Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10421] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I cannot allow the comments of Mr Chester Borrows to go unchallenged because at the end of the day—and I think the comment has been made today—people will be judged not on what they say in this House not on what they purport to do or say they are going to do but on what they did while they were in Government when they had the power the authority the ability and the resources to do something. 
It is interesting to hear the criticism over the lack of consultation with the police. Let me just say this to National Party members: the New Zealand First policy in the last election was to double the size of the police force; that is our policy. Over a period of time we intend to double the size of the police force. Given the opportunity to negotiate with the Labour Party as an incoming Government as to how we would take the first step to achieve that we set a target of 1000 extra front-line police on top of the 250 community service police that the Labour Government had already budgeted for. 
It is interesting to hear Mr Borrows talk about the lowering of recruiting standards. The obvious question is whether the police would take an overweight policeman today—yes or no? Are there any overweight policemen in the force today? Yes. Why do the police continue then to discriminate against young recruits when their leadership itself is demonstrating that it is not prepared to undergo the same physical tests that it demands of the young men and women under its command? The great thing about the Ministry of Defence—and Corporal Willy Apiata is a great example—is that people lead by example. 
The message I have for any ex-policeman or any current policeman who proposes to be a leader of the police either as a Minister or as a senior officer in the police is to get his head around a couple of things. New Zealand First negotiated an extra 1000 police. Why? Because we believe that is the minimum number that is needed. Our policy is to double the size of the police force and I ask members not to underestimate our resolve to do that. I say to Chester Borrows that if he comes to the coalition negotiating table after 2008 and he is not prepared to talk about it he should get out. If he is prepared to come to the coalition table and he does not want to talk about increasing the size of the police force he can get out of the room. Likewise if he comes to the coalition discussion table and is not prepared to talk about crushing gangs he should get out of the room because we in New Zealand First would not be interested. If that man wants to be the Minister of Police if he wants to be in a Government if he wants to be at the Cabinet table he has to get his head around the fact that 1000 is a start. 
Speaking of a start we remind the National Party that 1000 is only the first pick of it and the Labour-led Government has agreed to increase recruiting so that by 2010 New Zealand has the same ratio of police per capita as Australia. The question I have for the National Party members is whether if the Labour Government commits the Budget towards doing that they will support it. Will the National Party members support it or are they going to wait until they get into Government in 2008 and do what they did in 1990 and cut the police budget? Are we now hearing about all the inoculation spoken of in  
The Hollow Men 
; is the ground being prepared 
for the public so that when National says it will cut the police budget people are prepared for it? 
Maurice Williamson is looking at me right now. I know Maurice Williamson because I was in Government when he was a Cabinet Minister. He will have no qualms about cutting the police budget and neither will Tony Ryall Bill English Nick Smith nor Chester Borrows because that is what National members did in the past. If members look at this report and the financial review they will see the one thing that New Zealand First members are pleased with and that is the increase in police numbers. 
The question we now have is whether the National Party will commit towards extending those numbers to give us the same ratio of police per capita as Australia or will inoculate the public during the next 2 years in preparation for a welshing on and a cutting of the police budget. This is the party that pledged an extra 500 police. I ask Mr Borrows to let me show him the National - New Zealand First 1996 coalition agreement. Where was all that great consultation from his front-bench members then when they agreed to the 500 as written on page 48? I ask him to read it; that is what his party signed up to. 
So I tell him not to knock this initiative; it is what the country wants. For a party that is committed to law and order the first thing it needs to do is to talk to Chief Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department and to anyone who has seen the success of the zero tolerance policy. We have to have more feet on the beat if we want to make an impact on crime.