Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19510] 
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that Sergeant Fogarty’s letter to the south Auckland dairy owner stating “Due to the sheer volume of complaints and limited resources … I am left with no alternative other than to record and file this matter.” was ill-advised; if so why was the letter ill-advised? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by the statement because the letter does not appear to have indicated the extent of the follow-up inquiries that had already taken place into complaints made by the dairy owner over a period of time. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister have any sympathy for Sergeant Fogarty who has the Minister of Police saying that he has all the resources he needs when in fact he has only two staff when he is supposed to have six; that his three-man Papakura inquiry team has 80 assigned cases to investigate and 300 unassigned as at the beginning of this week; and he now has the Prime Minister dumping on him for managing to get out a letter to a dairy owner stating that he simply does not have the resources to investigate the case? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the police in the area had a good deal of contact with the dairy owner and indeed have made considerable efforts to follow up on his complaints in the past. In recent days following the publicity that the member has assisted in giving the matter the police have been talking with the dairy owner again and I am satisfied that they are doing their best. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Prime Minister explain to the House how she reconciles her statement in the House yesterday that both she and the Deputy Prime Minister have been at pains to uphold the operational independence of the police with the fact that her officials have been phoning the Counties-Manukau district police commander Superintendent Steve Shortland regularly over recent days to discuss that case; and could she explain why those activities of her office are not an expression of no confidence in both the Minister of Police George Hawkins and the Commissioner of Police Robbie Robinson? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No doubt if such calls have been made they have been made in order to elicit information to answer questions being posed by Opposition members in the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Prime Minister’s officials were contacting the Counties-Manukau police and asked how many assigned cases there were in Counties-Manukau what was the answer to that request? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not been asked precisely that question so I would not have been seeking information about that nor do I seek from my officials every detail of every inquiry they make trying to follow up questions from the Opposition. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Prime Minister allowed the police force to become so under-resourced that rape complaints in Counties-Manukau have been left lying idle and unallocated for months on end and a pile-up of over 1000 other complaints that were not actively being investigated; where the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police are trying to justify their traffic policy on the basis that women fear dangerous driving more than they fear rape; or where for example two child rapists were allowed to be placed on home detention and then were able to go on to create five more female victims? How come she has allowed the police force to become so under-resourced in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Over five Budgets this Government has increased police spending by just under 20 percent. That is very significant resourcing. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: When the Prime Minister’s officials this week contacted the district commander Superintendent Steve Shortland did they raise the fact that prior to Christmas Superintendent Shortland went into the Papakura Criminal Investigation Bureau office where detectives had just finished an 18-hour shift and berated them for being “lazy” because they had not issued enough traffic tickets; if so is the Government not satisfied with the number of tickets going from 5000 4 years ago to 17000 last year; how many speeding tickets does this Labour Government actually want? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea as to the veracity of the various statements the member has made. She had a number of questions wrapped into one. But I will say that after the sadness of the Easter road toll I am surprised that anybody thinks speeding is not a problem in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister thinks it is a laughing matter that the police are so under-resourced as evidenced by the Commissioner of Police immediately pointing to further resources going to Counties-Manukau to try to solve the problem; why does she not admit that she has failed to resource the New Zealand police force properly? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I say with some pride that under this Government police spending is up almost 20 percent. I say with pride that the total numbers of police are up 12.3 percent. I also say with pride that the number of sworn officers is up 7.5 percent after years of under-resourcing and plans to cut the number of police officers under a National Government. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the Prime Minister’s reaction to the fact that similar letters to Sergeant Fogarty’s letter have been sent by many other district sergeants stating that recording and filing can be their only response to serious crime at this time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What concerns me is that ACT has been so keen to publish those letters that in effect they act as an incentive to commit crime if the impression is around that people can be caught on a video surveillance camera and never apprehended. I would recommend to ACT the editorial in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
: “A dangerous message to criminals” which ACT took part in giving. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If crime is down as her Minister keeps saying it is and the resources are up as she and the Minister keep saying they are why do we have all around this country cases of uninvestigated crime—for example rape complaints in Counties-Manukau left lying idle and unallocated for months; how can both those contentions by the Government be remotely true and is it not a fact that she has failed to properly resource the police force around New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the member cannot argue with is the spending increase of 19.7 percent over five Budgets; what the member cannot argue with is the lowest rate of crime since 1982; and what the member cannot argue with is the statement—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is far too much noise. I cannot hear the answer to the question. That is the last warning for today. Please continue. