Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19695] 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by his statement: “I am advised that detectives are not reassigned from their primary duties”; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I am advised that detectives are not reassigned from their primary duties. However under the direction of district commanders all police staff including investigators may from time to time be deployed to respond to any offence including traffic offences. 
Ron Mark 
: Why does this Labour-led Government think it appropriate at a time when there are thousands of unallocated files awaiting investigation seven of which involve rape and when police are warning New Zealanders of the serious threats posed by a burgeoning methamphetamine P market which is being run by organised crime gangs that previously were mortal enemies in joint-venture operations across international and ethnic boundaries that the cream of our police—detectives—are now being pulled from their investigations to issue traffic tickets for seatbelt and warrant of fitness offences? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is simply not reality. District commanders have the responsibility of deploying their staff to the best effect in order to meet their obligations to police the whole spectrum of criminal offending. From time to time there may be one-off special deployments involving staff across all units but that would be rare and would certainly not involve pulling staff from significant and active inquiry work. That is a quote from Assistant Commissioner Peter Marshall on 15 February this year. 
Tim Barnett 
: What comments if any has he seen in relation to the crossover of duties performed by the police? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have seen a report quoting Senior Constable Peter Daly in today’s Christchurch  
Press 
: “No doubt there are times when general duties police are called to traffic but I’ve never seen someone taken off a rape case and sent to write tickets. I keep hearing that but I’ve never seen it. But then I’ve only been in the job 17 years”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister been advised that he may have breached a suppression order while he was talking about staffing issues on Radio New Zealand this morning? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a very interesting question but what on earth does it have to do with the principal question which is about the reassignment of detectives from their primary duties? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am inclined to agree with that. It is really right outside the scope of the original question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I realise that it is a very sensitive issue but the fact is that this morning the Hon George Hawkins was on the radio talking about these staffing issues. Also if we look at the primary question we see that it very much goes to the heart of staffing issues within the police. If the reassigning of detectives from their primary duties is not a staffing issue then I do not know what is. Everyone in this House knows that it was the article on the front page of today’s  
Dominion Post 
 
in which these issues were discussed that got Mr Hawkins into the studio today to justify his position. My question simply asked whether he has been advised that during the course of that he may have breached the suppression order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What the member says may well be right but it is very clear both in the Standing Orders and in the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 
that supplementary questions have to be relevant to the principal question. Supplementary question Gerry Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is a rewording I hope. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as it is relevant to the principal question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It seems to me that if a supplementary question is ruled out of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is ruled out of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
:—and it clearly was then we cannot really give a free supplementary question on top of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a free supplementary question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It must be an additional supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is an additional supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have heard the Greens and members of United Future ask questions that were so wide of the wicket that they would have scored a six on their own and the Speaker has allowed them to have another go. The fact is that Mr Hawkins incompetent as he is had to get on the radio this morning to justify the disastrous situation in the police force up and down the country. It is a staffing issue that has got him into trouble and he should answer in Parliament today whether or not his staff are scurrying around working out how to get him out of trouble. We know that one member of Parliament has been done for a so-called breach of a suppression order in recent times and now it would seem that the Government is trying to get this Minister off that. We want to know just what advice he has had. He cannot speak as a Minister about staffing matters trying to justify himself and breach the law and not expect to be asked questions about it in this House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Now we are in quite a different area. The member has now thoroughly abused the point of order procedure. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 19/5: “A member should raise a point of order tersely.” The member went all around the paddock on an issue that had nothing to do with the point of order which was actually about the fact that when a supplementary question is clearly ruled out the Speaker has discretion to invite the member to rephrase it but the member cannot then expect simply to get another supplementary question that does not count against the party’s allocation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Mr Brownlee having asked his question I would have thought the Minister of Police would welcome an opportunity to get up and tell us—as I am sure he would—that he does not believe he breached the suppression order. Otherwise we are left with the impression that the Government believes he did and does not want him to speak any more. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance on this. The member has already been indulged—at least to my memory—on two other occasions when he has been able to rephrase his questions instead of having to ask second questions. On other occasions when a member has been indulged and has been able to rephrase or clarify a question it has always been relevant to the principal question. On this occasion the member is raising matters that are totally outside the scope of that question. If the member wishes to ask another supplementary question he can but it must relate to the primary question. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to point out that Mr Brownlee by bringing United Future and the Greens into the question when raising that somewhat spurious point of order really also challenged your consistency as Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet and give the member the courtesy of silence while he is raising his point of order. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I think he was also challenging your performance and your objectivity as the Chair of this House. I do not think that is orderly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Ruling on that point of order I say it is not the first time that that member has done that and it has been observed by me. If there is another occasion on which it happens then of course action will be taken. I ask the member whether he wishes to ask a supplementary question within the scope of the primary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Minister was discussing staffing issues on the radio this morning did he breach a suppression order? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I did not. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Minister give an undertaking to take ministerial responsibility and explain exactly what investigation or other action he will take if he is presented with evidence that all of the detectives in a particular office were recently sent out to get traffic tickets—were sent away from their other work? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: None. It is over to the district commander to assign duties and it is not the job of Ministers to do it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of this morning’s interview in which—on the last page of that transcript—the Minister clearly breached a suppression order. The prohibition as to the nature of the crime was mentioned by him. He breached it and he should not be misleading this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal practice is for such leave to be sought at the end of supplementary questions. Are there further supplementary questions? [ 
Interruption 
] The member has sought leave to table a transcript. Is there any objection? Yes there is. It will not be tabled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just ask you to now think about what you have ruled with regard to National members having to use an extra supplementary question out of the allocation that we receive on a daily basis effectively to ask the Minister the exact same question. I ask what the difference is between asking whether the Minister had been advised on whether he had breached the suppression order and asking him very directly whether he did breach it. The fascinating thing is that he was able quite categorically to state that he did not. I think we can then assume that he may have received advice. I just ask you why we have been able to ask virtually the same question and to get an answer very quickly from the Minister but it has had to cost us two questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the member obviously had advice to rephrase the question so he brought it within the context of the primary question. There is no problem with that. If that member challenges one of my rulings one more time then he is on notice. I have ruled; you challenge my rulings all the time. Can we please move on. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the police are not stretched for staff when so many stories about understaffing are emerging from within their own ranks and are being publicised in the media and in the House; and if he persists in denying those claims does that mean he thinks his officers are a bunch of ungrateful and deluded whingers? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There are more police than ever they are better-funded than ever and I have great confidence in them. That is why the crime rate has dropped 8.2 percent. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is true that he in fact despite public denials has actually asked for increased resources to go to the police but has been refused and can we take it that that is because increasing their resources would be seen as an admission of failure in terms of stemming the rising tide of the crime statistics? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member must know that the police are well funded. They have a Minister who has got them more resources than anyone else has in recent years. 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The main question that was asked was whether he had asked for more resourcing and had been refused that resourcing. He did not address that question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member will have to wait until the Budget. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question that was asked of him. It was addressed. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether he is happy to have detectives taken off their caseloads and sent out to man traffic checkpoints and issue warrant of fitness infringement notices in the light of statements such as this one from a letter dated 29 March 2005 and written to me by a senior investigating police officer: “A large amount of serious crime is not being investigated because there are not enough investigators to go around.” and such as this one in a second letter dated 9 July 2005 and from the criminal investigation branch and signed by Inspector Shearer the area commander of the Manurewa Police Station: “The level of crime reported in the Counties police district over the last 2 to 3 years has seriously affected our ability to investigate all matters in a timely matter.”—the letter goes on to apologise to the victim that the police can no longer prosecute the case because it has taken too long given their staffing? Is that what this Government is all about? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is not what this Government is all about. We are about bringing crime rates down doing it well and getting improving results. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the transcript from today’s Television One  
Midday 
 news where the judge in the Sergeant Solomona case gave as one of the reasons the severe lack of resources of the police force in south Auckland. 
Document not tabled.