Estimates Debate — Vote Police

Just slightly out of context, I congratulate Phil Goff on his rather comprehensive coverage of the defence portfolio. More particularly, it signals to those on the other side of the Chamber that he is no longer waiting in his caravan and is actively pursuing the job he has always been after. We will look and see how that comes about. I also take this opportunity—because I probably will not get another—to wish Jim Sutton well and to extend to him my personal thanks for the work he did after the floods in Rangitikei in 2004. I wish him well.

On the issue of Vote Police, I acknowledged at the time of the Budget—and have done so on numerous occasions since then—that the extra money the Government has put into the police is to be welcomed. It would be churlish to say otherwise, and the Minister gets a bouquet for that particular estimate appropriation.

I raise a couple of points around recruitment. I want to talk about it not in the context that members may expect but in a slightly more abstract way. I am interested in the Minister, Annette King’s, views on this issue. I cannot understand how a Minister who is used to dealing in hard, detailed, and tricky policy areas like health managed to stitch the Government into a deal with New Zealand First, prior to the Budget, to deliver 1,000 new police, plus 250 others, without any real or detailed policy work to back up that decision. All the documents I have seen relating to this decision in Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, and, in fact, Vote Justice show that no real work has been done on the downstream effects of more police. Clearly, if we have more police—and whether we get to the 1,000 is another debate that we will have shortly—presumably, unless they are all on traffic duty, there will be more arrests. If there are more arrests, there will presumably be more convictions. I want to know what work has been done with Damien O’Connor, who has been wandering around the country complaining about the number of people in our prisons. I also want to know what is to be done with Mr Barker and his view that it is all a bit too hard when we fine people and do not have the ability to get them to do community service in any meaningful way.

The first answer, as far as I can tell, to the number problem—not the policy problem—was to recruit from the UK. That was fair enough, except that the attrition rate is up around the 30 percent mark. The attrition rate from the police is not a concern per se, because, as the Minister rightly points out, that fluctuates between 4 and 6 percent on a reasonably regular basis—I have to say to the Minister that the rate is creeping quietly towards the 5 percent mark. The problem is the age and experience of those people who are leaving the police, and I would be interested in her views on that.

Then the Government, together with New Zealand First, decided that the way to solve this recruitment problem was to reduce the entry standards into the police. What I found fascinating about this argument—which we could have seen coming over the horizon from about 6 years ago, once Ron Mark started talking about it—was that it was not the Minister who fronted this particular announcement, it was Ron Mark. I know Annette King well enough to know that she is a pretty canny politician. She knows a good story, and she knows a good thing when she is on to it. Why has Ron Mark been pushed out to front this reduction in standards for recruitment while Annette King remains strangely silent throughout the process? I bet any member of this Committee that had the news been good, the canny Annette King would have been all over the announcement of the reduction in standards. A police recruit now has to leap a four-foot wall rather than a six-foot wall—even Lindsay Tisch, I imagine, could hurdle that on his hands and knees.

What has happened is that the Police Association has said that it needs somewhere between 2,250 and 2,500 police to meet the target. Thirteen days into the big recruitment drive, the human resources manager from the police stated in the New Zealand Herald that they did not get the full numbers for the first intake to the Police College, but that there was no need to worry because they would make up for it by wandering around schools and recruiting school leavers to the police to make up the numbers. The problem is that with the number of well-trained, experienced officers leaving the force, someone has to train the new recruits.

In the policy context—going back to where I started from—I worry that this work has not been done properly. The Government’s crime reduction strategy, which Treasury had a flick at in December 2005, makes it clear that at that point the work had not been done on the downstream fiscal costs and other costs for the corrections and courts systems. I do not believe that that work has, to this day, been completed. I have not yet seen a document that has explained in any meaningful way what the proposed increase will do to the courts and corrections systems. We cannot, on the one hand, have Damien O’Connor running around the country and continually reminding us of how embarrassed he is about our prison numbers and, on the other hand, have recruitment standards for new recruits to the police dropping through the floor while the canny Annette King remains quiet and Ron Mark is pushed into the forefront to make the announcement. I have a funny feeling that Annette King’s heart is not in this project. I do not think that she, as an experienced and senior member of the Government’s Cabinet, believes that real work has been done in a way that has tied up this deal properly in order to take into account those downstream effects. I will be very interested in her comments on that matter.

There are many other areas that we could explore in Vote Police, but we have many, many question times ahead of us this year, and I will be using those occasions to explore those other matters.

