Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20526] 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Police; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Who does the Prime Minister hold responsible for the state of the police emergency system—a system with inadequate levels of service where calls are not dealt with quickly enough where patrol cars are not responding and where public safety is at risk? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The report of the review committee sets out quite clearly the difficulties that exist there. They are predominantly operational difficulties but it was the Commissioner of Police himself who asked for the review and the Commissioner of Police who has committed himself to respond to each of those review recommendations to ensure that this country has a first-rate communications centre system. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Minister believe that the Minister of Police has responded appropriately to the findings of the independent review of police communications centres? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The Minister committed himself in the House in November and again in February to deliver additional resources on top of the additional resources he has already delivered to the police over 5 years if the review concluded that they were necessary to address problems in the 111 system. That Minister of course has honoured that promise in full. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the country to accept this Minister as being competent when he ignored the advice given to him on 29 September 2002 by a communications officer as to the problems with the emergency 111 system; when he ignored the advice given to him by his own Commissioner of Police dated 21 November 2002 highlighting the problems of the 111 system in Auckland in particular; when he failed to take on board the very serious article published in  
Investigate 
 in June 2003 that cautioned that there would be a death; when he failed to approve the recommendations in the police bid for May 2003; and when he told this House that traffic officers were not sitting on the side of the road with their radios turned off and we now know they were? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will answer two of those questions. Firstly the member is not quoting accurately from the first communication he talked about. That communication—he can table it if he likes—does not deal with communications staff; it deals with general staff. Secondly it was not ignored. It was passed on to the Commissioner of Police because it was an operational matter. Thirdly this Minister unlike Winston Peters when he was Deputy Prime Minister has delivered an increase in the Budget for police each and every year that he has been Minister. I refer Ron Mark to 1997 when the appropriations for the police were cut on Budget night. Winston Peters cut the police Budget. George Hawkins has seen it increase each and every year for 5 years. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the substance of this report into the emergency 111 system comprises matters that a strong and capable Minister should have been able to find out without needing the assistance of the Australians and Canadians; if so does she now not regret her decision to put the placating of the internal factions of the Labour Party ahead of the good of the country by keeping Mr Hawkins as Minister of Police when it is patently obvious that her decision has put the lives of New Zealanders at risk? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The second point is absolutely wrong. On the first point that member would have been the first member in the House to accuse the Government of an in-house whitewash if the review had been done internally. I congratulate the Commissioner of Police on getting top people from three different jurisdictions to produce a forthright and comprehensive report then committing himself to implementing it—not before time. 
Ron Mark 
: I know this is outside of the normal procedure but I ask the indulgence of the House to seek leave at this particular point of time specifically as it may impact on the supplementary questions that follow because the Minister’s own statement in  
Hansard 
 that the letter I quoted from was not communications related and indeed— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could you come to the point. What is your point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: I want to seek the leave of the House and your indulgence because this is not the time to do it— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is your point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the police Southern Communications Centre in Christchurch dated 29 September 2002 written by K D Morrison a communications police staff member. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Prime Minister be urging the Minister of Police to look at decentralising call centres and merging the call answering and despatch functions as the review recommended to avoid the problem of operators hundreds of kilometres away knowing little about the town the distressed person is calling from or about what police resources are actually available? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That matter is patently an operational matter that the Prime Minister properly should not intervene in. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Prime Minister expect the public to have any confidence in the Minister of Police and in the Government’s propaganda asserting that crime is falling when yesterday’s independent report has clearly undermined police statistics on the true length of the time 111 callers had to wait for a response? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is no question about the accuracy of the statistics the way in which they are compiled and the fact that that has been consistent over time. I find it remarkable that every member of the Opposition was absolutely ready to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister sit down. Interjections are permitted but they must be at a level where the answer can be heard. