the Parole Board:” and I ask her who the chairman of the Parole Board is. It is Judge David Carruthers. He is a judge whom a lot of people have a lot of respect for. Mr Power and I I think are in agreement in one area here—and it would be helpful if he could brief Anne Tolley—which is that the Parole Board does not actually have a fantastic reputation right now. If there is one board that needs guidance—I ask Mr Power to talk to Anne Tolley who does not seem to understand the bill—it is the Parole Board so maybe that is one appointment that could rightfully be objected to on the basis of past performance. But Mr Power has just said that no he is happy with David Carruthers and so am I. If nothing else he is a good boy from Pahiatua and we all support good men from Pahiatua which is where I am from. Judge Carruthers has proven to be an eminent judge. 
Not one of the people selected and designated as being appointed to the Sentencing Council by clause 11 could in any way I say to Judith Collins be described by anyone as being a card-carrying member of the Labour Party. I ask members to please stand and take a call if they know something that we do not know about them or if they have evidence and proof that would help New Zealand First to change its vote and support the amendment. I ask them to please put on the Table proof that David Carruthers is a card-carrying member of the Labour Party because I have not seen any. 
Hon Member 
: But he’s not. 
RON MARK 
: Then why are we sitting here and listening to the member say that those people are Labour Party lackeys? New Zealand First has confidence in those members of the judiciary. New Zealand First has confidence and I personally have a lot of confidence in David Carruthers. New Zealand First members believe that the Parole Board of any board right now needs guidance. If members go and talk to the Kuchenbecker family or go and have words with Mr Burton in prison they must come to that conclusion. If we listen to the words of people in Christchurch we would hear that there are clearly inconsistencies in the sentencing judgements that are being handed out. 
New Zealand First members look forward to some rationalisation of sentencing and we would only feel confident if members of the judiciary were involved in that process. And so it is in this bill. Clause 11(1)(e) states: “5 members who are not Judges appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation”—[ 
Interruption 
]—maybe members have some suspicions but let us ask ourselves whether the situation is any different from that when Mr Mapp was in Government. Is it any different from the circumstances when the Parole Board members were being selected by National Governments? I do not think it.