There is a line from Gilbert and Sullivan that ends: “A policeman’s lot is not a happy one”. In actual fact, I never found it quite that way, but there were so many pressures on the police and that remains so today. The police seem to be at the bottom of the tree. They are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and at the same time are criticised for not being the fence at the top of the cliff, as well. When the on-duty social worker cannot be found or cannot be reached, the police are rung. When the school is broken into, the police are rung. When the road is blocked, the police are rung. The police are the catch-all.

I will give members an example. Last Sunday, I was driving between Waverley and Hāwera and there had been a bit of rain up our way. It was starting to dry out and there was a dirty great big rock lying in the southbound lane on a blind corner at Manawapōu Hill. I drove up to the top of the hill where I could get some signal, rang the local police station and told them. I was told I would be put through to “coms”. I was put through to the communications centre. I stayed on the phone and I was told numerous times that my call was important, that I was in a queue, and “For God’s sake don’t hang up!”, so I hung on. I hung on for 15 minutes, and after 15 minutes I did hang up. I rang the police station again and said: “I tell you what—how about you ring coms?”.

Police officers want a number of things, but I do not believe that they want too much. One thing they want is support. They want the numbers and the powers, and the Government confidence in them to be able to police with enthusiasm in the way they know it should be done. They want, when they need ten staff members, to get ten staff members—but that is not always the case. This year it is 25 years since the Springbok tour. During the Springbok tour I was a cop in Nelson. There was a sergeant and five on five sections who worked around the clock. Tonight I rang up my mate, who is a sergeant in Nelson, and there is a sergeant and two staff members on duty. Things have changed.

Just before the election Labour took six staff members away from the Wanganui station and put them somewhere else, closer to Auckland, where apparently they were required. Everybody in Wanganui said “Dumb move!”, but not the Government. All Labour could quote were the overall staff numbers and levels, which had gone up nationally: “You don’t need those staff; you won’t get ’em; and you won’t get ’em under us.” A local councillor decided to put together a petition. He put together a petition for extra police. Labour said “Rubbish!”. In fact, Labour in our area screeched “Rubbish! You don’t need ’em.” In fact, 11,000 people signed the petition, and Labour still said “Rubbish! You don’t need them.” The campaign heated up and Labour still said “Rubbish!”. National’s policy was to increase the number of police at that time, prior to the election, and its policy was to increase those numbers by about a thousand. But still Labour said—members have guessed it—“Rubbish! Scaremongerers!”.

Winston Peters promised to double police numbers just before he promised he would not take the baubles of office. He was going to double the number of police. He was going to have so many police they would be coming out of his ears and we would not know what to do with them. But Labour said that that was—members have guessed it—“Rubbish!”. Then the polls kicked in, and Labour said: “Tell you what: we’ll give you 250 more community cops.”—and National said “Rubbish!”, and New Zealand First said “Rubbish!”. But Labour needed a coalition partner and looked around, and Winston said “Pick me. Pick me.” Labour said “A thousand new police?”, and Winston said “Yes, now you’re smokin’!”. The Greens said “Rubbish!”, and Labour said “Now you’re smokin’.” So the Government reckons it will get its thousand new coppers, and I tell you what—I really hope it does, because I do believe we need them. And I hope they do because nothing is better than seeing a Labour Government implement National Party policy.

I cannot say it will be easy; the Minister has agreed it will not be easy. The trouble is that the quota system has been denied, and the calculation of income as revenue has still been denied, but when the Government has been forced to admit it, it has had to admit that there has been a negative impact on policing, because so many of the police are turning down jobs on the basis that they do not want to become “road Nazis”.

If we look at the police’s mission statement, we see that it is “To serve the community by reducing the incidence and effects of crime, detecting and apprehending offenders, maintaining law and order and enhancing public safety.”, and that is exactly what we should expect. But whereabouts in that mission statement does it talk about host responsibility? The latest course created by the Government is to send our hard-working, front-line policemen and policewomen on a course run by KiwiHost, to provide “customer experience management programmes”. That 3-day training course, at a cost of $900 per person, covers such things as “avoiding the dangers of too much knowledge”—not a problem of the Labour Government, I would have to say—“learning techniques for switching an angry customer into a satisfied one, using the smile mirror, understanding how to use complaints as a gift, and learning about managing moments of truth”. This course is for the hospitality industry, not for our police force. Our police are not there to learn silver service, so that they can correctly wait on tables in the police cells, and to know how to serve from the left and take from the right. Our police are there to maintain law and order—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What!