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I find it absolutely incredible that when those figures were going up in some categories every member of the Opposition had absolute faith in them; now that they are going down in every category those members choose to disbelieve them. The population can take its own conclusion from that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that her repeated expressions of confidence in George Hawkins have put New Zealanders calling the 111 system at risk and why does she continue to allow that incompetent and failed Minister to preside over that service when it clearly needs a new approach? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I do not accept that but I draw Mr Brownlee’s attention to the fact that the previous National Minister refused to have an inquiry into the 111 system when it was sought in 1998. Secondly I draw attention to this fact from the Police Association: the National Government planned to cut 285 non-sworn staff including those who answered 111 calls. If that is not a case of double standards I do not know what is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The examples the Minister has rather hopefully clung to are almost a decade old. I think it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the Government that it is totally responsible for the last 6 years and for the mess that has been uncovered in this inquiry. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think we need to have any more comment on this. The member has made the point. It is not for the Chair to comment on the quality of the answer. As members know that will be done by others who hear it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While Mr Brownlee was taking his point of order the acting Prime Minister Phil Goff interjected on him very clearly and very loudly. The appropriate course of action is to be consistent with the action taken in relation to Mr Brownlee—that is when the acting Prime Minister has finished answering his questions he should go out and come back in when he is due to answer them again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I heard a general level of intervention; I did not hear a specific comment or interjection thrown across. I heard a general level only. I am trying to be consistent here. But I would say to members that the whole level of chat and talk in this House is too high in this question time. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps to move matters forward on the points raised by Mr Hide I could offer two options respectfully to the Chair. Firstly any member on this side of the House would be happy to advise you who made the interjection. Secondly perhaps you would consider asking the acting Prime Minister directly whether he interjected during the course of that point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister of Justice interject? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I said and probably too loudly: “That’s not correct.” in response to something that was incorrect. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that was a comment. We are getting ourselves into a ridiculous position where there will be nobody left by the time we get to question time. However appealing that may well be to some people it would seem to me that that is not the appropriate way to run the House. The Minister will have time out also. I am not sure what other questions he will be answering but we will do an equivalent to what I have decreed in terms of the tariff before. The Minister will remain until he has finished answering this question unless members would like him to go without answering the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First of all I apologise for the interjection but your proposal creates some problems for me. I am answering question Nos 1 3 5 7 8 and 11. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It does create a problem because it appears that Mr Goff actually is the Government today. [ 
Interruption 
] Well some might take some comfort from that. There is another alternative Madam Speaker which I do not think would reflect on your authority and that would be to call it quits and allow Mr Goff and Mr Brownlee to stay. Part of the reason I think you could do that is that there is a complete difference I think between a person who makes a loud interjection that the whole House hears during a point of order and someone who makes—how can I put it—an almost involuntary statement. I think that Mr Goff’s statement and Mr Brownlee’s statement were both in that category and that might help. Also you could use Mr Hunt’s guidance—you can exercise a lighter rule on Thursdays. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a sensible suggestion so both members can stay for this question time. But I do make this point. I know it is Thursday and members are all anxious to go but could we please make some progress by keeping the level of interventions to the appropriate times—not during the asking of a question and not during points of order. During the answers of course there can be interjections but not to the point where the answer cannot be heard. Can we please make some progress. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister acknowledge that members of the public and Opposition MPs—and none more so than my colleague Ron Mark—have expressed concerns about the 111 call centre on many many occasions; and if he does acknowledge that will he make a commitment this afternoon that in future the Minister of Police will listen more seriously and genuinely to concerns raised about police operations or will it be a case of the same old same old—not listen to anybody and call a report after a personal tragedy and see what the hell happens then? Which is it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I will acknowledge is that following the Bentley case and the Iraena Asher case it was clear that the system was not working as it should. The commissioner first of all acknowledged that by setting up this review which I think was a very good review. The Minister acknowledged that by undertaking to fund whatever the review required to happen so that the public could have confidence in the system. I think that both of those actions were appropriate. We are now seeing the dividends from that. The system is being fixed and $45.5 million has been put aside to ensure that that happens. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a full and comprehensive answer but it was dealing with the past. I asked the Minister about the future. I asked whether there would be a change in the attitude of the Minister of Police in listening to concerns that are raised on this side of the House. It is a simple question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister said before that he was prepared to work on the basis of the objective findings of a review and he has done that. He did the right thing in the past and I support him doing that in the future. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Prime Minister now instruct the Minister of Police to go on his knees to Maggie Bentley with an abject apology for calling the 111 system’s handling of her desperate calls “textbook” and “exemplary” and what more would it take for the Prime Minister to call for the Minister’s resignation when he fobbed off all questions in this House about Maggie Bentley’s case to the report when the report does not mention it at all and when she tells me today that she has never heard from the Minister’s office that she has never heard from the commissioner’s office and that she has never had any inquiry at all from any member of the New Zealand Police about that complaint? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Far from fobbing off the concern the Minister has taken steps that will see an unprecedented $45.5 million invested in the service. In relation to the question of textbook requirements for police responding to 111 calls the textbook requirement was that if there is a dangerous individual then another person should not be put in the position of putting his or her life at risk in the meantime while the police are responding to the call. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the scathing review of the national management structures of the police 111 system which are credited in the report as being “essentially defunct” with low staffing levels and woeful and inadequate training and “self-defeating inefficient and risky” changed the Prime Minister’s mind about the level of confidence she has in the Minister and in the Commissioner of Police; if not what would? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In the interests of accuracy I think the whole of the report of the review and its summation should be brought to the House’s attention. The review stated that we had a world-class technology system it stated that we had dedicated and committed staff it stated that the commissioner had already undertaken steps to address the problems and—and this is most important—it stated that the system was “readily fixable”. It will be fixed and it will be world-class just as the report indicated that it can be. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the report into the emergency 111 system identifies that the serious problems were not the result of inadequate resources or technology failures but of management and leadership; if so when does she intend to apologise for leaving a broken-down Minister in charge of the vital police portfolio? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The comment made by the member does not follow. If the issue was not about resourcing but was about management issues then that is operational and that is clearly outside the scope of the Minister to intervene. One aspect of the recommendations recommendation 17 was about resourcing. It made the point that resourcing was just one issue. On the issue that the Minister clearly does have responsibility for he has met his responsibility by acquiring the money needed to fix the system. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government has chosen to advance all her intrusive busybody social engineering policies while core State responsibilities such as the safety and security concerns of the public—concerns long recognised by anyone who had even a marginal interest in law and order issues—have been all but marginalised as is clearly outlined by the damning review of the police 111 system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the whole emphasis has been on the safety and security of the public. That is why we have 1000 additional members of the police force and why we have $200 million a year extra being spent. That is an indication of the commitment of this Government to better policing and to the safety and security of the public. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Prime Minister now instruct the Minister of Police and the Attorney-General to apologise to those people who have been hounded to bankruptcy by pointless prosecutions for defending their families against criminal intruders and reimburse them their legal costs now that we have independent proof that they cannot rely on police commander control or the 111 system to protect them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I find it bizarre for anybody but particularly for a lawyer to suggest the Prime Minister should interfere with a judicial process where a court has made a decision. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister think that Mr Hawkins’ refusal to take any responsibility for the 111 crisis is a shining example of the Government’s lack of commitment to the new standards of accountability she so loudly heralded upon becoming Prime Minister? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister of Police can be accountable. He can be accountable for the additional $200 million a year being spent on the police he can be accountable for the 1000 extra staff he can be accountable for the lowest level of crime in this country in 23 years and he can be accountable for the fact that the police now have a better rate of crime resolution than they have had at any time in 21 years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that if one does not make the calls one does not make the sales and similarly if one does not get the calls one cannot make the arrests. That is how the Government has got its crime rates down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document. What document states that? The document has not been clearly identified. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the House gives me leave I will go away and write it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is starting to trifle with the House. That is an example of being disruptive. Members will settle down.