Ryall Tony: General Debates 
Ryall Tony: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8546] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Public confidence in the New Zealand Police is vital for law enforcement in New Zealand. Mr Speaker I think you need to know that public goodwill towards the New Zealand Police is rapidly evaporating in the face of its inconsistent and aggressive approach to a number of enforcement issues such as speed cameras but also its inconsistent actions with regard to members of Parliament. 
Firstly before I contrast the way Mr Ardern was dealt with by the police with the way the Prime Minister was dealt with I would like to turn to the role of the Speaker in this case. I am looking forward to the Speaker’s statement on how he will deal with such matters as they involve members of Parliament because the contrast is stark. The Speaker remained silent for days on the Harry Duynhoven matter. He sought legal advice and referred matters to the Privileges Committee then waited and said nothing. That silence was somewhat coincidental I am sure with the fact that it enabled the Government to change the law to erase the offence that Mr Duynhoven committed. Yet I note that the Speaker appeared on television news within hours of Mr Ardern driving the tractor up the steps of Parliament with that quote we often hear about “never in my 37 years” had he seen any action like that. But only a few days later we discovered that Mr Tizard had driven a tractor up the steps and I am sure that the Speaker will now recall that in his 37 years he did see reports in the newspapers of Mr Tizard driving a tractor up the steps. 
I will be looking forward to the Speaker’s advice on how he will deal with the way members of Parliament are responded to and I hope he will comment on why he seemed so keen to draw the public’s attention to what Mr Ardern had done. I certainly hope that those who might have suggested that there was some other intent will find that there was not. I would never believe that our Speaker would be involved in anything that would bring any disrespect to the Chair of the House. 
I would now like to contrast the way the New Zealand Police dealt with Mr Ardern versus the Prime Minister. I have had the opportunity this afternoon to reread the official police documents on the allegation of forgery against the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The police found that there was a prima facie case that the Prime Minister of New Zealand had committed forgery. The police went on to actually question the Prime Minister’s evidence. There is a quote here where the Prime Minister said she could not recall television coverage or any publicity about the original charity event. The report goes on to state: “It is however considered unlikely that Miss Clark or her staff were unaware of this coverage.” 
The police drew only one conclusion from the Prime Minister’s evidence and that is an important issue. The Prime Minister did not make herself available to answer police questions. She provided a statement that did not address some of the issues at the core of public and police concern. She refused to be interviewed by the police. Frankly in this quite weighty report the police point out that there was a prima facie case that the Prime Minister did commit forgery. The police go on to say that there was evidence of a conspiracy to defraud and that it might have been appropriate to consider other offences. 
The report also indicates that Mr Chris Carter a Government Minister gave evidence to the police. He refused to make his telephone records available. He further refused even to sign the statement he gave to the police. When it came to accessing his telephone records he threatened the police by saying that they could ask but that it could lead to some very bad publicity. This is all contained in the report which is absolutely extraordinary. 
So what did the police do? The police have discretion in these cases. In making a decision they have to weigh up the various mitigating factors and issues. The police decided that they would not take action against the Prime Minister because they thought the consequences would be too great. Why was that decision not made with Mr Shane Ardern? Was it because he is National and she is Labour?