Mark Ron: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14185] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Carrying on from the honourable Richard Worth it is possibly the—[ 
Interruption 
]. He is honourable. He is an officer and a gentleman by royal decree. Not all men are born officers and gentlemen are they Mr Worth? 
This bill should be more appropriately entitled “Cleaning Up Our Mess: Tidying up the Problems That We Created Because We Did Not Listen” or “Know-it-all Legislation Corrected” or “We Have The Answers To All Your Problems—Sometimes”. Those are a number of titles that could be accorded this legislation. I say that because the simple fact is that we would not be here debating this legislation if it was not a fact that the original Parole Act 2002 was flawed. 
What is good—and I will compliment the Government on this so the Government MPs need to listen up—is that this bill is a good step in the right direction. This bill will make provisions tighter for dealing with those serious child sex offenders but it does not go far enough to address the fundamental flaws that were passed into legislation with the Parole Act 2002. That is what New Zealand First cannot sign up to. By voting for this legislation we would be endorsing the original fundamentally flawed legislation and that we cannot do because we think it is wrong. We think it is wrong because this legislation allows for violent offenders to be on home detention. 
I note that the Greens have voted to allow wife-beaters to have home detention. The Green Party that advocates so often for the rights of women equality and respect for women has voted to allow wife-beaters home detention. We do not agree. We do not approve of that in New Zealand First and hence we will vote against it and tell everybody that the Greens do like it. They like the idea that wife-beaters should have home detention and be put in a position where they can bash women again. We do not agree with the fact that people voted against amendments that would have corrected that. The Opposition has done its very best to help the Government here. 
We vote against this bill because the electronic compliance that this whole bill hinges on is already known to be flawed and faulty and I will not bet the safety of a child against that. Sorry but New Zealand First will not bet the safety of a child against that electronic monitoring. People talk about the global positioning system and the Government has been really quick to say—and Mr Goff has said often—that global positioning system technology enables us to know exactly where these people are. That is fine but although Mr Goff might know where they are he does not know what they are doing. It could well be that a sex offender who has gone home on home detention and is under 24/7 monitoring can be in the house as required but is offending and the Government does not know it and cannot do a thing about it until maybe the charges are recorded. We do not accept that. 
The Government should not to talk to me about how accurate the global positioning system is. We know it is very accurate but if it is so accurate how did those British SBS guys get arrested by the Iranians? They had global positioning systems on their boats and yet those systems did not account for human frailty. Hence we have a very high-profile example of how all the wonders of science and technology still cannot stop a situation from going wrong. If this Government is prepared to bank on this technology and tell the House that it will defend and protect all the children then fine. New Zealand First is not and that is where we draw the line. 
I say to the Government that home detention is a jolly mess. It was never intended for violent offenders. The Opposition has tried desperately to move amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to reverse that decision and regretfully despite those attempts the Government has rejected it. On that basis we cannot support the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. Had the Government shown some flexibility and ability to listen to the Opposition as it failed to do when the Sentencing Act and Parole Act were passed in 2002 maybe we would be in a different position. But we are not and that is the way it is.