Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
[Volume:648;Page:17251] 
Urgent Debates 
Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the report  
Ministerial Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility that requires the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the application and call on the member to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.  
That matter is the ministerial inquiry into the tragic death of Debbie Ashton. It is right that Parliament today debates the ministerial inquiry into this tragic death because yet again we have a tragic story of an innocent New Zealander being killed because of gross failures in our justice system. Her story is both unique and familiar—unique because it involves abuse of the police witness protection programme; familiar because yet again we see our justice system putting the rights of criminals before those of the innocent public. 
Let me recount the core facts of this tragic case. In December 2005 Jonathan Barclay was sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment for 24 drug fraud burglary careless driving—he was disqualified from driving—escaping custody and driving while disqualified offences. This man had an extensive criminal background going back more than 8 years. On 18 July 2006 just 7 months into his 2½ year sentence he was released on parole with a new identity under the police witness protection programme. The law requires parolees to be seen by Department of Corrections staff within 3 days of release; that did not happen for over 3 months. Just 1 week after Mr Barclay was placed in Nelson he stole a motor vehicle drove recklessly and refused to stop for police. 
Here is a guy with a criminal record as long as one’s arm and disqualified from driving who within a week of being placed in Nelson on parole reoffends and the Department of Corrections and the police do absolutely nothing. Common sense would say to put him straight back in the slammer but common sense seems an alien concept to this Government’s justice system. Nobody did a thing—not Department of Corrections staff not police. They did not even bother to monitor his parole. A police liaison officer was required to monitor this man’s placement in Nelson. He met him once in 6 months 3 days after he was placed in Nelson. The police witness protection programme requires that a person on the programme is monitored every month. They did fill out the form every month but nobody from police made contact with this offender at any time until the tragic death of Debbie Ashton. 
In August 2 weeks after Mr Barclay’s reoffending on parole he gave evidence at a trial in the Auckland High Court. At the same time the charge of stealing a motor vehicle was dropped. The impression is left that anyone on the witness protection programme can get away with anything. When Barclay appeared before the courts on 11 October he was sentenced to community work was disqualified from driving for a second time and received name suppression. In Nelson Judge Zohrab specifically noted that this was an absolute final warning for Mr Barclay and said that if he drove again he would go straight back to prison. 
Eight days later Barclay was caught drink-driving. Remember this is a guy on parole who now has two overriding disqualifications from driving. He used his fresh identity supplied by police under the witness protection programme. It is almost Keystone Cops stuff that Barclay then proceeded all the way through the court system as though he were a first-time offender. There was the same judge the same lawyer and the same courtroom and the appearances were only 3 weeks apart. Yet nobody said “Hang on! This is the guy that’s had a final warning.” I excuse the judge—we all know that hundreds of defendants come before judges each day. But police and Department of Corrections staff who both knew that this was the same man by a different name before the court as before owed it to the judge to advise him. I also put it to this House that his lawyer Mark Dollimore owed it to the court to let the judge know this. 
We also need to look at the failure of both the Department of Corrections and the police to monitor Barclay during that period. The report shows that he repeatedly failed to report to his parole officer. When one reads through this report one ends up wondering just what one has to do on parole to be recalled. Just 4 weeks after that court appearance Jonathan Barclay again in a motor vehicle and again with alcohol in his system drove over a dangerous stretch of road that had a speed limit of 45 kilometres an hour. Police reports say he was doing over 110 kilometres an hour he was airborne and he was on the wrong side of the road. Debbie Ashton never had a chance. Ironically the site of the killing was just 1 kilometre down the road from where police had picked him up for drink-driving. 
To add salt to the wound the very day that Jonathan Barclay killed Debbie Ashton he had been visited by a parole officer at 2.30 in the afternoon. The parole officer was told by Barclay’s flatmate that he was sleeping—sleeping—and that he was not to be woken. Does it not speak volumes about our perverted justice system that a dangerous criminal on parole is allowed to offend over and over again to sleep by day and to kill by night without constraint? When Barclay was interviewed by police after that killing he denied that he was at the wheel and he continued to use his temporary identity. In March last year he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 5½ years’ jail. 
