Mark Ron: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12194] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not actually going to take a call in this third reading debate because pretty much everything that needs to be said about the Succession (Homicide) Bill which is an eminently sensible bill has been said. I was caught somewhat off guard in listening to a speech from Kate Wilkinson. I swear to God I thought it was a Labour speech coming from out of her mouth which is interesting. I will have to make sure the speech is published down in Canterbury for all those National Party farmers to read. I know that people down in the National Party heartland or that part of the Waimakariri that one could rightly say is pro-National will be just as curious in reading that speech in  
Hansard  
as I was in listening to it. That speech forced me to go back and read the select committee report again. I am now doing so with a great deal of emphasis particularly because of Simon Power’s really outrageous statements as a result of the passage of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill which was subsequently split off into a number of bills one of which was the Bail Amendment Bill of 2007. 
We in this House often say that the select committees are the engine room of Parliament. Within the select committees we sit on a cross-party basis. Although we may take opposing views on some aspects of some bills or on some bills in their entirety that is where we try to thrash out the bills and through recommendations and agreements—or not—clearly identify the areas that we can change that we can agree on and that we can work on and clearly mark out the parts that we do not agree on. 
So with Ms Wilkinson’s speech ringing in my ears I went back and reread the select committee report because I thought I had missed something. But I know that throughout the report it states: “We recommend” not “The majority of us recommend” not “Labour the Greens and the Maori Party recommend”; it states: “We recommend” which includes National. I searched in vain for a minority report where National identified with passion the areas that its members disagreed with. I could not find this minority report because it does not exist. So everything that Ms Kate Wilkinson has now stridently argued for she had no regard for whatsoever during the select committee phase. In fact it was of such great moment that she did not write anything about it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: She wasn’t even there! 
RON MARK 
: Well Chris Auchinvole was there Christopher Finlayson was there Nicky Wagner was there and Dr Richard Worth was there. Dr Worth is an eminent lawyer who is telling people around the country that he fully expects to be the Attorney-General. But that is a bit of a problem because Simon Power told me he was going to be the Attorney-General in the next Government. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Richard wasn’t there. 
RON MARK 
: Well Richard was there until 6 December 2006. It is written here and I say to Mr Auchinvole that the select committee does not lie. Mr Auchinvole was there and I do not see National’s minority report highlighting the issues that Ms Wilkinson was talking about. So either Mr Auchinvole is going to get a slap on the ear from Ms Wilkinson later on for being tardy in his work or she is not being at all serious. I am inclined to think she is not being serious and that fits very perfectly with Simon Power’s outrageous claims about the Bail Amendment Bill which he now says makes it easier for everyone to get bail. 
Let us analyse the only reason Mr Power gave for voting against that bill. His reason was contained in his speech and it said: “We do not think the Bail Amendment Bill is going to do much at all.” End of story! It was not a case of: “We think the Bail Amendment Bill is going to make it easier for people to get bail who should not get bail. We think it is outrageous and we oppose it at every step because…”. Well that argument— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: At the Committee stage he said he was going to support it. 
RON MARK 
: At the Committee stage he said he would support the Bail Amendment Bill. This is political opportunism and convenience so hollow that one could write a book about it. One could title it—let me think— 
The Hollow Men 
. One could probably persuade someone to write a play about it and who knows even a movie. Let us hope that movie will be released in election year next year because by crikey we all want to see that. 
I simply say that we in New Zealand First absolutely and unreservedly support this bill. We have no comments to make of any adverse nature about it. We think the select committee’s unanimous recommendations were clearly taken on board by the Government clearly understood and clearly accepted. Therefore any rhetoric about reservations about battered woman’s syndrome and about poor old homicidal persons who unfortunately kill someone being sorely misrepresented and not duly considered are meaningless. 
We believe that this bill is actually long long overdue. There should have been an adjustment made in this House some time ago. We have only to think about a case down in Dunsandel where a man killed his wife supposedly in a burning Land Rover and supposedly it was an accident but he stood to gain very very well from it. There are a range of other cases where people have stood to gain from their heinous crimes. This House should have been moving on this long before I came to this House—things should have been adjusted at that time. But this Government has moved. The select committee unanimously without any reservation reported back to the House that it too concurred that this legislation as amended should proceed. New Zealand First endorses that view. We do not expect to hear any rhetoric out on the street about the weaknesses of it because clearly there were none. If there had been weaknesses Mr Auchinvole Dr Worth and Mr Finlayson would clearly have said so in a minority report would they not?