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What members cannot argue with is a 19.7 percent increase in police spending over five Budgets; what they cannot argue with is the lowest rate of crime in 23 years under a Labour-led Government; and what they cannot argue with is the statement made by the president of the Police Association Mr O’Connor who said only on 2 March this year: “It is worth noting that again the injection of sorely needed frontline police in the Auckland and Counties Manukau districts have had a huge impact on bringing crime down.” 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that it is your intent to bring a little decorum to the House and therefore you focus on reducing barracking— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: It is. It is a request— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could you please come to the point of order Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: Well my point of order now is your impatience and intolerance in allowing Opposition members to complete their points of order before you chip in. Can you rule on that please? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker you were perfectly right to intervene. The member as usual was making a series of comments that had nothing to do with the point of order he wanted to raise. It is quite appropriate for you Madam Speaker to get people to come to the point of order quickly and tersely. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My ruling on the point of order is that members know that they are not to make statements. If they want to make a point of order they should make it clearly and succinctly. So would you please make your point of order Mr Mark. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it in connection with the previous point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes. Madam Speaker you were prepared to hear out Dr Cullen claiming that my colleague was making a series of statements. He had not got even halfway through his first sentence— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He had got through his first statement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect he had not got through his first statement at all—unless you are clairvoyant which you are not. That is my point. At least he is entitled to try to frame in general terms what his point of order is. Would you please hear him out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I want him to make his point of order now. 
Ron Mark 
: I am looking for your guidance Madam Speaker. When Opposition members hear statements from a Minister that they violently disagree with it does incite the House to respond. The question is: what is fair barracking given the inflammatory nature of what the Prime Minister is saying and which a member can prove in writing—and I will in my supplementary question—is clearly untrue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have said several times in this House that the odd intervention and comment across the House when a Minister is answering a question are acceptable. However when I and other members cannot hear the person who is giving an answer or on occasion the person who is asking the question then that is unacceptable. I could not hear what was being said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it speaking to the same point of order? I have just ruled on that point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes I know. This point is similar but different. It is similar inasmuch as there would not have been that interruption from Ron Mark or from anybody else who has chipped in here if Standing Order 370 had been properly applied. I know that the previous Speaker said that he allowed some latitude and suggested that if we were too tight then the atmosphere of the House would not flow. However in recent days some of the responses coming from Ministers particularly those from the Prime Minister today have been so wide of the restriction under Standing Order 370 that there will naturally be members expressing some upset that this House’s Standing Orders are not being upheld by the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did address the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any more advice on that particular point of order but if this is a new one I will be happy to hear it. Ruling on that point of order I say that the Prime Minister did address the question. As I have said her answer was relevant to the question asked. It may not have satisfied the members but that is all that is required. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is to seek guidance. When the Prime Minister answers a question or responds to a question and she accuses the ACT party of inciting crime by raising a question it is tending to disorder because no party will sit and be accused—when it is concerned about and is acting on behalf of victims of crime—of actually inciting the crime. I suggest that although we will accept your rulings about barracking when we have been barracking to the extent that the debate cannot be heard the incidents will keep occurring if Ministers are not directed or steered towards answering questions instead of abusing the questioner. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The problem I think with that statement is firstly that it is essentially debating material the member is concerned about and secondly the thrust of the Opposition’s questions has been that there has been crime because the Government is failing to provide resources. Of course we are supposed to sit here and smile gently in response to that but when we suggest that there might be some fault on the other side of the House suddenly it is totally unacceptable. I think it is time for people to realise that this is a debating chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order was whether the Prime Minister addressed the question. The Prime Minister addressed the question. Could we now move on. 
Ron Mark 
: When the Prime Minister answered by saying that the Opposition cannot argue with the Government’s increase in resources allocated to the police can she also concede then that the Prime Minister cannot argue against the report from the Commissioner of Police to the Minister of Police dated 21 November 2002 which stated that: “Of the 365 newly funded sworn staff allocated to strategic priority the main beneficiaries have been road policing.”—285 of those positions; counter-terrorism 33—and it goes on to state that: “The increase in resources has been welcome. However the task-specific nature of these allocations has been eroding the flexibility historically available to me and to district commanders to distribute resources across emerging problem areas in a timely and responsive manner.”? Does that statement not prove that the resources given are all around traffic and not around investigation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think that that somewhat lengthy question contained within it a statement that he was quoting from a 2002 document. Over 5 years this Government has continued to increase the numbers of police and the resources that they get prompting even the Police Association to issue a statement stating that the injection of sorely needed front-line police in Auckland and Counties-Manukau has had a huge impact in bringing crime down—and it has. 
