Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4195] 
5.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she satisfied that police effectively prioritise their time and resources; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 In general yes. The responsibility for prioritising time and resources rests with the commissioner and the district commanders but it is clear that some confusion has arisen in some districts in the past around traffic enforcement priorities. I was pleased to see in today’s  
Manawatu Standard 
 that district commander Mark Lammas whose district has been in the news lately makes it clear that Commissioner Broad’s 5 July policy directive is to be the only basis for all traffic enforcement. At the end of the question I will seek to table that article from the  
Manawatu Standard 
 and an 18-month-old memo from the Levin police that illustrates the need for Commissioner Broad’s clear policy statement on 5 July around road policing enforcement policy. 
Simon Power 
: Does she stand by her previous statements that the police do not have traffic ticket quotas; if so how does she reconcile them with the memo from Levin police that states that for those officers who did not issue the “required level” of tickets it may “affect their annual pay increments” and that if they did not want to issue tickets they would be busted down to part-time employees and “lose 20 percent of their pay”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Shock horror probe! There is not and never has been under this Government a quota for tickets. I cannot—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members for the last time to give to those who are replying to questions the same courtesy that is given to those who ask questions to enable them to be heard. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is not and never has been under this Government a quota for traffic tickets. I cannot confirm what the policy was under the previous Government. The memo the member is talking about is from a senior sergeant at Levin Police Station written 18 months ago. I think it is important as I said in my first answer that any misconceptions from the police around issuing tickets as a quota should be cleared up which is exactly what the Commissioner of Police has done with his directive. I am pleased there is now a very clear directive from the commissioner because it reflects the Government’s policy not some policy made up by a police officer. 
Metiria Turei 
: How does the Minister explain to the families and victims of various serious crimes that the police are using precious time and resources to arrest paraplegics tetraplegics and wheelchair-bound people for the medicinal use of cannabis when 63 percent of New Zealanders believe that doctors should be able to prescribe cannabis as a medicine to patients who desperately need it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can justify the action of the police in arresting people who break the law. It is against the law to smoke cannabis. Unless there is a change in the law the police have every right to arrest people who break the law. 
Simon Power 
: Does she stand by her response to my written question received yesterday which states that the police do not receive bonuses financial or otherwise if they issue a particular number of traffic offence notices; if so how does she reconcile that with the Levin memo that states with regard to “good performers” that their performance appraisals will reflect this fact and “I’m also looking at some other benefits to top performers.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Again no there is no bonus given for the issuing of tickets but I am not going to make any excuse for the police not carrying out their duty to reduce crime crashes injury and death on our roads. If that member wants to make a big issue out of tickets rather than concentrating on the big picture so be it. Most New Zealanders want our roads to be safer. Most New Zealanders do not want to receive a call in the middle of the night telling them that a loved one has been killed. They want safer roads. The only people who get tickets in New Zealand are people who break the law. I can only assume that member supports lawbreakers. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Can the Minister provide an example of what she considers to be the police effectively prioritising their time and resources? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am pleased to tell the House that 30 search warrants were executed in Wairoa today by the police. That has led to 16 arrests for a range of criminal activities and 11 of those arrested are gang members. I think that is a good example of prioritising around organised criminal activities. I am sure Chester Borrows MP for Whanganui will be pleased to see that the British police who chose to go to Wairoa are helping to make an impact already. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister give the public an assurance that issuing traffic tickets is not being given priority over other crimes when police officers like those who received this memo are told: “While I realise that some staff may have more skills at catching crooks than writing tickets I do expect that all staff will get involved in traffic enforcement.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All general duties police are expected to be involved in road policing and other policing duties. I make no excuse and no apology for that. I believe it is right and proper that when police are out in their cars they also police what happens on the roads. For the life of me I cannot see what is wrong with that. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that as a result of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First there is now a greater priority given to significantly increasing police numbers thereby increasing police time and how does that compare with the previous National Government’s priority of addressing crime by way of the INCIS computer and cardboard cut-outs thereby reducing police time? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is the irony of questions from the National Party on policing because not only was the National Government responsible for the issues the member has mentioned but also it was responsible for a report on the police that if it had been implemented would have seen police being removed from the beat—not 100 police but many hundreds. The infamous Martin report would have decimated the New Zealand Police. The police have not forgotten it and they certainly will not forget the commitment to them from this Government and New Zealand First. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister think it is appropriate to pressure police officers to issue a certain number of traffic tickets by not only threatening to dock their pay but also posting up a “name and shame” list that ranks officers according to the number of tickets they issue per hour? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not think that is appropriate behaviour. [ 