But the story does not end there. It would have been blatantly obvious to the staff in the Department of Corrections and to police that their systems had failed dreadfully. I would have expected a responsible State agency at the point of this man being convicted for manslaughter to go back through and review its systems. Instead there was denial. I lodged questions with Ministers and was told that they could not tell me anything because the matter was under the police witness protection programme. I met with the family. I met with senior police from Police National Headquarters who told me that nothing had gone wrong and that everything was OK. 
The family wrote extensively to Ministers. Damien O’Connor was written to and did not even have the courtesy to respond to the family. I commend Annette King. When I approached her and asked for a formal inquiry into this matter she—in my view—acted absolutely properly and the inquiry that was subsequently undertaken did get to the bottom of the serious failings by both the Department of Corrections and the police. I want to take issue with the Minister of State Services the Hon David Parker. I find it amazing that the Minister of State Services has chosen to criticise only one person and that is ACT MP Heather Roy. Where is the criticism of the nine public servants both in the police and in the Department of Corrections who seriously let Nelson and this family down? I also have to say there has been no good reason for the delay of over 8 months since this report was delivered in December. The answers that the Minister gave in the House today only reinforced the core problem that occurred and that led to Debbie Ashton’s death which was that everybody was so cautious because the police witness protection programme was involved that they were not prepared to ensure the basic duties were followed. Again we see that attitude from that Minister today. 
I want to conclude by paying tribute to the parents Judy and Ted Ashton. They have shown huge resilience to dig and to get to the bottom of what have been awful failings in our justice and police systems. I also think we should acknowledge the excellent inquiry by Kristy McDonald which I believe fairly gets to the bottom of the issues involved. I hope that her report means that both police and the Department of Corrections take seriously their responsibilities to put at the top of their list the protection of the public and their legal duties to monitor people who are on parole. I also hope that from this tragedy there is a reinforcement of the obligation that lawyers have in the court process as a duty to the court to ensure the court is not misled and not just to honour their duties to their clients. 
I would love to say to this Parliament that I have confidence that all will be put right but I reflect on the Liam Ashley tragedy when the Department of Corrections erred badly which resulted in the death of an innocent young person in August 2006 and I reflect on all that went wrong in terms of Graeme Burton and Karl Kuchenbecker in January 2007. We were assured at the end of every one of those inquiries that everything was all OK it had all been put right. Now another innocent New Zealander has died. I put to this Parliament that there is a deeper cultural problem within our justice system that must be corrected. We need a culture that starts putting the rights of victims and the rights of the public to safety ahead of so many other considerations that seem to divert those people who work in our justice departments. I hope for the many families of New Zealand that no other family has to go through the awful tragedy that the Ashton family has gone through in this experience. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the courage the determination and the grief of the Ashton family and their commitment to trying to ensure there cannot be a repeat of the tragic circumstances that led to the death of their daughter Debbie. I travelled to Nelson twice to see the Ashton family: first on 12 September last year to discuss with them the terms of reference for the independent inquiry conducted by Kristy McDonald QC and secondly on 19 December to deliver to the family the first draft of the report a day or two after I had received it. At both meetings with the family the Hon Dr Nick Smith was present as the Ashton’s local member of Parliament and I want to acknowledge his advocacy for the family. I also acknowledge the cooperation given by the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections to the inquiry particularly the tireless efforts of Win van der Velde the National Crime Manager who worked closely with the family from the outset. The New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections have both apologised unreservedly to the Ashton family for the human errors that occurred and they have endorsed the recommendations of the inquiry. 
The purpose of the independent inquiry which I set up in my former role as Minister of State Services was to determine the unvarnished truth of what happened and to provide a full frank and transparent analysis of the events that resulted in the tragic death of Debbie Ashton. The actual terms of reference for the inquiry were as follows. I specifically asked Ms McDonald to inquire into and report on the circumstances in which the driver was able to use his new identity to be treated as a first offender; secondly whether and to what extent there were failures in the systems practices or procedures of those agencies that dealt with those circumstances that caused or contributed to the driver being in the position of being able to drive a vehicle on 5 December 2006 thereby causing Ms Ashton’s death; and thirdly the nature timing and appropriateness of enforcement action taken against the driver while he was on parole. It was important that Debbie Ashton’s family Government agencies and the public understood what went wrong in terms of human error and failure of systems in order to ensure that there is no repeat of these circumstances and that there is accountability. 
