Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
[Volume:620;Page:15363] 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Police; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a conscientious and hard-working Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the assailant’s name in respect of the McNee case and the Shaw case what communications and discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Minister of Police in relation to the incident on 12 September 2002 at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue and is she satisfied with the outcome? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The first time that this case was drawn to my attention was on the first day Mr Mark asked a question about it—I think that was 25 August. Mr Hawkins drew my attention to the question then because the address was in my electorate. I am satisfied from what I have seen that the police handled the matter appropriately. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to end speculation and assure Mr Hawkins in the House today that he will continue to hold a ministerial warrant while she has the power to grant one in light of surprisingly well-informed media reports suggesting that Mr Hawkins could be a victim of a Cabinet reshuffle; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can advise the member that the media reports are based on interviewing the journalist’s own typewriter and I can also advise him that Mr Hawkins’ chances and prospects of keeping his job are immensely greater than those of National Party members who have been reshuffled several times in recent months. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Edwards trial is over and that no matters of sub judice in respect of the trial now exist can the Prime Minister tell the House what her Minister has done about the fact that there was no disclosure in respect of this trial of the fact that 3 years ago Phillip Layton Edwards had converted McNee’s car for over 3 weeks before it was returned to McNee and why was this evidence not put before the court? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: How Crown counsel and the police elect to conduct a case is something entirely beyond the province of the Government and I do not intend to even comment on it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the Prime Minister said earlier that she was satisfied with the way the police had handled this case—or words to that effect—was she aware of all the evidence that is allegedly swirling around about this matter; or is it more a case that on the evidence that has been put up so far the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the matter has been appropriately dealt with? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is the latter. There has been no evidence I am aware of that would suggest the police dealt with this case in any way out of the ordinary. I have been prepared to accept the word of Assistant Commissioner Peter Marshall who said in one of the interviews he did on the matter that there has been no political interference in the case no judicial interference. Police acted alone. They acted properly and with integrity. To suggest otherwise is without foundation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why in such a critical case involving an allegation of murder and a charge of murder were the following things not disclosed to the jury: that McNee knew Edwards for over 3 years; that McNee’s car was converted by Edwards 3 years ago for 3 weeks; that Edwards had a home in Auckland to go to so he was not a homeless street kid; and that he had chosen to be a rent boy—why were these matters not put to the jury by the police so that it would have known the full truth about this case? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no brief whatsoever on the McNee-Edwards case. I say again that the way in which Crown counsel and the police choose to prosecute a case is something that the Government is not involved with. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: At what level did the decision not to prosecute Edwards in the Shaw case take place and more important if the Prime Minister has not been briefed how can she have any confidence in this incompetent Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I know is that the decision was taken within the police. Certainly it was taken without my knowledge. I heard about it only last month on 25 August. Indeed as Assistant Commissioner Marshall has said there was no political interference no judicial interference—the police made the decision. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister had been apprised of these questions from last week surely as Prime Minister. That is why she holds that responsibility. A critical question asked last week of the Minister of Police was at what level this decision not to prosecute was made. The Prime Minister has had 4 days now to come back to this House with that knowledge and I asked her specifically that question—at what level it was made—because any assurances of a lack of interference turn on that sort of question. That question arose and 4 days later when the Prime Minister is asked specifically that question we do not get an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is making a complaint of course about the adequacy of the answer. There is no substance in the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister give an assurance that there was no interference that was untoward in this case if she has not even bothered to find out at what level the decision not to prosecute was made by the police force—a question that was asked in this House last Thursday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because I accept entirely the word of Assistant Commissioner Marshall that there was neither political nor judicial interference and that the decision was made within the police. I can also say—although it may not please the member to know—that I do not peruse in detail the transcripts of all his questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the fact that the defence avoided a murder conviction by pleading homophobic panic as a defence when quite clearly there was evidence in existence that could have achieved a murder verdict or a murder conviction—what on earth is going on with a Minister in whom she has confidence who is now involved in a cover-up? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No evidence has been presented to justify that part of the question. It bore no necessity in terms of being presented to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree with the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I do not need any assistance. I agree with the Minister on that particular point. The first part of the question was in order and can be answered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am holding the  
Hansard 
 from last week’s questioning of the Minister. Last week time after time he came up with the same answer: that he in no way ever got involved in any police case at all. We all heard it— 
Hansard 
 is full of it—except that when it came to the 35-minute delay in relation to the non-response of the police in respect of a select committee he had requisitioned a report thereby debunking what he had claimed in this House was his modus operandi as a Minister. Mr Speaker you might agree with the Deputy Prime Minister but the facts are that the Minister belied his own defence last week. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The matter the member just raised is in relation to a response to a time-resourcing issue not to interference in a case before the court. The member is not presenting the slightest bit of evidence that the Minister was involved in the case before the court. That has been denied time after time backed by the assistant commissioner of police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will rule on the point of order. Dr Cullen is perfectly correct. The member should just ask the question; he should not tie allegations on to the question asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think there is anything further to be added— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Let me try to illuminate what is going on here. The reality is that Dr Cullen referred to a case before the court but there was no such case before the court. That is the very nub of the questions in respect of Shaw and Edwards that were asked last week—that it never got to court. So how can you Mr Speaker possibly agree with the Deputy Prime Minister on his point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did it because he was correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a case of murder involved here—and a foul murder at that—by a person who had a modus operandi that has been known to the police now for years. There was no charge in respect of the first case which would have brought a conviction in the second case. It is not a matter to be trifled with by anybody in this House including—if I might put it to you Mr Speaker—you in the way that you are ruling against my points of order. Twice a point of order has been raised because the reasoning and logic were faulty and I have demonstrated that. Nevertheless you rise to your feet—in a case of murder—and say you agree. We over here do not agree with you at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might not but I ruled and I will stand by my ruling—and I object in the strongest way possible to the implication that I am in any way involved in this sort of area. I am not. I judge the questions and answers given on the questions and answers given. I now invite the Prime Minister to answer the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: One of the many reasons I do have confidence in the Minister of Police is that I know he does not interfere in the conduct of a police prosecution and he did not in this case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not asking the Prime Minister whether the Minister interfered with the conduct of any case; I want to know what went on. It is simply a matter of accessing the file and making it known to the House what went on—even giving the simple answer as to at what level the police decision was made. There is no way that any Minister of Police in any self-respecting Western democracy could deny the House that so why are you Mr Speaker engaging in that and allowing them to get away with it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member puts down a question on notice asking at what level the decision was made not to prosecute it can be answered but it is not reasonable to expect me as Prime Minister to have that sort of detail at the back of my head. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just say that as far as I am concerned that was not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the member to have a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I have a very good point of order. It has been constructed by the very people who seek to obfuscate in this House. The Prime Minister says now that such an answer would be in order but last week it was not—and by your agreement. Last week it was not in order for the Minister even to find out that simple detail. How many times do we have to put up with intellectual death-defying acts before we get some honesty in this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now starting to get objectionable. As far as I am concerned every question that has been asked has been properly addressed. I have ruled in that way and the member does not have a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Despite all of that I bring you back to the answer the Prime Minister just gave to the last supplementary question which asked whether she was “comfortable with the fact that …”. I put it to you Mr Speaker that she went back to the original question which was about expressing confidence in the Minister but did not give the House an answer as to her comfort factor with the police holding evidence that could have guaranteed a murder conviction and opposed the defence of homophobic panic. She did not address that at all and I would like an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister said that she has confidence and as far as I am concerned that is comfort.