Mark Ron: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7097] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 My question to the member who just sat down is what is the title of this bill? She does not know. It is a shocker is it not? This Government is so keen to drive through this very important legislation but puts up speakers who do not even know the title of the bill. All the rest of those members are so keen so devoted and so dedicated towards passing— 
Jill Pettis 
: She won her seat. 
RON MARK 
: There goes the parrot. Who let this green parrot into the House? Can anyone hear it? She is squawking over there on the sidelines but at least she has made a contribution. I do not know whether the  
Hansard 
 writers will be able to write “Screech!” but at least the member is in  
Hansard 
. Those Labour Party members seem to be holding a coffee session on their benches this morning. They are sitting around screeching and reading every other piece of paper except anything that has to with the legislation before the House. I watched them having a little bit of a huddle over there. I do not know whether they were organising the next knitting competition or what. For the benefit of those members who do not know the Labour Government is currently considering the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and Supplementary Order Paper 85. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I remind the members on my right of Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3) which states that running commentaries are out of order. If members wish to make a speech they can—later on. [ 
Interruption 
] Members are getting close to being disorderly. 
RON MARK 
: It is very disorderly. I seem to have hurt Labour members terribly this morning. If the bill were not dealing with such a serious matter we could spend the whole morning heckling and debating with those members. But this is a serious bill and that is why New Zealand First supports it. 
We hear the Government telling everybody what a wonderful job it is doing in putting the bill through given that it came to the House in 1999. It is interesting to look at the select committee’s report back. The bill was referred to the Justice and Law Reform Committee on 5 October 1999 and submissions closed on 3 March 2000. The hearing of evidence took 5 hours and 30 minutes and consideration 9 hours and 7 minutes. That is 14 hours and 37 minutes of work by the select committee but it has taken this Government 4 years to get the bill back to the House. What does that say? It says a lot about disorganisation. Regretfully it probably says a lot about a lack of commitment to the serious issue of law and order in this country. There were 16 oral submissions and 27 written submissions and 14-odd hours of work by the select committee and the Government takes 4 years to get to this point. 
I acknowledge the work of Mr Keith Locke. Is that not a surprise? Ron Mark would probably be described by many as right of Attila the Hun and one who feels that Attila the Hun was a poor student but I compliment Keith Locke. Some serious issues were canvassed in this bill and they all pertained to privacy. I look at the types of people who operate in transnational crime organised crime and terrorism—drug-runners gun-runners and those sorts of people—and I consider them to be dangerous lowlifes. One has only to consider September 11 and everything that has happened from then on to realise how much more focused we need to be on countering terrorism. There are those of us who will look for what might be considered very draconian legislation in order to protect ourselves and our communities but there is always a balance to be struck and that balance revolves around privacy and the protection of people’s rights. Throughout the 14 hours we heard evidence on this bill Mr Locke was always consistently concerned about—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would members please be seated. 
RON MARK 
: They are quite shocking are they not? That is the Labour Party being called to order. Its members are so rude. 
Mr Locke consistently worked hard to make sure that the legislation was as balanced as possible. I oppose some of the things he said but this morning he brought to this House an amendment that read: “312R Ombudsman to audit.” All Mr Locke wanted was for the ombudsman to conduct an annual audit of all telecommunications interceptions carried out by the police in the previous year. Being the sort of guy who for obvious reasons would welcome police interceptions I could not disagree with that. The people who surprised and stunned me were United Future Jim Anderton and Matt Robson—the paragon of virtue when it comes to human rights. Matt Robson and Jim Anderton campaign the whole of their lifetimes about protecting the rights of citizens so how could they possibly object to the ombudsman in secret in private without public disclosure doing an annual audit to ensure that the interceptions done by the police had been done lawfully? How can United Future members sit there and vote against such a simple request—a simple little mechanism to ensure that the democratic rights of people not to have their privacy invaded is in some measure audited? How can United Future vote against Mr Locke’s amendment or how can Matt Robson? How can people on the Labour benches who have campaigned for years on human rights and privacy issues vote against that? 
Judy Turner 
: You voted for it. 
RON MARK 
: Yes Judy Turner. New Zealand First voted for it—so did ACT so did National. I am appalled but once again I say that it is another silver bullet in my gunbelt because come the election I will certainly be reminding everybody on the hustings. [ 
Interruption 
]—There goes the parrot Jill Pettis. Will someone let the parrot out of its cage? Crikey heck! I do not want to hear any more speeches from Labour Party people about protecting the rights and privacy of ordinary citizens because there would be a word that I cannot use in this House but will use on the hustings and we all know what that word is. Members should not preach to me about their concerns when they do not support a simple amendment like Mr Locke’s. Mr Locke did some very good work. I do not agree with everything he says but it is important to have a voice in the House that is consistent about such issues. 
I want to talk about my concerns about terrorism and drug-running and particularly about the importance of such legislation when we are dealing with methamphetamines. This legislation is about dealing with organised crime and transnational crime which are impacting on our shores every day. I have to agree with Tony Ryall when he says that we can measure people’s commitment to legislation and to law enforcement by their actions not by their words. This Government’s actions in respect of tidying up the holes in the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act—for example deferred sentencing—is appalling. It took New Zealand First to expose the shortfalls in deferred sentencing by which a person who is sent to jail for having bashed someone is then let out on to the streets pending a home detention application. 
We now find that there are also holes—Labour calls them back-end detentions but I do not know what the hell that means—whereby individuals have killed with a motor vehicle raped a woman under 16 bashed people and been charged with grievous bodily harm threatened to kill and tried to kill two policemen and this Government through its Sentencing Act and Parole Act is now letting those people out on home detention. We now find that they are going to the gym going shopping going to watch the Crusaders going out to meet their friends and participating in the community. More important they are using their telephones to do their unlawful business because their telephones are not monitored. This bill will hopefully give the police some teeth to monitor more closely the telephone calls of people enjoying home detention who have proven to be violent criminals and people associated with gangs and organised crime. It is about time that this Government got off its lazy butt and started amending the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act as we all know it needs to do.