Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15236] 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What communications and discussions has he had with members of the police with respect to the incident at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 and is he satisfied with the outcome? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Police confirmed to me that a complaint of burglary was made from that address on that date and that the victim through his lawyer asked that the complaint not proceed and the police independently took that course. Decisions around prosecutions are the preserve of the police not the Minister of Police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell the House the reason that the Phillip Layton Edwards file in relation to the alleged aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 involving Mr Peter Shaw husband of Judge Coral Shaw was stamped “confidential” and “not for unauthorised distribution or disclosure”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that information. However if the member opposite has concerns about misconduct by the police he should raise the matter with the Police Complaints Authority. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That surely cannot be an adequate answer. I am asking him as the Minister to take responsibility for his portfolio. For him to get up and say that in effect I should have gone to the police force—the very people about whom I am complaining—is a nonsense. I want an answer as to why that file—of a serious 50-time criminal—was marked “confidential” and “not for unauthorised distribution or disclosure”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is getting into debate. I ascertained that the Minister did address the question as he should have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister admit that the reason the file has remained confidential to this point is that an instruction was given to the police that they could not prosecute Mr Edwards for an alleged burglary because it was not a burglary; and when does the trauma of a witness or complainant even in cases such as rape and serious domestic violence outweigh the well-established convention that police will always prosecute for violent offences when they have ample evidence to do so? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I shall quote the acting district commander of the Auckland City police Detective Superintendent Gavin Jones who today said that police believed there had been a burglary and confirmed that they had spoken to Edwards about the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that no one could have intimidated the complainant witness in this case given that the perpetrator had admitted to his crime—had confessed his crime—and therefore there was absolutely no reason why the police could not have prosecuted Mr Edwards other than having received instruction from above? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have any role in whether the police prosecute. I quote a wee bit more from what Detective Superintendent Jones said: “In this case the police received strong representations from the victim and his representative not to pursue this matter. Out of respect for his rights the police took the decision not to proceed with a prosecution.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the police not prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards when they had a confession and DNA evidence on file at the time of this offence; why did they need any witness when they had a confession and the DNA evidence? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Detective Superintendent Gavin Jones said today that decisions not to proceed with criminal matters are never taken lightly by the police and that the matter has been dealt with on the same basis as other matters. No special approach was taken or suggested. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why in this case of a violent crime—as the lawyer for Peter Shaw has told the media—do we see on the police file note the following words: “Edwards was spoken to and admitted to the burglary on the understanding that it would never be used against him or published in any way.”; how on earth could this be a case that the police did not prosecute given that Mr Edwards was already guilty of 50 crimes many violent? We had a violent criminal walking the streets who later killed someone. He was a time bomb waiting to happen. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member seems to be suggesting that I as the Minister of Police have a role in those decisions. I do not. The police make those decisions independently in the same way that they independently looked at the trouble in Courtenay Place when members did not pay taxi fares. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of that violent criminal is it not a fact that when it became clear to the police that some of the physical evidence at the crime scene was at odds with the verbal evidence of Peter Shaw he was called to the police station for a second interview and that that further discussion was undertaken with Judge Shaw present; and knowing that how on earth can the Minister not respond in a darn sight more serious way than he is? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you grave concerns about the way that the right honourable member is using question time and I draw this to your attention. I pointed out to you yesterday that he was making allegations that the Standing Orders require to be authenticated. Yesterday he said there was no burglary. He has now told us that the police file shows that the offender actually admitted there was a burglary. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So what. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member interjects again he is out. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The “so what” is this. Under our Standing Orders it is offensive and disorderly for a member to make such comments. Standing Order 113 states: “A member may not use offensive words against the House or against any member of the judiciary.” It appears to me that the member has deliberately brought in a member of the judiciary. The member of the judiciary does not appear to have done anything wrong. But I take this point: how are we supposed to interpret this? I went through the records to see whether any member has ever attacked the family of the judiciary. I cannot find a reference to that but if you have a look at how we regard our own remarks if these remarks were made against the family of a member of Parliament they would be ruled out. 
We have a general principle that this Parliament will not make disrespectful statements against the judiciary and we expect the judiciary not to make disrespectful statements against us. I suggest to you that the member is using question time to make an indirect but obviously very deeply offensive attack against the judiciary. I think all of his questions—once he has made it clear that that is what his real purpose is—ought to be ruled out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been listening to this with a great deal of interest and I want to thank the member for raising the point of order in the way that he did. I have looked at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and all the precedents. It is largely a matter of taste how members comment on persons outside the House. The member is perfectly correct that if Mr Peters had commented about anyone inside the House it would have been ruled out of order. He did not attack the judicial officer in that capacity or really attack her at all. He said that she was present. 
