10. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
Is she satisfied that police effectively prioritise their time and resources; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this
In general, yes. The responsibility for prioritising time and resources rests with the commissioner and district commanders. I accept, however, there has been some confusion over the past few years, about the concept of performance measures in regard to traffic enforcement. That confusion was put to rest by Commissioner Broad’s policy directive on 5 July.
Does she stand by her statement made in the House yesterday in relation to the two central district memos pressuring officers to issue more traffic tickets: “It is interesting that this problem has come out of one district.”; and does she still think it is interesting that there is now a third memo—this one from Marlborough and dated 6 June—ordering all officers to issue at least two traffic tickets a shift, until the end of the financial year?
Yes, I do stand by what I said yesterday. It is surprising that the two memos came out of one district, but the member might be interested to know that the story he has just quoted was in the Marlborough Express in June.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
The Minister mentioned in her primary answer that there has been confusion over performance measures; does she have any other information on this?
I have been trying to get to the bottom of the confusion, and members might like to listen. I have done a lot of work on the issue. It is now apparent that the use of infringement notices and traffic offence notices—performance measures—was first introduced in 1997-98 in line with Treasury guidelines. I also have with me the New Zealand Police road traffic enforcement agreement 1999-2000, and it lists the data that must be provided by each district. The data includes speeding offences detected per hour, drink-driving offences detected per hour, and contacts per hour, to name but a few. This particular agreement was signed by one Clem Simich, Minister of Police, and by transport Minister, Maurice Williamson. I also happen to have with me a 1997 press release that says: “Police have to issue a set number of traffic tickets and detail their time on the beat this year, as part of a Government push to make the force more businesslike.” I am glad I have finally got to the bottom of why districts have been allocating tickets on individual police numbers. I am glad I have got to the bottom of it, at last. I can say that the issue is finally being cleared up by the new Commissioner of Police. I can tell members that no such performance indicators now exist. When the member opposite stands up and tries to blame it on this Government, with a hidden agenda, New Zealanders should have a look at what was going on.
Madam SPEAKERI remind members that both questions and answers are meant to be succinct, and that continuous barracking does not aid those who wish to hear the answers to hear them.
Lindsay TischI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a speech. If the Minister wants to reply in that manner she should call a press conference. Not only that, her answer was allowed to continue; it should have been stopped a lot earlier. When there is barracking from this side of the House—and on many occasions you have said there is too much noise coming from this side—it cannot be stopped when a Minister like that carries on in that manner, which was giving a speech, not giving a response to a very clear question. [ Interruption] There should not be interjections when I am speaking. I ask that you ask the Minister to apologise for her response to these matters.
Ron MarkYes, I am. I rise to take this point of order because I could not hear the detail of the answer. Given that New Zealand First was the first party to raise the issue of quota ticketing in the House, I was extremely interested to hear the quotes from the documents—in particular, the times and the Ministers involved—but with the barracking and the noise, despite no matter how hard the Minister tried, I could not hear. It is partly due to the fact that I have suffered hearing loss on one side, due to my military service, but that is just something that—[ Interruption] Mr Power may disagree with what I am saying, but it is against the Standing Orders to interrupt on a point of order, as Mr Ryall knows. Both members should be ejected from the House if equality is truly to be applied.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I think I should, in all fairness, admit that Government members were doing a fair amount of the barracking on that occasion, for which I apologise. We were, of course, stunned to find out that these actions were the result of National Party decisions in 1997. [ Interruption]
I know it is Thursday, but members should just settle. We are nearly at the end of question time. I have ruled on the matter. If I am asked to intervene each time there is a long question or answer, it will be accompanied by a whole lot of points of order objecting. I ask members to actually exercise some control in these matters.
Can the Minister confirm that in order to make issuing traffic tickets a “first priority” and “everything else is secondary” for front-line officers, the Tasman district commander pulled the plug early on “Operation Vanquish”, which targeted real crime including dishonesty crimes and, according to the memo, had made “a fantastic impact into Marlborough’s crime scene and criminals”, and how can she still claim that traffic tickets are not being given priority over real crime?
My understanding from the Tasman district is that it had one of the highest rates of road crash and deaths for a district in New Zealand. I happen to have the comments that the superintendent made at the time. He stated: “Our staff are the people that knock on the doors and tell people that fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters, are dead. They remove seriously disfigured human bodies from roadsides. We have the power to change this. We have the duty to do so.” I would prefer to take the word of Superintendent O’Fee, who actually faced that high death toll in the Tasman district and wanted to do something about it.
