Police Resourcing—Minister’s Statements

I seek leave to table an audio recording from 24 November, provided to me by an independent media organisation—so it is not an uncorrected transcript from the select committee that has not been released—of the police financial review hearing, which includes the comments referred to from Deputy Police Commissioner Viv Rickard confirming that the current Government had contributed just 30 new police officers nationwide as at September 2010.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Given that I have an audio recording of the Law and Order Committee hearing referred to—which I will make available to the Minister despite the leave being denied in terms of tabling it, and its being blocked—confirming that Deputy Police Commissioner Rickard said “Yes”, when I asked him to confirm that “between that period June 2009 to September 2010 there is an addition of 30 officers only”, does she still stand by her answer referred to in my primary question?

There are several questions there, but, yes, I stand by my original statement, and the reason is that the question the member has just—

So he’s a liar?

No, the question the member has just asked is different from the one he has put down today.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before I seek leave of the House, I ask you for your ruling. The primary question has to be authenticated by your office, and the information therein. It was accepted by your office, so therefore it must be fact and it must be true.

I do not believe there is anything for me to rule on.

The Minister denies that that is a fact.

But as I heard it, the member asked a supplementary question and it seemed to me that the Minister’s answer applied to the supplementary question the member just asked. There is nothing for me to rule on; the Minister replied.

Power Hon Simon Power Link to this

I seek leave, and I will make a detailed description as per your rulings, to table a transcript of the relevant part of the audio recording from the Law and Order Committee hearing that confirms that in answer to my question “If we look at the number of police officers as at June 09, not one of those officers was funded by the current Government, the answer to that has to be ‘yes’, correct?”, deputy commissioner Rickard responded “Yes”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a bit unclear from the start of the member’s leave as to whether the transcripts related to the recording he referred to earlier that was from an independent recording or from the official recording of the select committee.

I ask the member to clarify that for the House.

Absolutely. They relate to the independent recording that I have in my possession, not the transcript.

Point of order.

So long as it is to do with clarification on the document.

Well, no, not really.

I will deal with this. Leave is sought to table that document, is there any objection? There is objection.

Given that she claimed in the House on 24 November that “We have already delivered over 380 police.”, and given deputy commissioner Rickard’s statement to the Law and Order Committee, can she now explain how many of her 380 police were funded by the current Government as opposed to the previous Government?

Calder Dr Cam Calder Link to this

As we said in our policy at the 2008 election, 250 police officers were funded in Budget 2008. That was, in other words, by the previous Government. We said we would deliver 600 police officers on the front-line by the end of next year, and that would include the 250. That member is quite wrong in what he said about deputy commissioner Rickard. I suggest that he gets his ears checked, because that was not what he actually said.

How much additional funding did this Government provide for new officers and how many extra officers will be on the front line by the end of 2011?

Good question. In May 2009 this Government injected an extra $162.4 million of operating funding over 4 years into police recruitment, training, personnel costs, and deployment. This funding will ensure that we put 600 new officers on the front line by the end of next year. We have already reached our goal of 300 new officers for Counties-Manukau. It is helping police pilot new policing policies, which are already producing great results. I am sorry that member cannot—

I think the banshee might be—

The member will just ask his question.

Which is correct: her statement of 24 November that this Government has “already delivered over 380 police” or deputy commissioner Rickard’s statements, as verified by the audio I have in my possession and also witnessed by journalists and reported publicly, recorded on the same day confirming that the National Government had delivered only 30 police as at September 2010?

That member is quite incorrect. What we have here are the correct figures that the police have provided to the select committee. The growth from the end of November 2008 to the end of this month is 384 police officers delivered; 384 by 30 November.

Will the Minister confirm that Deputy Police Commissioner Rickard’s honest and straightforward answers to my questions at the select committee did him no good at all when it came to appointing the new Commissioner of Police?

This Government values constabulary independence, and I have to say it is not something I have seen from Phil Goff and the terrible point-scoring he has tried to make against the designate commissioner Peter Marshall, a man of absolute integrity. I can tell him—

I seek leave to make a personal explanation about what the Minister has just said.

Leave is sought to make a personal explanation about that matter. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Power Hon Simon Power Link to this

At no time have I questioned the integrity or the suitability of Superintendent Marshall, whom I know well and I have worked with. What the Minister said is absolutely wrong. [ Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition knows exactly what I am about to say. He cannot accuse a member of being a liar in the House, and frankly I am surprised that a member such as Mr Goff—

There was such noise in the House that I could not hear what went on. I can only ask the honourable member whether he accused another member of being a liar.

English Hon Bill English Link to this

I did accuse her of being a liar. I withdraw and apologise, as I must.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has to do it properly. He knows that that was not the right way to do it.

One of the difficulties is when there is background noise and I cannot hear exactly what members are saying. I did not hear the last words that the Leader of the Opposition said. It makes it very difficult for me when I cannot hear what is being said. The Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged that he did call a member a liar, and I ask him simply to get to his feet to withdraw and apologise, with no other words.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order when a member makes a personal explanation to correct another member who has said something that is wrong, for that member then to carry on, as she did from her seat, which provoked my response?

We will not take this any further. The member makes an absolutely fair point. I am on my feet. Members do not make comment when a member is granted leave to make a personal explanation. That is the end of the matter. What, I must say, led to this period of disorder was a question that perhaps I should have ruled out of order, but I did not. It was my fault, because it certainly led to the disorder I expected when the question was asked. The member knows who asked the question. The member should not look puzzled. Maybe I should have ruled the question out, but that is what led to the disorder and I think the House should come back to a semblance of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. My first point of order is one of consistency, and I ask for your ruling on it. You required the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw and apologise for a term that was used that was unparliamentary. You allowed, in a previous question, the Minister of Health to say to my colleague, the opposite number, that she was making it up, which is tantamount to exactly the same thing, and you let that fly. I ask for your ruling on that, first.

Let me deal with that. I invite the member to go back and look at the Hansard of the question asked by his colleague. He will find that the member inserted into the supplementary question a lot of information for which there was no authentication. A Minister is perfectly at liberty to question the accuracy of such information in a question. I would ask that Ministers do not do it in a gratuitous way, but they are perfectly at liberty to question the accuracy of such information and that is what I believe the Minister did. If there is a further point of order, I will listen to it.

As you are fond of teaching us in this House—and I mean that in a positive way—and giving us the odd tutorial, which is appreciated—

The member will just make his point of order.

What I would like is for you to advise me as to why the final question I asked, which was simply whether the Minister could confirm something, is out of order.