Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:15313] 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What is police policy for dealing with the prosecution of violent offenders? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that each case is looked at closely on its merits. All relevant factors need to be considered including the availability of evidence witnesses and the attitude of the victim to a prosecution. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister not referring to the case in respect of Edwards and Shaw as being a violent attack which are the very words of John Haigh QC for Mr Shaw in September 2002; and will the Minister tell the House now whether it was a burglary or a violent attack and which happened first? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I take no part in court or police decisions on matters. The police reported that they had received a call about a burglary. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is entirely inappropriate that this Minister who has now had weeks to prepare to answer parliamentary questions on this issue should commence his answer by saying he takes no responsibility for it. Frankly if he is allowed to get away with that then question time in this House will be unique in any Western democracy. I know of no Minister who is allowed to get away with that in any other Parliament in the Western World. He is responsible; he holds the warrant. He has got a portfolio; let him fulfil it properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may make that statement; I do not agree with him. I know that this Parliament has one of the most vigorous question times of any democracy— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Not now we haven’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One more comment while I am on my feet and the member goes out—and I mean that. I listened to the Minister’s reply. He was entitled to give the first sentence. The last sentence he gave actually did address the question and answered it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister why he is not calling the case what the Queen’s Counsel called it—a violent attack. Secondly what happened first: the burglary or the violent attack? I have had no information on either of those things at this point in time and my view and I believe the view of everybody else in this House has to be that he did not answer the question. That is my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order is not valid. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that when Phillip Edwards violently attacked Mr Shaw at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 he was already under investigation for other threatening and violent behaviour—one against a female in front of her three children—and why did the police not prosecute that dangerous man then and there when it is their duty to do so? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I take no part in any decision to prosecute or not. I am not allowed to. This is not Zimbabwe although that member might like it to be. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask him whether he was responsible for making any decision at all. I am asking him as he has been forewarned of this for weeks to apprise himself of the facts and come here and answer legitimate questions. Will you make him do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should respond to the first part of the question—about investigations­—asked by the member. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It would be a sad day in New Zealand if Ministers got police files went through them and made decisions. I do not get police files— 
Ron Mark 
: Get out of the House. You are damned useless. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I tell Mr Mark to calm down. I have absolutely no input into these cases. Of course that member who is behind Mr Peters should really listen. We do not interfere. That is the way it is in this country and as long as I am Minister of Police I will not interfere. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is at it again. He is being asked for the details of this case. They are fundamentally simple. They will all be on the charge sheet. They will all be in his possession if he requests them. He has had 4 hours today to apprise himself of the answers to these questions and he gets up and says he will not answer. Frankly that is a disgrace and I cannot conceive of any valid question time in the future if that is allowed to be his answer. I am not asking whether he is responsible whether he made the decision himself. I am asking him what the details are—for example which came first: the burglary or the violent attack? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am also a former Minister of Police. I never requested a police file the whole time I was Minister. I never saw a police file because there is a principle of constabulary independence which I think Mr Peters does know about. What it says is that a policeman must form the decision as to whether to charge. He cannot even be instructed by another policeman to charge someone with an offence. He certainly cannot be instructed by a Minister to do so. I think Mr Peters is inviting the Minister to challenge constabulary independence. The Minister is quite within his rights to come to this House and say that he is not going to challenge that principle that he is not going to call up police files whenever the Opposition does not happen to agree with a decision made by a policeman. That seems to me to be a perfectly valid answer even if Mr Peters does not like it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need no further assistance. Mr Prebble is completely correct. The Minister is entitled to take that line and answer any political criticism that he gets for it but that is his decision. He is perfectly entitled to take that line and he has done that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the police officer who led the investigation into the violent attack on Mr Peter Shaw at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 recommend that Edwards be prosecuted; if so who overruled him? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Once again I have not seen the files. I do not read the files. It would be a sad day if I ever did and it would be an even sadder day if Ron Mark ever became Minister of Police. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I hear the point of order I will ask Mr Mark to stand withdraw and apologise for bringing me into debate and using a very unparliamentary expression. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member is very lucky he has not been asked to leave as well. I would leave it at that. The member knows he cannot bring me into the debate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister is telling the House that regardless of the requirements of his job and the requirement of the House that he answer and provide the House with information he refuses even to look at the file or tell us anything at all. That cannot be surely a matter of political accountability any longer because he refuses to take any part whatsoever in the process. I ask you Mr Speaker to make him answer the question. For him to get up and say that he is not going to look at the file that he does not do that and that it would be a sad day if someone did is nonsense in the same way that the argument Mr Prebble outlined is nonsense. He was the man of course who read out a whole drug file sheet in this Parliament in 1980 and every lawyer in this country was appalled by it. That is how good he is on the matter of behaviour in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As the member is being brought into debate I will allow him to comment briefly. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I say to Mr Peters that if he were to do what the Standing Orders require and authenticate his questions—and supplementary questions are required to be authenticated—if he were to produce some authentication that something was wrong and that somebody interfered in constabulary independence I would be the first to support him. But in fact if he looks back through his  
Hansard 
