Mark Ron: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Mark Ron: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
[Volume:648;Page:17255] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on behalf of New Zealand First and firstly to extend our deepest sympathies to the Ashton family. The killing of Debbie Ashton by Jonathan Alan Barclay—a man with an extensive criminal history; a repeat drink-driver; a man who was on the police witness protection programme—is a tragic and preventable example of the deficiencies of the Department of Corrections and specifically the probation services. I say that because I have lost count of the number of times that New Zealand First has questioned queried and challenged the Department of Corrections’ statements as to the number of breaches of parole. The department consistently persistently and deliberately obfuscates camouflages denies and hides the number of breaches. The department categorises them according to different levels which are set internally and it has a trip benchmark over which it reports and under which it does not. It is not fantasy it is not fiction it is fact. The sooner the Department of Corrections starts owning up to its own failings—in the way in which it does and does not monitor people on parole—the better off this country will be. 
It reminds me of another issue on which New Zealand First has consistently challenged the department where it has consistently tried to paint a rosy picture. For example we have challenged the department on the number of times it has had to deal with prison officers who have had inappropriate relationships with inmates and the department has consistently given figures that have been always under the figures that we know to be the truth. We now know for example that a person who works for Te Puna Wai o Tuhinapo secure youth unit which is run by Child Youth and Family is facing allegations of sexual harassment and bullying. That may be surprising and it may be concerning but what is more concerning is that the Department of Corrections knew that this particular individual had been accused of committing acts of sexual impropriety with inmates when he was employed by the department. It knew he had been reported as being drunk on duty in the department’s employment. He was alleged to have engaged under-age prostitutes when he was in the department’s employment. He was reported as being a bully when in its employment. He is facing allegations of molesting a youth inmate and the Department of Corrections is facing questioning over those allegations by the Howard League for Penal Reform. 
What have we seen from the department in response to all of these questions about this man who now unfortunately is employed by Child Youth and Family to look after young people in a secure facility? Well Child Youth and Family does not know his background. It knows nothing of his background in the Department of Corrections. Why? The department has a habit of not owning up not fessing up and not fronting up to its own failures. It is more inclined to let someone resign and quietly move on to take up employment somewhere else as happened in this case and as the department has done in respect of many many cases. The department knows that I speak the truth because under the Official Information Act I obtained a document—and I have the document in front of me—that shows numerous examples where the department has started investigations on individuals accused of these types of things and where the investigations have come to an end because the person has resigned and moved on. 
Some may ask why I raise this issue in the House. I raise this issue here because we in New Zealand First are sick and tired of the mistakes failures and flaws of the Department of Corrections and the probation services under the management of the Department of Corrections. It consistently and persistently fails in its duties and responsibilities to the wider public and specifically to victims. The Ashton family has heard the apologies of the Department of Corrections and I am astounded that Mrs Ashton should be quoted with dignity in the  
New Zealand Herald  
as saying that she felt far from satisfied after the release of the report. I say that is a dignified response because if I were the father of that daughter I would feel more than far from satisfied and I am absolutely sure that Mr and Mrs Ashton feel totally gutted by the failings of the Department of Corrections. 
But it is not just the Department of Corrections. What is sad is that the police themselves—and the Minister of Justice Annette King said it earlier—focused on the rights of the witness under the police witness protection programme. How bizarre is that—that the police should focus on the rights of Mr Barclay who repeatedly broke the law instead of focusing on the potential for him to wreak carnage and chaos on the highways? How bizarre given that the police spend virtually every day of their policing lives telling the public how important road safety is and how they spend tens of millions of dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars over the years—promoting a “If you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot” campaign. When they come to select committee they go out of their way to say how strongly they feel about road safety how strongly they feel about getting drunk drivers off the road and how important it is that we focus on these idiots—these delinquents—yet when they are faced with one of the biggest idiots that they have come across in years they focus on his rights as opposed to the rights of the public to motor with safety. The consequence of their inappropriate focus is that a young lady died needlessly. 
Saying sorry does not make it better. Every day this family wakes up and there is one person not at the breakfast table. Every anniversary of her birthday they will be reminded of her needless death. I guess some people seem to think that having said “sorry” it is all OK. Well it is not. We would like the police the Government and everybody else who is disgusted by the actions of the Department of Corrections and the police in this matter to ask themselves one simple question: at what point does an individual who has been given the privilege of the witness protection programme lose it? We in New Zealand First would have thought that the moment Mr Barclay broke the law and put himself in a position where he was going to attend a court where he would be seen publicly where he would be questioned publicly and where he would lay himself open to be identified publicly he would volunteer to opt off the programme. His conscious decision to bring focus and attention on himself by breaking the law not once not twice but three times was a signal from him to the police to say “Hey forget it. I don’t mind coming out of the cupboard. I don’t need your protection she’ll be right mate.” Because that is how I would have dealt with his question—the question as to whether he should have been the focus of my attention. 
New Zealand First is very clear. If a person is on the witness protection programme it is a contract a two-way contract. The moment that person breaks the law he or she is off the programme and that is the sort of law change the sort of administrative change and the sort of operational change New Zealand First expects to see going forward. Let us be clear. If we do not see it from here forth we will do whatever we can to legislate to make sure that it happens in future. And by the way we will be looking forward to the compensatory payout to the Ashton family which will not ever recover their daughter but it might go some way to easing the pain.