English Bill: General Debates 
English Bill: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8536] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today the police have announced that they are going to prosecute Shane Ardern MP for disorderly conduct. 
On Monday the Prime Minister made a series of statements about the actions of Shane Ardern MP. She said that driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament was disorderly and that his actions were not acceptable. Today I want to compare the situation of Shane Ardern with that of modest successful Prime Minister Helen Clark. He drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament and she knowingly signed a painting that she did not paint. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Since I began my speech Mr Mallard has made a continuous stream of interjections and I suggest to you that that is outside the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have made two points—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a longstanding convention that members will hear a point of order out. Members know that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have merely made two points. One is to ask where Maurice Williamson is—[ 
Interruption 
] There used to be a rule that members’ points of order would be heard in silence; does that rule apply to the Opposition or only to the Government? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that under Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3) there are not to be any running commentaries during speeches. I am not going to tolerate speeches being broken up during the general debate. There are only 5-minute speeches and in this case I am going to ask the member on my right to desist interjecting. I ask the Hon Bill English to continue his speech. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Here are some questions. Helen Clark knowingly signed a painting with her name. Shane Ardern drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament. Did the police interview Shane Ardern? Yes. Did they interview Helen Clark? No. Did Helen Clark answer the questions the police put to her? No. Did Shane Ardern answer the questions put to him? Yes. Did Shane Ardern cooperate with the police? Yes. Did Helen Clark cooperate with the police? No. What are the relative penalties for those two actions? For forgery it is 7 years’ imprisonment for disorderly behaviour there is a $1000 fine. The forgery charge was much more serious and it was not pursued. Not only did Helen Clark not cooperate with the police but as the police report points out the evidence was destroyed after media commentary that there could be charges but before “the active police investigation began”. 
This is the same Prime Minister who is condemning Shane Ardern MP who invited the police to prosecute him and it is an outrage. Was the Solicitor-General called upon for constitutional advice for Shane Ardern? No. Was the Solicitor-General called upon for constitutional advice for the Prime Minister? Yes. Did the Solicitor-General counsel against prosecution in the case of Shane Ardern? No. Did the Solicitor-General advise against prosecution in the case of Helen Clark? Yes and the police say that he strongly advised against it. 
However it was not just the Prime Minister who was at fault. Chris Carter the orange boy for the Prime Minister was asked by police to provide telephone records relevant to the inquiry. He declined and said: “If you want to get them you may but it will lead to all sorts of very bad publicity.” That is what Chris Carter said. He is a Minister of the Crown and that is what he said. Did Shane Ardern sign his police statement? Yes. Did Chris Carter sign his police statement? No. He refused to sign the statement and the police said they did not believe what he said. 
The pattern is becoming very clear. Some members of this Parliament are subject to the law—the Opposition members. Some members of this Parliament are not subject to the law—Labour members of Parliament like Harry Duynhoven who broke the law and was saved by the Government; Chris Carter who lied to the police; and Helen Clark who refused to cooperate with them answered no questions would not be interviewed and had the evidence destroyed. Yet she gets up on national television and accuses our member of Parliament Shane Ardern of disorderly behaviour and invites the police to prosecute him. 
I say we have had enough. Mr Speaker needs to make very sure that he is not dragged into these matters. What actions did the Speaker take to protect the privileges of this Parliament? Today he would not explain yet he seemed to be—gave the appearance of being—in communication with the same modest successful non-cooperating lawbreaking Prime Minister when it came to Harry Duynhoven. Helen Clark conducted herself as a member of Parliament above the law and she got away with it. The alleged offence concerning Shane Ardern is much less serious. It was an impulsive action in a protest by an MP representing his constituents and he got prosecuted. We want answers.