Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15461] 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments in the House yesterday at what level was the decision made not to prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards for the aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002 and why was the decision made at that level? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is not my practice to get involved in specific police investigations. However given inferences that some have tried to draw from this situation I have decided because of public case in this case to advise the rank of the police officer concerned. Police have advised me that the decision not to prosecute was made by a detective senior sergeant because he was the officer in charge of the investigation in accordance with police procedure. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who is that person—that is what is his name and in what office does he reside? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Giving out the names of police officers doing their work is something that I do not want to do because it could damage the safety of the individual or lead to unwarranted political pressure on the police not to do their job without fear or favour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that if such a question was put down in writing it would get an answer. Today we are back to the behaviour of last week and every question until the Prime Minister gave that assurance. The Minister began by saying that he would break from what he has established as his own convention—which is not to be found anywhere else under any previous police Ministers—and give out the detective’s rank. The fact is that a number of the officials engaged in this investigation have spoken and are already known. We are entitled to know this person’s name and to know what office he operated in at that time. How long do we have to go on in this House putting up with this sort of obfuscation when the Minister knows that he has had weeks to get ready for this answer and the Prime Minister promised this House that we would get an answer? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think this is a classic example of the operation of Standing Order 370. The Minister is perfectly entitled to decline to give the name in the matter of the public interest—that is to protect the police officer because police officers should be protected from inappropriate pressure that might arise by naming them in connection with certain events. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has given his answer. It is over to him how he does so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister what office the decision maker operated in when the decision was made? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think that giving those details is not usually very helpful to the safety of police officers and it adds to the political pressure that can go on to police. It is very easy to find out who the detective senior sergeant is because there are not very many of them at individual stations. In fact some stations do not have them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of it but in our law one may not challenge a police officer’s decision to prosecute. Three years ago there was a famous case in the UK in which the decision not to prosecute was challenged successfully. It was ground-breaking law and it would apply in this case as well. There was no case; there was a decision not to prosecute and no one in this case needs to be protected by Parliament other than anyone who happens to be an innocent victim. So I think I am entitled to know what office made this decision. If I am not entitled to know that then the public is being shut out and shut down by a cover-up and this House cannot tolerate that. So I ask again for the Minister to advise this House what office made that decision. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister answered that question in the primary answer. He stated that it was the detective senior sergeant who was the officer in charge of the investigation. That is a complete answer to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it is not. Point of order! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will rule on this. The Minister has given an answer and he is entitled to do so in the way that he did it and I judge that he did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Cullen’s point of order is totally erroneous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not the member’s point of order. He was speaking to your one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So you are telling me that I am not entitled to an answer now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have given the answer. The answer is that the Minister gave an answer and that is satisfactory as far as I am concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is simply this. What we are seeing here is now collusion in a cover-up. Yesterday that Minister was admonished by his own Prime Minister to the extent that she said: “If that question is put down in writing then the member will get an answer.” Today 24 hours on we are being told the reverse. This House—and any self-respecting democracy—is able to hold any other Minister of the Crown to account. Now we are being shut down completely by a Minister who began by saying it is not his practice but that he would answer the question and who then gave out a snippet of information and denies this possible fact: if the decision making was shifted to another person of equal rank in some other office then that is relevant to this case. I want to know what the answer is. That is my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order was that the Prime Minister said that the question could be put down. It was put down. The Minister gave an answer and he is entitled to give that answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was it not made known to the jury in the McNee case that Edwards was not a stranger to McNee but had known him for at least 3 years—a failure that obviously led the jury to reduce the verdict from murder to manslaughter—which elicited the comment last night from Bill Hodge a criminal law specialist at Auckland University that: “The jury must have started with the presumption that Edwards and McNee were strangers and it was a one-off and if the defence were aware of the missing evidence they would have no choice but to go to murder.”; why was that information not known and made known to the jury? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is out of order because this matter is still sub judice. I have taken advice on this and that is the opinion I have been given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The trial is over. It now awaits the matter of the sentence. I am asking about information that was not given to the jury. It is not sub judice because the conviction has already been entered by the jury. The decision went against Mr Edwards. What could possibly be brought to bear now on the jury’s mind as the jury is no longer hearing this case? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Even if that point were correct I suggest that the question is out of order on another ground. The Minister of Police is not responsible for the evidence presented to a court by Crown counsel. Whether that matter was adduced in evidence is a matter for Crown counsel. It is also my understanding that the evidence probably would have been inadmissible in any case. It is not a matter for the Minister of Police to determine whether Crown counsel presents evidence in a quite separate case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Irrespective of that I refer the member to Standing Order 112(2) which is quite specific. It states that the sub judice rule ceases to have effect when the verdict and sentence are given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the Standing Order I know—as will the Clerk of the House know—that the sub judice rule is to protect any possible bearing on evidence before the court. The case is over so how can you assert the sub judice rule given that there is no longer any trial? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I follow the Standing Orders. If the member reads Standing Order 112(2) he will see that I am bound to follow it. It states that the sub judice rule ceases when the verdict and sentence are given. That is the end of the matter. Supplementary question Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Murray Smith:I 
 raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a supplementary question that United Future has been trying to ask for some time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon I do acknowledge that. I will allow Mr Peters to continue as he has started his question. The member will get the next one. I am sorry about that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the police not make it known to the prosecutor that Edwards’ claim of not knowing Mr McNee was false and that they had been seen together frequently before the night of the killing? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the same point again. I do not see what responsibility the Minister of Police has for evidence adduced by Crown counsel during a trial. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is patently obvious that the prosecutor will rely on the evidence given to him by the police. If the police do not give it to him and he knows nothing about it then he will not elicit it in a court of law. That is so absurdly obvious that I cannot believe anybody would rise to make a point of order. I am asking why a critical piece of information that went to the core of whether it should be a murder conviction or a manslaughter conviction was denied to the prosecutor. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is not actually the question the member previously asked. His question was why was evidence not presented to the jury. The question of why it was not presented to the prosecutor is quite a different issue. I invite the member to present evidence that that information was not made available to the prosecutor. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If we look at the  
Hansard 
 we will see that the last comment I made to distinguish the point of order sought to be made by Dr Cullen was that the police had not made that information known to the prosecutor. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Police. Now I am being asked by the Deputy Prime Minister to provide the evidence to the House when the person who holds the warrant and the portfolio responsibility for that is the very person who for weeks has been obfuscating on this issue. On this day—about the 12th day of parliamentary questions on this issue—the Minister has decided that the issue is all sub judice. Why was that not raised from day one? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that he is still referring to a case that is pending adjudication and he should see Standing Order 112(2). 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that the decision that was made not to prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards for the aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue was not subject to interference from himself or from any of his ministerial colleagues; if not then which Minister was it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes I can give that assurance. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who gave the assurance to Edwards that his name and the events surrounding this case would never come out in public; who in the police force gave that assurance to Edwards who had 50 convictions already at the time the assurance was given to him? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not read police files. I think it is very wise that Ministers of Police leave the police to get on with the job instead of trying to do it themselves. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No one has asked this Minister of Police to get involved in a decision to prosecute or otherwise. I am merely asking this Minister what happened. What is the truth? What went on? For him to give the sort of answer that he did the other day—for which he is giving a different version now—that he does not have the information and does not want the information shows contempt for this Parliament. He should not be allowed to get away with it particularly since someone innocent died. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the member has not raised a valid point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it very clear to you that I know of no Western democracy where a Minister could get away with this and be protected and shielded by rulings from the Speaker in the way that I have witnessed these last few weeks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is accusing me of bias in this way— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I am not. I am making a comparison— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please sit down when I am on my feet. Do not interject when I am on my feet or you will leave straight away. I say to the member that I have been very tolerant and lenient but he is asking questions to which the Minister has given his answer. The Minister was entitled to give that answer. That is where the matter rests. As I said before I am not here as a quizmaster to adjudicate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No Mr Speaker you are here to ensure that when questions are properly put this Government and this Minister in particular are held to account. If you are not prepared to have someone make a comparison with other Western democracies then in my view you are totally outreaching your authority in this House. I am entitled to make a comparison. I am entitled— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had quite enough. The member will sit down. I will not reply to that. That was a direct challenge to me and I will not have it. The member knows that he is out of order and he should desist immediately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This had better be a new point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is a new point of order. I do not know that I am out of order at all. I say to you that there is no Western democracy where a Minister would get away with this. If you know in which democracy a Minister would get away with it please tell us. This has come to a disgraceful level. A Minister is involved in a cover-up whereby someone was murdered and the jury never heard the evidence that would have brought that murder conviction. Please tell me where else in the Western World I would witness this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not have to do that at all. I have made my statement. The member is grossly disorderly. If there are any more comments from him today I will name him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I hear that threat one more time it is my intention to leave this House and come back with a motion of no confidence which I am entitled to put. If any members on this side of the House cannot see the point I am trying to make then woe be to them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the member has now made that comment. He is entitled to do what he likes as far as notices of motion are concerned. I am also entitled to name the member. I name the member and ask that he be suspended. 
Question time interrupted.