Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10221] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is nice to have some debate for once that produces speakers who actually know their field and who are professionals. 
New Zealand First has read Christopher Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper 126 and listened intently to his speech. We thought for a moment about his recommendation that the five members of the Sentencing Council who are not judges be members for a special purpose appointed by the Chief Justice. I have to say to Mr Finlayson that for a moment there he had us thinking about why those people should be appointed by the Governor-General. I have just spent a little bit of time thinking and pondering why we would want the Chief Justice as per Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper to make those five appointments as opposed to the Governor-General as per the Government’s bill. 
I have listened to Dr Mapp. I say to Dr Mapp that I guess from New Zealand First’s point of view we do not have the fundamental problem he spoke of. We respectfully disagree with him and suggest that many sentences have been handed out in this country that have left the public angered and annoyed because of their inconsistency. I agree with Dr Mapp that if legislation were more prescriptive—I am not sure whether those were his words and I may be wrong—tighter and more defined then the guidance would be there for the judiciary. I understand and accept that except I have a problem and a question for Dr Mapp. We did not just invent the courts yesterday. We did not just invent our justice system yesterday. We have prospered as a nation for 200-odd years and if we are saying now that after 200 years we are unable to produce legislation that gives the judiciary the guidance it needs then maybe we have to accept defeat and say that a Sentencing Council is necessary for the very simple reason that over a period of 200 years we have not—whether through a Government led by National Labour the Liberals or a Coalition—produced the situation of which he is now speaking lamenting and saying we need. So my question to National before we get to a vote is what it will do and how it will it do it. We have not heard that explanation from that party. 
I come back to Mr Finlayson’s point and I tell that member that his point has caught me and caused me to think. Why should the Chief Justice make those five appointments as opposed to the Governor-General? I guess New Zealand First will vote for the Governor-General because the Governor-General will look after the interests of the people. He will appoint the people’s representatives to that board and he will appoint the people who may not necessarily come from the environment that is known only to top-performing lawyers and members of the judiciary. The people do not all live in Merivale. They do not all live in St Heliers and the other high-class suburbs of Auckland. The people live in Aranui they live in west Auckland they live in—[ 
Interruption 
] It is that view that we need to have within the Sentencing Council. 
I guess New Zealand First will put its faith its trust and its confidence in the next incoming Government in order to ensure that those five people who are appointed by the Governor-General are not political lackeys of any flavour or description and that they truly are the people’s choice as chosen and confirmed by the Governor-General. Should that prove not to be the case I say to Mr Finlayson then we may end up talking about that in a future arrangement. But for right now although we acknowledge that we have five members of the judiciary on this Sentencing Council and that the casting vote will lie with the judiciary in an event where the decision is tied we will sit comfortably knowing that the Governor-General will look after the people’s interests by appointing five members of the public who—and I am taking Mr Finlayson’s point—we trust will be suitably qualified. 
But this is not new. We do this every day with justices of the peace. National MPs and constituency MPs consistently put up citizens for appointment as JPs who then go on to sit in court to deliberate to visit prisons and to hear charges. I take it that the National Party does not simply put up appointees for justices of the peace who are card-carrying National Party members— 
Simon Power 
: No. 
RON MARK 
: It does not and I know it does not. So why should this be any different? I think New Zealand First will go with the bill as it currently stands.