The inquiry found that human error was a key factor. The offender should have been recalled to prison when convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol and the decision not to recall him was inexcusable. As QC Kristy McDonald pointed out instances of human error are inevitable when the Department of Corrections manages on a daily basis around 38000 people on community sentence. However systems should have been in place to avoid such errors which led to the tragic consequences that occurred in this case. The inquiry found that the systems policies and practices of the Department of Corrections were inadequate. There were failures in communication and a failure to provide proper direction and oversight as the Hon Nick Smith has already pointed out. The Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police accept in full the criticisms made and the recommendations to remedy the deficiencies that existed in the area of dealing with offenders who were under the police witness protection programme. They are committed and to a large extent have already implemented the recommendations made by the inquiry. Kristy McDonald acknowledges that all who made mistakes in this case regret them bitterly and that they have been open and frank in acknowledgment of their errors. 
The police witness protection programme was established in the late 1980s to address the risks involved when members of the public were prepared to come forward to assist in the resolution of serious crime. Although the programme has continued to evolve the focus of the programme remains on providing a safe environment for witnesses and their families who are under a genuine threat to life or of serious bodily harm. The evidence from these witness programmes has shown that there has been the successful prosecution of offenders involved in the top echelon of criminal offending—such as serious violence homicide and transnational organised crime. The focus of staff involved with the programme is to assess and mitigate the risks surrounding the witness and to work with witnesses in their integration to the community under a new identity. In this tragic case the police focused on the risk to the witness and they accept they failed to manage the risk of the witness himself to the community he was relocated to; and for this the police apologise to the Ashton family. They did not manage that risk to the community to which he was relocated. 
The police witness protection programme continues to monitor and manage a number of witnesses and their families and most people would agree that there remains a need within police investigation and the judicial process for the protection of witnesses who are prepared to come forward to testify against criminal activity. Although that need remains there can be no excuse for putting at risk the lives of innocent people as happened in this tragic case. Since the inquiry the police have acknowledged the recommendations and they have further enhanced their processes and risk mitigation to try to ensure that a repeat of Debbie Ashton’s tragic death can never happen again. Although it is not possible to reverse the tragedy of Debbie’s death it is critical that all factors that contributed to the error—of leaving the offender in the community whereas he should have been recalled to prison—are addressed. The protection of identities under the witness protection programme is important but the paramount obligation of the Department of Corrections and the police is the safety of the community. Fundamental changes have been made to the management of offenders on the witness protection programme who are on parole and I am assured by the Department of Corrections and the police that the inquiry’s recommendations to prevent any further tragedies of this nature will be fully implemented. 
In my view there is still one outstanding issue to be addressed and the Hon Nick Smith made mention of it. The outstanding issue is about the lawyer who represented the prisoner. This lawyer defended a man who had two different identities and whilst defending him on two separate occasions with two different identities knew exactly what this man had done. The lawyer knew his past; he knew the man was lying. In my view he had a duty to advise the court of this man’s two identities. That issue still needs to be addressed and I believe it will be addressed by the Law Society because I am aware the family intend to take it further. I hope they do because lessons have to be learnt by everybody involved in this tragic case including the lawyer. 
