Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:15327] 
12.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did the police receive a call to the Alexandra Park Raceway on Wednesday 25 August to attend an incident at the select committee hearing on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill; if so what was the nature of the call? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes I am advised that a call was made to the police by the clerk of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that there were people causing difficulties in the committee room. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that he has now decided to answer questions when they are off the question of the murder why did it take 35 minutes for the police to respond to three calls from worried and concerned select committee members and staff deliberating on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill who reported violent and abusive protesters when the police were made aware well in advance of the security risk? Why did it take 35 minutes? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think 35 minutes was too long and I am asking the police to tell me why. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We had a fiasco yesterday and today concerning what this Minister of Police would not do. Now we find that he will do things but not when it comes to a certain line of questions in the House. What will be the rule here? Can he get away with that answer now and get away with a different answer earlier in the day when he was asked a serious question about a dramatically serious matter and he said it was not his responsibility and he would not access any file? What is to be the answer now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a question and he gave an answer. He has to stand by it. He addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said earlier today that he does not interfere in operational matters. He has now told us that he does. What is to be your standard of ruling when it comes to this Minister given Standing Order 370 which requires him in the public interest to answer the question properly and stick to the facts? That is what Standing Order 370(1) and (2) says. He is getting away with murder and you are allowing him to get away with it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes you are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not argue with me while I am on my feet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will tell it later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will have it out later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is unnecessary to make that comment. I say to the member that I have to judge as Speaker whether the question is in order. I have to judge whether the answer is in order. I do not rule on the substance of the answer or the question as long as they are in accord with the parliamentary Standing Orders and they were. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The matter that has been raised by Mr Peters is quite a serious one. I ask whether you might give us some consideration in a ruling a little later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will do that. 
John Carter 
: The issue is this. We in this House accept that the Minister while a case is current would not want to interfere in it but we have a right to expect reports once the case is finished. The particular case that Mr Peters has been discussing is finished and the Minister has every right from a policy perspective to be informed. He has not and he has told the House he has not yet he has now just contradicted himself by saying that he is getting a report on a policy issue. We do need to have some consistency in the answers. This Minister has just given an example of our not getting consistency. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it would be valuable for you to provide such a ruling. Perhaps as part of the ruling you could outline the traditions in the House as to Ministers’ responses on policy issues on resourcing issues and on response times which Ministers traditionally have reported on to the House as opposed to individual prosecution decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the Minister’s comment earlier today that he does not get involved in operational matters and his comment in respect of question No. 12 today which suggests he does why has he sat in this House for 2 days telling barefaced lies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the member. He is asking about this particular question; he is not referring to previous questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is this. I ask the Minister why he is giving an answer that clearly indicates he does get involved in operational matters. He stated he was going to get a report from the police when earlier today he said the very reverse not once but over and over again. It is a disgrace in political terms because it calls into contempt the very idea of political and executive accountability. There is none where this Minister is concerned and you are allowing him to get away with it. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Prebble to keep quiet. We all know about his performance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am entitled to have my point of order heard without interruption. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes but I would like the member to be terse. He has made the point already twice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I have made the point and I will go on making it because frankly there is no accountability when a Minister can make a statement like that which suggests that it is not true and get away with it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The member has involved me in it. I would have thought that something stage I law students would understand is that there is such a thing as constabulary independence. Only a constable can make a decision on whether to arrest someone. We have heard clearly from the Minister that he is not prepared to question that. How the police are resourced and how long it takes the police to respond to matters are completely different questions. Neither of those questions involve constabulary independence. It is quite proper for Mr Peters to ask questions about those matters and it is quite proper for the Minister to reply. It is really quite bizarre that now Mr Peters is getting answers to quite proper questions he is objecting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Prebble put the matter exactly correctly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect we are not asking anyone to arrest someone; the arrest has already taken place. We are asking why he was not charged. Mr Speaker you can clearly see the distinction in the argument we are making here. To say that Mr Prebble got it right is nonsense. We are not asking for someone to be arrested. We are asking for the reason why someone was not charged and that is an operational matter that he does involve himself in. He just confirmed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is wrong. 
I refer the member when we come to questions to members to the fact that the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee is absent. A question to a member must be held over to the next sitting day pursuant to— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where is the answer to my second supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He answered the supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the member could put— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is so patently obvious what is going on here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member put the supplementary question again? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister say now that he will get involved in operational matters—and he does that by seeking the report—when earlier today over and over again he said he does not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is policy not individual cases. I would have thought that member has been in Parliament long enough to know the difference. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can that be an adequate answer in this House? He was asked a very simple question and up he got attacked the questioner and refused to answer the question he was asked in the first place. Can we get an answer to that question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is a disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is going very close to the line. I have given him very generous treatment because he is the leader of a major party but he has just about reached the bottom. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If you think that sort of behaviour is OK it’s a disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber for the rest of the afternoon. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.