Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8769] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It has to be market day because all the fishwives are in town—and they are all in the debate. I want to express my great concern at events in this House this afternoon and yesterday. I want to express disappointment that we are no wiser now than we were yesterday about a non-prosecution for vandalism in the grounds of Parliament. The facts given to me by Danny Alkema the person Labour members purport to defend are as follows: firstly he committed vandalism with his trail bike on 21 May on Parliament’s lawns; secondly he gave himself up to the police confessed and was being processed; thirdly there was— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With reference to your earlier ruling—as raised in the point of order by the Hon Roger Sowry—that I was not able to refer to the issues raised in the point of order yesterday I wonder whether there is any relationship between that ruling and the fact that Winston Peters is quite clearly talking about exactly the same issue? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No he is not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Peters has not once made reference to a point of order; he has said that he wants to know answers to some questions. Having heard from Government members all afternoon on this matter I have to say that it is really very unparliamentary for them not to allow Mr Peters to be able at least to reply to the points that the Minister and her colleagues have made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for raising that issue. It is a very difficult area but I agree that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was not in any way referring to points of order in the same way— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It is exactly the same! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it was not. It was quite distinct and I ask Mr Peters to continue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Danny Alkema—the person Ruth Dyson purported to defend as did the other female members of the Labour Party—told me that he committed vandalism on 21 May that he gave himself up to the police and confessed that he was being processed by the police and that there was right then and there contact between the police and the Speaker. Danny Alkema was told exactly that there and then by the police and he was then told to be on his way with a warning. That all happened on the same day and within a space of 2 hours. 
Today we have been given a different version of events. This different version is as follows: firstly there was no contact between the police and the Speaker’s office; secondly it can be inferred that the police misadvised Mr Alkema about the Speaker’s views; and thirdly the Speaker was involved not by phone but at a meeting later on. So we have two different versions of events and it puts me in mind of that old saying: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive.” 
I ask Mr Speaker whether he can tell me why Danny Alkema’s police file was pulled from the Lower Hutt Police Station last night and brought back to the Wellington office? Can he tell me that? Why was that man’s file pulled last night after question time in the House from the Lower Hutt Police Station and brought back to the Wellington station? Is that a case of political interference in matters of the police or what? Who authorised it? I say that it is time to come clean. What role did the Minister of Police have in that occurrence last night? 
Was Inspector Marty Grenfell involved—yes or no? He was at the meeting on 21 May and he was there at all relevant points of time when Danny Alkema was told that the Speaker’s office had been in contact. After question time yesterday and through last night who spent the hours working on damage control to be ready for today’s question time? The two versions just do not agree. The difference should be cleared up now. 
We want the police records on this matter tabled in this House. The Speaker gave us an assurance yesterday that this matter would be decided by the House. Instead we were swamped by procedural issues generalised facts and a veneer of humanitarian behaviour duplicated in Labour members’ speeches today. They claim their actions—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes they originate from their desire to be humanitarian. Danny Alkema is my informant. He wants this action. He wants to know what happened. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am listening with interest to the member’s speech but I need your assistance. It seems to me that he is indeed referring to a matter that was the subject of earlier points of order both yesterday and today and is seeking to prosecute the matter of the Speaker’s judgment—the judgment of the Chair—in a way that calls into disrepute in my view the statements made by the Speaker earlier today and he even outlined a process that any member of this House can take should they wish to question the judgment of the Speaker’s Chair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The reality is that I am talking about Danny Alkema’s files. I am talking about them being pulled last night. None of that has been a matter of a point of order today or yesterday. That member knows that full well and then he says that he wants your help. Well frankly he is incapable of using it. Can I get back to the debate? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Members know that they must not challenge any Speaker’s explanation or ruling. There is a proper course by which they can do that and members are all aware of it. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was in no way referring to points of order in my view. He was simply expanding on an issue that he has raised before. He was getting close perhaps to criticising or objecting to Speaker’s decisions but I do not think he quite got there. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Is it not a coincidence? Labour members came to the House today with every speaker pleading the correctness of the Speaker’s decision where humanitarian actions and Danny Alkema were concerned. Now can that be a coincidence? Is this pure serendipity? Is this sort of accidental or what? After the Speaker’s statement I think that it is all there. He claims a different time and different events and makes no acknowledgment of a direct phone call. We want the police log of the telephone accounts in respect of that day. We want the telephone account log. We want the police log of that interview with Danny Alkema. That is what we want. We do not want it somewhere else—some other place in the country—we want it on the floor of this Parliament. Let me tell that member who claims to be the Minister of Defence that we will not rest until we get it—because the facts do not support one thing I have heard today.