I repeat that I have been moved by the courage and determination of the Ashton family and I thank them for their willingness to go along with an inquiry that was essential to reveal the errors and to help eliminate them in the future. I know that was really very painful for the family. It is my hope that the inquiry will have achieved that and I do hope that the Ashtons share that hope. I assure the Ashton family who I hope are listening today that both David Parker and I have done our best endeavours to ensure that we can resolve this dreadful tragedy. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on behalf of New Zealand First and firstly to extend our deepest sympathies to the Ashton family. The killing of Debbie Ashton by Jonathan Alan Barclay—a man with an extensive criminal history; a repeat drink-driver; a man who was on the police witness protection programme—is a tragic and preventable example of the deficiencies of the Department of Corrections and specifically the probation services. I say that because I have lost count of the number of times that New Zealand First has questioned queried and challenged the Department of Corrections’ statements as to the number of breaches of parole. The department consistently persistently and deliberately obfuscates camouflages denies and hides the number of breaches. The department categorises them according to different levels which are set internally and it has a trip benchmark over which it reports and under which it does not. It is not fantasy it is not fiction it is fact. The sooner the Department of Corrections starts owning up to its own failings—in the way in which it does and does not monitor people on parole—the better off this country will be. 
It reminds me of another issue on which New Zealand First has consistently challenged the department where it has consistently tried to paint a rosy picture. For example we have challenged the department on the number of times it has had to deal with prison officers who have had inappropriate relationships with inmates and the department has consistently given figures that have been always under the figures that we know to be the truth. We now know for example that a person who works for Te Puna Wai o Tuhinapo secure youth unit which is run by Child Youth and Family is facing allegations of sexual harassment and bullying. That may be surprising and it may be concerning but what is more concerning is that the Department of Corrections knew that this particular individual had been accused of committing acts of sexual impropriety with inmates when he was employed by the department. It knew he had been reported as being drunk on duty in the department’s employment. He was alleged to have engaged under-age prostitutes when he was in the department’s employment. He was reported as being a bully when in its employment. He is facing allegations of molesting a youth inmate and the Department of Corrections is facing questioning over those allegations by the Howard League for Penal Reform. 
What have we seen from the department in response to all of these questions about this man who now unfortunately is employed by Child Youth and Family to look after young people in a secure facility? Well Child Youth and Family does not know his background. It knows nothing of his background in the Department of Corrections. Why? The department has a habit of not owning up not fessing up and not fronting up to its own failures. It is more inclined to let someone resign and quietly move on to take up employment somewhere else as happened in this case and as the department has done in respect of many many cases. The department knows that I speak the truth because under the Official Information Act I obtained a document—and I have the document in front of me—that shows numerous examples where the department has started investigations on individuals accused of these types of things and where the investigations have come to an end because the person has resigned and moved on. 
Some may ask why I raise this issue in the House. I raise this issue here because we in New Zealand First are sick and tired of the mistakes failures and flaws of the Department of Corrections and the probation services under the management of the Department of Corrections. It consistently and persistently fails in its duties and responsibilities to the wider public and specifically to victims. The Ashton family has heard the apologies of the Department of Corrections and I am astounded that Mrs Ashton should be quoted with dignity in the  
New Zealand Herald  
as saying that she felt far from satisfied after the release of the report. I say that is a dignified response because if I were the father of that daughter I would feel more than far from satisfied and I am absolutely sure that Mr and Mrs Ashton feel totally gutted by the failings of the Department of Corrections. 
But it is not just the Department of Corrections. What is sad is that the police themselves—and the Minister of Justice Annette King said it earlier—focused on the rights of the witness under the police witness protection programme. How bizarre is that—that the police should focus on the rights of Mr Barclay who repeatedly broke the law instead of focusing on the potential for him to wreak carnage and chaos on the highways? How bizarre given that the police spend virtually every day of their policing lives telling the public how important road safety is and how they spend tens of millions of dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars over the years—promoting a “If you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot” campaign. When they come to select committee they go out of their way to say how strongly they feel about road safety how strongly they feel about getting drunk drivers off the road and how important it is that we focus on these idiots—these delinquents—yet when they are faced with one of the biggest idiots that they have come across in years they focus on his rights as opposed to the rights of the public to motor with safety. The consequence of their inappropriate focus is that a young lady died needlessly. 