Has the Minister received any reports about the Hon Tony Ryall, when he was the spokesman for law and order in the National Party, cautioning New Zealand First about attacking the quota ticketing controversy because it really was about road safety and getting the number of lives lost down, and if she has not seen those reports, would she like to have one?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Ministers are routinely asked to comment on whether they have seen reports, and they are always permitted to answer questions on whether they have seen reports on matters relating to their portfolio. This is clearly a matter relating to the Minister’s portfolio; it is about quota ticketing. It is clearly a matter that has been debated in the House by Mr Ryall and myself, and it is about a report I am asking the Minister to comment on, and the conclusion to my question is, if she has not had such a report, would she like one? She is perfectly able to comment on that.
No, normally there are not comments on shadow reports in the way in which the member has phrased the question. He would perhaps like to reconsider while I call the next supplementary question.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
What would be the likely impact of cutting back on traffic enforcement?
I think it is very clear that when the policy to insist on indicators for district performance was brought in under the previous National Government, we started to see a drop in the number of road crashes and road deaths. I do not know why National members would not want to take some credit for it—they do not—but I have to say that because the New Zealand police have been policing to reduce deaths and injury on the roads, we have seen a dramatic drop from around 700 deaths in 1999 to about 404 deaths last year. A lot of people’s lives have been saved in that time.
If what the Minister claims is correct and the purpose of prioritising traffic tickets over other crime is to save lives, why do all these memos mention the end of the financial year as the target?
I would imagine it was because the original agreements, which go right back to 1991, were done in a financial year and were signed every year. I would imagine that is the case. But I think it is time we accepted that New Zealand does have a high road toll, we have too many people hospitalised from accidents, and we should stop making excuses for people who receive tickets when they break the law.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In your generosity you have given me an extra attempt to ask that question in a manner that is acceptable. Are you saying that it will be counted as the first of my supplementary questions?
Well, I shall come back to that, thank you Madam Speaker. Is it not a fact that the controversy causing the public such angst in terms of traffic ticketing and quota ticketing has its roots in the previous National Government’s decision to merge the traffic officers into the police and that National Government’s decision to require beat officers and detectives to issue traffic tickets, and will the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and Labour not look at that issue in respect of evaluating the costs and benefits of demerging traffic policing from the police? [ Interruption]
I have asked members to take notice of the fact that questions and answers should be succinct. I would also note that in supplementary questions it is one supplementary question. So would the Minister succinctly reply to one of those matters, please.
The decision to include infringement notices and traffic offence notices as performance measures against speed, drinking, restraint, visible road safety enforcement, etc., commenced in 1997-98.
Hon Dr Nick SmithThat was when the numbers of tickets that needed to be issued were first decided. I say to the House that the effect of that decision has seen the road toll come down and lives saved, and I wonder why members opposite do not take some credit for the fact that the number of lives lost started to come down then.
Can the Minister confirm that the policy directive from Commissioner Broad came on 5 July—after the first memo came to light—and would that policy ever have changed, had these revelations not been brought to her attention?
I cannot say for sure, but I would wonder, when they came to light in the newspaper as a headline in 1997, why it was not fixed by National members then if it was such a problem. If it was such a problem, why did they not fix it then? That is what I would ask. But I have been the Minister for 9 months, and the issue came up in that time—in July. I then set about addressing the issue with the commissioner. That has been done.
Does the Minister not accept that a lot of this controversy arises as a result of the National Government’s decision to merge the responsibility for traffic with the police, and is it not New Zealand First’s intention to work with the Government, under the confidence and supply agreement, to evaluate the costs and benefits of demerging traffic enforcement from police duties during this term of Government?
A review into the merger of road policing and general policing is being undertaken by the State Services Commission, and will be reported to both parties in November this year.
Does the Minister agree that although, in the Prime Minister’s words, “one swallow does not make a spring”, three memos do make a policy, and can she reassure the House that there are no further memos instructing police to give priority to ticket writing over other crimes—since she was not able to give that assurance to the House and the public of New Zealand yesterday?
I said in this House yesterday that I could give no such assurance. I am being upfront, because I cannot give such an assurance. But I also said that I would be interested if there were any memos of that nature after 5 July. I would be concerned, if that were to happen, and would ask the Commissioner of Police to account to me for it.
I seek leave to table said Marlborough police district memorandum that requires the district commander’s priority to issue two traffic tickets per shift.
I seek leave to table three documents. The first is the agreement of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Police with the Commissioner of Police, 1999-2000.
I seek leave to table a press release from July 1997, where the police are told to issue a set number of traffic tickets and detail how they spend their time.
I seek leave to table an article about Superintendent Grant O’Fee, district commander for the Tasman Police District, regarding Operation Life, in which he says it is his staff who have to knock on the doors of people when their families have been killed.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for guidance, please. Given that the Minister, in answering that question that I did not even get to hear, was quoting from official documents, my understanding is that under the Standing Orders it is not a question of her having to seek leave to table those documents—thus giving National the chance to veto such leave to save embarrassment—she is actually formally required to table those documents. Is she not?
No. No one sought leave to have them tabled. The member, at the time, should have sought leave if he had wanted it. Can we please move on?