Davis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8325. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Police: By what percentage has the crime resolution rate decreased overall since 2008?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): When measured as a percentage of overall crime the rate has fallen from 46.7 percent in 2008 to 41.5 percent in 2014 but this can be a bit misleading because of the number of recorded victims which has decreased markedly since then. Although there were 223000 unresolved offences in 2008 there were only 205000 unresolved offences last year—in other words New Zealanders are not only less likely to be victims of crime under this Government but also less likely to be victims of unresolved crime.Kelvin Davis: Why has the proportion of reported sexual offences that are solved fallen from two-thirds when his Government came to office to less than half today?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The answer to that is quite complex—probably more complex than I can go through in one supplementary answer—but what we can say is that we know that there are a large number of offences from a long period ago that are now being reported thanks to the fact that people are speaking up more confidently and police are encouraging that with the extra resources that they have deployed into adult sexual assault and child sexual assault and therefore those crimes are much more complex and can take a very long time to resolve.Kelvin Davis: Why has the number of sexual assaults resolved fallen under his Government even though the number reported has increased by a thousand since 2008?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer to my previous supplementary answer.Kelvin Davis: Was his Government standing up for the victims of crime when he allowed police funding in real per capita terms to be cut in six of its seven Budgets and is that why police are solving fewer crimes?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I reject the basis of the question. Under National the police budget has increased from $1.26 billion to $1.53 billion—more than 20 percent. The number of front-line police in operational roles has gone up and crime has dropped to its lowest level in 35 years. I stand very strongly by that record.Kelvin Davis: In light of that answer saying that the police budget has not been cut why is it that in the select committee the Auditor-General said the police budget has been cut by $15 million?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I cannot take the statement from the Opposition at face value given its track record but I stand categorically by the fact that there are now 600 more officers than there were when National took office—600 more—and crime is going down. In fact if I were a criminal in this country I would be voting Labour because that is when they get away with crimes. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I did not hear the very last part of the answer but offence has been taken—[Interruption] Order! Would the Minister stand and withdraw the last part of his answer. [Interruption] Order!Hon Michael Woodhouse: Which part?Mr SPEAKER: Offence has been taken would the Minister just stand and withdraw the last part of this answer.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! Stand and withdraw or leave.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw—something. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The reason I cannot hear is the continual level of interjection from one particular member. It makes it very difficult for me to hear what is being said.Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification. There was an incident last week where members took offence and yet the person making the statement was not required to withdraw. I understood previous to now that if a member takes offence then whoever has made the statement should withdraw and apologise but your ruling last week suggested that that needs to happen if it is the House that has taken offence.Mr SPEAKER: That is the case. It is not actually the particular singular member. I made that quite clear. I should not have to explain it again to Mr Prosser. It is a matter of the context of the remark that is said the order or disorder of the House at the time and whether I anticipate that offence has been taken as I just did. As I said because of the level of interjection I did not actually hear the remark but offence was clearly taken.