McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12920] 
8.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Can he absolutely assure the House that in relation to police decisions regarding the prosecution of Shane Ardern MP Mr Ardern was treated in the same way as any other New Zealander would have been treated; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that he was treated fairly like all other New Zealanders. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that the head of the Police Prosecution Service Superintendent Graham Thomas confirmed on radio this morning that he had seen no other incidents of a district commander issuing a direct instruction to so-called independent prosecution officers; if so can he tell the House why Mr Ardern was singled out for special treatment? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the high public interest may have been behind Mr Kelly’s inquiry but it was firmly rebuffed by Mr Thomas and that shows that the situation is completely fair. 
Sue Bradford 
: Was the police decision not to prosecute Shane Ardern consistent with its decision to continue the prosecution of myself and others in 1999-2000 given that when I was arrested during our unemployment demonstration at Parliament I did not get anywhere near the steps much less drive a tractor up them? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: While I do not have any knowledge of that I must say that if the member wants more information she should go to the Commissioner of Police. I have no part in any prosecution. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the point of having a supposedly independent police prosecutions centre if regional commanders like John Kelly send emails to subordinate officers working at the centre instructing them to prosecute regardless of the merits of the case or was Mr Shane Ardern MP a special case? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the reason we have the Police Prosecution Service is so that everything is analysed fairly and openly and it shows that individual police cannot interfere with that process. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House what Superintendent Kelly meant when he emailed so-called independent prosecution officers that: “In relation to this issue there are to be no moves to withdraw this matter.” if it was not to be seen as a direct instruction to subordinate officers that very very senior police officers had their own reasons for requiring that Mr Ardern be prosecuted regardless of the merits of the case? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have no input whatsoever and no knowledge of it whatsoever because I do not get involved in police prosecutions. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be the case that the Minister of Police has no knowledge of what is going on in the police—I believe him on that. But the specific question was as Minister of Police what was his response to the question. He cannot stand up and say: “Look I have no knowledge of my portfolio.” He must address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House what steps he took to satisfy himself as to the facts before he signed answers to parliamentary questions assuring the House that there were no discussions meetings or other communications between his office and police officers? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I took advice from the police to see whether any information had come from my office. There were three things: firstly an email from Gerry Cunneen; and secondly a copy of Mr Speaker’s rulings on the service of proceedings on members of Parliament sent by Kate Gabriel who was the Police liaison person at the time. It was sent a second time because it had a couple of typographical oddities the first time. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has seen the statement in the prosecution review by Senior Sergeant Erasmusen that “it is inescapable that comparisons will be made with other high-profile cases where a decision not to prosecute followed”; and does the Minister understand that that is a very clear reference to the fact that police prosecutors could have no way of justifying the obvious double standard of exercising a discretion not to charge the Prime Minister over “paintergate” but pressing charges against Mr Ardern? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have said previously that I take no part whatsoever and no political influence is asserted in what police do. If the member thinks there is a problem and if he thinks a crime has been committed he should talk to the commissioner. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider the Minister’s answer. He did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question but perhaps the member could enlighten me. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I made it quite clear that I was asking what the Minister thought about a particular passage in the prosecution review. I put it to you that that is the question the Minister needed to address and he failed to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the member asks what the Minister thinks about a particular passage there has to be a lot of leeway in the answer concerned. If the Minister wanted to add anything he could.