Ardern Jacinda: Urgent Debates — Hon Maurice Williamson—Ministerial ResignationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Urgent Debates — Hon Maurice Williamson—Ministerial Resignation[Sitting date: 06 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17501. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Many of the facts of the Maurice Williamson resignation are extraordinarily clear. On 23 January the Hon Maurice Williamson made a very clear error of judgment not just by having a conversation with the police about an open criminal case; by just picking up the phone he clearly breached theCabinet Manual. Many here would probably argue that he breached a convention that applies to all members of Parliament but what is absolutely clear is that he did breach theCabinet Manual. In doing so he undermined two very important principles that guide us asmembers of Parliament but also the justice system: firstly the independence of the police and the importance of constabulary independence; and secondly the very fine line we walk in between advocating for constituents but never abusing our position of power by being seen to influence the justice system.The Minister of Police also plays a very important role in defending the independence of the police. You will see that from time to time the Minister states that she cannot intervene in something because it is considered to be operational. But let us look at the role that the Minister of Police played in this particular case. The call as I have said was made on 23 January. On 4 April a media outlet put in a request for information that the police may have had regarding Maurice Williamson’s intervention in a case involving Mr Liu and before the courts. On 14 April the police flagged with the Minister’s office in a list of Official Information Act requests that this request had been made. The Minister has since released the text of that description in the briefing and it does state simply the name of Mr Liu and does not include the name of Mr Williamson. The Minister’s office of course you would have thought may have asked questions about the nature of the release given how highly politicised that particular National Party donor had been in the past but accepting the office’s word that no questions were raised we move to the next part of the time line.On 28 April 2 weeks after the police provided that small description of the Official Information Act request as the Minister has confirmed in the House today she was verbally told by the Commissioner of Police Mike Bush that a request from a media outlet had been made and it involved Maurice Williamson. Today in the House we asked some follow-up and I believe important questions about that briefing. When the Minister of Police was briefed by the commissioner was she told when the public would know this vital information about her colleague’s interference in a police case? Did she know at what time and at what date the public would be told? And had the journalist been informed of this? She told the House that the information would be released—if my recollection is right—the following week or thereabouts when the court case was due to come up. The court case is on 10 June.She also claimed in the House today that she was told that the journalist has been informed that the information would be released to them the next week. The journalist has not been told. The journalist was not told until after she was briefed and the date given to that journalist was 10 June. My point is this: the Minister of Police either misled the House today or the police misled her. She knew there would be several weeks before the public would know about this case. And what did she do with that information? Absolutely nothing. She did not tell the Prime Minister. She did not even ask for the emails relating to Maurice Williamson’s case. In fact Mr Williamson and the Prime Minister received the email evidence before she did which was on the Wednesday. The fact of the matter is this Minister of Police did nothing to protect her police force. She asked no questions. She heard no evil and saw no evil. Thereby in doing so she failed them and failed to protect their constabulary independence in favour of protecting her own colleague.