Mark Ron: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mark Ron: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18258] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak on behalf of New Zealand First today. In doing so I want to start by taking the attention of the House back to the 2002 election. In the 2002 campaign New Zealand First told the public that if we were elected to govern we would concentrate on fixing three specific things in 3 years. Those were the treaty gravy train the out-of-control immigration policies of this Government and of former National Governments and the lawlessness that continues to plague our streets and—sadly regretfully—the homes of many New Zealanders. When it became very clear after the votes were counted that New Zealand First would not be part of the Government—and that was largely due to the unseemly undignified speed with which Mr Peter Dunne formed a civil union with Helen Clark and dragged his colleagues who were very inexperienced and in our view immature as MPs into a coalition agreement—we pledged to New Zealand that we would fight on those three issues to fix the problems. I had the privilege of being appointed as the spokesman on law and order for New Zealand First focusing specifically on police and corrections. 
After listening to the debates and the boasting and bragging of this Government—and indeed of some of the other parties that sit in Opposition—I must say that we need to put the record straight on a couple of things. Despite the purported successes of the Government in law and order matters it has had some distinct and abject failures. The party that has been the first to bring those failures to the notice of the public is New Zealand First. 
I will give the House a couple of instances. Which party was the first to point out that the Hon Phil Goff’s much-lauded Sentencing Act and Parole Act had holes in their deferred sentencing clauses? It was New Zealand First. And how did those holes become apparent? They became apparent when it seemed obvious to everybody else that when the Government decided it was appropriate for judges to give convicts leave to apply for home detention it also decided the judges could also defer the jail sentence that had been ordered. 
What happened? A person who was given a jail sentence was given leave to apply for home detention. He received a deferred sentence and went home. When the police carried on their investigations they found that the character had not only committed the crime for which he was charged but was also the prime suspect in three aggravated robberies. They went to his house to pick him up. What did they find? Surprise surprise! He was not there. He had absconded and was on the run. New Zealand taxpayers could not believe it when they saw tens of thousands of dollars being wasted as the police tried to track down that person. 
There was another case in Christchurch where a woman who had been convicted of embezzling funds was given a jail sentence and a deferred sentence with leave to apply for home detention. Within a week local people and the man whose business she had embezzled from found her at the pokie machines carrying on her gambling ways which was the very habit that got her into trouble in the first place. 
This Government is to blame. Deferred sentencing is a mess. I will give the Government credit for turning round and acknowledging that New Zealand First was right to say there was a problem. The Government said it would fix it but has it fixed it? No it has not. 
I come back to the issue of home detention. A lot of people now want to be in the limelight as they point out the flaws and problems with home detention. To be honest New Zealand First was one party that voted—reluctantly—for home detention. But we did not vote for it to be conducted run and operated in the manner in which it has been. We raised those questions with the Government. We did our homework and put the written questions in. When we asked whether it was appropriate that rapists thugs and murderers be on home detention Mr Rick Barker as an Associate Minister stood up and told this House that there were no violent offenders on home detention. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: He wouldn’t know. 
RON MARK 
: He did not know anything. He was forced to retract very shortly thereafter when New Zealand First tabled its evidence to show that there were not only murderers rapists thugs and wife-beaters on home detention but also child beaters. What has happened subsequently? Nothing! There are still people out there getting supposedly back-end home detention from this Government who should not be on home detention. When New Zealand First raised the possibility that a person on home detention had not only manufactured P but also had died of an overdose the Government’s first response was that we were making it up and that it was rubbish. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: They denied it. 
RON MARK 
: Was it true? Yes it was true. All we know is that since then we have seen another person go on the run for months on end. 
Just recently a woman was transferred from the Wellington district to Christchurch on an aircraft while wearing no anklet and with no supervision and the department authorised her co-offending drug-dealing partner as the person who could pick her up at the airport and take her home. The department said that some time later it would have a man pop around and put her anklet back on. Was that the sort of thing the public expected of this Government with home detention? No it was not. 
Which is the most effective party? [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Mallard can lament the need for a strident firm and active Opposition. The real opponent is here—it is New Zealand First. We are the Opposition today. We are the party that stands for law and order and the party with credibility on law and order issues. 
Which was the first party to come out and say that quota ticketing was nonsense? It was New Zealand First. It took some other parties a little time before they worked out that the public did not like quota ticketing. The concerns we have with this issue more than anything is that the public is losing interest in confidence in and respect for the men and women in blue. The highway patrol strategic traffic unit and the plethora of other highway-focused units have all the resources while the police who do general duties attend incidents and face wife-beaters and knife wielders get nothing. 
I say in evidence of that statement that I went out with a team policing unit in Christchurch before Christmas. I got into a car with the sergeant in control and the very first thing I noticed was that the old bomb the team policing unit gets around in was so clapped out and such a dunger the front seat had snapped. When one put one’s hand on the back of the seat to pull oneself forward from the rear seat the whole seat came back and folded double on to the floor. That is ridiculous. Yet if one goes into the same vehicle park and checks out the highway patrol and strategic traffic unit’s cars they have all the toys. 
If a policeman needs body armour the best place to get it is from the boot of a highway patrol car. If a policeman needs a decent car he goes to the highway patrol cars. Time and time again the boys and women in blue who are trying to do the real law enforcement are left as the poor cousins. That comes from a Minister of Police who when he was in Opposition bemoaned the fact that police had to use Twink to mark out scratches on their cars. I tell Mr Hawkins that they need more than Twink today; they need a competent Minister who is prepared and able to fight for the resources they need. 
Before I finish I will get to my last point about the Department of Corrections. New Zealand First was the party that brought this next issue home. In a report from the State Services Commissioner is the story of the most sordid and disgusting tale of prisoner abuse staff abuse and a department out of control that I can recall in the history of this nation. We want to see from this Government some of the accountability the Prime Minister is so big on talking about. Someone needs to be fired. We could not do better than to start with Mr McCarthy and Mr Byers and we should also look at the inspector of prisons. The report tells an absolutely diabolical story. If people want to worry about why prisoners are seeking to be paid compensation they should not look at the inmates. They should look at the managers of those prisons who turn a blind eye to the sorts of abuses that go on. New Zealand First is a tough party on law and order but we want law and order from all New Zealanders and—specifically and more important—from those who are responsible for enforcing the law and for managing people incarcerated as a result of their convictions. 
With situations like this we cannot have the public building any form of confidence. Indeed there are good staff in the Department of Corrections. There are honest ones like the members of the emergency response unit who came forward and said that this was wrong such as Maureen Love Mr Kinney and Mr Dyer who are no longer with the department. Those people deserve justice and New Zealand First expects this Government to deliver it.