Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8653] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This issue is I think the most serious of any I have heard in the House. In recent days you will remember I have defended the office of the Speaker in relation to the handling of the Shane Ardern and Harry Duynhoven cases but since then I have learnt to my grave disquiet of another case in which the evidence points to the office of the Speaker being seriously compromised. It is an allegation that the Speaker’s office directed the police not to prosecute a young man for serious and deliberate vandalism in the grounds of Parliament because a prosecution would embarrass the Government. This young man rode a trail bike on to the grounds of Parliament—to protest he says about the Government’s soft law and order policies and its total lack of concern for the victims of crime. That incident happened on 21 May this year. The young man is emphatic the police told him that charges would not be laid because the Speaker did not want him charged. Further whilst he was being interviewed by police officers another police officer was on the telephone to Parliament. Serious constitutional issues now arise because of that information. 
 An Opposition MP is being charged with disorderly behaviour for a stunt with a tractor on the steps of Parliament a few days after the Prime Minister at a press conference accused him of being disorderly. You yourself said his act was “morally reprehensible”. We can contrast this situation with that of the young protester who deliberately committed vandalism and who wanted to be arrested and charged— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated for a moment. Could he come to what the point of order is; this is a recital of some facts. What is the point of order? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I would have thought it was patently apparent to everyone here including the Clerk and yourself what my point of order is. You have said that you have never involved yourself in police matters and police prosecutions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I haven’t. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes you have Mr Speaker. That was the clear statement made last week. I have been through the  
Hansard 
 records and the clear differential between your office and that of the police we all know. But this is the case of a young protester committing vandalism who wanted to be arrested—who wanted to be charged—yet having been photographed at the police station and the process having commenced was told to go home because the Speaker did not want him to be prosecuted. All of the evidence points to this case being dropped for political reasons. Last week some women shed their clothes in this Parliament. They are not being charged with disorderly behaviour despite the fact that it would be difficult to deny such a charge—the evidence having been on television. 
This Parliament is owed an explanation. The case I am referring to was swept under the carpet to avoid embarrassing the Prime Minister and her Government. If the House does not understand what my point of order is then this Parliament has reached a very parlous state. This was a case of deliberate serious vandalism in the grounds of Parliament. It was also a protest and the offender gave himself up to the police. The case did not go to court; it was shut down for political reasons. The man’s allegation is that whilst he was being processed the Speaker told the police he should not be charged—that you in fact shut down this case. 
This information if factual—if true—is a case of direct improper and inexcusable political interference which goes to the heart of our form of constitutional Government. That is the point of order. That covers the issue I am referring to and you Mr Speaker have to accept that you owe Parliament an explanation about what part you played in this matter and what part the offices of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police played in it. There have been allegations here of double standards of political interference and of using the police as political pawns. That is the Standing Order and point of order I am seeking to make very clear on the facts here—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am not going to be deterred from this Mr Speaker because this is the most serious allegation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to ask the member to come to the point tersely. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: My point is that it is in Zimbabwe where political interference sees the police prosecuting Opposition politicians—not in New Zealand. It is in Third World countries with dictatorships that we see politicians being prosecuted at political behest not in New Zealand or in the First World. These facts suggest an ability of the Prime Minister to get an Opposition MP prosecuted for taking part in a protest while at the same time your office is involved in stopping another prosecution where guilt was admitted. This information points to the traditions of this House and the office of the Speaker being bulldozed aside in the interests of the Prime Minister’s spin machine. You want to know what I am asking for— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have given the member a long time to make a point of order. If members wish to make allegations against the Speaker they must of course give notice of motion. I want to say to the member that I do not have any idea at all of the incident he is referring to—none whatsoever. I invite him if he has anything to give it to me in writing and I will most certainly consider it but I do not know what the member is referring to. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am sorry but with respect this matter is far too important now. When by some coincidence we have Inspector Marty Grenfell formerly of the police office in the room with this young man and when it is said in the inspector’s presence that the Speaker does not want this matter prosecuted or progressed any further the matter is far too important for me to leave it to an in-house inquiry conducted by the person against whom sadly these allegations are being made. 
 I want to know whether we will see before this House that police report of 21 May so we can see whether Mr Grenfell was involved because all the evidence points to that being so. I do not want a Privileges Committee inquiry into this matter. I do not want a Privileges Committee hearing stacked as it is against the view that I am putting up in front of this House stacked with Government MPs. This matter should be thrashed out on the floor of this House and now. The incident occurred during the afternoon of 21 May. There are people in the media who know full well about this case because it was referred to them but because there was no prosecution they dropped it. If Mr Grenfell and other police officers are abusing your office by saying that you are involved then let us have the matter thrashed out now. However if they are not then something dramatically more serious in terms of our form of constitutional Government is at stake now.