 he will see that he has used parliamentary privilege to attack someone who is not even in public life and that is a disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance. The Speaker rules on only the acceptability of questions and replies. Both the questions and the replies are in order. The Speaker does not tell Ministers how they must answer as long as what they say is relevant. On this occasion the Minister did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have said that the Minister addressed the question. I asked him who recommended prosecution—was it the police officer in charge of the investigation and if so who overruled him? I had no answer at all on that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member has had an answer. The Minister gave it and he is entitled to use that line. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been quietly watching the exchange going on here. I appreciate the points that Mr Prebble has made to the House but we have a Government over there whose members stood on platforms throughout the country telling people that they would get tough on crime and would wipe out violent crime. Here we have an incident in which a violent crime was committed there was no prosecution and the person who committed that crime went on to murder someone a short time later. Surely the House is entitled to know how well the Minister’s policy is being applied by the police—or are we to believe that politicians cannot do anything about law and order and that it is all up to the police who will just decide for this House what level of prosecution we will have? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made absolutely no point of order whatsoever. It is just political point-scoring. [ 
Interruption 
] My patience has now gone. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the calls for the matters related to this file to be made public in the House will the Minister invite Mr Peters and Mr Mark to table—as Mr Peters did with the wine box—all the material that they have on this? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member should produce the evidence and go outside and make the same accusations if he really wants to drive the point home and stop hiding behind parliamentary privilege. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that a fair answer that in any way conforms to Standing Orders? No it is not and we are not going to put up with this humbug any longer. This Minister is required to be accountable. A serious murder happened and you are allowing the Minister to get away with absolute nonsense. He stands there knowing the facts as his Cabinet colleagues know the facts. I now know that some of his Cabinet colleagues know the facts and the true story behind this issue. A person went on to die and you allow the Minister to get up and make an attack on a member who is asking questions. That cannot be allowed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member does not know the Standing Orders and I invite him to recall what Mr Prebble said. I know the Standing Orders. The question was in order and the answer was in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had enough on this issue. It had better be a new one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can it be in order for a Minister to demand that the questioner provide the information when the Minister is in charge of the portfolio? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member asked the Minister whether he would invite another member to submit something. I thought the Minister said that he would. I cannot see what the problem is with that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did a member of the police namely Lance Burdett threaten the  
20/20 
 investigators in respect of Mr Shaw with this note: “If you print or film anything relating to Mr X”—being Mr Shaw—“in any way I may well be in a position to prosecute TV3 given the warnings I have communicated to you. I will also be seeking out your other source of information and will instigate disciplinary proceedings if appropriate.”; how could this be going on in the Minister’s portfolio and why does he not just resign? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first two questions can be answered. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: All of those accusations are being made on the basis that I have that information. I do not have that information. I do not want that information because I believe in constabulary independence. This morning on  
Morning Report 
 the assistant commissioner said that he wanted to make the point that “There was no political interference … we wouldn’t tolerate that”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark will leave the Chamber. He has twice interjected. I have a real job it is being Speaker and I do it to the best of my ability. Please leave the Chamber or I will name the member. 
Ron Mark 
: I never said “you”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now return or I will name him. Return to your seat. I heard the member yell out twice “Get a job.” That is a reference to me and he is not at all entitled to make that comment. I say further that I have asked the member to leave and he will leave without any further comment. He will leave now. 
Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reality is that Mr Mark said to George Hawkins “Get a real job.” He did not say it to you. I think your ruling—although I can understand how you might have felt the remark was aimed at yourself—in this case is unfair because he did not mean the Speaker; he meant George Hawkins who is not doing any work at all at the moment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. I let it go the first second third fourth and fifth times. I then warned him. He then went on to say it a sixth and a seventh time and I have had enough. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that when a female victim of serious domestic violence subsequently asks police to drop charges it is standard practice for the police to say to that woman “Tell it to the judge.” and to continue with the prosecution; is that not the norm and why did it not happen in this instance? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police take a very dim view of all violence. But when they consider a case for prosecution they take into account all the factors before making the decision to prosecute. They make it without any political interference. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister seeking to cover up this very serious issue; and why does he have the mistaken belief that in a very serious case a charge was not warranted even though that same offender already had 54 criminal convictions many for violence and later went on to murder someone? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Because there is constabulary independence we do not interfere with the police making decisions to prosecute. That member may want to but I do not and I will not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House correctly to understand that the man who went on to do the murder actually had 54 previous convictions; if so was there anything particular about the 53rd; and is it correct that if we had a decent zero tolerance crime policy he would probably have been put away after No. 9? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Obviously this Government has been getting tougher on criminals as there are now more people in prison. However I cannot give any advice on this particular case because I do not ask for the files of anyone who commits a crime—and I do not ask police about people getting into taxis in Courtenay Place. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think an important issue emerged this afternoon in your recent ruling. Had the member said in this Parliament “The member should get a job.” that would be perfectly in order. Had the member said: “You should get a job.” that would be totally out of order. The member had short-circuited “The member should get a job.” by saying “Get a job.” and you assumed that he had meant that you should get a job. I am unaware in my long time in this Parliament of a Speaker having made that extension of the quite unparliamentary and unacceptable inclusion of the Speaker by referring to you when there was no reference to you at all in the interjection. I believe that it is an extension of what I have heard Speakers rule in the past and I would appreciate your thinking further about it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. Had the member made that comment once or twice I would not have worried. But he had made that comment and quite often with the word “you” at least six or seven times previously in that question and I had warned him. I must say that anyone who studies English grammar will know that that remark was in the second person. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that the heat of the moment has passed I would like you to reflect on your decision to ask Mr Mark to leave Parliament. I was sitting next to him and at no stage through the course of that discussion did I hear him use the word “you”. I know he was directing his remarks to the Minister and I think that on reflection you might consider calling him back to the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will discuss the matter with the whips.