6. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this
to the Minister of Fisheries
How many times did fisheries officers call for police assistance for reasons of personal safety in each of the last 7 years?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) Link to this
Fisheries officers regularly call for assistance from police, under a memorandum of understanding the Ministry of Fisheries has with the New Zealand Police. But neither the Ministry of Fisheries nor police keep a record of the reason for each and every call. However, I can advise the member that the number of occasions on which the personal safety of fisheries officers was compromised to the point of there being an assault requiring medical attention is nine times in the last 7 years.
Why does the Minister continue to deny the 85 front-line fisheries officers the ability to protect themselves using pepper spray and batons, when his own figures show that they have a similar likelihood of being assaulted with a weapon as do sworn police officers?
I imagine that all members of this Parliament are concerned about the growing culture of violence in New Zealand. But I believe that arming fisheries officers would continue to escalate this culture, not ameliorate it. In New Zealand we have a cultural ethos against the use of violence to enforce the law, unless it is absolutely necessary. When force is required, the police are the appropriate agency for doing so. The police are trained, equipped, and mandated by law for the use of force; fisheries officers are not. I do not believe that the current level of violence towards fisheries officers requires a review of that approach.
Phil HeatleyWhy is the Ministry of Fisheries considering raising the count of shellfish that people can collect on Auckland beaches, because fisheries officers cannot enforce the current rules; how does that help the shellfish stock; why does the ministry not just police the current rules, or are officers so few they cannot police them or so afraid, they will not police them?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The principal question was about the safety of fisheries officers. I do not think one can expand that to every function that fisheries officers undertake, including in regard to shellfish on Auckland beaches. I do not think there is any suggestion of a large safety element involved in that.
My question asked why fisheries officers do not just police the current rules, or are they so few they cannot police them, or are officers so afraid, they will not police them, which is the whole point of the question.
Madam SPEAKERThe substance of the question is about personal safety. So if the member just considers his question, we will take another one. It is very broad, and actually just using “safety” at the end of it, about shellfish, does not bring it within the scope. If the member would just like to rephrase. Supplementary question, Phil Heatley.
Hon Bill EnglishI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have given the member some direction about the question, and it would be fair just to allow him to go ahead and ask it now.
No, I have not called anyone else. [ Interruption] I am giving the member the opportunity to think. He does not need it; he can reframe his question. I called him.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I would have thought a point of order lasts from the time it is raised till you complete your ruling on it. You were ruling on it, and several members on the Government benches were interjecting during that point of order.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I am happy to leave the Chamber, but I ask your leave to return to answer Dr Lockwood Smith’s question.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I could name at least four Ministers—
I am sorry; I called for suspects as well, and they identified themselves. At one point there was such a barracking, most members would have had to leave the Chamber. That is the point. I have to take the members’ word on it. I have taken their word on it. If anyone else interjected on the point of order, he or she should leave the Chamber.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard some noise from people at the point—indeed, just after—Mr English sat down. If that is to be ruled completely out of order, then I am afraid Dr Lockwood Smith is about to leave as well, because he interjected from his chair, having just raised a point of order. He sat down and interjected, before you had finished ruling on the matter.
That is true. Let us get some sense into this. I did not hear anyone interject during the Hon Bill English’s point of order, but there was interjection at the end of it. So I accept that. The member has left.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We do now have to have consistent rules. Earlier on in this question time Winston Peters took a point of order. He said to you that Eric Roy had interjected during a point of order, and on that basis you ejected Eric Roy from the Chamber—not because you heard the interjection, or found it out of order, or because you knew who had done it, but simply because one member stood up and took a point of order. On that basis, my colleague Lockwood Smith should be allowed to get up, name the members who interjected, and then you eject them from the Chamber.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
That would be an absurd position. I could quickly clear the House on that basis, and then take urgency for the remainder of Government business. Mr Roy stood up and accepted that he made an interjection, and left. The member seems to be—yet again today—trying to raise points of order by looking through the back of his head and not seeing what is happening behind him. We could see what Mr Roy did, from this side of the House.
That is true, actually. [ Interruption] Please be seated. I am ruling on this point of order. I have heard enough comment. Mr Roy did identify himself and therefore left the Chamber. I have asked members to identify themselves. The member has identified himself and he has now left the Chamber.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Yesterday you asked members on this side of the House, if they had interjected, to be sufficiently honest to leave the Chamber. You did not know that I had interjected. I admitted I had, and in honour I left the Chamber. I think the second time—
No, I am sorry, it is not a different point of order, at all. I have ruled on this matter. Members have identified themselves, but some may not have. There is nothing I can do about that.
Is the Ministry of Fisheries considering raising the count of shellfish that people can collect on Auckland beaches, because fisheries officers are so few they cannot police the current rules, or so afraid, they will not police the current rules?
Pita ParaoneTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that it is somewhat naive to expect fisheries officers to call the police when confronted with dangerous situations, given the often remote locations that officers work in, the ability of the overstretched police to respond in time to apprehend their poachers, and the resourcefulness and street smarts of the poachers themselves; if not, why not?
I, like all other members of this House, would be concerned, and am concerned, about the safety of any public servant, including fisheries officers. My advice is that when police assistance is not immediately available to fisheries officers, which of course on occasion it is not, and they are confronted with an escalating situation, which is not the usual set of circumstances but it does occur, their training to date has allowed them, in the overwhelming number of cases that I have reviewed, to extract themselves safely from those situations.
Does the Minister stand by his statement in today’s New Zealand Herald that the figures do not justify fisheries officers protecting themselves with pepper spray or batons, when one in 20 front-line fisheries officers is the victim of a serious assault every year, and does an officer need to be killed before self-protection is allowed?
I have asked the Ministry of Fisheries to research the figures of serious assaults on fisheries officers over the last 7 years. The definition of serious is an assault that requires hospital treatment, which in no cases has meant overnight treatment but it could be stitches to a cut, or whatever. There have been nine of those in 7 years. I think, given the circumstances and knowing that we have bus drivers, taxi drivers, nurses, and Accident Compensation Corporation and Work and Income officials at the front line who have been injured on many occasions, if the suggestion is that we start arming all public servants in this area, that is simply ludicrous.
I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Hon Jim Anderton, Minister of Fisheries, published in today’s New Zealand Herald.
I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald article reporting that one of the ministry’s suggested solutions to people breaching shellfish takes is to raise the allowable takes.