Mark Ron: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Mark Ron: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21292] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I tell all the listeners sitting in their cars that the speech we were just treated to from Clayton Cosgrove was his “Please make me a Minister next time.” speech. 
Hon Annette King 
: He doesn’t need to say please. He’s doing all right. 
RON MARK 
: Oh so Clayton Cosgrove is going to be a Minister in the next Government? 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh yes you wait and see. 
RON MARK 
: That is a very fine announcement from the Minister of Health who will be departing along with her entire front bench as Labour leaves Government. 
That factor brings me nicely to the point I wanted to make. It is one thing to have a debate and a speech targeted on the facts; it is quite another thing to have a member of Parliament stand up and use sarcasm vindictiveness and nastiness—to call one member a paddle crab; to call another member yellow and not be pulled up by the Chair; and to imply that another member is so big and fat that he did not fit on the TV screen in a particular interview. If that is the sort of arrogance this Government wants to bring to the next Parliament and to the next Cabinet then so be it but I suggest to Annette King that it is a little bit presumptuous to assume that Labour will be in Government. 
I point to another comment. There was a little interchange that speaks very loudly of the culture. When Mr David Carter spoke—and God knows I am not here to defend him—he was questioned by Government members as to what seat he holds and what constituency he represents. Immediately to the fore came Judith Tizard Annette King Harry Duynhoven and Georgina Beyer to ridicule him as though he were some sort of B-class MP because he does not have a constituency. Here is the point: Georgina Beyer is herself now on the list; the Deputy Prime Minister of this country the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is a list MP. It smacks again of an arrogance that can be demonstrated only by people who believe that they are beyond reproach and that they are as constituency MPs more important than list MPs. 
It brings to mind the Jill Pettis comment in answer to a question from a person on the street as to whether she could govern with New Zealand First. Her answer was: “They’re so unsophisticated.” Imagine that comment being reiterated in the freezing works amongst the hard-core Labour vote! Imagine that comment on the marae! If Winston Peters is less sophisticated than Jill Pettis and if that is the proviso the chief Government whip is going to bring to the negotiating table—that she wants to govern only with people who are sophisticated—then it suggests that Labour is a country mile away from its roots. The people on the marae the tangata whenua whom Labour so proudly claims to represent are not going to take kindly to that sort of arrogance. 
 It is the sort of arrogance displayed by Mr Maharey who made all sorts of promises in Opposition then became a Minister and reversed his position. That act created the “Maharey principle” which is the ability to say one thing when in Opposition and do another when in Government. It was most aptly summed up not by Mr Cosgrove in his very sad speech but by Dr Cullen himself who said in the House: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. That sums it up. Mr Carter was quite right when he pointed out that the commentary we hear from Labour MPs and Ministers is pure arrogance. 
The Budget is my next point. I have just come from a Grey Power meeting in Porirua on law and order which the Hon George Hawkins attended. I give him 10 out of 10 for attending—brave chap. He is a nice chap actually. I have known George Hawkins for a very long time—since he was a member of the Mike Moore team. But for him to stand and justify the Budget the supplementary estimates and the expenditure of money in this Government’s coffers by telling the people of Porirua this afternoon that crime is falling was summed up by the reaction of the audience members who crossed their arms and put their heads down and shook them. After the meeting was over I asked a number of people whether they knew of anyone in their family who had been a victim of crime and who had not reported that crime and if so to tell me why it was not reported. All the people standing around me said that of course they did—not one member of their family but many members. For the Minister to justify his reduction in crime-fighting expenditure an insignificant increase in the police budget and an insignificant increase in police numbers over 4 years by telling those elderly people who have read in the papers of another two elderly people murdered in their home that crime is falling smacks of either stupidity or arrogance—one can take one’s choice. 
The same man said that burglary rates are down. Burglary rates are not down—reports of burglaries are down. Let us ask any policeman policewoman or citizen whether he or she believes that burglaries are down. Let us go to the national crime statistics and the victimisation statistics. They state that crime is under-reported by a massive 60 percent. Do we see a commensurate increase in expenditure in this Budget? Do we see a commensurate concentration on burglaries? No. When I went to the Northern Communications Centre I saw all the burglary cases from that night being stacked up as priority three to be looked at not on Saturday not on Sunday but some time on Monday. How does that settle with average New Zealanders? Average New Zealanders who have had their home burgled try not to disturb the scene because they truly believe that when they ring the police a policeman or policewoman will come around to examine the scene collect DNA and collect fingerprints and that then the family will be free to get on and clean up the burglar’s mess—that home-invasive mess. But that is not what happens. We all sat there—Marc Alexander myself and Martin Gallagher—and watched all those burglaries be classified as priority three to be left for the Monday or Tuesday. In fact we now know that burglary scenes are never investigated on the night or day they are reported—never. And the Government has the nerve to tell us that burglaries are down? No. 
Reported burglaries are down for economic reasons. First most people do not have home contents insurance. They can make no claim. So there is no point in their reporting the crime because they know full well that it will never be solved and they do not need a claim number from the police because they will not put in an insurance claim. Second those people who do have home contents insurance policies will make an evaluation as to whether they want to affect their no-claims bonus or excess. They will make a value decision as to whether they will report the burglary. Again for the Government to talk of its pride about the police budget is a very very sad thing. It belies its true commitment to resolving crime and bringing crime rates down. 
For Mr Hawkins to say that the road toll is down and that that justifies the quota ticketing system is a nonsense. Speeders are not the only people who kill on our roads. What kills on our roads is bad engineering. If people need proof of that they should go out on State Highway 1 and look at the good engineering that has been done to divide off those lanes along the coast. That sort of thing reduces road fatalities. Education—the excellent advertisements on television—reduce road fatalities. None of the people in Grey Power believe that the quota ticketing system on its own which collects $100 million per year is responsible for reducing the road toll. Children reduce the road toll when they tell their mum dad and grandad to put their seatbelt on. That comes from education. The quota ticketing system is about one thing and one thing alone: redressing the balance and bringing $96 million in revenue into the coffers. Engineering education and road safety together reduce the road toll not quota ticketing on its own. Nobody believed the Minister when he tried to say that it did. 
As for the lowering of standards in police recruiting nothing in this Budget or these supplementary estimates suggests that this Government is serious about bringing safety to our streets with a serious increase in police numbers. For the Government to crow about 247 officers over 4 years is pathetic. We need 2500 officers now. Auckland—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister Judith Tizard laughs. She should read the police’s own report from 2002. They needed then an extra 100 response units and they still do not have them.