Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10362] 
8.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he confident that the justice system is working in the interests of all New Zealanders? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 To a considerable extent yes. However improvements can always be made both in legislation and in operation. 
Ron Mark 
: How can anyone have confidence in a justice system when Maunu Nicholson a former sergeant-at-arms in the Nomads gang who stabbed four men in a New Plymouth bar killing one was sentenced to 10 years in jail; was a key instigator of a riot in Paremoremo prison that resulted in a number of prison officers being assaulted; and was released on home detention and whilst on home detention set up a P manufacturing racket and died of a drug overdose? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have not received any briefing on that particular case. If the member wants to raise a case in the House perhaps he could identify it in the original question so that the information can be brought to the House. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What major changes has this Government made to ensure that the justice system works in the best interests of all New Zealanders? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Major changes include new sentencing laws which have seen record sentences for the worst offenders; increasing police numbers in the police budget to record highs; new victims’ rights laws which for the first time have given victims enforceable rights; and new bail laws which make it harder for dangerous offenders to get bail. We have also introduced legislation to extend supervision for child sex offenders and increased penalties for child pornography. And that is just the beginning. 
Richard Worth 
: With reference to the primary question how is the justice system working for all New Zealanders when the courts are clogged with unresolved criminal cases and accused persons are having charges against them dropped because of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requirement for expeditious trials? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have is that the number of stays granted over the last 5 years has not differed greatly from those granted over the previous 5 years. From 1 January 1994 to 31 October 1998 there were 38 stays of proceedings under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not a responsive answer to the question. It is not a question of stays being granted; it is a question of cases being dropped. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wishes to comment further she can. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have is that the relevant statistics are directly comparable and that there really has not been a significant change in the number of cases that have been stayed as a result of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requirement that cases be brought on. The delays that existed in the past still exist today and this is a matter of concern to this Government as it was to the Government that the member would have represented. 
Stephen Franks 
: With reference to the primary question how can it be fair to all New Zealanders that a habitual offender like Rambo Barton an 18-year-old from Nelson had $26000 in fines wiped while decent people like Mrs Taylor of Mapua are harassed mercilessly to pay their trivial fines on time? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not able as the member knows to make comments about sentences that are imposed by the court. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Franks asked the question; he is entitled to raise the point. [ 
Interruption 
] I am making an assessment that as Mr Franks asked the question and he wants to raise a point of order he can have the first call. 
Stephen Franks 
: Both those examples referred to cases that have been disposed of by the courts and relate to a matter of practice and a matter for which the Government claims responsibility—the collection of fines. That is administrative and I therefore see no reason why the Minister should be able to hide behind the notion that this is something beyond her ability to comment on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is up to the Minister to decide how she will respond. If the member is not satisfied he can take an appropriate step then. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order which you did not take was that this matter is not sub judice in any way or effect whatsoever. That is the first thing. But the other point I want to raise is that if a member is the first to get to his or her feet and ask for a point of order and there are no other distinguishing features—not including the one that you sought to use—then that member should get the point of order first particularly when that member is senior in the House. That is my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That point might be the member’s view but it is not mine. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact if you have not called anyone it is at your complete discretion whom you can call. On the other matter I say to you that your ruling is not satisfactory because you have given a ruling that implies that the Minister’s statement to the House has your support. It is quite wrong for the Minister to say to the House that she cannot comment on sentences—of course she can. She can choose not to—that is up to her—but for her to say that the member knows that she cannot comment implies to people listening that an unfair question has been asked of her and that it was unfair to ask her to comment on sentencing practices that are the result of laws passed by this Government. That is not a fair answer. What you should have said Mr Speaker is that the Minister could reply but that under the Standing Orders you cannot make her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did not claim it was sub judice under the Standing Orders. That is not an issue. It is up to the Minister as to how she responds. There is no implication that I approve or not of the reply. 
Murray Smith 
: If the justice system is working in the interests of all New Zealanders why is there increasing difficulty in getting jurors to participate in the system; if the Minister of Justice thinks jurors play an important role in the justice system why does he not increase daily reimbursements for jurors so that people can be encouraged to fulfil their civic duty without it costing them a considerable amount in lost wages? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of the difficulty in respect of jurors but if the member has a specific issue regarding those numbers I am happy to supply that information to him. 
Ron Mark 
: In respect of the case of Maunu Nicholson does the Minister agree with the Minister of Corrections who says that Maunu Nicholson’s home detention sentence was “well managed” and that it was “unfortunate that a person has died” or does he agree with all sane New Zealanders who think that home detention monitoring is so slack that probation officers who make pre-arranged appointments at regularly scheduled intervals never know what gang members on home detention are doing and that home detention on that basis alone has passed its use-by date and the whole Act should be repealed? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I already advised in my answer to the first supplementary question if the member had put down a question about the individual case I would have been well briefed to come to the House to answer it. I do note that that member made serious allegations in the House with regard to a home detention matter relating to two security officers being beaten up and we have never seen any evidence of it. 