Saying sorry does not make it better. Every day this family wakes up and there is one person not at the breakfast table. Every anniversary of her birthday they will be reminded of her needless death. I guess some people seem to think that having said “sorry” it is all OK. Well it is not. We would like the police the Government and everybody else who is disgusted by the actions of the Department of Corrections and the police in this matter to ask themselves one simple question: at what point does an individual who has been given the privilege of the witness protection programme lose it? We in New Zealand First would have thought that the moment Mr Barclay broke the law and put himself in a position where he was going to attend a court where he would be seen publicly where he would be questioned publicly and where he would lay himself open to be identified publicly he would volunteer to opt off the programme. His conscious decision to bring focus and attention on himself by breaking the law not once not twice but three times was a signal from him to the police to say “Hey forget it. I don’t mind coming out of the cupboard. I don’t need your protection she’ll be right mate.” Because that is how I would have dealt with his question—the question as to whether he should have been the focus of my attention. 
New Zealand First is very clear. If a person is on the witness protection programme it is a contract a two-way contract. The moment that person breaks the law he or she is off the programme and that is the sort of law change the sort of administrative change and the sort of operational change New Zealand First expects to see going forward. Let us be clear. If we do not see it from here forth we will do whatever we can to legislate to make sure that it happens in future. And by the way we will be looking forward to the compensatory payout to the Ashton family which will not ever recover their daughter but it might go some way to easing the pain. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I am aware that United Future has given its slot to New Zealand First so it has 10 minutes. 
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. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou e te Whare. I te tuatahi me tuku i etahi korero ki te whanau e tangi nei i tenei rangi. Ka nui te aroha atu ki a koutou ana kua rongo nei te ahautanga o mate i nga tau tata kua hipa ake. Can I just pass on a note of sadness to the family in understanding the grief that they may well be suffering and have suffered over the last couple of years. I pay my respects to the family as they mourn the death of their daughter. We in the Maori Party rise to offer our sincere sympathies to the whanau of Debbie Marie Ashton who lost her life tragically on 5 December 2006. These debates are the times to challenge and confront the lawmakers and lawbreakers who enabled a 26-year-old male drunk and disqualified driver to deprive this young woman of the life that she had before her. But we also think about the family who have been denied a daughter and a sister about the grandchildren who should have been and about the mother who could have been. 
I want to share some words I read today from Judy Ashton who comes from ironically Hope in Nelson: “Debbie died at 2.25am four hours after the crash. Less than an hour later I gazed down at the lifeless body of my daughter now lying on a cold stainless steel operating table. I had to sign a paper declaring that Debbie was Debbie the hardest things I have ever had to sign in my life. I just wanted to stay with her but needed to go home and ring her sister living in Christchurch. There is no kind way to tell your other daughter that her much loved younger sister had been killed. To hear the wailing on the end of the phone with so many miles between us was yet another heartbreak. As was less than an hour later waking up my elderly parents and having to tell them that their granddaughter had been killed.” Those are words that I am pretty sure would shatter for all those who happen to be listening their hearts and their dreams and aspirations for their children just as much as no doubt they did for this mother Judy. Those words convey the sense of shock that runs through the Ashton family. Too many families throughout Aotearoa have been in similar situations and those families will never be the same again because of human error and failures of systems. 
The report from the Minister of Corrections got it right I think. It stated: “Human error was found to be a factor.” How does one hold on to hope when the State’s form of comfort to the family is to say human error is the reason their daughter died? Although Kristy McDonald QC who conducted the inquiry pointed out that human error is inevitable when the Department of Corrections manages around 38000 people on community sentences the Maori Party and I do not believe that we should accept that as a matter of course. We cannot be complacent when members of the public become casualties of such errors. As others have said this tragedy must not be repeated yet we know that there have been other situations where offenders have reoffended in fatal ways. There have been situations in which prisoners have been released into the community and tragedies have occurred one way or another—murders manslaughter the loss of life. We are pleased to see in the statement from the Hon Phil Goff that although the protection of identity under the witness protection programme is important the paramount obligation of the Department of Corrections and the police is to maintain the safety of the community. 
