12. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
What progress, if any, has been made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards since his suspension in 2004?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this
I have no responsibility, as the Minister of Police, for the employment of individual police officers; this is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. However, I am advised that good progress is being made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards within the current police employment relations framework. As the member knows, the current framework, which is many decades old, has its failings. These are being—[ Interruption] Can the member hear?
Gerry Brownlee
Madam SPEAKERAs the member knows, the current framework, which is many decades old, has its failings. These are being addressed by the introduction of revised regulations and a code of conduct that I announced recently, and that will be in place by the beginning of next year.
Are cars issued to high-ranking officers used primarily for police business; if so, why would a new car be issued once the officer’s primary purpose had been extinguished and he would not travel a single kilometre on police business?
My understanding is that senior officers, within their standard contract, have the provision of a car. It makes up part of their total remuneration. I happen to have a copy of the contract. This contract for senior officers has been in place for a long period of time. In fact, members will be interested to know that this particular contract has been in place since the early 1990s and has been based on a standard State sector senior management contract of arrangements that were prevalent at the time.
Can the Minister confirm that senior officers who are issued with cars are able to use taxpayers’ dollars to pay for the petrol in these cars, for personal use?
No, I cannot confirm that. It would depend on the contractual arrangements that officers have. All I can say to the member is that Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards has a contract that enables him to have a car. He receives it in exchange for a proportion of his salary. It is part of a standard contractual arrangement, the basis of which has been in place since the early 1990s.
Will any future employment settlement reached with Mr Rickards require Cabinet or ministerial sign-off?
I cannot speculate on what will happen to Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards. I agree with the president of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, who said last night—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am interrupting because I think this is relevant. The Minister clearly did not hear the question. The question was whether there would be any sign-off from either the Minister or Cabinet, which is nothing to do with an agreement and nothing to do with a settlement or anything else. The question was whether the amount would be signed off by the Minister or Cabinet; it is pretty simple.
The answer is equally simple. I cannot speculate on the outcome of a tribunal hearing that is yet to be had on Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards. I do not know the outcome—[ Interruption]
—and regardless of what members of this House might think, that member of the police is still a member of the police and he is entitled to have the full processes followed. I would imagine that members opposite would be the first to complain if it was one of their mates and the processes were not followed.
Ron MarkCan the Minister tell the House why, after such a long period of time, no dates have been set for an internal tribunal hearing, and why no charges have been proffered against Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards?
It is my understanding that a tribunal date, if not already set, is about to be set. I do not know where the member is getting his information from, but I can only go on what I am advised. I have advised the House today that a conclusion of this issue is close.
Does the Minister stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the decision by the police administration to promote Mr Rickards four times after it became aware of allegations against him, and that it was a case of the police “looking after their own”?
I can confirm for the member that it was the Prime Minister who said that she had doubts when Mr Rickards’ name was brought to her as a potential Deputy Police Commissioner, because allegations were swirling around him at that time.
Hon Tau HenareSwirling around him. Letters and comments had been made publicly around this particular police officer. It was the Prime Minister, in fact, who said she did not believe that Mr Rickards was a person suitable to be a Deputy Police Commissioner. He was subsequently appointed Assistant Police Commissioner by a process that is not the responsibility of the Minister of Police or the Prime Minister.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the Minister’s answer she referred to a copy of the contract. I wonder whether she would table that before the House.
No, I am sorry. If the member wished that issue raised he should have done so at the time. [ Interruption] I do not make the Standing Orders; the members make the Standing Orders.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let me read you the Standing Order. It is Standing Order 368, which states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may, on a point of order, require the Minister to lay the document on the Table. The Minister must then lay the document on the Table unless it is of a confidential nature.” I do not see any mention of a time exclusion on when the point of order should be taken.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I think there is. There is a small word “whenever” at the start of that particular sentence. So the point of order must be taken whenever it happens, not some moments later.
That is the point, really. Listen very carefully: the Minister did not quote from the document. She certainly made reference to the document, that is true, but she did not quote from the document. That is what the Standing Order relates to.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned by the way in which you have dealt with this matter, because the document, whether it was read from or quoted from, was referred to on a number of occasions throughout the exchange. You have insisted that when people table documents or have other things to say, they do so at the end of a question period. I think that Mr Borrows acted appropriately, and I ask you to reconsider whether we have to go down the road of the tight definition of Dr Cullen’s view that the moment a Minister quotes from a document—or appears to—the House should break into a point of order to test whether a document has in fact been quoted from.
I thank the member but I will follow the Standing Orders. They are quite clear on this matter. If members wish to change them it is up to them to do so. I have noticed that on other occasions whenever the matter was raised, members were only too happy to leap to their feet to raise points of order. On this occasion the Standing Orders were not followed; I have to follow the Standing Orders.