Rodney Hide 
: What was the inaccurate statement in Sergeant Fogarty’s letter of 25 February to the dairy owner that led her to conclude that the letter was ill-advised? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have never used the word “inaccurate”. I said “ill-advised”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can the answer we just had from the Prime Minister comply in any way with Standing Order 370 which states that an answer that seeks to address the question must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest? Rodney Hide’s question specifically used the phrase “ill-advised” but the Prime Minister simply repeated part of it and did not make any attempt to answer the member’s question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point is of course that that is not what the question asked. The question referred to a term that the Prime Minister had not used. If the question had been: “Why is the Prime Minister over 6 feet tall?” the answer to that question would have been: “I’m not.” 
Rodney Hide 
: The Prime Minister’s answer to my supplementary question as I heard it was that the letter was ill-advised because it did not present an accurate picture. My next question was: “Well what was the bit that was inaccurate?”. Then she said that it was ill-advised so I do not think she addressed my answer. The reality is that Sergeant Fogarty’s letter was bang on the money. That is why he is in trouble. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I rule that the Minister is entitled to disagree with the premise or statement made in the question and that was what was in the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You should just think about that; you cannot let that go. You cannot offer that as a ruling for the House because the Prime Minister would be commenting on her own advice. By your ruling she would be saying that she disagreed with herself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What the Prime Minister answered was that she did not agree with the statement made by the member who had asked the question. That was her answer to the member’s question and the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to make that answer under the Standing Orders. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have ourselves in an interesting situation here. We have a primary question which asked why the letter was “ill-advised”. The Prime Minister then got up and said it was ill-advised because it was inaccurate. Then a member got up and asked why it was inaccurate. Then the Prime Minister said that she did not say that. Well I guess if the Prime Minister wants to do that she can but it makes a mockery of question time does it not? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Apart from the fact that it is obviously a complete relitigation of your judgments and rulings Madam Speaker—which I think is a matter causing some concern to the House—I quote the Prime Minister’s answer: “Yes … because the letter does not appear to have indicated the extent of the follow-up inquiries that had already taken place into complaints made by the dairy owner …” There was no reference to the word “inaccurate”. If members only listened to answers they might ask accurate supplementary questions. 
Stephen Franks 
: What does the Prime Minister think of the frontline police description of the current policy they are forced to follow as “band-aid policing” instead of “zero-tolerance policing”; and if she is inquiring directly why does she not ask whether the six officers lurking on the Desert Road waiting for the Hon Chris Carter’s lahar might not be able to assist in looking into crime? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure that member would be the first to get on his feet and accuse the Government of criminal negligence if a lahar actually killed people. That is a clear example of a word I cannot use in this House and of the opportunism that is sometimes practised by Opposition members. I further put it to the House that it can hardly be a band-aid to have reduced the rate of crime to the lowest level in 23 years. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House to understand from the Prime Minister’s earlier answers that her position—on the fact that approximately 1400 crimes in south Auckland are not being investigated by the police including seven rapes that were not being investigated at least not until Tuesday—was perfectly satisfactory until the leader of the ACT party Rodney Hide raised the matter in Parliament and revealed that situation; if that is her position does she have any understanding at all of how a woman in south Auckland would feel who was not being protected every day by members of the police diplomatic corps; and if she does have that understanding why was her position satisfactory until Tuesday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the numerous questions that formed part of that statement two things were blurred. Firstly my reference to ACT publicising the matter was with regard to the letter which unfortunately has given the impression that one can be caught on a video surveillance camera and the police will never do anything about it. That is why the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorialised very strongly on the subject and I agreed with what it said. The police have yet to be able to identify clearly who that person was. Secondly there is the issue of the currently unassigned cases. Cases that are currently unassigned have often had considerable work done on them and the House was given details yesterday about forensic evidence and other evidence being collected. I might say that of the rape files that have been identified as currently unassigned two of them are historic and go back to 1974 and 1993.