But we want to just raise a few words of caution in this debate. Seeking more punishment and retribution is not the answer. Compassion for victims must be a high priority. We must do all that we can so that the society we are helping to create is one of compassion and of taking responsibility. Justice is not about revenge and retribution. The pursuit of justice te whainga i te tika was and is fundamental to the Maori world view and embraces all areas of life from the wrongs people may do to one another to the rules that determine how the land should be cared for. The Maori Party acknowledges that justice is best achieved not merely by changing the content of existing laws but also by reconsidering in good faith the processes by which laws are made and by reconsidering the principles that underpin them. The safety of the community must be an essential value that we can all believe in and a value that we can all work to restore. 
Although the Department of Corrections and the police must as a matter of urgency remedy the deficiencies that exist in the area of dealing with offenders who were witnesses and are under the witness protection programme there are other outstanding issues. I was pleased to hear that the Law Society will be taking up the issue of the particular lawyer involved who was a key party in knowing the identity of the offender involved. The history of convictions of that offender shows that he has no regard for the law. Within 2 months of arriving in Nelson he was charged with reckless driving. The sentencing judge disqualified him from driving for 18 months and marked his file with the words “last chance”. We in the Maori Party suggest that someone had to know about that man. Someone had to know—someone else other than the lawyer. Others had a responsibility to care and we must ask why he was still out there. He was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol and primed for another last drive. It was a last chance that Debbie Ashton never had. We must also never forget to think about the power of the wider community to take responsibility for each other to ensure that offenders such as the one in this case are properly managed and that never ever will such tragedies occur again. Kia ora tatou. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Could I also start by expressing on my own behalf and on behalf of the National Party as Dr Nick Smith already has my good wishes condolences and thoughts to the Ashton family over this particular tragedy. Unlike other members who have addressed this matter I will not be talking to the House about the issues surrounding letters to the Speaker and matters of that sort. As chairman of Parliament’s Privileges Committee I will not be having a discussion about those issues and it certainly would not be appropriate to canvass them at this point. What I can say is that I think I am correct in saying that in this term of Parliament this is the third such debate that I have been involved in in extremely similar circumstances. The tragic death of young Liam Ashley and the proliferation of accidents mishaps and incompetence surrounding that incident and the incidents around Graeme Burton brought the debate to this Chamber in a way where we hoped finally we might be able as a Government as a Parliament to get some of these things right once and for all. 
The tragedy around Debbie Ashton’s death tells us that despite continued reassurances from the Government following young Liam Ashley’s death and despite continued assurances from the Government following the death of young Mr Kuchenbecker the agencies concerned continue to operate in a way that perpetuates a culture that allows these types of tragedies to continue. It is simply not going to be good enough to stand in the House every 8 or 9 months and have a debate or a reflection on yet another incident that has gone wrong in the justice system. 
In question time today coincidentally there was a series of questions from me to the Minister of Justice who was standing in for the Minister of Corrections on a repeat incident by the very individual who was responsible for young Liam Ashley’s death in 2006 having yet another attack on a prison guard in the back of a prison van. During question time I asked the Minister what we have learnt when we were told these things were not going to go wrong again. We have spent $217000 of taxpayers’ money to buy scores of waist restraints and an incident has occurred that can only be described as eerily similar to the one that took Mr Ashley’s life some months prior to this incident. 
Then when we look at the complicated series of mishaps that allowed Graeme Burton to be free and to take the life of Mr Kuchenbecker we see more apologies more hand-wringing more concern being expressed and rightly so. But here we are again having the same conversation and the same debate about issues that have occurred yet again. A series of systemic blunders by departments and ministries in the justice sector have claimed the life of another young New Zealander. It has got to stop. Time and time again we see the police the Department of Corrections the Parole Board and other such agencies rolling out apologies. I do not doubt they are heartfelt I do not doubt they are genuine but the fact that we keep hearing them tells us that these problems are not changing. We can alter the protocols we can change the paperwork we can change the way practices are carried out but if the culture that exists in the justice sector is one of initial refusal to take responsibility where wrongs have occurred these tragic incidents will not be removed from the political landscape. 
