Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19431] 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many criminal cases in Counties-Manukau are not yet allocated to an investigating officer and how many of these cases are rape cases? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that there are 1167 cases where initial inquiries indicate the need for further investigation. Eleven files are of a sexual nature including five cases that are rapes. I am further advised that three of the rape cases are awaiting the results of forensic analysis; one case is likely to be reclassified; and the other case is currently unable to proceed as the victim is in hospital on an unrelated matter and cannot be spoken to at this time. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Commissioner of Police Rob Robinson was told of these difficulties by Counties-Manukau Police District managers 3 weeks ago and when did the Minister himself first learn of these difficulties? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The audit of the Manukau police took place some 3 weeks ago and the commissioner had that information. I was made aware of it yesterday. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How many cases awaiting allocation is he aware of at any other police district and how many involve sexual offending? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If the member puts down a question I will get him the answer. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm though that the situation in Counties-Manukau may by no means be unique to that police district because other districts also suffer from chronic under-resourcing and that the only difference between this district and others is that Counties-Manukau has decided to be honest and straightforward about the situation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to tell the member that the police have never been better resourced. We have increased the vote from $816 million up to over $1 billion and of course the police continue to get better deals out of this Government than members opposite were ever prepared to give. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House how many detectives there are in Counties-Manukau and how many of them have been required to perform traffic duties issuing traffic tickets at the expense of their investigative work that they should be doing? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the families who lost four youngsters at Pukekohe in the Counties-Manukau area will be somewhat surprised at that sort of question. If detectives see the law being broken whether they are on the roads or in other places they investigate and follow up. I have to say that Counties-Manukau saw an 11.3 percent reduction in the crime rate over the last 12 months. I think the police there are doing a good job and I am not going to bag their detectives. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will no doubt have observed from that answer that no attempt at all was made to address the question of numbers that my colleague Ron Mark raised. Could the Minister please do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to comment on whether he has the information on how many detectives there are. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that information. However I can say in relation to the files that are awaiting allocation that the Auckland police board of management is putting in a team to attend to that. That will have good results. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it true that there is a suspect’s name on the file of one of the rape complaints and that this file is unallocated and is lying dormant while a rapist wanders free through Counties-Manukau; or does this Minister of Police simply not know that? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As I said earlier three of the cases are awaiting the results of forensic analysis. One case is likely to be reclassified and the victim in the other case is in hospital on an unrelated matter. That is the information I have and that is the situation as of today. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have had two supplementary questions thus far and they were two different questions. Unfortunately I got the same answer to both of them. I know that the Minister is not as hard-working as the Prime Minister alleges but surely to goodness— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I think it is because the Minister never addressed my question about— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: —whether it was true that the rapist’s name is on one of these files yet that file is lying dormant. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister responded to your question. If he wants to add anything to it I invite him to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The fact is that the Minister was asked a question as to whether he had knowledge. He cannot just sit there and give no answer at all. Even if he got up and said “rhubarb” it might not pass Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders but it would at least be an answer and thus far he has refused even to rise to make any attempt to answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In response the Minister did advise that he had responded with all the information he had. That was a response to the question. It may not in fact be satisfactory but he did address the question by doing that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect that was not an answer to the question. For him to say he has responded with all the information he had is some sort of answer but he was asked whether he was aware of a case. Surely he can say yes or no rather than treat this House and the public with contempt. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question as it was asked. He did not answer it to the satisfaction of members—that is obvious—but he did address it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Warily I ask this. After my point of order you politely endorsed I think my point by going back to the Minister and saying that he might like to add a comment. Past Speakers have done that as a polite reminder to the Minister that he or she actually has to address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ministers do not have to address the question. I made a request. The Minister did not have to respond. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well I am sorry Madam Speaker; in my time in the House I have never seen a Minister invited by the Speaker to comment on a question just sit there. I have seen Ministers get up and not give very satisfactory answers but they have always risen to their feet and said something. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I listened carefully. As I recall what the Speaker said to the Minister was that if he wished to add a comment he might do so—if he wished. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Clearly the Minister did not wish to do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is related to the series of questions dealt with by Mr Hawkins. My colleague Tony Ryall asked a very simple question about whether the number of unanswered complaints in the Minister of Police’s own home district was any different from that in other districts—in other words whether it stood out. The Minister’s response was that if the member would like to set that down for him as a written question he would give the member an answer. I would have thought that after this issue being on television and being the subject of numerous newspaper reports and given the fact that it was on the Order Paper yesterday and is on it again today with the Minister having had 4 hours to answer he might be able to give the House a better answer to a simple question like that. Most Ministers would say whether it was unusual—or are we to simply assume that every district across the country has the same sort of poor performance under this Minister as his own home district? I do not think it would be unreasonable to ask the Minister whether he can expand on that answer. Simply saying during question time that the member should write him a letter— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee; I understand your point. It is a longstanding practice in this House that if a Minister is asked a very specific question an acceptable reply is to say that he or she will find the answer when he or she has an opportunity to do so. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Based on the experience I went through yesterday I cannot let that stand. The Minister did not say that he would find that out and make it available; the Minister said it should be put down as another question. Our problem is that we have a very limited number of oral questions and as you experienced for yourself yesterday this Minister simply does not answer written questions. Some answers are delayed by up to 3 4 and even 5 weeks as we saw yesterday in the case of Marc Alexander’s question. It has been a tradition in this House that if specific questions about numbers are asked of Ministers—and Ministers often do not have that information—they will say that they are sorry but they do not have the information; they will make it available to the member once they have it. Instead of more oral questions being wasted at question time or your forcing us to ask written questions that simply do not get answered by the Minister I ask you to direct the Minister to say that he will get the answer to that question and furnish it to the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but it is a longstanding parliamentary practice to reply in the way the Minister did—that he requires notice of that question. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No it is not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What you are saying is correct but that is not what the Minister said. Maybe it is what he meant to say but I am left to wonder—and I think the House is wondering—whether the Minister was ducking the answer by saying that the member should put down another question in which case he should have said that he did not know the answer. The House is a bit incredulous about that because one would have expected a Minister having learnt that there are unallocated rape cases in one police district immediately to ask the Commissioner of Police whether there are others. So we are incredulous. But maybe this Minister has not asked that question. If he has not he should have told us that. We are now gratified to learn he will find that out but only after he was asked a question by the Opposition. That is his position; I guess that is OK. But it is not acceptable for a Minister who receives a question whose answer could be highly embarrassing to say that he will answer that question only if the member puts it down as another question. So I guess we really want to know from the Minister whether he is saying to the House that he has no idea what is happening in other police districts around the country and that he will not know until a question to him is put down. If that is the situation I guess the House will just have to accept it. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I will make that information available as soon as I get it all.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You were commenting earlier on that you would require notification of that question. Can I say that it is my intention to ask that question tomorrow which gives the Minister and his officials at least 24 hours to answer it if they do not have the information beforehand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is your decision. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister know whether there is the name of a rape suspect contained in one of Counties-Manukau’s unallocated files? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police have not made that information available to me. 
Stephen Franks 
: Exactly what does the Minister recommend south Auckland crime victims do to keep themselves and their property safe when the police tell them that they are too busy to investigate thefts or even bullet holes in shop windows? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The people of Counties-Manukau are pleased that the police have been able to reduce crime for the last couple of years. Of course there will always be some criminal activity; we do not live in a paradise. 
Stephen Franks 
: Madam Speaker I seek leave for your authority to ask a further supplementary question without it coming from our allocation. That was a very specific question. It followed from similar questions yesterday asking what people should do when the police tell them that their crime is too low in the priority list for a police response or that it has been filed. The Minister has had time to think about it. I have had no response whatsoever on the question which was about how much self-help is required or what people should do when the police are obviously overwhelmed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to add to his answer. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The people cannot take the law into their own hands. That is very clear. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Quiet please. Members wanted the Minister to answer so would they please listen to him. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I advise those people who are not having satisfactory outcomes to write to me or to the Police Complaints Authority. These processes are set up so that these problems can be dealt with.