Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15539] 
10.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Was the detective senior sergeant in charge of the investigation into an aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002 the only person involved in the decision whether to prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards; if not who else was involved in the decision-making process? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes I am advised that the detective senior sergeant in charge of the investigation made the decision not to prosecute. I am further advised that the office of the commissioner has had absolutely no input in the decision. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the detective senior sergeant in charge of the investigation into an aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002 the person responsible for stamping the police file of the incident “Confidential and not for unauthorised distribution or disclosure”; if not who is? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that information. I do not ask for police files. I do not see them ever and I do not intend to start to. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I draw to your attention some facts and in doing so ask— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: The point of order is this. The Minister received no less than eight questions for written answer on this issue on 16 August to which he responded on 24 August. We then started to ask oral questions in this House on 25 August and have done so every day. Are you to accept that the Minister has despite all of that not looked at the case or asked for a briefing? He has admitted in the House that he brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. He must have had a reason for doing that. Am I to accept that he has not at any stage since 16 August up until now looked at that file and at that issue despite the fact that he has called for a complete report on the failure of police to respond to a select committee call? Is that a credible position for us to have to accept? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The short answer to that question is yes. The Minister has stated it any number of times and the Minister having stated that the member has to accept his word unless he can prove otherwise. If he can other mechanisms are available to him to deal with that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And that is correct. If the member would simply look at Speaker’s ruling 144/6. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this another point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is another point of order. The requirement though is that when questions are answered in the House an answer should be given consistent with the public good. If you look at the face of this situation you will find that the police decided not to prosecute and the person they decided not to prosecute eventually murdered somebody else. There is a degree of murkiness around the relationship between the murderer and the murdered person. It stretches the credibility of the House and indeed of the Minister if we are supposed to accept that he never asked the police what went on there. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Firstly may I suggest that members should be pulled up when they accuse people of doing things contrary to what the jury has already actually decided. It is not for this House to start acting as some kind of Court of Appeal for the prosecution in those cases. What the Minister has said many times is that not only has he not seen the police file but he does not wish to do so it is not his practice and he will not. That is a very good practice for a Minister of Police to follow. If the member thinks through he might care to think why it is a good practice in a democracy for Ministers not to be reading police files. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. I do not need any further assistance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’ll take another one then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not take another one. If I give a ruling the point of order will be a new one. It is up to the member what he accepts; it is no business of the Speaker. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask then on that particular issue how the Minister can answer the question as to who stamped the file if he has had no advice? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a supplementary question. In the answer he gave he addressed that particular question. 
Ron Mark 
: What possible reason could there be for the police not to prosecute a serious repeat violent offender and further offer him guarantees that the matter in question would never be disclosed despite the following: first the police having a DNA strike linking the offender to the scene; second the police having a confession from the offender; and third the fact that the police did not require any further evidence to secure a prosecution? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police make decisions every day on the evidence before them and of course on whether they think they will get a conviction. The Commissioner of Police who is the highest-ranked officer in the country has himself reviewed the file and he has advised me that usual procedures were followed in this case. There is absolutely nothing out of order. The case is completely above board. 
Ron Mark 
: If Peter Shaw was not required to go to court and give evidence in order for the police to secure the conviction of Edwards what trauma could the police have possibly been considering when they used that as part of their excuse not to prosecute Edwards for the Rocky Nook Avenue incident? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not know what part of the story the member does not understand. Ministers of Police do not get involved in individual prosecutions. They never have and never will. I think it is a very dangerous thing that he is suggesting I do and I hope he never gets the chance. 
Ron Mark 
: Did police investigations into the reported aggravated burglary reveal that Phillip Edwards had visited 8 Rocky Nook Avenue a few days prior to the alleged violent attack on Peter Shaw on 12 September 2002? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is a matter for the police. 
Ron Mark 
: Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No New Zealand First has had its number today. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to ask one further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask a further supplementary question. The party has had its supplementaries but a member may seek leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just reflect on where things got to yesterday with the possibility that where Ministers were not answering questions some extra supplementary questions might go towards them. I think you are in danger of contradicting the ruling you gave yesterday because by adhering to the formula that you have decided to apply to the House you are judging that the Minister has answered the questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not judging his answers and I am not expressing any degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. He was asked a question. In each case I listened very carefully and I thought that he addressed the question concerned satisfactorily in terms of the Standing Orders. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you can give New Zealand First some guidance. Is looking at a police file getting involved in police operations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not something that I can rule on at all. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We accept that you cannot rule on it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then why raise it as a point of order? 
Peter Brown 
: Because I wanted confirmation. We have seen quite some questions asked by New Zealand First members—and indeed by other members—on this issue. It is an issue where the public have got the perception that something is not right in the State of Denmark—to put it bluntly. We believe that the Minister should at least examine the file and answer questions on what is in it. We do not believe that that is getting involved in the operations of the police. If he cannot we question why we have a Minister of Police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: First of all we are New Zealand not Denmark. Secondly I say to the member that he is just entering into debating material.