9. Question No. 9—PoliceHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 9—Police9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: How many Constabulary Full Time Equivalents does Police expect to need to train each year for the next two years in order to maintain the 1 to 480 ratio and will the Government's commitment for no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years" be in addition to that?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): I'm advised that the 1:480 ratio was never finalised nor was it funded adequately by the previous Government. Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the number of constabulary fulltime-equivalents be 500 higher in two years' time? [Interruption]SPEAKER: The honourable member is asking a question. I didn't even hear it. Can you do that again? Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the number of constabulary fulltime-equivalents be 500 higher in two years' time? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well in the police numbers matter and we're committed to the coalition agreement that we have with New Zealand First. They delivered 1800 additional police officers and they're now committed to an additional 500. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. We've had two questions to the Minister of Police and he hasn't answered either of the questions. One of them was a primary question on notice. If you go and have a look at the primary question on notice it was: "How many Constabulary Full Time Equivalents does Police expect to need to train each year for the next two years in order to maintain the 1 to 480 ratio" and will he commit to there being "no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years". He didn't answer that. That was a primary question on notice. SPEAKER: No he did. He actually said—Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—SPEAKER: Well just a minute. What he actually said was that he didn't agree that the 1:480 ratio was ever funded. Hon Chris Bishop: That's right—which gets to the premise of the question. SPEAKER: That would seem to be a reasonable answer. But Mr Bishop? Hon Chris Bishop: No you made my point. SPEAKER: Right. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. The question would have had to have been authenticated. Therefore you have accepted that the question is valid; therefore you should accept—you should require the Minister to provide an answer. SPEAKER: Actually no. Many times there are questions that are asked in this House that the argument—the authentication has been run and not necessarily accepted by the Minister who's answering the question. Now what I do is irrelevant here. What he says is what the House gets as an answer in addressing a question. I'm sorry that that's the way it is. It's not changed from when other Ministers were on the other side of the House. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. I recall a previous shadow Leader of the House asking a then Speaker whether or not a Minister could stand up and simply say "Rhubarb!" in answer to a question because at that point the Speaker had ruled very similarly to what you have ruled today—that simply standing up and giving an answer was sufficient to address the question. So I once again raise the point of order that was raised by the then Hon Gerry Brownlee to the then Speaker—I can't remember which Speaker it was at the time—as to whether or not that continues to apply. SPEAKER: Well I can assure you that the Hon Gerry Brownlee got a very unsatisfactory answer at that time and I'm sorry I can't give you a better one now. Hon Grant Robertson: A further point of order—a further point of order. SPEAKER: No no we've got David Seymour—point of order David Seymour. Hon David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. I've got some sympathy for the point that Chris Hipkins is raising but if he thought it was important he should have raised it at the time not one or two questions later. SPEAKER: Thank you for that advice. The Hon Grant Robertson. Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker acknowledging the ruling you've made how was Mr Mitchell's answer to the primary question an answer to the second leg of the primary question? SPEAKER: Can you say that again. Sorry I didn't pick it up. Hon Grant Robertson: Sorry. How was the answer that Mr Mitchell gave to the primary question an answer to the second leg of the question? The first leg of the question indeed was about the ratio. We may differ on whether or not that was addressed but the second part of the question was most definitely not addressed. Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the—SPEAKER: Well I thought he had actually said that he expected for that to be the number. But if I'm wrong—the Hon Chris Bishop? The Hon Ginny Andersen. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware that 500 additional police officers over two years is not enough to even replace attrition and is he comfortable overseeing a reduction in front-line numbers? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well the 500 is additional police officers. The challenge that we've got as an incoming Government is that it's become very apparent to us that the police have got big challenges around recruiting. The recruiting pipeline there's pressure on that; we've got the Australians here recruiting our police officers; we've got a lot of officers coming up to retirement age. So she should understand that there's challenges there but the good news is the police remain committed to delivering an additional 500 police officers.Hon Ginny Andersen: How can the New Zealand public have confidence in him if he expects to oversee an overall decrease in constabulary front-line numbers?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well they can have confidence in me and this Government because we take public safety seriously.Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he expect New Zealanders to feel safer with fewer police on our streets and if not what is he going to do about it?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well there's not going to be fewer police on the streets number one. Number two police officers are actually going to be on the front line serving the communities that they work in and number three you've got a serious Government now that actually takes public safety seriously and the country's going to be safer."