Richard Worth 
: With reference to the primary question how is the justice system working in the interests of all New Zealanders when there are high rates of staff attrition in the courts there has been a loss of institutional memory among court staff and court staff are not being properly paid? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think that question should be addressed to the appropriate Minister—the Minister for Courts. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you give us some guidance please? We do accept and understand that it is up to the Government when a Minister is absent to choose a Minister to answer questions. But surely there must be some guidance about putting up someone who is competent is aware of the portfolio and can at least try to answer some of the questions. Not to do so is to make a mockery out of question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is wrong. This Minister is the Acting Minister while the Minister is overseas. We have been advised as such. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect my colleague sought to have this question deferred until the Minister of Justice was in the House. He was declined leave by this Government which is its entitlement. But surely you should rule out the wasteful comments of a Minister who then tells my colleague to put the question to the proper Minister who is not here and whom he would have put the question to if it had been deferred in the first place. It is obtuse it is a waste of Parliament’s time and you should stop it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is a waste of Parliament’s time are irrelevant points of order. The Minister was referring to the fact that the supplementary question was referring to a matter that is more appropriately directed to the Minister for Courts not the Minister of Justice. In this case she is the Minister of Justice; she is the Acting Minister. A question set down to her has to be answered by her when she is in the House. The Minister of Justice is overseas and will be overseas for some time. 
Stephen Franks 
: With reference to the Minister’s answer to Mr Russell Fairbrother’s supplementary question in which she referred to the Sentencing Act as an achievement in the interests of all New Zealanders how does she see that Act in the light of District Court Judge Ian Mills’ comment reported on 19 November in the  
Nelson Mail 
 that it was unfortunate he was not able to disqualify sickness beneficiary Shane Lee Anderson from driving after 16 charges of theft from vehicles as the charges “cried out for it” and at the same time he remitted $5000 in unpaid fines from previous offending? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of the connection of that case with the Sentencing Act provisions where I referred to record sentences being imposed on the worst offenders. The Sentencing Act now requires that the interests of the community are taken into account in parole considerations and in respect of the worst offenders we have the longest periods of non-parole ever seen in this country before. 
Richard Worth 
: With reference to the primary question how is the justice system working in the interests of all New Zealanders when increasingly the courts detect big holes in the Minister’s much-vaunted sentencing regime and when the Minister sits on his hands and does nothing to deal with those gaps? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The irony of the question is that prior to the introduction of the sentencing legislation we saw people walk away with minimal sentences. We have now seen an enormous extension in non-parole periods over many many years which is designed to protect the community from the most serious offenders. 
Ron Mark 
: Accepting the contribution from the Acting Prime Minister is the Minister of Justice aware of the following case and what has he got to say to the family of Mr Victor Grey of Tauranga who along with another man was killed by a former gang member Charles Anthony Beale who was convicted of two counts of careless driving causing death three counts of careless driving causing injury and a further two counts of driving whilst disqualified and who has now to the horror of the victims’ families been given leave to apply for home detention? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That one is absolutely clear-cut because it is sub judice. The matter is before the courts and we cannot comment on it here—[ 
Interruption 
] I apologise with respect to Mr Prebble because I know what he is going to say—I will not comment on it here. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Going back to the main question is the House to understand that the Minister and the Labour Government are saying that New Zealand has a just system when we have one of the higher crime levels in the OECD and when this Government is defending a system where violent criminals— 
Ron Mark 
: Killers! 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: —killers are being sent home on home detention; would she please explain that to us? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I made absolutely clear this particular case is before the courts at the moment. If that member does not respect his legal background I certainly do respect mine. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am obliged to the Minister but I did not ask her about that case. If she has a look at the main question she will see that it asks whether she has confidence in the justice system. The question I asked her was whether she expresses confidence in a justice system that can send home violent murderers. I want to know whether she is prepared to repeat that statement to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is valid. The member asked the Minister to comment on the general system not on a specific case so I would ask the Minister to reply. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: We have a system of law in this country where a person is innocent until proven guilty and we also have a system where finite sentences are given and individuals cannot be kept in jail beyond the end of their finite sentences. Dangerous people are released into our community but the sentencing and parole legislation that has been introduced by this Government has now put the needs of the community ahead of the interests of individual offenders. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All I asked was a simple question. I just want to hear from the Acting Minister of Justice whether she is prepared to get up in this House and say that the present situation where violent criminals and murderers are sent home on home detention is just. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question that was asked by the member. She did talk about it. That might not satisfy the member but she did address that question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table the report of the judge lamenting the loss of the power to disqualify which was taken in the Sentencing Act. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Corrections Mr Paul Swain to myself where he states that the management of Maunu Nicholson’s sentence was well handled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a report stating the circumstances in which Mr Victor Grey was killed. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper report about the crimes committed by Mr Maunu—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it right or appropriate during a point of order which should be heard in silence for a Government member on the back benches to be interjecting? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. I now will be watching. Mr Mark will recommence his request. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper report outlining the details of one Mr Maunu Nicholson who stabbed four men in a New Plymouth bar. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that newspaper report. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The interjection came from the MP for Napier. Therefore I seek leave to table a defence he had in a very important criminal case where he said that the defendant’s behaviour was due to the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi was not being honoured. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is.