Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18746] 
4.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did he ascertain from the police review into Christchurch 111 calls why a Christchurch dispatcher alleged he or she could not contact three traffic units to send to an abduction and an assault on 4 July because they were logged “out of service” and not listening to their radios? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The police have investigated all the allegations made by the member and after listening to the tapes and talking to the staff involved the police found that the claims made by Ron Mark were “factually incorrect”. I prefer to believe the police. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree that this press release issued by police headquarters spin doctors yesterday is not worth the paper it is written on given that the people involved were not even interviewed as part of the Minister’s so-called review of the incident? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is a bit hard to answer that when I cannot see the paper he is referring to but he just waves it around. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I saw a bit of paper that he fluttered. I did not see exactly what it was. 
Ron Mark 
: My wording was quite specific— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I want to know what the reference is. I do not want the wording of the question. 
Ron Mark 
: It is the press released issued by police headquarters yesterday which I actually showed to him and which he just quoted from. He should answer the question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to say the police have listened to the tapes talked to staff members and have come to the conclusion that the member is factually incorrect. I still believe the police. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What advice has he had about the outcome of the police investigation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The review found that those claims were factually incorrect. Both of the original incidents were attended in a timely and professional manner. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did he just tell the House that he had not seen the press statement when clearly he had and why did he not answer the question as to why such a police press statement would have been put out with the police having failed to investigate the matter in person with the people who would know what had gone on? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Some of the people who are on that accusations list made by Mr Mark have not been identified because he crossed their names out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I distinctly recall asking the Minister as to why he claimed not to have seen a press statement that he was quoting from. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If you check the  
Hansard 
 later you will find that the Minister did not actually say that at all. He was simply asking for further information about which piece of paper it was that the member was waving around. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is precisely the indication that I had. I saw the member wave a piece of paper around and the member agrees with me. I think Mr Hawkins did not know what that particular piece of paper was. The member then identified it and that is the substance of the issue of concern. The Minister certainly addressed that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect to you and to Dr Cullen Mr Mark clearly set out that he was talking about a press statement that was put out yesterday and that appeared in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
. It was as clear as daylight. We all know what he was talking about and so does he. To say now that it lacked description because Mr Ron Mark was waving it around when he verbally mentioned what it was is just utter nonsense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. I listened to the whole exchange. I noticed quite a number of members of Parliament on both sides of the House who agreed with what I had actually said. As far as I am concerned the piece of paper could have been any one of a number of press releases. It was not identified further than being a press release. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is what my colleague said: “Does the Minister agree that this press release issued by police headquarters spin doctors yesterday …”. Now what does Dr Cullen take from that? That sort of obfuscation and doubletalk will not do in Parliament any more. My colleague was as clear as daylight. Those were his words and he waved the press statement. The Minister knew when he answered the question what was being asked of him. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think that the member should remind himself what the point of order he raised was. He claimed that the Minister said he had not seen the statement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He did. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Well that is not what the Minister said and for the member’s information more than one police press statement was issued yesterday. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What explanation does the Minister have for the contradiction between his answer in the House today that the police have not been able to interview the parties involved because Mr Ron Mark had blanked out the details and his statement in the House on the afternoon of 8 February when he said he had been advised that despite Mr Mark having blanked out the identifying information the police quickly identified the sources being referred to? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The allegations made by Mr Ron Mark have been investigated as far as the police can go. They have determined that the information he gave was incorrect. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has not answered my question. I am seeking an explanation as to how he can say to the House that the police have not interviewed all those involved because Mr Mark blanked out their names when he had said on 8 February that the police had told him they were able to quickly identify the sources being referred to. It will be a very simple explanation if there is one. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Again the story is changing. What the member asked in his original question—quite rightly—was how the Minister reconciled the fact that on 8 February he said he was advised by the police that certain things had happened with his statement today. If the member cares to think about it the likely explanation is that the police advice originally was incorrect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be very apparent to you and to everybody else who is halfway to being reasonable that that excuse was open for the Minister to make. That was hardly a reply to a point of order by Dr Cullen. If that was correct and if it were true then the Minister could have said that but he did not. He avoided answering the question at all. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The Minister did not answer my question. It might have been that Dr Cullen came to his rescue again but the Minister did not answer my question and you should seek an answer from him. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point I was making was that the member is being somewhat tricky in changing the story in terms of what the Minister’s answer was. In his point of order he claimed the Minister had said that the police had identified it. As the member correctly said in his question the Minister said that he had been advised by the police that they had identified the people. There is a very important difference between those two. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I listened carefully to the exchange and I thought the Minister did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will be apparent to all of us who have ever been Ministers that the Minister’s advice came from the police on not one occasion but both occasions—in respect of his answer today and of that of 8 February as well. Now surely he should be required to answer the question as to how he or his ministry reconciled those two statements which are diametrically opposed to each other. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If he did could you please tell the House and the whole country what his answer is in relation to the reconciliation of two diametrically opposite statements? On the one hand he said that the police got to the informants though their names may have been blacked out; on the other hand today he said they could not approach those witnesses because their names had been blacked out by Ron Mark when the statement was released. What is the correct statement or the correct state of affairs here? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that that was not exactly as stated; there were other comments made too. But as far as I was concerned the Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Minister just tell the House that the police were not able to go beyond the press statement and documents released by Ron Mark because certain items had been blacked out thereby not giving the police a chance to find out what personnel they should investigate; and how does he reconcile that with the statement of 8 February that despite Ron Mark blacking the names out the police got to those people—how does he reconcile those two statements? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What was identified very clearly was what the event was which was not clear when the member originally had the information before the House. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister then explain why it is that on 4 July 2004 at the time that the incident occurred—when the staff involved in the incident and senior traffic officers were discussing it both in writing and verbally—the assurances and explanations that the communications staff received at that time by email bore no resemblance to the miraculous revelations that we are now getting out of police headquarters; is this simply a whitewash a cover-up or a scam? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer one of those questions. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I still prefer to believe the police rather than that member. 