In many respects one almost has to feel sorry for the Department of Corrections official Ms Casey. She has become the official apologiser for the Department of Corrections. She is wheeled out every time a blunder occurs to attempt to explain where the department has got it wrong yet again. And likewise how many times have we seen the faces of senior police officers on television in recent times undergoing a similar series of apologies? 
The thing I cannot understand about this particular incident is why when in December 2007 the Minister received the report into this matter it took so long for it to be released. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant when these types of issues arise but I ask the Minister the Hon David Parker when he addresses the House following my contribution to answer that basic question that no doubt the Ashton family would like to know the answer to but on which I believe that Parliament too is owed an explanation as to what the delay was between receiving the report in or about December 2007 and its final release to the public and to the family only this month. 
I acknowledge as my colleague Nick Smith did the approach taken by the Hon Annette King. In many respects it is typical of her—to get on with it to grab the bull by the horns and try to get some answers. I also think that taking a trip to Nelson was a great sign of a certain level of humanity and I acknowledge that contribution. The problem is that these issues the culture the way these departments and ministries continue to conduct their business do not change from incident to incident. Now is the time to change the culture of these organisations once and for all. If we are standing here in another 6 months’ time having the same conversations that we had over Liam Ashley’s death the same conversations we had more or less over Mr Kuchenbecker’s death outlining again in detail the failures the mishaps and the blunders of departments that have been contained in yet another investigation and report then we will have failed. 
The Government owes some serious explanation again on this incident but in particular around why the Ashton family and the public had to wait for such a long period of time for the sunlight to come on to the matters at hand. I have listened carefully to what other members have said in this debate about the detail of the series of events that led to young Ms Ashton’s death and I do not intend to traverse those again. I ask only that with the debate today we stop and as a Parliament make sure that we have the nerve to confront these departments and ministries and tell them that more excuses more reports are not good enough and to change the culture of the way these operations run within the justice system or I fear we will be standing here having this debate again in a few months’ time. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I also commence by expressing the deep condolences that I think everyone in this House feels—obviously for Debbie Ashton herself who lost her life but also for her family. We are all members of families and I think we can all identify with and have great sympathy for the family of Debbie Ashton. We can imagine the horror of the time they have had as they have tried to get to the bottom of this. I reiterate the Hon Annette King’s commendation of Dr Smith’s part in this. I think that Dr Smith has been from the start appropriate in his efforts to shed light on what happened here and has tried to ensure that it will not happen again. I think that reflects well on Dr Smith as a local member of Parliament who has done the right thing by his constituents. I also say that no one defends the actions of the prisoner here. He is the person who has acted absolutely irresponsibly and has caused the death of an innocent young lady. He is the greatest villain in all of this and I think we ought not to forget that. 
I also would like to reflect a little on what went wrong here. At its heart what went wrong was that people were confused as to what they ought to do because they mistook the fear that they had for the safety of the person on the witness protection programme with the duties that they had to be open to the court. These matters could have been dealt with in a way that appropriately protected the interests of the person who was on the witness protection programme. It could have been done in a closed court. Appropriate suppression orders could have been made surrounding those matters but the full background to the offender’s position including his prior offending under other identities could have and should have been made known to the court. 
The recommendations of the report from Kristy McDonald QC show where those failings were. They show how they can be avoided and indeed the systems have been largely changed as a consequence. Some other changes are on the way like changing some computer programs in a way that enables the easier linking of names into the future. I do not say that in a way that intends to minimise the enormity of what has happened to the family here; it is a terrible tragedy. 
I want to address the matter raised by Simon Power as to why it took the time that it did to get the report made public. It has been absolutely clear that the Government has wanted this report has wanted it to be independent and has wanted to get to the bottom of it and Dr Smith kindly acknowledges that the report does that. I think it has also been clear that the Government has wanted to be open about the contents of that report. That report was completed by Kristy McDonald QC on 14 December. She then met with me and the Minister of Police Annette King on 17 December. At that time we were advised by both Crown Law and Kristy McDonald who thought that the report was not able to be released in its then form. The following day 18 December an edited version of that report was taken by Annette King to the family of Debbie Ashton. 