—I know, what—to reduce crime, nonetheless, and to detect offenders, yet this Government is teaching them silver service.

Our police force is even given ticketing quotas, as “a great opportunity to get our ticket count up to ensure we end up as the top group.” But that policy does not even send our policemen and policewomen to traffic blackspots to reduce traffic accidents or the road toll—no. It is not just to keep our roads safe; they are sent to already safe areas, such as the corner of McFaddens Road and Cranford Street in Christchurch—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I know it well.

The member should know it well, and he should be careful of the flush median strip, because in 1 day 16 tickets were issued, at a cost of $150 each. In fact, 30 tickets in 1 month in Christchurch were issued to drivers using a flush median strip on the road, in order to make a right-hand turn so as not to disrupt the flow of traffic. They were issued tickets for allegedly overtaking on a flush median strip, yet they were not even breaking the law. And this is where our valuable police resources are being spent. We have already heard that the Labour Government has been caught out deceiving the public over the existence of traffic ticket targets and competitions. So while the real criminals are getting away with serious crime, ordinary, law-abiding citizens are being charged for lawfully using a flush median strip to turn right. It is all because of this Government’s directive to get the ticket quota up, because that is easy; that is measurable.

But it is far too hard for this Government to come up with any policy to actually reduce proper crime, and to defend and protect the public of New Zealand. Members of our sworn police force want to defend and protect our public, but instead have been turned into ticket collectors, or even into waiters learning silver service. That is another valuable resource squandered—another valuable resource wasted—by this Labour Government.

Figures show that last year police attended only 83 percent of burglaries within 24 hours, compared with 85 percent and 86 percent in previous years; that of the 12 police districts eight were either worse or showed no improvement at all; and that in Auckland City the percentage attended within 24 hours has dropped from 80 percent to 73 percent, while in Canterbury it has dropped from 83 percent to 75 percent. I know from personal experience, because my law-abiding office was burgled last week, and it took until the next day for me even to see a policeman—actually, it was a policewoman. In those areas a quarter of all reported burglaries—and ours in the office was reported—are not attended by the police within 24 hours. The number of reported burglaries increased in 2005 to 58,133. There is a problem; it is about priorities.

I thank the three members who have contributed to the estimates debate on Vote Police, but I have to say I am extremely disappointed that not one of them said one word of support for the New Zealand Police. Did we hear from members opposite that our police, who go out on the streets 24/7, have done, and do, a good job? There was not one word. We heard snivelling, whingeing, and groaning from people who want to make political points, but who were not prepared to say they were proud of the New Zealand Police. Well, I am—I am very proud of the New Zealand Police, and I am particularly proud to be their Minister. They are out there working on behalf of New Zealanders. They go into situations most of us cannot even imagine, and they do that on our behalf.

I would like to say to those listening tonight that they ought to be proud of the New Zealand Police for the work they do, but they ought to be very disappointed in National’s law and order spokesperson, because he did not have a good word to say about the police. In fact, the hallmark of his press statements has been to criticise everything that the police do. The police cannot open the door of their car or go out on the streets without the member putting out a press statement to criticise the work that they do.

I would like to go through some of the issues that were raised by members in their speeches, and I would like to start with Kate Wilkinson. She criticised the police because some of them—in fact, at this stage it is not the sworn police but some of the non-sworn police—have gone on KiwiHost courses. I just happened to find in my file that in 1996 the National Party in Government were urging New Zealanders and departments to take up the KiwiHost option. It is not about silver service or whether one uses a serviette, it is the way one actually deals with the public. So it was OK to have KiwiHost in 1996, but it is a terrible idea 10 years later. I would like to say to members opposite that whatever happens in terms of the police having a good relationship with the public, whether it is the people who answer the phone, or whatever their job is, I think that that is a good thing. I think that is a very good thing because they are a public service.

💬 Darren Hughes: Stick to that line.

I will stick to that line. I was also interested in the member’s views on road policing. One does not get a ticket in New Zealand unless one breaks the law. If one breaks the law one gets a ticket. That is how it ought to be. The very member who raised the issue of a median strip asked me the same question, and I replied: “Yes, tickets have been issued.” What she did not tell this Committee, which she liked to miss out, was that the public had complained about the people who were driving over that median strip. So I take from that that the member could not care a hoot what the public feel about road policing. She does not want people to get tickets when they break the law, even if New Zealanders complain. I am pleased that the police listen to the public when they lay complaints and ask them to look at particular spots. I am pleased that they do that.

