Roy Heather: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Roy Heather: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
[Volume:648;Page:17257] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this urgent debate because this is a very serious as well as an extraordinarily tragic matter. Unfortunately the Labour Party has not covered itself in glory in its handling of this issue either and it is that that I will speak to during the course of this debate. 
My parliamentary colleagues Nick Smith and Ron Mark have very ably and accurately in my view covered the issues that were dealt with in the report that was released and that are the reason we are having this urgent debate. But there are issues too of great seriousness that should be raised during the course of this debate which I will address now. There are two aspects to the issue. The first issue and the tragic component is the fact that Debbie Ashton did not have to die. The reasons for that have already been addressed and discussed and I am not going to delve into those in any great detail. The second aspect is the attempted cover-up that has gone all the way to Parliament in this case with the Minister of State Services David Parker trying to shut me down here in Parliament for asking questions—firstly when I asked an oral question in the House and secondly later with his breach of privilege complaint made against me to the Speaker in an attempt to take me to the Privileges Committee. 
Answers to my written parliamentary questions—and subsequent events have borne this out—show that Minister Parker had been sitting on this report since 14 December 2007 yet it was not brought to the attention of the public as it should have been until about 2 weeks ago. My issue here is that there has been a total lack of transparency and accountability going all the way to Ministers’ offices and it is terrible and disgraceful when Parliament is drawn into debates such as this. It is a very bad day for New Zealand when one cannot have confidence in the legal advice of Ministers—in this case the Minister of State Services—and questions need to be asked not only about the issues raised in the report but about the way in which this report was finally dragged out kicking and screaming for the attention of the public. 
Ms Ashton’s death is all the more tragic because it was completely avoidable. Jonathan Allan Barclay had been convicted of drink-driving just 4 weeks previously disqualified from driving for 6 months and fined $500 for what we now know was a repeat offence. It is fair to say that such a recidivist offender should have received a much heavier penalty than what amounted to just a slap on the wrist but Barclay’s new identity through the witness protection scheme meant the judge treated him as a first-time offender. As we now know it seems the judge was about the only person—the only person in an official capacity—in that courtroom who did not know the reality of the situation. So instead of being locked up Barclay was let loose essentially and he went on a week later to kill tragically an innocent young woman. Details of course have now been made publicly available with the release of this inquiry report into the case which shows that the protection of criminals’ rights seem more important to the authorities and this Government than the safety and protection of the law-abiding public. 
Last month it became clear that the Government had been sitting on the report for more than 6 months with the Minister of State Services David Parker having received that report on 14 December last year as I have already said. On 26 June this year in Parliament I raised—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Parker is sitting there laughing. I tell Mr Parker that I do not think this is a very funny issue at all. 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s not funny at all. 
HEATHER ROY 
: It is not funny at all; it is a very serious issue and I am raising serious points. On 26 June this year I raised this issue in Parliament and named Barclay in the process. In doing so I seemed to have raised Mr Parker’s ire although media had previously published all the details that I mentioned in this case. If Mr Parker would like to go back to the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 28 October last year he will find on page A7 an article that outlines completely all the details that I mentioned in Parliament on 26 June. On 26 June the Government argued that there was a suppression order preventing these details being used. That was quite clearly wrong yet have we had any acknowledgment of that? No not in this House. 
Minister Parker subsequently lodged a breach of privilege complaint against me. It is essentially a work of fiction. This complaint against me was given to the Speaker. Minister Parker said that I had brought Parliament into disrepute and his greatest complaint was that I had put Barclay’s life in danger while he was in prison. That was his greatest complaint; he mentioned it several times and I will read portions from his breach of privilege letter. What about Debbie Ashton’s life? There was no mention of her tragic loss of life there. 
In the Minister’s letter to the Speaker where he claimed that I had breached privilege—which I had not—he stated: “On Thursday 26 June 2008 during Questions for Oral Answer Heather Roy in her second supplementary on question 3 named a person who was covered by court suppression orders relating to his participation in the witness protection scheme.” “Wrong” I say to Mr Parker. He was wrong and for somebody who is a lawyer we would think that he would know better. I am not a lawyer but I knew that that was wrong. The Minister also went on to state: “By knowingly disregarding suppression orders”—which I had not done—“Ms Roy has breached this convention of mutual respect and constraint. This is a serious matter.” Indeed it is when we have a Minister of the Crown who should know better rising in this House and accusing me of things that I did not do. He should have known better. The Minister went on to state: “By her actions Ms Roy has increased the risk to the safety perhaps the life of the person she named.” Well I ask Minister Parker what about Debbie Ashton? What about her life? What about her loss of life? The Minister went on to state: “It is surely an abuse of Ms Roy’s privileges as a member of Parliament to identify and put at risk someone in this way.” That is another point a separate point where he shows that this Government is more worried about the rights of criminals than it is about the rights of victims and that is an outrage. 
I was actually calling for transparency and accountability at all levels—not just in those Government departments named in the report but at all levels including the Minister’s office. I called for the release of the report and got all sorts of excuses about why it had not been released for 6 months and had just been sat on. Amongst other things was a discussion that the police and the Department of Corrections knew of Barclay’s use of his new name—which has never been revealed and still has not been and which was the only thing suppressed in this case—but failed to give the judge the information that would have seen Barclay returned to prison. 
The report the  
Ministerial Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
 was released and has prompted apologies from all and sundry but for Debbie Ashton’s family this is no comfort at all. It was also revealed that Barclay’s new identity and other details were not suppressed. As such there can be only two explanations for Mr Parker’s actions or lack thereof: either the suppression order—which we now know did not exist at all—was an excuse to conceal what he knew would be an extremely embarrassing hornet’s nest if released in election year if it was to be released publicly or he did not know that the suppression order did not cover Barclay’s name the witness protection scheme status or Debbie Ashton’s name and we know now of course that that is not correct either. This is shameful and disgraceful behaviour from a Minister of the Crown who should have known better. 
Transparency and accountability it seems are in short supply under this Labour Government. Dodging embarrassing situations in Parliament by citing suppression orders that do not exist is an outrageous abuse of position. The Minister of State Services David Parker like many of his Labour colleagues has employed the tactic of shooting the messenger to get out of a tight spot of his own making. 
I have been asked by many people whether I will be calling for an apology. Well I am not because I will not be holding my breath. One will not be forthcoming despite the fact that I have been wronged in this case as well. If I have forced the Government to release information that should have been made public long ago then I do not apologise because I am doing my job as an MP. That is what I am here for. It might not be in Mr Parker’s or Labour’s interests but it is not their interests that we are elected as MPs to serve.