By the end of January—because 18 December of course is just a day or two before Christmas—the different agencies met including the police Crown Law and the Department of Corrections to decide upon the application that in view of the Crown Law advice and that of others needed to be made to vary the suppression orders in order for the report to be disclosed in a way that made reference to the witness protection programme because at that time we were being told that we could not make reference to the witness protection programme. Without that disclosure being made in the report it was meaningless to those who read it or less meaningful than it would otherwise be. 
The first application that was made by Crown Law—by the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government if you like—was filed in February. There were some delays in the court processes and the eventual decision was made by Justice France on 8 July. He found that notwithstanding the prior advice that had been given by Crown Law and others the events relating to the witness protection programme had not in fact been suppressed in the first place. A suggestion has been made by Heather Roy that we always knew that. That is not true. Indeed those of the view that the witness programme details were suppressed included the Police Corrections Crown Law and the offender himself through his lawyer. I believe that Dr Smith thought the same because that is also why Dr Smith did not make reference to those matters at the time. I think Dr Smith was acting responsibly because he believed that to be the position at the time. 
Similarly the Fairfax Media group were not reporting about the witness protection programme at that stage because they believed that was the effect of the order as well. Indeed they were one of the parties that were seeking to have the court vary the witness protection programme suppression orders and of course they would not have had needed to do that if they did not think they were of that effect in the first place so even the media thought that. 
I will deal just a little with what Heather Roy has said today. I heard her speech. It was all about her. It really was not about the terrible circumstances here. Heather Roy is not the person who has actively pursued these issues. The two people are primarily Dr Smith and secondly Annette King. 
Hon Annette King 
: And the family. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes; on behalf of the family first and foremost through Dr Smith and more latterly through Annette King. They are the ones that have been pursuing transparency in this; they are the ones who have been trying to get to the bottom of this. All Heather Roy did was turn up at 1 percent in the polls say something that no media were at that time reporting and seek to achieve political advantage from it. She did not need to say the things she said in order for this to come into the public domain. She went a step too far. We have great privileges in this House. We have the absolute privilege of being able to say virtually anything we want. We can breach court suppression orders and we can defame people but we should not do that irresponsibly. The point I was making and the point I still make is that it was unnecessary for Heather Roy to say what she said. She did it on the understanding that it was suppressed at the time—that was everyone’s understanding at that time—and in doing so she put her political ambition ahead of the interests of New Zealanders. 
People on the witness protection programme are not angels. They are generally themselves criminals but they bring to justice even worse criminals and they are put on the witness protection programme because having given Crown’s evidence they are personally at risk of retribution from the people who are worse than they are and have been convicted. That retribution can be some form of torture some form of blackmail a threat to their families or even a threat of death to their own person. In the light of the sorts of serious issues that can arise for people it is unwise of members of this Parliament to override court processes and pre-emptively disclose those people’s names. 
I heard Ron Mark say that people lose their rights if they offend when they are on the witness protection programme. Well to a certain extent I agree—the offender here has only himself to blame. But we do not have the death penalty in New Zealand. Nor do we accept torture as an appropriate penalty for wrongdoing. This person suffered a penalty as a consequence of his offending—he has been imprisoned as a consequence. He ought to have been recalled from parole or imprisoned for his prior offending had his full offences been then known and Debbie Ashton’s death would not have happened. It was a terrible thing but it would not be right for this offender as a consequence of what he did on this occasion to be at risk of torture or of a threat to his life. I think we have to exercise our responsibilities as members of this Parliament very carefully when it comes to these breaches. 
I know even now in this debate today that people have breached some of the suppression orders that still exist in respect of Mr Barclay. I will not make a great song and dance about it. That breach occurred in a rather tangential way. I do not think any great harm will come of it and I do not think that it was intended. But I think that as we assert our privileges in this House we must take great care that we do not cause our institution to undermine other important institutions like the witness protection programme. If people cannot be properly protected on that programme then why would they give evidence? I return to the point on which I started: I give my condolences to the family of Debbie Ashton. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.