Davis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1459. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau)to the Minister of Police: On what date if any was the first of any briefings given by the Commissioner of Police or his staff to him his predecessor the Prime Minister or any of their offices in relation to the reported investigation into Mike Sabin?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police):Responsibility for police investigations rests solely with the police not the executive and it is important that this constabulary independence is maintained. Any comment on the existence or otherwise of any particular investigation is for the police to comment on. Despite widespread speculation in the media and from the Opposition the police advise me that they have declined to confirm to media any investigation regarding Mr Sabin and it is not for the Minister to get ahead of the police in discussing unconfirmed operational matters. It is not appropriate nor in the public interest for me to discuss details relating to whether I may have received or provided details on a specific police matter.Kelvin Davis: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about a date that he received the briefing which he is responsible for—a briefing from the police commissioner.Mr SPEAKER: Yes but as I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answers he is effectively saying to this House that he is declining to give that information because he does not feel it is in the public interest. That—[Interruption] Order! That is a judgment call that the Minister has the right to make and I accept and respect the Minister in making that judgment call. You have the right to ask further supplementaries.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take that that is the judgment that you have made about what the Minister said. The issue for us on this side of the House is that the Minister did not actually say that he did not believe it was in the public interest. He made a number of other statements about why he did not want to answer but if that is what is being invoked we on this side of the House need to be very clear about that and I certainly was not from the Minister’s answer.Mr SPEAKER: Certainly what I took from the Minister’s—[Interruption] I will allow the Minister to clarify.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I can confirm that the last sentence of my reply said that it was not appropriate nor in the public interest etc. etc.Mr SPEAKER: That is what I heard as well. Moving forward we will ask for supplementary questions from Kelvin Davis.Kelvin Davis: Why is it not in the public interest for him to disclose when the first briefing to the Government occurred?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer to my primary answer. I think I made it very clear why I thought that and I maintain that.Kelvin Davis: On what date did he or his predecessor or the officers first inform the Prime Minister’s office?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer to my primary answer and I have nothing further to add.Kelvin Davis: Did he or his predecessor when they knew an MP was the subject of a police investigation seek and/or receive an assurance that the MP was not a Minister; if not why not?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer the member to my primary answer. I have no further comment as it would not be in the public interest.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister agree with this statement: “People should be able to be safe in their home and it’s a very serious issue for the country. It’s a really serious question when you start saying that 89000 to 90000 homes are visited every year because there’s a domestic violence”; or further: “Often what had happened in the past was that if you had a domestic situation—say the husband was drunk and looked like he was going to be abusive to his wife or the children—the police had to go through quite a process to get a restraining order. We changed the law to allow that to be a much more rapid fast process”—his words—“so it could happen instantly.” Those are words from the Prime Minister. Do you agree with them?Mr SPEAKER: This question is a long way from the primary. I will allow the Minister to answer it but he has leeway in doing so.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The question strays a long way from the primary question and without understanding the context in which the comments were made it would be inappropriate for me to make a detailed response but generally speaking yes.Kelvin Davis: Is it still the practice of the commissioner or his staff to brief the Minister on cases of significant public interest as part of the weekly briefing?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In accordance with Cabinet guidelines yes.