Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18452] 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by his confirmation in the House yesterday that women are more concerned about speeding than they are about being attacked in their homes even after the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges says that his view is “ludicrous”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The document tabled by the member yesterday—table 9.6 of the New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims—clearly states that 61.7 percent of the 3001 women who participated in the survey were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about being involved in an accident caused by a drunk driver. That was the highest category among the 12 surveyed. I stand by my earlier statement to the House. I also remind the member that since 1999 more than 436 lives have been saved on our roads and that impacts massively on women children and their families. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Minister standing by his ludicrous position when even the Commissioner of Police backed away from this view on radio this morning leaving the Minister hanging out to dry? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No I am relying on the survey results that I quoted a few minutes ago. I do not rewrite surveys. 
Moana Mackey 
: What information can he give the House regarding the success of the police in reducing crime and reducing the road toll? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The statistics issued by the Commissioner of Police for the 2003-04 year show that we had the lowest crime rate for 21 years. Land Transport New Zealand states that since 1990 road deaths have dropped 40 percent despite a 33 percent increase in the number of vehicles on the roads and a 19 percent increase in the population. The outcome of this Government’s policy is that the lives of 436 men women and children have been saved. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister think the family of 83-year-old Mona Morriss who was sexually violated and murdered in her pensioner’s flat last month and the 14-year-old girl who was raped in her bedroom in south Auckland then thrown over a 3-metre fence in the same month would agree with his comment that women are more concerned about speeding than they are about being attacked in their own homes; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have to say those are very tragic events. Everyone sees them as tragic events just as I do. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister consider it appropriate to formulate policing strategies based on an outdated study which purports to reflect public support of road policing over policing of violent crime and if he thinks that that is a valid approach why has his Government not acted on the bigger public opinion survey called the Norm Withers petition? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Our policy covers a range of issues but I want to tell the member that last year we had 403 fewer crimes each and every week of the year. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Minister interpret the crime victims survey to defend the police priorities in issuing speeding tickets over 11 categories of offence surveyed when the questionnaire did not even ask about speeding and on traffic offences asked only about drink-driving and the numbers of women who responded were almost identical in saying they were very worried about that and about sexual offences committed against them? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am just quoting the facts from the survey. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is rape a general duty call-out; if not what response does the Minister have for a young woman who was raped in Hamilton 2 weeks ago who phoned the 111 phone line and was advised that as the address she gave was not far from the police station she could walk around there and make a statement rather than have the police come to the house where the perpetrator was still present? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I must say that I along with everyone else in this House would find that totally unacceptable and I will make inquiries of the commissioner. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why in his opinion as stated in the House yesterday would women be more concerned about speeding cars than being brutally attacked in a home invasion? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It was that member who tabled the statistics yesterday. He obviously has not read them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The  
Hansard 
 is quite clear. The Minister gave a commitment to the House yesterday of what his view was and I am asking him why he said that. The Minister has not answered the question. I want to know why he thinks women would be more concerned about speeding cars than being brutally attacked in a home invasion. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Obviously the member does not remember tabling the statistics where it clearly states that 61.7 percent of the 3001 women who participated in the survey were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about being involved in an accident caused by a drunken driver—the highest category amongst the 12 surveyed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You were good enough to ask the Minister to give an answer to Mr Ryall yet he has risen and given the same answer that you clearly found unsatisfactory in the first place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If he had done that I would have found it unsatisfactory in the second place. He did not give that answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Might I say that he was asked for his opinion and his explanation of why that survey appears to be as he claims. To simply say: well it is because it is and the member tabled it is certainly not in my opinion addressing the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It might not be in the member’s opinion but it is in mine. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how he reconciles his statements made in this question: “I do not rewrite surveys.” and “I am just quoting the facts from the survey.” with the fact that yesterday in reply to questions he compared speeding with the rape of women and said that women were more concerned about speeding when in fact the survey he is referring to the New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims has no reference to speeding whatsoever. How does the Minister reconcile that? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to repeat to the House that the survey actually says that 61.7 percent of the 301 women who participated were “very worried” or “fairly worried”. The member asked about crime happening in women’s homes. That was not included in the survey. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister really consider it reasonable to compare cold-blooded murders with road accidents as he did yesterday in purely numerical terms as a justification for under-resourcing priority one 111 calls; if not then when does he intend to do something about it and what does he intend to do? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They are both very tragic events but of course this Government is doing something about them. Last year we had 43 murders—one of the lowest figures on record for many many years—and the road toll is the second-lowest it has been for very many years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister is more concerned about speeding cars than about being attacked? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not know what the Prime Minister thinks and I do not think she is the sort of person who would want to rewrite a survey. 
