12. Question No. 12—PoliceCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 12—Police12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Was he told of the comments made by Wally Haumaha to the 2004 Operation Austin inquiry that Louise Nicholas' allegations were nonsense" and that "nothing really happened and we have to stick together" during the appointment process for Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police; if not when did he first learn about those comments?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Acting Minister of Police) In relation to the first part of the question no. In relation to the second part of the question the Hon Stuart Nash was told on Thursday 28 June.Chris Bishop: What did he mean this morning when he said on Newstalk ZB "To be honest I probably would have done things differently. I would have undertaken a bit of due diligence myself made a couple of calls and had a couple of discussions with a few key people?"; and does that mean that he would not have appointed Mr Haumaha if he was aware of the comments made by him in relation to Operation Austin?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Those were questions that the Hon Stuart Nash made in response to—so they were answers in response to questions asked of the Hon Stuart Nash. In any event the Government has commissioned an independent inquiry into this matter and it is not in the public interest for me to provide any further response.Chris Bishop: How was he not aware of the comments made by Mr Haumaha when Louise Nicholas raised concerns a year ago with police that his appointment as assistant commissioner would in her words "come back to bite police in the arse"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I said in response to the primary question the Hon Stuart Nash was told of the specifics of the comments attributed to Mr Haumaha on 28 June; that is last Thursday. The matter is now the subject of an independent Government inquiry and it's not in the public interest for me to comment any further.Virginia Andersen: What actions has the police undertaken to change police culture since Operation Austin and the inquiry?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Police is now a fundamentally better organisation than the one described by the commission of inquiry in 2007. As Dame Margaret Bazley herself has said the police has made a colossal change. Over the last 10 years under the current and previous commissioners women now make up 50 percent of district commanders and they are increasingly entering senior ranks. The police can always do better and that's why we're pushing for greater diversity amongst the force.Chris Bishop: Did the Rt Hon Winston Peters disclose to him during the appointment process of Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner that he was a former New Zealand First candidate?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have provided all the evidence that that statement is not correct. He can go to the Electoral Commission if he likes. He can get the evidence but not come down here and like the rest of his questions just repeat baseless innuendo which is false. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: No I am prepared to rule and that is that there is again something which is longstanding but often ignored and that is that when statements are made they should be authenticated. Now we have had in this House a very clear statement to the contrary from a member without parliamentary responsibility but with responsibility as a party leader on that matter. So I am ruling the question out of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Doesn't the essence of what you've just ruled mean that Mr Peters should in fact authenticate the claim he makes that the man was not a candidate? When we have relied on firstly a local newspaper celebrating his success as being appointed New Zealand First's candidate which was only withdrawn—Mr SPEAKER: OK and subsequent to that we've had a very clear statement from the Acting Prime Minister that the newspaper article was inaccurate. We've had the word of the member which while it was not done in a formal setting like a primary answer must be taken. Unless the member has any evidence to the contrary—and I think evidence about who are candidates and who are not candidates is very easily obtained—then I'm going to stay with my ruling and that is that we will accept the word of the Acting Prime Minister that the particular individual was not a candidate.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Would it be reasonable in this circumstance then for the question to be reworded with the gentleman concerned referred to as a New Zealand First party member who was seeking candidacy?Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member wants to do that he may but he doesn't get an extra question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What the House is being invited to do now is to go beyond the privacy provisions that there are in the electoral law of this country which mean a person can be a member of a party and that is confidential to the party not to the whole country. Mr Brownlee in his naivety gets up and he suggests we go past the privacy provisions of the electoral law in this country and enrolment in this country and party membership in this country just because he wants to indulge himself.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to—Hon Gerry Brownlee: That's an unreasonable characterisation. It's quite unreasonable.Mr SPEAKER: I'm now going to rule that this whole discussion is hypothetical because National have used up all of their supplementaries and there is not an opportunity to reword anything anyway."