Fairbrother Russell: General Debate 
Fairbrother Russell: General Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16696] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The previous speaker commented quite appropriately about the tragedies that have happened in South Auckland over the last 9 days and her speech was going very well until she departed into some sort of rhetoric-based attack on the Prime Minister. It is interesting that 9 days ago the National Party published its law and order policy and what does it say that would have helped to prevent the tragedies in South Auckland? It says not a thing. 
The policy document I have here is dated 9 June 2008 and it is headed: “Enhancing police tools”. It states that National will introduce Tasers but it adds that it will do so only if the Taser trial is deemed to be a success. So National wants a bob each way on that one as well. 
Chester Borrows 
: How would you do it? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Here is one for Chester Borrows. On 9 June his leader said that National will require DNA samples to be taken from people arrested for crimes that are punishable by imprisonment. What does Chester Borrows say? He says: “We would require DNA from everybody arrested.” So National has not resolved that problem yet either. What is Chester going to do about that? Will he be speaking to his leader to get this thing sorted out? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The member’s full name is Chester Borrows. Will he speak to his leader and ask him to sort that dispute out? Two policies were released on 9 June and there is dispute over both of them. 
So what is the third policy? It states that National would allow police to issue on-the-spot protection orders to protect families. What are the police able to do now? They can issue on-the-spot protection orders to protect families. That is not a new policy: it is Government policy. So those are three points in chronological order—two strikes of confusion and one policy that the Labour Government already has. 
National’s policy also states that National will strengthen bail laws by overturning the 2007 amendments to the Bail Act. What did those amendments state? The only significant change in the amendment Act was section 4 which substituted section 8 of the principal Act with a new section. The amendment added new subsection (4) which states: “When considering an application for bail the court must take into account any views of a victim of an offence of a kind referred to in section 29 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002”. So National wants to take out of the Bail Act the reference to the victims’ views at the time a bail application is considered. That is “sitting on the fence” and it would weaken the Bail Act which was strengthened in 2007 by this Government. 
The policy document goes on to talk about clamping down on gangs and putting victims first. But in this debate we have heard an extensive criticism of the police. One member of the National Party has called them “dispirited and weak”. Chester Borrows made criticism and I think Pansy Wong made criticism. We know when the police became dispirited if that is the case. What is the National Party’s policy on the police? It is nothing at all according to the 9 June statement. There is not a mention— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You wait! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Oh yes you wait; you wait and copy what we are going to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: That will be your policy. I am saying “you” in a rhetorical way. I am not referring to you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
So National says to the public: “You wait. We’ll see what Labour does and we’ll copy that.” which is what National has done so far in its policy document of 9 June. That occasion was a sad irony. 
So why are the police in the condition that the National Party describes? Well I do not think they are. We have a very efficient and effective police force that we are proud of. In 1998 however the National Government cut the police budget in the sum of $31 million. In 1999 Bill English as Treasurer admitted that National was proposing to cut another $24 million from the 2000-01 Police vote reducing it to $860 million. 
What is the police budget now? Under Labour the budget is $1 billion. We are putting oomph into the police we are putting pressure where it counts and we are equipping our police force. That will get our communities into the condition we all want them to be in. We are doing that by increasing police numbers. Not only did the National Government cut the police budget but it slashed the number of police. It wanted to reduce it by up to 540 jobs. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should read the Martin review. 
What has Labour done? We have almost reached our target of 1000 new cops by 2009. We have got the police numbers up. We have a police force with enlarged numbers. Under Labour the police graph has gone up as against the decreasing graph of police numbers we would see under National. Police numbers would go down. Why? Because National seeks to cut costs to support its tax cuts argument. 
Let us look at the impact this is having on crime. When National was in power from 1990 to 1999 it never got the resolution of crime rate higher than 40 percent—it averaged just 36 percent over that time. Under Labour the resolution rate has always been above 40 percent. Today it is 45 percent. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.