Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4580] 
8.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her statement “it is essential that police have the resources and support they need to keep the public and themselves safe”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. The Government’s top priority for policing has been to increase the number of officers on the front line to keep the public safe. That is why Budget 2009 provided $182.5 million of funding over 4 years to fund extra police. This funding included $20 million of capital funding for accommodation and vehicles for extra police. The police also received $10 million in Budget 2009 for Tasers which will assist them to keep themselves and the public safe. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why then is she cutting $21 million out of police resources including cutting the police vehicle fleet by 10 percent when the Commissioner of Police himself admitted today at the police estimates hearing that those cuts will heighten the risk of a decline in police services and a delay in police response times? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I heard the Commissioner of Police say that there would not be any cut in services. In fact the money is being used to make more effective use of the vehicle fleet and for leave management legal expenses administration of travel—which I would have thought was quite good—Police National Headquarters operating expenses and district administration savings to name just a few. The police have come up with their own savings and good on them because we are facing the worst recession that this country has seen since the 1930s. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that the police have the resources and the support they need to keep the public and themselves safe? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Apart from the $182.5 million in this year’s Budget as at 30 November 2008 there were 8307 front-line police. By 31 December 2011 there will be 8907 front-line police which is an increase of 600 police officers 300 of whom this Government has allocated to the Counties-Manukau Police District. The Government’s top priorities for policing have been to increase the number of police officers to improve the safety of the public and the provision of Tasers to assist the safety of the police as well. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What is the sense in giving the police funding in the Budget for 43 extra vehicles with one hand while taking away 300-plus vehicles with the other hand or is this another attempt to fudge the numbers as that Minister did with her claim of 600 extra police being funded by this Government when it was confirmed at the select committee today that National is funding only 224 of the new police officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not know why the member gets his numbers so wrong. There are 389 extra police and 43 extra cars provided under Budget 2009. I will say it again: there are 389 extra police under just this Budget. I cannot understand why the member cannot count. There will be 600 more police by the end of 2011 than there were at the beginning of December 2008. That is 600 extra police. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister take ministerial responsibility for the $21 million that is being cut from police resources if those cuts result in a decline in service from the police or will she continue to wash her hands of her responsibilities as she did in the select committee today when she claimed that that responsibility will be an operational matter? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I am very happy to take some responsibility for the $182.5 million that this Government has been able to put towards the police—plus by the way the $10.5 million for Tasers which is something that those members over there when they were in Government never ever funded. All they ever did was to have another review. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a report in which the police note part of the drive to cut $21 million from their $1.5 billion annual budget. It is a 19 June 2009 report from the  
Southland Times 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a report from the  
Southland Times 
. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a report in which the Minister of Police implies that the police provided by the previous Government were underfunded. I do this noting your rulings Mr Speaker; it is an answer to an oral question of 2 June 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just let me clarify: the member is seeking to table the answer to an oral question of 2 June 2009 which is only a few days back. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Why would the House not have that information? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am quite happy to provide that answer. I seek leave to table the answer reluctantly but I do it firstly because under Standing Order 368 I am able to and secondly because the answer highlights an inherent contradiction in what the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I have made the point on many occasions that the important provision in the Standing Orders for members to table documents is to provide the House with information that it otherwise would not have. It is not to enable members to score political points using information that was provided in the House only a few days before. I am bound to put the leave the member is seeking but I note that it is disorderly to abuse the provisions like that. Leave has been sought and I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you are editorialising what the Standing Order states. The Standing Order does not state what its intention is; it states just what we are allowed and not allowed to do. My colleague was perfectly within order to seek leave to table that document. There used to be abuse of the leave provisions in this House when the Hon Phil Heatley would stand up and list 10 different documents separately— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat and he will not use the point of order procedure to attack another member in the House. I have made my position as Speaker very clear. The member is certainly entitled to his view; I will respect his view. But he will not take further time of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter that came up last week and it has come up again now and you have indicated that you will refer it to the Standing Orders Committee. Can I suggest that until the Standing Orders are changed it would be appropriate either for the House to use the current Standing Orders or for you to issue a clear Speaker’s ruling that indicates that you will not accept points of order of this sort. If you issued a clear Speaker’s ruling of that type then the House would be obliged to obey it in the interim. While we have editorialising and case by case management of this issue I think it will lead to disorder but it is something that is in your hands. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable member’s point. I remind members of the House that the Standing Orders Committee reviewed this matter and reported on it at the end of the last Parliament giving guidance to the Speaker. The Speaker attempts to follow the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee which was very clear that the provision should be used to provide information to the House that it would not otherwise have in its possession. As Speaker I have been trying to follow the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee and I apologise to the House if members feel that I am taking that too far. I am trying to treat both sides of the House evenly. I try to make it clear that it is not a great course of action to try to use the tabling procedure to score political points. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept everything you have said. In addition to the request that my colleague has made I also ask whether you would reflect on this—and I am not scoring political points. If a statement is made in the House on a particular area and the  
Hansard 
 record either latterly or historically shows that a member has taken a different position then members have often sought to table the  
Hansard 
. The only course of action available to highlight that the particular position may be contradictory is to offer up the  
Hansard 
. I think that in practical terms it would be rare for us all to remember things that were said in this place years ago perhaps or even months ago. So that is one reason. It is done reluctantly and not to challenge you Mr Speaker; it is done to highlight—as the only course of action that we on this side of the House have—where a contradiction may have occurred. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further advice on this matter. I respect the point the honourable member has raised but this is precisely why supplementary questions are provided for. If one goes back a few years to my early days in this House there was only one supplementary question to a substantive question. The reason why there are many more supplementary questions today is to enable members to pursue exactly that kind of thing. Where they find that an answer seems inconsistent with information that they have in their possession they can question the Minister further about that discrepancy. The more pointed they make their questioning the more I will be able to support them in obtaining answers to it. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a relevant issue here that needs to be teased out. I agree with my friend’s comment. You are quite right to say that one of the ways that inconsistencies can be pointed out is through supplementary questions but the Standing Orders also allow us to do it by tabling an inconsistent document. That was what my friend Mr Cosgrove was trying to do and he is entitled to do that under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the points the honourable members have made but the important thing is that members do not actually need to table information especially when it is readily available to the House; they need only to refer to it in their questions. They do not need to actually table it because it is readily available. The issue is use of the point of order procedure and the provision to seek leave to table documents. That is the provision that the Standing Orders Committee advised the Speaker on. I am trying to follow the advice of the Standing Orders Committee. If I have caused members concern I apologise but I will try to apply that recommendation as evenly as possible.