Stephen Franks 
: Following Mr Alexander’s question why should people not want the police to focus more on deliberate predators—those who set out to burgle rob rape and hurt people—than on those who do things we all do from time to time by mistake or otherwise intending no harm; and if the Minister cannot tell the difference why does he not ask some murder or rape victims? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a member on the Government benches—I did not see who—who is very lucky still to be in the Chamber. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think that shows a particular attitude to the roads and to road safety. We have been fighting over very many years to get drunks off the road to make sure people fasten their seat belts and to make sure they do not speed. If we do that successfully the toll comes down. It is working. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister telling Women’s Refuge the group that deals with some of the most vulnerable women in New Zealand at the time when they are most vulnerable that he thinks they are wrong to say they are more concerned about being brutally attacked in their homes than about speeding cars? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No I am not saying that. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Has the Minister considered—or indeed sought—the opinions of families such as the Bouma family or the Bentley family as to whether his view that a speeding car is more dangerous than a violent criminal is in fact correct? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member must realise that I was just quoting a survey but I want to say that being hit by a car doing 130 kilometres an hour has equally tragic results. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What remedy do Opposition members have when it has already been pointed out that the Minister has misinterpreted and misquoted a survey and he gets up and says in his defence that he is just quoting the survey that the whole House knows he is misinterpreting and misquoting? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a couple of documents. The first is a copy of the questionnaire of the victims survey of 2001—the part that shows there is no mention of the word “speeding”. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The second document is the transcript of an interview with the Commissioner of Police on  
Morning Report  
today when he would not endorse the Minister’s view. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister of Police remember answering “Yes” yesterday in this House to the Hon Tony Ryall’s question about the women of New Zealand being more worried about a speeding car than they are about being attacked in their homes and will he apologise for the clear implication following from that that somehow a home invasion and a rape are on a par with speeding? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In referring to the survey obviously Mr Ryall did not get it quite right because there was no mention of crime happening in women’s homes. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How could that answer possibly address my question? I quoted the member’s  
Hansard 
. He was the one who said that yes that was exactly what he was saying. I asked whether he remembered saying it. It is clear from his answer that he does not. Then I asked whether he would apologise for the clear implication that somehow a home invasion and being raped are equivalent to a speeding car. Again he did not address that. Time and time again— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well— 
Rodney Hide 
: I have not finished Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has. He has been going on for far too long. The Minister did address the question. It might not have satisfied the member or other members of Parliament but he did address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I contest your ruling. We have asked a dozen questions and we have had the same pathetic answer from the Minister of Police. If you want to finish your last week as Speaker by giving some credence to question time in this House you will demand that the Minister of Police front up and answer the questions that members are asking and that the public of New Zealand want answered. All we are doing is holding the Minister of Police to account for the answer he gave in this House yesterday. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker all the member is doing is making a political point which is perfectly legitimate in this House but it does not mean that he can demand that you do anything. That is totally inappropriate. Nor can he demand that the Minister give a particular answer. Nor can he ask a question where he says there is an implication which does not necessarily follow from what the Minister said. The Minister does not have to accept the member’s word in that respect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. The Minister did give an explanation. He said he was referring to the survey. That is his answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As is the case with a number of Ministers—but this one would be the worst—if one follows  
Hansard 
 day in and day out for a long time now this Minister has failed to perform in the answering of questions in a parliamentary sense in any way that complies with the Standing Orders. The last question was as clear as daylight. All he had to do was confirm whether the answer was yes or no. He entirely lost the plot even about his own  
Hansard 
. If the Prime Minister will not take action against such a Minister then it is a requirement of the Speaker of the House and the House itself to bring him under some sort of control. That is what is failing to happen in New Zealand politics in particular as far as the Prime Minister goes. Now it is up to the Speaker to ensure the Minister does his duty and answers the question. I cannot conceive of any Western democracy where the Minister could behave as incompetently as that and get by question time and still survive. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If members went across the Tasman they would never get away with 12 supplementary questions within the Australian House of Representatives. They are allowed one at the most. That is the nature of their Standing Orders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for interjecting on a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been warned. That is his only time today. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker your duty is to ensure that the Standing Orders are observed and that the Minister addresses the question. You indicated that you were satisfied that that was the case. It is not up to members to then demand in some kind of bullying fashion that you change your ruling. The question that was asked by Mr Hide stated that there was some implication in what the Minister said and that he should have to apologise for it. If the Minister does not accept there was that implication there is no reason for him to address that part of the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am ruling on the point of order which of course I am entitled to do after having heard one person. I heard two. The Speaker does not rule on how Ministers perform. That has never been part of a Speaker’s jurisdiction and I hope never will be. The particular matter raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters is what the general debate is for when members can have their 5 minutes say they are not satisfied and go from there. But it has never been part of the Speaker’s role to rule on how Ministers perform. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you then confirming for the House that the way in which Mr Hawkins has answered his questions today is completely consistent with Speaker’s ruling 145/3? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to what I think was an off-the-cuff ruling that my colleague had raised a matter that was not a point of order. I believe that what he was asking about was what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the House and the attempt concerned a question that related to an answer given yesterday that purported to refer to a survey. The Minister has been asked twice today to recognise to clarify or to clear up that that statement yesterday did not relate to anything in the survey. He refused to give the answer and as a parting shot said that yesterday he had given the answer by quoting from the survey. It was a deliberate and direct misrepresentation both of his statement yesterday and of the survey. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot allege a deliberate attempt to mislead. He knows full well that there is a way to do that which is to write to me about it. If he wants to do so I will read his letter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is true. There are remedies available to members. We can write to you and we can go through a particular process if you see fit. So it would seem that we would probably be better to get some clearer clarification from you about what Speaker’s ruling 145/3 means. Mr Franks and others have alleged quite openly that the Minister is attempting to mislead the House. What then would you consider to be an answer to a question that meets the test of trifling with the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just precisely what that ruling said and I do not believe that it did.