12. Question No. 12—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 12—Police12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement There is no doubt that violence and gang tensions are a feature of our community" and why has gang membership increased by 40 percent since 2017?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): In answer to the member's first question I stand by the full context of my statement which was that gang tensions have been a feature of New Zealand society for well over a century. In answer to the second part of the member's question the member is referring to the National Gang List which is an internal police intelligence tool. As police have publicly said it remains an unreliable measure of gang membership. The way to deal with gang tensions and gang membership is by giving police the tools and resources they need and that is why Budget 2022 includes $562 million for police over four years of which $94 million will go towards tackling gangs and organised crime.Hon Mark Mitchell: Have gang tensions increased under her watch?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In 2017 there were 2138 violent offences committed by gang members. In 2021 there were 1704. And I agree with the member that you need more police to get the job done and that's why Budget 2022 sets aside funding to ensure police numbers continue to align with population growth which means they won't fall as they did in 2011 and 2013.Hon Mark Mitchell: So is the Minister telling this House that gang tensions have decreased under this Government?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The work that we have done has seen the charging rates against gang members increase 92 percent under our watch. We have provided police with the resources that they need to undertake major operations against serious crime.Hon Mark Mitchell: Is this investment in targeting the gangs an admission that the Government's soft-on-crime approach has failed?SPEAKER: Order! The member can rephrase his question. He's lucky.Hon Mark Mitchell: Is this investment in targeting the gangs a result of this Government's soft-on-crime approach that may have failed?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. The member can ask another supplementary now if he wants.Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the Minister most worried about in relation to gangs?Hon Kelvin Davis: A National Government.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yeah. What most troubles me is that if the National Government ever gets their hands on the Treasury benches again—$562 million is a record investment into police. And what this proves is we back our police—we back them to do their jobs—and we will stand by them every step of the way.Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: The member's used all his supplementaries.Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question and all I got was a political answer.SPEAKER: Well I think it's fair to say that the member has dished up quite a series of very political questions and having a response which is similar to the approach that he's taken is something that he should expect given both his prior experience and his parliamentary experience.Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry just a point of order on your guidance Mr Speaker. Sorry could you point me to exactly where I'm being political in my questions to the Minister?SPEAKER: I think it's fair to say that taken as a general group the member has been very political. That's not a criticism but it's just a fact of life that when one takes that approach the Speaker is more lenient with allowing Ministers to respond. And similarly where Ministers are more political in their responses at that point I have much more flexibility for members asking the questions to be political as well.Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry Mr Speaker point of order. Sorry to re-litigate it but I have asked specifically for you to point out to me—SPEAKER: Yes and if the member wants to come and have a cup of coffee with me I'll work it through with him but it's not my job to run tutorials for him in the House especially a member of his experience.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. Yeah Mr Speaker I think the problem here is that while you might correctly point out that there is a degree of flexibility about how the two Standing Orders for both questions and answers are interpreted by whoever is sitting in the Chair the answer that was given to that last question was largely in response to an interjection that was made that was rare hardly reasonable but certainly a little bit humorous. But for the answer from a Minister to be "Well my biggest fear in the portfolio is the Government changes."—that could be an answer to every question that ever gets asked in here. It most certainly would not be in the public interest despite what the Minister giving the answer might believe.Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order if the Opposition don't want to know what the Minister's worried about they perhaps shouldn't ask a question along the lines of "What's the Minister worried about?"SPEAKER: No well is this going to really add any more value to it?Hon Mark Mitchell: I think it will Mr Speaker. Point of order?SPEAKER: Well I reckon it's a long shot but have a go. Hon Mark Mitchell: My question was very specific and very direct in relation to a major concern in this country at the moment and that's around the behaviour of gangs and the proliferation of the numbers. That was a very direct question to the Minister responsible. It was completely political; she talked about the National Party. She didn't address the question at all.SPEAKER: The member asked a question which couldn't actually be much broader within a specific area and it does open it up to the Minister to respond as she wishes or as she is prompted. And when that occurs the member can't complain. If he wants narrow answers he should ask narrow questions.David Seymour: Point of order. Just to expand and elucidate I asked a question earlier about the connection between the OECD's advice on foreign investment and productivity growth. The Prime Minister never addressed that relationship but instead answered the question by talking about other issues specifically domestic investment and human capital and their relationship to productivity growth. Now it seems to me that if we're going to require the answers are as specific as the questions she should have been required to answer that but she wasn't.SPEAKER: OK the member will resume his seat. He's six questions too late."