11. Question No. 11—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—PoliceHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member who's about to ask the question. Mr Speaker I raise a point of order under Standing Order 390(1)(a) and (b) which I invite you Mr Speaker to take some time to consider—I'm not asking you to rule on it right now. The question that we're about to hear question No. 11 asks the Minister to stand by a partial statement that she made in an answer to a written parliamentary question. The question's been asked in various ways over the last few weeks and my view is it does not fulfil Standing Orders because it is only a partial quote. While from time to time we've had questions that have had statements in them which might have a small series of dots that indicate a break between words in a statement only asking a question about a partial quote can lead to significant misunderstanding and I don't believe is within the Standing Orders. I recognise the question has been accepted for today—I'm not asking for it to be changed for today but I am asking you to give consideration to the practice of continually asking questions with partial quotes in them.SPEAKER: In the nine years I've been in this Parliament there'd be hardly a week go by where questions to Ministers don't include quotes. I will go away and consider what the Leader of the House has raised. I think it's something that the whole of Parliament needs to consider and perhaps the Standing Orders Committee is the place to address it. In this instance though the quote has been accepted as part of the question and we'll move forward on it.11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at that time: "it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1800 extra police." However the context in which that statement was made has now changed. I'm pleased to inform the member that this Government has delivered 1800 extra police. I am sure the member will join me in welcoming the new officers. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why will the Minister's office not provide requests from both my office and the media to actually clearly show that there were 1800 police officers graduated? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am unaware of that statement—I'm unaware of that information. Hon Mark Mitchell: How can the Minister stand by that statement when a recent New Zealand Herald poll showed that 95 percent of those polled don't feel safer despite an increase in police numbers? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I acknowledge that we have work to do and this Government remains committed to tackling the drivers of crime at both ends by addressing those underlying causes like family violence and mental health but also equipping our front line with the resources the rules and the tools to get the job done. That's why I agree with Nicola Willis who this morning said "Well it's clear to me that having good numbers of police in the community makes a real difference to law and order because it's about having police available to fight crime and to deal with crime. It's about preventative policing. It's also about reassuring the impact and seeing the police visibly on the streets can have." Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did 95 percent of Kiwis polled not feel safer? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I cannot speak for 95 percent of Kiwis. Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister one of the 5 percent of New Zealanders polled that do feel safer? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has invested more in the drivers of crime and more in front-line capability than the National Government ever ever invested. The fact that that member chooses to take my quotes out of context in order to make a point speaks for itself. Hon Mark Mitchell: What quote have I taken out of context? SPEAKER: Sorry you've run out of questions. Question—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. During that question I was just reflecting on Standing Order 390 as the Leader of the House has raised an issue with you. I'd make two points for your consideration at the end of question time. One is that as far as I can tell quotes—partial or otherwise—are not referenced in Standing Order 390. I'd also add that Standing Order 396 is the mirror and that's for the content of replies. The Minister of Police has given what she believed to be an appropriate quotation which may or may not have been an accurate representation of the deputy leader of the National Party and the point I'm making is that it would be a very bland question time if there wasn't an ability to be able to use the quotes of members and others. The Minister in her answers to the primary question—which has been accepted as being in order for probably six or seven times now—has clarified and has contextualised her comments and I don't believe there's a lot to be gained by spending too much time on that issue. Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. Two points—SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson but please stay within what is being discussed. Hon Grant Robertson: Oh absolutely Mr Speaker; I wouldn't think of doing anything else. Just for the member's benefit I do think—Standing Order 390(1)(b) in particular around inferences is the point that I'm making here. The question is different between a primary question on notice and supplementaries and answers to supplementaries in that a primary question on notice has to be authenticated. It has to be authenticated with a quote—and I don't want to re-litigate what I said before—but it is that question where a quote clearly has to be put forward and if that quote is only a partial quote I'm not sure it meets the Standing Orders. Chris Bishop: Do you really want that to be the standard? Hon Grant Robertson: I'm not sure that that meets the Standing Orders. I wasn't aware we were having a conversation Mr Bishop but we can. Chris Bishop: Yeah well you just make stuff up about us all the time so—SPEAKER: Order! Oh gosh! Gee I was going to let it go but you know this is part of a point of order—Chris Bishop: Sorry.SPEAKER: —yeah—and you used a phrase in there which you are not allowed to use. So don't use it any more. Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No I want to deal with this one first OK? I will as I said before go away and consider it and come back to the House. I thank both members for their contributions. A further point of order? Hon Mark Mitchell: Oh it was just to clarify that in—SPEAKER: No no I want a new point of order or—Hon Mark Mitchell: Well it's in relation to the question that the Leader of the House has been speaking to. SPEAKER: Yeah but is it new or do you just want to have your say? Hon Mark Mitchell: Well it's new information that may help you. SPEAKER: It doesn't qualify."