M.P. asks about Aust. police interview in Chch

Press, 19 July 1979, Page 4

M.P. asks about Aust. police interview in Chch

PA Wellington Questions about the interview of a man in Christchurch by Melbourne detectives concerning the murder of a New Zealand couple, Douglas and Isobel Wilson, were asked in Parliament yesterday by a Labour member, Mr R. W. Prebble (Auckland Central). Mr Prebble asked the Minister of Police (Mr Gill): “Did he see the South Pacific Television news at 6 p.m. on July 11 reporting that two Melbourne police detectives had interviewed a man in Christchurch who they believe is a major drug dealer and, if so, have the Melbourne police told the New Zealand police who they believe the ‘Mr Bigs’ are?” Mr Gill replied: “Yes, I did see the news programme. In accordance with normal practice, since the commencement of the inquiry into the deaths in Melbourne of

Douglas and Isobel Wilson, there has been full cooperation and an exchange of information between the New Zealand police and the Victoria police. “On June 17, 1979, at the request of the Victoria police, a New Zealand detective travelled to Melbourne to assist with inquiries into the Wilson homicide.

“On July 9, two Melbourne detectives came to New Zealand with the New Zealand detective to make inquiries in New Zealand. The New Zealand detective is assisting his Melbourne counterparts with inquiries in New Zealand.

“Naturally, there is a considerable flow of information between the police services in Australia and New Zealand and a disclosure of its content would sometimes be prejudicial to the matters under investigation. I am advised this is such as occasion,” Mr Gill said.

Mr Prebble then asked the Minister of State (Mr Thomson), who read Mr Gill’s reply because Mr Gill was not in the House, if he could confirm that a Mr Peter Fulcher, who had been reported by “Truth” newspaper to be the man questioned, was the man questioned by Melbourne policemen. The Minister of Justice (Mr McLay) submitted to the Speaker (Mr Harrison) that the question was not in order because the Minister of Police had already said it would not be in the public interest to provide the information asked for in Mr Prebble’s original question. It had been previously ruled that a Minister could refuse to answer a question if the public interest was imperilled, Mr McLay said. But Mr Prebble said a newspaper had already said

who the person interviewed was. It would be “a very strange state indeed” if members of Parliament were to know less of what was going on than did the public.

Mr Prebble said it was up to the Minister of Police, not some other Minister, to say what public interest was involved.

Mr McLay said the fact that a person had been named in a newspaper did not mean that the Minister of Police was obliged to answer a question about him in Parliament if it would imperil the public interest. Such information would be privileged in a court and no court would require the police to answer such a question, because it would be contrary to the public interest.

“It is clear that the public interest would not be served by any further questions,” Mr McLay said.

The Speaker said it was up to the Minister, not himself as Speaker, to decide if the public interest was involved.

Mr Thomson then replied to Mr Prebble’s supplementary question asking him to confirm that Mr Fulcher was the man questioned.

“I have no information to give to the member on his supplementary question,” Mr Thomson said.

Mr D. R. Lange (Lab., Mangere) then asked Mr Thomson if the person he would not answer the question about was the same person reported in “Truth” to have said he had been interviewed by the Melbourne police and to have said he had nothing to do with drugs. Mr Thomson answered: “I have no information to give to the member in relation to his question." Mr F. D. O’Flynn (Lab.,

Island Bay) said the Minister’s answer was “quite unsatisfactory.” The Minister was required to say if the public interest would be imperilled by giving the information sought. Mr A. J. Faulkner (Lab., Roskill). What are you hiding? Mr Thomson replied: It is a fact I have no information to give to the member. (Laughter).

Mr Prebble then asked if the Minister had been briefed sufficiently to confirm or deny that the man questioned was “one of several key men in an international drug ring” referred to in the South Pacific Television news.

Mr Thomson replied: “I have no information I can assist the member with.” He said he had not seen the television programme. Earlier, Mr McLay, answering another question

by Mr Prebble, said the man reported to have been interviewed by the Melbourne police had not been interviewed while he was in the custody of the Justice Department.

The man in question initially had been remanded in custody but had subsequently been released on bail.

Mr McLay said he could have been interviewed when he was on bail. Mr Prebble, in another question on the Parliamentary Order Paper, due to be answered today, will ask Mr Gill. “Has he seen in the “Auckland Star” of May 26 the identikit drawings of the two people wanted for questioning in relation to the murder in Melbourne of two New Zealanders, Mr and Mrs Doug Wilson, and if so, was the drawing authorised by the New Zealand police and who are the two people shown?”