I want to tell the member that I think she ought to take a close look at road policing, because road policing is a very important part of policing in New Zealand. It is not just about speeding tickets, not wearing one’s seat belt, trying to save people’s lives, trying to stop hospitalisations, or trying to stop the knock in the middle of the night from the officer who tells a person that his or her family member has just been killed on the road. Road policing is also about stopping crooks who are in cars. It is also about picking up the people who are stopped at a roadblock and who have a P lab in the boot of their car, or have a gun, or may well have been part of a burglary. I can provide members, if they are interested, with the sorts of people who are picked up at roadblocks through road policing. Policing on the roads is not just about traffic tickets.

I would like to respond to Chester Borrows, a former police officer. He started off by saying that a policeman’s lot is not a happy one. He did not feel that when he was in the police, but he must be feeling that an ex-policeman’s lot is not a very happy one now. I would not be surprised if the people of Wairoa at this very moment are not revving up their cars, or loading up the buses, and heading for Wanganui to picket outside his office. This member was silly enough to say that any policeman who would like to go to Wairoa must have read a “bloody good brochure”. Well, I have to tell Chester Borrows that he has really upset the people of Wairoa. The Mayor of Wairoa is in Wellington this very night.

💬 Darren Hughes: It’s a wonder the member was silent. Tolley was silent!

Mrs Tolley did not put out a statement saying that Wairoa would need to have a “bloody good brochure” to get people there. I do not know why she has not put a statement out saying that she does not agree with Chester Borrows, because the people on this side of the Chamber do not agree with him. Wairoa is a great little place. I am delighted that four British police officers are very happy to be going, are in Wairoa, and chose to go to Wairoa. So I tell Chester to put on his hard helmet. They are heading his way to say that rural towns such as Wairoa are great places to live, particularly under a Labour-led Government that is prepared to put extra police officers into towns.

I would like to conclude my contribution by dealing with some of the issues raised by Simon Power. He started off by saying—and I thought it was very generous of him to make some comments to my colleague Phil Goff and to Jim Sutton—that Phil Goff was now able to actively seek the role he wanted. Well, I tell Simon Power that he is obviously actively seeking the role he wants. When I arrived at the select committee for the estimates examination the cameras were there. It was action. We were starting to roll for Mr Power’s leadership bid. There they were wanting to catch him on tape so he could be just a few steps ahead of Bill English—or was it John Key? I think the real dark horse is my friend Maurice Williamson. Whatever! There was Mr Power—it is all about how one looks, what one is saying, and how often one can get on television. He said that he was going to ask some serious questions. He asked what work we had done to know what the impact of 1,000 extra police would be. Well, I would like to tell this Committee that if National Party members could have their bottoms on these green seats on this side of the Chamber they would have promised 2,000 cops to New Zealand First, 3,000 to ACT, or whatever party would embrace them so they could get themselves off the Opposition benches and over here to the Government benches. It would not have mattered what it took, they would have done it. I tell the member to watch this space, because a lot of work has been done by the justice Ministers—

💬 Simon Power: Oh, after the decision’s been made!

I tell Mr Power that quite often policy decisions are made. I bet that not every policy that the National Party went to the people on was costed. The National Party never costed the impact of the tax cuts it was going to give New Zealanders. It never costed the impact on the police of New Zealand, on the health service of New Zealand, or on its ability to put money into roads. It never costed the impact on education or on the old people. None of that was costed. It was all about “Give them a few dollars and then they might vote for us.” Well, I tell the member to watch this spot. There is certainly plenty of work to show the member very soon.

I am very pleased that this Government, in conjunction with New Zealand First, will recruit 1,000 extra sworn police over the next three Budgets. We are determined to do that. I tell Mr Power that he was about 3 weeks early with one of his press statements—the ones that are always criticising the police.

💬 Simon Power: No, just you!

Oh no, it is not me; it is the police that the member is criticising. At the end of the day he put out a press statement saying that the police were 300 short on the target. Well, unfortunately for him, 3 weeks later the figures came out and they were two over what was expected.

💬 Simon Power: Come on!

That member wants to say that the police who came from the UK, who were trained and who are now out on the street, are not police officers. Have members ever heard the likes of it? I need to tell the member that we are pretty pleased with what is happening in police. We are pretty pleased with our ability to go out and recruit those police. I am very pleased that Ron Mark, who takes a constructive approach to most things, was prepared to work with this Government in helping to recruit those police.