7. Question No. 7—PoliceHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 7—Police7. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes.Hon Ginny Andersen: Will there be a freeze on hiring non-sworn police staff including those who answer 111 calls and prepare police files for court as reported today by the New Zealand Herald?Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's an operational matter for the commissioner in terms of where he deploys his personnel.Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with police advice released under the Official Information Act regarding police employees that these corporate functions will be an important and necessary enabler to support the Government's priority of recruiting an additional 500 new front-line police over the next two years; if not why not?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well again that is an operational matter and a matter for the Commissioner of Police.Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well what I can guarantee the public of New Zealand is that they have got a Government that is serious about reducing violent crime. And in the last six years we have seen a massive increase in violent retail crime and violent crime relating to gangs and you have a Government and a Minister that are actually committed to getting on top of that.Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I asked a pretty straight question Mr Speaker. I asked whether he'll commit that waiting times for 111 calls will not increase under his watch. You've been very clear Mr Speaker in the past that that's not an opportunity to attack the previous Government. I think the people of New Zealand deserve a clear answer on a matter of such high importance.SPEAKER: Well it is a matter of high importance and the Minister started by saying what he would guarantee. If you read the Standing Orders—Hon Ginny Andersen: So that's a no.SPEAKER: Well you can take it whatever way you like but the Standing Orders make it clear the question must be addressed and I think it was.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. Based on the ruling that you have just made if we asked the Minister how much something costs he could simply put his hand up and say Well I can tell you how much something else costs." and that would be addressing the question. It would make question time into a complete and utter farce. Addressing the question means you actually address the question; you don't get to ask a different question of yourself and then answer that one instead.SPEAKER: Well that's a very interesting point of order and it's been taken once before in this House by a member who asked the Speaker at the time: if he asked someone the price of something and he got the answer back that was just "Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb" would that be addressing the question? The Speaker said yes and it's quite clear in here. So it's nothing new. In this case I'm saying that the member addressed the question.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. So are you ruling that the word "rhubarb" is a sufficient answer to any question that is being asked? Because that's effectively what you've just ruled.SPEAKER: No I'm not. But a previous Speaker did offer that view to the House.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Mr Speaker. As you've made a ruling that requires those that are making points of order—SPEAKER: No. Hang on a minute; be careful. I have not made a ruling. I've just said—Hon Kieran McAnulty: Excuse me sir—SPEAKER: I've just said—so you know so it will help you with your point of order. I've just said that if the Speaker considers a question is addressed it's addressed.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes sir. I'm referring to a previous ruling.SPEAKER: Oh OK.Hon Kieran McAnulty: If I'm given the opportunity I'll be able to clarify it.SPEAKER: Good.Hon Kieran McAnulty: The ruling I'm referring to sir is that where you've asked members to indicate the Speakers' rulings or Standing Orders that they are referring to in points of order. It's a point that you made to the Rt Hon Winston Peters—or referred to earlier—and you yourself in that ruling have referred to the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings. I don't expect you to have them on hand straight away but it would be useful for the House if you could refer to those that you are ruling on.SPEAKER: Good. Well the Clerk has very helpfully helped me out by referring to Standing Order 396(1). Any further questions?Hon Ginny Andersen: Yes we have a further question. Will he guarantee that uniformed officers will not be pulled off the front line into support-staff work as a result of this freeze on police employees?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well again what I will guarantee is this Government is going to support our police with legislation that will allow them to go out and police gangs properly so they don't take over rural provincial towns like they did under the previous Government and they get on top of the violent retail crime which grew at over 500 percent under the previous six years of the Labour Government.Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that "The police need to get a sense that there's some strong political leadership and some strong political leadership coming within their own organisation to actually back them and allow them to get out there and do their job at the moment" and if so will he finally show some leadership and actually give the police the support and the pay that they deserve?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Of late this House would appear to observers particularly experienced observers as rather absurd. You've got a question to Mark Mitchell: "Does he agree with Mark Mitchell?" Is that the best we can do in this Parliament in 2024?SPEAKER: I think the more interesting part of that would be the way it's answered given that the member finished her question with what effectively was an opinion about the Minister's performance.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes I do agree with Mark Mitchell and the fact of the matter is our police had six years of weak political leadership where they didn't back them. Their job became more dangerous and this Government has come in saying that we will back them. We will give them the powers that they need to get out there and do their job. So yes they do have much stronger political backing without a doubt."