Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15156] 
7.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Why were no charges laid as a result of the investigations at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that the victim through his lawyer requested that the complaint be withdrawn. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the police were called to the home of a judge to investigate the invasion of her home and the assault of her husband that they identified Phillip Layton Edwards as the prime suspect from a DNA sample obtained at the scene and that they got a confession yet failed to charge Edwards because a police officer decided on the basis of that answer the police would not proceed; if so will he tell the House why the police officer made that decision? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am not telling the member that at all. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That did not address the question at all in any way shape or form. I ask you Mr Speaker to reflect on the first answer from the Minister. My understanding is that his answer cannot possibly be truthful or accurate on the simple premise that the police do not need on the weight of the evidence that the Minister has admitted to in previous answers in the House the complainant to lodge a complaint. The police could have prosecuted. Otherwise lots of murders throughout this country would never be prosecuted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the point of order was not a point of order; it is a matter for debate. Regarding the first part of the point of order I will perhaps get the Minister to answer the question in a slightly different way. He did address the question. The member needs to be careful how he asks it. As far as I am concerned if the Minister wants to add something to his answer he can; otherwise he did address the question. 
Ron Mark 
: On the basis of that can the Minister tell the House why the police did not charge Mr Peter Shaw with making a false complaint and wasting police time? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As the Minister of Police I respect the constabulary’s independence. I do not get involved in individual cases. I think that would be a very dangerous route to go down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague has asked a very simple question of the Minister of Police: he wants to know why someone was not charged. Surely the Minister of Police has already found out for himself the answer to that question because it is such a serious matter. That man went on to murder someone—that is how serious it is. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to rise in the House after the murder of an innocent person—regardless of how he might see the circumstances—and say that he does not get involved in such decisions. The fact is that he is the Minister of Police and he should know what the answer is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned the Minister was entitled to address the question in that way. Whether that is satisfactory to the members of this House is another question that I do not judge. The Minister was certainly entitled to answer the question in that way. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While not wanting to contest your ruling I ask you to reflect longer on it. We have a situation whereby the police appear to have behaved in a most inappropriate way. I do not know the details; I am just sitting here listening to what has been said. The result has been that a person has lost his life. It is a very very serious issue. It would appear on the surface from the Minister’s own answers that the police behaved in an odd fashion. I do not think we need a Minister of Police if when members ask what is going on he can wander into Parliament and say that something is an operational matter. Actually it is not. This issue is a policy matter about what is going on in the New Zealand Police. I think this Parliament should be demanding answers of the Minister of Police and not allowing him to dodge them by stating that something is an operational issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member has not got a very good memory. It has been commonplace and I have heard it often for Ministers to say that prosecution and operational decisions are for police not Ministers. The Minister is entitled to take that line. He can be criticised for it if the member wishes but he addressed the question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whilst we all understand and accept that it is not the role of the Minister of Police to get involved in making decisions as to whether a charge should be laid all I have simply asked the Minister—who quite clearly from my previous questions has researched this case and has spoken with his commissioner—is why the person who laid the complaint was not charged. I did not ask him whether he asked the police to make it or insisted that they make a charge. I asked him why the police did not charge him with making a false complaint and wasting police time. Surely he can answer the question that I have asked him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister did address the question. It might not satisfy the member or anybody else but he is entitled to give that answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that the police did not lay charges because one there was no home invasion; two there was no burglary; and three Edwards was in that house because he was invited there and therefore the complaint made by the male of that household was a false complaint so there should have been a prosecution; when will the Minister do his job; if not why given that somebody was murdered as a consequence does he not do something decent like resign? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Last week in answer to a question I said that there had been a burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue and that is why the police attended there. Of course the member knows that if I became involved in each case and the reasons why members opposite would be the first ones jumping up. I do not ask what is going on down town. I do not ask why people do not pay their taxi fares. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There you go Mr Speaker. The Minister just made a judgment that you allowed him to make. The reality is that he told the House last week that there was a burglary—that was false demonstrably false. He should be on his feet and apologising now. He got that wrong as well. Even though he has spoken to his senior officer he will not stand in this House and tell us why someone ended up murdering someone else in this country when that person should have been arrested a long time before that and he should tell us the circumstances of that arrest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. As I said before he gave the answer he gave. That does not mean it cannot be criticised but it is a debatable matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refuse to believe that this is the standard of accountability in this country now and in this Parliament whereby a Minister can get up and give that answer and be defended by an interpretation of the Standing Orders. He is required above all to be terse and to the point—to stick to the facts. He has been