Interruption 
] I think that rather than the member opposite screaming across the House in an effort to get his name on television again in his leadership bid—Mr English if members would like me to name him—if he were to read the press release from Mark Lammas who is the district commander he would see his response to that memo. It really distresses me that all the Opposition does is to attack the New Zealand Police. No matter what the police do the Opposition attacks them. How about a bit of praise and support for the fantastic job that they do day after day? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear what the Minister is saying. Would she please repeat her answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am very happy to do so. I am most distressed at the Opposition tactics of day after day—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am serious about this. Members are trying to listen to answers as well as to questions. Some members will be asked to leave the Chamber unless they keep the level of disruptive intervention down. Would the Minister please succinctly answer the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You are quite right of course Madam Speaker. I am one of the quiet ones who is trying to hear the answers but the difficulty that occurs is that the Minister rather than addressing the question is using the opportunity to take pot-shots across the House. That is what brings the House into disorder. I am sure that if the Minister addressed the question rather than going outside the Standing Orders to make cheap political points there would be a lot more order in this House. I suggest that we have a standard whereby just as we are required to stick within tight rules with regard to questions so too when Ministers answer questions they are required to stick within tight rules. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In fact of course that latter point is honoured much more in the breach than in the observance on many many occasions and to talk about pot-shots being taken only in answers is to draw a very very long bow indeed. We have to sit on the Government side of the House and listen to questions that include all sorts of pot-shots and we have listened to them in total silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. I thank the member for his contribution but normally those responses are also in response to interjections. So I ask all members in asking and answering questions to stick to the point. I ask the Minister to please answer the question succinctly. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am distressed that day after day Opposition members attack the New Zealand Police. They do not give the police the praise they deserve. Those people are out working for us 24/7 carrying out jobs most of us cannot even imagine and all that Opposition members do is to attack the police. I am not responsible for the issuing of tickets; the police are. So although members opposite think they are getting at me they are actually attacking the police. 
Simon Power 
: Will the Minister now apologise to the Prime Minister for the embarrassment she must now feel given that the Prime Minister has already told the country a number of times that the first central district memo was a daft one-off that had “nothing to do with police policy” and that “I don’t think one swallow makes a spring”; or how many memos like this one will it take before the Government concedes that this is not a one-off event but is policy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all no I will not be apologising to anyone—and I certainly would not apologise to that member who constantly makes up the story to suit himself. The first mistake he made was that it was not the Prime Minister who said that was a daft memo; it was district commander Mark Lammas. The Prime Minister quoted district commander Mark Lammas who said it was a daft memo. It is interesting that this problem has come out of one district. The district commander addressed it in his statement today but more important the Commissioner of Police addressed it in his policy statement on 5 July. There is a very clear policy statement for the New Zealand Police to follow. I will be judging the police on how closely they follow that directive. 
Simon Power 
: Can she reassure the House that there are no further memos from any district instructing the police to give priority to ticket-writing over other crime? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot. What I can assure this House of and those who are listening is that there is no Government policy to have a quota for tickets. There is no such Labour-led Government policy although I am happy to go back to see what the policy was under the National Government. But there is certainly no such policy under this Government. What I will be judging the police on from this day forward is the policy directive issued by the Commissioner of Police. I expect his directive to be carried out by police officers around New Zealand. Should there be memos that reflect anything other than that then I would be very concerned indeed. 
Simon Power 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the memo under discussion which reflects the fact that if a certain performance in respect of the writing of tickets is not met that “may affect their annual pay increments”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the statement put out by district commander Mark Lammas’ statement in relation to that 18-month-old memo which the member thought he had got as a scoop when it was not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection? The Minister asked for leave to table a document. I did not hear anyone object— 
Hon Member 
: Yes I did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member objects. I am sorry; I did not hear the objection. But if the member says there was an objection then the document will not be tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a convention when leave is requested that it is done without extraneous comments and the Minister used extraneous comments. She should ask for leave properly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind all members that when they ask for leave they take note of that matter.