Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1503] 
7. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did the Police Commissioner or any of his staff inform the Prime Minister or any of his staff of the decision not to prosecute Mr Bradley Ambrose; if so on what date? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes; I am advised that police contacted John Key on Monday 26 March to advise him as the complainant in the case of their decision. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Were the police aware that John Key would be overseas on Tuesday 27 March the date on which they publicly announced the decision not to prosecute Mr Ambrose? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I was not involved in that conversation. It is an operational matter and as policing Minister I have no knowledge of that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can she assure the House that there is no relationship between the delay in making the decision not to prosecute Mr Bradley Ambrose and the public announcement of that decision on the one hand and the fact on the other that the complainant is the Prime Minister and that he would be overseas on the date of the announcement? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The police who are operationally independent under section 16 of the Policing Act deal with operational matters on a case by case basis and exercise their discretion as appropriate. It is absolutely inappropriate for any Minister of Police to take any part in an operational matter. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be very clear with the Minister that I was asking a question about the connection between a decision not to prosecute which I accept is an operational matter that is not within her competence and the public relations matters that were associated with that decision for which she is responsible to this House. She has not dealt with that issue at all.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well no the Minister if I heard her correctly said that the Minister’s office is not involved in the decision as to when they make announcements at all. She made very clear to the House that her office had no involvement in that whatsoever. I have got to take her word for that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this speaking to the point of order? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yes. My primary question should have put the Minister on notice that I was interested in knowing about the communication decisions that were made about the decision not to prosecute Mr Ambrose and liaison with the complainant about that matter. So as I say I am not asking her about the operational prosecution decision; I am asking her about the public relations and the communication with the Prime Minister for which she is responsible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister has made it clear unless she wishes to change her answer that she had no part in that communication decision at all. That is what I understood the Minister said and I have got to take the Minister’s word. She answered the question. She said she had no part to play in that whatsoever. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sought an assurance from her that there was no relationship between the communication decision on the one hand and the absence of the Prime Minister overseas. I submit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s question has been answered. He has got more supplementary questions he can use to pursue the matter further should he want. But in terms of that question he asked the Minister I thought was very clear in answering it. She said that her office had no involvement in the public relations decision if that is what the member wants to call it—the communication management of the decision made. That is a clear answer and I have got to take her word for that as the House does.  
Kris Faafoi 
: Given that charges were not laid does she agree with the Prime Minister’s comment that Mr Ambrose’s actions have been “deemed unlawful” and if so why? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Firstly I have no responsibility for the Prime Minister. Secondly I always agree with the Prime Minister. 
Kris Faafoi 
: Given that the Prime Minister said in November last year that police “do have a little bit of spare time” to investigate the teapot tape how much did this investigation—done in police spare time—cost the taxpayer? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that that question was asked of the police at the Law and Order Committee and they said they were unable to put a cost on the investigation. However anyone in this country has a right to make a complaint. The police deal with operational matters and Ministers do not get involved.