asked why he has not found out and why he has not told Parliament why certain charges were not laid. That is all he has been asked to do. We do not have the head of the police here or the district commander or any one else; my colleagues and I are asking the Minister. If this is the standard of accountability that is acceptable now then Parliament has come to a new low in my opinion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is no different from the questions that I have heard many times during my time here. Members have always been dissatisfied with answers. That is why we have debate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not dissatisfied with just the answer. We are talking about someone who made a claim in this House as Minister about the facts of a certain case. Those statements were demonstrably wrong. We know there was no home invasion. We know there was no burglary. We know the person was invited to that house from whence the complaint came to the police. Nothing happened as a consequence. We want to know why. We want to know from this Minister why and I think the public and this House are entitled to know. He has not given an answer that gets remotely near addressing the issue in the House today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well he did. I adjudged he did. [ 
Interruption 
] I am warning the member that I am not carrying on this argument again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not care whether you are warning me now for I am asking the simple question. Can you or anyone in this House tell me why a charge was not laid against that household? That is my point of order. If you know what the answer is then I do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that is not a point of order and the member knows it full well. He has been here long enough. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not able to make any comment on the veracity of statements that have been made but I do draw your attention to Standing Order 364 which states that: “Questions must be concise and not contain—(a) statements of facts and names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated”. I put it to you that the statements made by Mr Peters have not been authenticated. We are now talking about a person who is a stranger. [ 
Interruption 
] No they have not been authenticated in this House. In fact his own statements are completely contradictory. If there was not a burglary then how could the police arrest the offender? He is saying that there is not a burglary and then he is saying that there is. I just put it to you that Mr Peters is not entitled to get up and make statements in question time that cannot be authenticated. 
I do say that while we have free speech we have many Speakers’ rulings saying that we should not make reflections on people outside this House unless they are strictly necessary. I say to you that Mr Peters should not be allowed to pursue this line of questioning unless he is able to meet the Standing Orders and authenticate the statements that he is making. If he can by all means proceed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I could not have put it better myself. Mr Peters is using debating material and I think Mr Prebble is perfectly correct. The question was addressed. People might not be satisfied with the answer but there the matter rests. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark I am warning now that I have had six or seven points of order. I want a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I shall try not to be intimidated Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well you will not be; you will just leave the Chamber. I want a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave Mr Speaker and that is a point of order I assume to table “Criminal Convictions Active History (54)” which has the details of a report of an aggravated burglary at the address of 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Morningside Auckland. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Minister in doing his job must have been apprised of the facts by now can I ask him given the severity of the crime committed by Mr Edwards at a later date or very soon after that date why does he not resign who is he trying to cover up here and what is he trying to cover up here with regard to this case? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there; the Minister may comment on two of them. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have nothing to hide. I believe that people should be able to have a trial then the sentence imposed on them. In this case that will be next month. I do not think— 
Ron Mark 
: A man died. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: A man may have died and that is a tragedy but I do not think that Ministers of the Crown should interfere with the courts. I certainly do not talk about assaults in Courtenay Place and I do not talk about taxi-drivers not getting their fare. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Minister said he believes that people should be entitled to a trial and that no trial happened in this case because the claimed victim withdrew the complaint as we have been told—despite the fact that an obvious case of false complaint had been made out to the police—who and what is the Minister trying to cover up from this House? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am not trying to cover up anything. I think the member may have all the information he needs to answer his own question. I do not have it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely it cannot be adequate in a democracy of our type that the Minister who is responsible for the job gets up and says that I may have information to answer the question myself. It is his job—he gets the LTD and all the baubles of office to be responsible for his job. If he cannot do the job then he should resign. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did not just say that; he said he had nothing to hide. That is a perfectly adequate answer to a question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Peters has now repeatedly told the House that the complaint of an aggravated assault was demonstrably false—or words to that effect. He then said it is not his job to verify answers. 
Ron Mark 
: That’s true! 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is true but it is his job to verify that statement—that is a statement that he is asking the Minister to comment on. It needs to be authenticated. The evidence that the House has allowed his colleague to place before it is that an aggravated assault did occur—[ 
Interruption 
] Well yes reported. Mr Peters knows even if Mr Mark may not that people might withdraw complaints for all sorts of reasons. It does not follow that because someone withdraws a complaint that the incident did not occur. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was a statement of opinion from Mr Peters. 
Ron Mark 
: On the back of the Minister’s obvious concern for the tragedy of the death I seek the leave of the House to table the sentencing notes involving one Mr Phillip Edwards on the occasion that he beat the hell out of his girlfriend for waking him up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those sentencing notes. Is there any objection? There is.