1. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
What reports has she received on public confidence in the New Zealand Police?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this
I have seen two recent reports. The first is the State Services Commission survey of New Zealanders’ confidence in the integrity of State servants when delivering services. The New Zealand Police came out at No. 1 in the survey, at 74 percent, ahead of other organisations such as the armed forces or political parties, which came last. The second report was released last week. New Zealand has now reached No. 1, along with Finland and Iceland, on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. A corruption-free police force is something we can be proud of.
Further to the Minister’s answer to the primary question, what reports has she seen in relation to a lack of trust in the New Zealand Police to act independently?
There is a lot of interest in this answer. I read the appalling comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, in this morning’s Dominion Post, whereby he attempted to get off paying the GST the National Party owes from misspending around $100,000 of taxpayers’ money and receiving 12.5 percent more election advertising than it was entitled to by attacking the integrity and independence of the New Zealand Police. I believe that that was a deliberate attempt to subvert any possible future police action.
Gerry BrownleeCan the Minister confirm that the police found a prima facie case against the Prime Minister, a prima facie case against the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, and a prima facie case against the Minister for Social Development and Employment, yet, mysteriously, and apparently without any political pressure, decided not to press any charges, in complete contrast to their decision to charge my colleague Mr Ardern for a minor incident involving a tractor and my colleague Dr Smith for a breach of a law that was subsequently changed; can she tell the House whether she might have noticed just a small discrepancy in the way the police have treated those cases?
Madam SPEAKERNo. The police make decisions on who will be prosecuted every day of the week. They do that with fairness and honesty. For example, the police decided not to prosecute—[ Interruption]
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure you can anticipate the point of order. You did say that the reply would be heard in silence. I heard Gerry Brownlee call out not once but twice.
I ask members to please show courtesy to each other when they ask questions and when questions are answered.
The police make decisions on whom they will prosecute every day of the week, and have done so for generations. For example, they decided not to prosecute the National Party for not paying the GST—the overexpenditure—on election expenditure. Why? Because they did not know whom to charge, because no one would own up!
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is inappropriate for the Minister to mention in her answer a matter that is essentially operational. What is more, it is inappropriate for the Minister in her answer to say something that is patently untrue. There has been no breach of any law by the National Party.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
On the latter point, the police did indeed inquire into matters. Because there was no written contract or documentary evidence, they did not know whether to charge the National Party in Parliament or the National Party outside.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that Ministers’ answers to questions are supposed to be given in a way that is commensurate with the public good, surely it is inappropriate for Ministers to answer in a way that, if it is not untruthful, leads to debate.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
If both questions and answers were ruled out on the basis that they could lead to debate, we might as well cut out question time immediately and go to orders of the day.
I thank the member. As members know, it is not for the Speaker to determine the truth or otherwise of questions or answers and statements made therein. That was a matter of debate, not a matter of order.
Hon Peter DunneDoes the Minister consider that public confidence in the police would be enhanced if the traffic service was to be split off as a separate agency, thus enabling the police to concentrate on catching criminals and those who do not pay their bills, and on keeping families and communities safe?
The issue of whether we should decouple the police, in terms of traffic and general policing, is the matter of a review by the State Services Commission, and that is due for report in March next year. However, having said that, I say policing in New Zealand also involves road policing, and road policing means not just issuing traffic tickets but actually apprehending criminals on the road, in their cars, when they undertake illegal traffic actions. The police pick up many people through that method.
Ron MarkIn light of that answer, does the Minister not agree that one of the issues that New Zealand First has raised in the inquiry that has been conducted by the State Services Commission, as part of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government, surrounds the loss of confidence by the public in the police because of what it sees as a deviation from the police’s primary function—that being fighting crime and lawlessness—and an overly heavy-handed concentration on quota ticketing?
I think it is fair to say that that has been the perception. Interestingly enough, the number of tickets issued by the New Zealand Police has dropped for the last 2 years. I do believe there is far more confidence in the police than there has been for some time, and that is reflected in surveys, but the review will take place and decisions will be made after that.
I have seen comments, again by Dr Brash—but also repeated today by Mr Brownlee—where he claims that the police prosecute National MPs but not Labour MPs. I have to say, first of all, that that is a scurrilous attack on police integrity. It is also wrong in fact. Dr Brash claimed, as did Mr Brownlee, that the police prosecuted Nick Smith. They did not. The charges were laid by the Solicitor-General and he, not the police, prosecuted him. This is the same Solicitor-General who provided the legal opinion on election spending to the Auditor-General. In my view, the attack on the police by National is a blatant attempt to get off the corrupt hook it is hanging on.