The fact of the matter is that we do have free speech in this place and that is a very precious thing. I for one know that there are signs all around this Chamber representing what we fought for to retain. That means there will be occasions when people do say in this House what they would not say outside it. I have done it myself on two occasions after very very careful thought. I say to the member that as far as freedom of speech is concerned members have it in this House. Whether members comment on persons outside the House is a matter of taste. That is about as far as I can take the matter in all of the studies I have done both here in looking at our Parliament and in Great Britain. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find myself in agreement with your statement except to this extent—that in this House one cannot say by innuendo matters that are out of order. It is not in our  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 but it is in our Standing Orders that members cannot make offensive references to the judiciary. I have to say that I have taken the innuendo from the member’s questioning to suggest that the reason this particular individual has been treated differently is because of the actions of his spouse who happens to be a judge. If the member is not making such innuendo perhaps he should clarify that matter to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to ask the member a question because I want to agree with Mr Prebble. If the member makes an allegation against a judge he will be out of order. Did he make an allegation against a judge? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No Mr Speaker I did not. I want to speak to the point of order as well. If Mr Prebble was remotely right then the answer to question No. 5 today could not have been given. He is engaged in a nonsense to try to break up question time. It is a palpably demonstrable nonsense that he tried yesterday as well. If he wants to defend violent criminals that is fine by me but we do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am legitimately asking a Minister to take responsibility for the actions of a violent criminal who went on to murder someone—murder it would have been had all the evidence been in front of the court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Once again all I can say is that as the member has assured me he has not made an allegation against a judge up to that point he is not out of order. A question was asked and the Minister did not get a chance to answer it because Mr Prebble intervened with a point of order. Perhaps we had better hear the question again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was a man who had previously served time in jail for amongst other things violent offences such as behaving threateningly and assaulting a female not charged by the leader of the investigation Detective Senior Sergeant John Tims when he had the DNA evidence placing Edwards at the scene had a confession and had a preparedness from that man to plead guilty; why on earth was this serious crime not prosecuted; and what is he trying to cover up? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I repeat what Detective Superintendent Gavin Jones said. He believed that there had been a burglary and he confirmed that but he said that in making a decision to prosecute a matter such as this the wishes of the victim are taken into consideration. Victims have rights and the police have a duty to consider those rights seriously. I have no part whatsoever in the police making those decisions and I would be scared of any Government that member would be in charge of if he has that view. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is so sure that he has absolutely nothing to hide and that the police took it upon themselves not to charge Mr Phillip Layton Edwards for aggravated burglary on 12 September 2002 at the home of Mr Shaw the husband of Judge Coral Shaw would he be prepared now to release a detailed forensic analysis of the telephone accounts email or any other communication that would reveal no communication between the police and any other members of the judiciary public or executive that placed the privacy of a man over the safety of society and led to a man being murdered? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As the Minister of Police I do not have such papers and I never see them. I never even saw them when the member refused to pay his taxi fare. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has now had a number of days to acquaint himself with this case and to rise in Parliament to answer the question. All we have heard is evidence why this incompetent Minister should be forced to resign. He might think it is a laughing matter; I do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I will not have members of this Parliament attacked in that particular way. If there is a point of order what is it? I have not heard one yet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You know what my point of order is. Firstly the Minister has tacked on a whole lot of totally irrelevant information in respect of the questioner; and secondly he has again refused to answer the question. I should not have to make that point of order. I am prepared to put up with it because if he is prepared to sow it then I can dish it out. But you must give me a fair go in this House and you have not thus far. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can say that I have given the member a fairer go than any other member in this Chamber. If any person in this House knows that it is the member. He gets a pretty good run. The last comment the Minister made was irrelevant to the question that was asked. I concede that point but as far as the rest of the answer was concerned it addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is exactly why I have previously asked you to look again at those Speakers’ rulings. Mr Peters asked the Minister whether he was prepared to release telephone records and other such material that would give a fair indication of whether there was communication between any members of the executive the police and those others who might be related to this case. The Minister stood up and said he did not have any of that information. Quite clearly he has. He has his own telephone records and presumably he could talk to the Prime Minister and get her records. The question is whether he would release them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did not listen to the question or the answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the seriousness of this case and the fact that we had a violent criminal who was a time bomb—that is why his nickname is Tick—out in the community about to commit murder and this Minister’s clear part today in seeking to conceal the obvious pressure that was put on the police to drop the charges against Mr Edwards which ultimately would have saved Mr McNee’s life will he now do the right thing and resign? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister not feel any responsibility as Minister having picked up the LTD and the ministerial salary for what became a violent murder in the city of Auckland when there was a clear opportunity as Minister and as a police force to have this violent criminal in prison at the time that offence occurred and what would it take for the Minister to resign? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If I make a mistake and I have not. I think that the police have handled this in the way they handle all cases.