Mark Ron: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10342] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I too shall take a very brief call on behalf of New Zealand First to indicate that we will support this amendment to the Evidence Act. I make a couple of notes. Firstly New Zealand First does not have a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill. We therefore will be holding to the opinions of the members of the committee and to the research and work done by them. We thank those people for their reports. We get a little bit concerned when legislation is pushed through swiftly—there is an old saying “Less haste less waste”—and we have a habit of finding ourselves back in this House redressing legislation where errors have occurred because bills have been moved through hastily. But the select committee members seem happy that they have done the necessary work. 
I do note that the conclusion of the commentary states: “Despite making these recommendations … This amendment should not be seen as resiling from the purpose of the Act. Section 202 of the Act sets out a very clear mechanism for mandatory review of this codification. The first review is to commence on 1 December 2011 …”. That is a little confusing because it then states: “or at a later date set by the Minister of Justice.” I guess we would like a bit of clarification. Will it be on 1 December 2011 or not? Again even in passing the bill through this stage there appears to be a little bit of uncertainty as to whether it will completely do the job whether it will need to be reviewed again and whether that review will be done in 2011 as stipulated or some time thereafter. It does seem to inject a higher degree of uncertainty again into what was essentially legislation that many questioned the need for in the first place. 
 That does leave New Zealand First with the very curious question: “What’s it all about Alfie?”. I guess we will simply trust in the select committee. Our overriding concern is that for people involved in criminal activities—particularly organised crime and high-level crime—the law as it currently stands would not make it possible for co-defendants or co-conspirators to be prosecuted successfully. That in this day and age where methamphetamine is reportedly becoming an $800 million industry to the gangs and organised crime is of grave concern to us. 
It is interesting to hear some of the concerns about the justice system as a whole in the light of press statements and press releases today by various MPs about organised crime. I again put it on the record that New Zealand First has no truck with organised crime. Legislation that can be put through this House that makes it easier to prosecute and gives the police the tools they need to put out of business gangs who meddle and peddle in mind-altering drugs that are fed to the children in our communities will always have New Zealand First’s support. In fact we look forward to the day when this House supports our anti-gang legislation. 
We do not buy into some of the rhetoric we have been reading today. To those who would advocate that “Hug a Gang Day” is here we would simply say: “Been there done that and it didn’t work.” Robbie Muldoon tried it and a range of other people have tried it. We have talked until we are blue in the face and the only thing we see is that gangs are bigger and stronger than they have ever been and that they are attracting young people into their midst in numbers that are of grave concern. 
This legislation hopefully will put a stopgap in the small hole that makes it difficult for the police to prosecute people and successfully gain convictions against conspirators and co-conspirators. That has to be a good thing. We will support the bill through the second reading and through the Committee stage. But we will be listening I have to say to gentlemen like Chris Finlayson for further views and analysis to see whether it indeed is the case that a subsequent review of this second amendment proves that there needs to be a third amendment to a piece of legislation that was widely considered as being not necessary in the first place. We will see. 
Bill read a second time.