Ron Mark 
: How if the Minister is so adamant that traffic cars attend emergencies does he explain the content of an internal police memo I have from a different region which tells traffic police not to attend general-duties jobs because they are down on traffic-duty hours and manpower and that if they are asked to attend they must seek their traffic supervisor’s permission first? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Commissioner of Police has told all his staff that when on duty they must be prepared to attend priority one calls and that has been repeated in recent days to them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What explanation is there for the contradiction between the Minister’s statement in the House just now—that the police advised him that despite the information being blacked out it was in fact the events they were able to determine—and his statement of 8 February that the police had advised him that despite the blacking out of identifying information they would be quickly able to identify the sources of that information which he denied can be interviewed? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They were quickly able to identify who was in the operations room that night to answer the phone calls that came in. The first of those calls was responded to within 4 minutes and the second within 2 minutes. They listened to the tapes and came to that conclusion very very quickly. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Dr Cullen may like to intervene with regard to this point of order as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please come to the point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: My question asked for the explanation of the contradiction in the House caused when the Minister said he was advised by the police that they could identify the events—that is what he said not 4 minutes ago—whereas in the House on 8 February he said that the police could identify the sources. That is the reason why Mr Mark is querying the Minister’s original answer today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the Minister’s reply and he certainly addressed that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to raise this but my colleague came to the House today because his reputation was on the line. A ministerial statement had gone out stating that he was wrong. He knows that the key sources were not interviewed by the police prior to the release of that fallacious press statement. He came here with one purpose: to ask the Minister why the sources had not been interviewed. 
We have had countless points of order and supplementary questions on this matter and the Minister has clearly not told the House the truth at all. There is a wide variance between what the Minister said on 8 February and what he has said today. His defence today was that the police could not interview the sources because Mr Mark had blacked out the names of the sources on the emails that he had released to the press. That is what he said by way of his first line of defence. We now know categorically from the Minister’s own statement that that is not the truth. We are now at the end of the substantive question and we are no further down the track with regard to getting an honest answer from the Minister. 
Again I ask that the Minister be asked to address the question of why the police did not interview the sources—which he said today was true—and why if that was the case the police put out a press statement when they had failed to interview the sources in the first place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: From what I heard the Minister said that he did not agree with Mr Mark. Certainly if he had been casting any aspersion on Mr Mark’s character I would be the first to say that he had to withdraw it—I would certainly say that. But Mr Mark has a point of view and the Minister has a different point of view. That is what Parliament is all about. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What Mr Hawkins said to Mr Mark was that he preferred to believe the police rather than the member. Are you now saying that that statement was within the bounds of appropriate language in the House—that effectively telling a member that one does not believe him is acceptable while calling him a liar is unacceptable? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course calling a member a liar is unacceptable but when the Minister said he did not accept what Mr Mark had said I took it that he was not casting aspersions on Mr Mark’s personal character. I hope that was the case and I will ask for the Minister’s assurance that it was. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right; that is exactly what I took from what was said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just a little unclear about where we have got to. The Minister stood up and said “No.” but it was unclear what he was saying “No.” to. I would like to remind you that yesterday you required Mr English to withdraw and apologise for saying to Mr Mallard that he did not believe him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I required Mr English to do that just for saying that he did not believe Mr Mallard I certainly may have been in error. All I am saying now is that as far as I am concerned when a member says that another member is wrong he is entitled to do so—of course he is; he does not accept what the other member has said. If I thought that a member was saying that the other member had deliberately misled the House or anything like that it would be an entirely different matter and it has always been ruled on as such.