Financial Review Debate — Police

In speaking to this Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill I have to admit that it is somewhat alarming to study the annual report for the Police and note that the Police aim, which should have been a realistic aim, shows a 3 to 5-year outcome priority in four categories: to reduce violence, to reduce burglary, to reduce vehicle crime, and to reduce organised criminal activity. Yet in all four categories the indicator shows an increase in crime, not a reduction; a negative picture not a positive one. This Government has pledged to reduce burglaries, yet the resolution rate for burglaries has been falling over the past 4 years. This Government has pledged to be tough on crime, yet the figures simply do not bear this out. Over the past 12 months alone, crime has increased by 7 percent, yet this Government thinks crime is down. Violent crime has continued to trend upwards since this Government came to power. This is not a short-term statistical blip but a long-term trend. If members look at the figures since this Government came to power, violent crime has increased by 26 percent. If members look at the figures since this Government came to power, grievous assaults are up 54 percent. If members look at the figures since this Government came to power, serious assaults are up 30 percent. In the past year alone, violent crime is up 10.2 percent, grievous assaults are up 19 percent, homicides are up 31 percent, kidnapping—abduction—is up 46 percent, robberies are up 20 percent, serious assaults are up 13 percent, and the figures go up and up and on and on.

The Treasury report itself states crime is costing this country $9.1 billion—that is, $9.1 billion—and it is a sorry state to see that there has been no improvement whatsoever under this Government’s watch. The Law and Order Committee report in relation to the financial review noted concerns—and, in fact, the commissioner acknowledged those concerns—about organised crime and “accepts that the Police’s efforts in this area could be improved.” It further noted that “more effort needs to be directed into tackling organised crime.” So what do we do? Do we have more effort into tackling organised crime? No, we have a plan to recruit more police, which is laudable, it is great, but those police should not be recruited using lower standards. It is of extreme concern to read reports that Police National Headquarters admitted that recruits who failed some components of the training at police college were allowed into the workforce on limited duties until they had passed the relevant tests.

So what does this Government do? Does it concentrate on organised crime? No, it does not. It endorses a bill that will put even more pressure on our police force. It endorses a bill that will increase the number of criminals by making parents criminals if they smack their children. It endorses a bill with the suggestion that the police would have some discretion whether to prosecute if section 59 of the Crimes Act were repealed.

It has been noted in earlier debates throughout the day that Mr Peter McKenzie QC says “A law that leaves a large area for police discretion is not good law and places both the police and courts in difficulty. It is unfair both to the police and those with whom they deal to be required to operate with a law that fails to give clear guidelines.”

It is up to us to give those clear guidelines. Repealing section 59 on the terms of the bill does not do so. We should not be making the work of the police even more difficult by passing anti-smacking legislation that criminalises parents, and justifies it by saying that the police have a discretion whether to prosecute. The police should be out on the street trying to reduce crime, rather than trying to justify the exercise of a so-called discretion by answering a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority as to why they did not prosecute a parent for lightly smacking his or her child. That is the priority this Government gives to crime and not the proper priority to crime itself.

The huge concern before the public of New Zealand at the moment is just what we are doing around crime and around punishment. We will save the issue of punishment for the debate around the Department of Corrections.

What is the Government doing around crime, which is the province of the New Zealand Police? We have found in recent times that Treasury’s report has been scathing of the Government’s efforts in respect of policing. Labour has piped on about its crime reduction strategy, yet Treasury finds there is no overarching goal, it is not linked to justice sector spending, and there is limited measurement of outcomes. The review of the effectiveness interventions is “less than ideal”, to use its own words. It goes on to say that what is particularly disturbing is that the crime reduction strategy has no particular focus on stopping intergenerational crime, or consideration of the role of early intervention in areas such as education, health, income support, and housing—all of which impact on crime.

The fact is that when one is talking about crime, one is talking about something that is a multi-agency approach towards a social condition. When Labour came into Government in 1999 it promised it would crack down on burglary. Yet only 15.7 percent of all burglaries were resolved last year, and that is down on the year before. We heard from my colleague the statistics around increases in all sorts of crime—violent crime, grievous assaults, homicides, etc. No one appears to be asking the question of why New Zealand has these terrible violent crime statistics. We know, for instance, that Kiwis murder each other more frequently than the British do. No one seems to be looking at that in any real depth at all, yet there this huge problem is.

When we talk to those who want to report serious crime that is not violent crime—but that has just as much of an effect on New Zealanders’ ability to do business in this country—we find that it has become increasingly difficult for people to report, for instance, a fraud offence. Not long ago we heard from a private investigator who was contacted by a complainant who had been to the police to report an $80,000 theft as a servant incident. The police had told him to go away because they had no one to take a report of the crime, so the complainant went to the private investigator, who investigated. The investigator found and interviewed the offender. The offender coughed—he admitted what he had done. He admitted the whole offence. He admitted that he had a problem and that that was why he was pinching the money. The complainant went back to the police and said: “Here’s the offender, turn the key on him. Let’s put him before the court.” But the police said they would not do that unless they could be sure the offender would plead guilty. So the private investigator went back to the offender and got an undertaking on an affidavit form that he would plead guilty to a charge of theft as a servant—or its related offence, as it stands at the moment. Then the police finally took action. The offender got 200 hours’ community work and had to pay back $15,000 in reparation out of the $80,000 he stole.

What level of confidence can New Zealanders have in respect of the police’s ability to do their core business when we find that, amongst our community, every avenue of core police business is being done by a parallel organisation for people who have the money to be able to pay for crime services? That is not the country we grew up in, and it is not the country we want to live in. We want to know that when we ring a 111 emergency call centre, someone will come. We want to know that when we report a burglary, we will get more than a little slip in the mail that we can take along to our insurance company, and that, actually, someone in a blue suit will turn up and investigate the crime that has been reported. We do not want to have to go somewhere else. We do not want to ring and have to push button A for this and button B for that. We want a police service we can rely on.

One thing we should never do is try to hold the Minister of Police to account for what is happening within the department. It was interesting to see the “The Politician” cartoon in this morning’s Dominion Post. It asked what the police were saying about this culture of silence, to which the Minister’s reply was: “They won’t say.” Recently, I got absolutely caned for asking a question as to why the number of traffic infringement tickets had gone up from 311 in 2000-01 to 34,000 last year. What happened? I was absolutely bollocked for having the audacity even to ask the question. People have a right to answers. This is a Government, not a dictatorship.

In 2005 Annette King became the Minister of Police, and she inherited a portfolio that was in pretty good shape. Little did we know that she would do what she has done to health and transport and actually crucify such a good portfolio. We now have a police force that finds it very difficult to recruit the numbers required for Labour to meet its election pledges, and soaring crime rates have ravaged the public opinion of the institution.

In a December 2005 survey published by the Police Association, 96 percent of police officers said they did not have enough resources. This Government promised 1,000 new police plus ratios comparable with those of the Australian police by 2010. The latter promise requires about 1,400 extra officers; therefore this Minister needs to find 2,400 new officers. That is a huge ask. The Government has promised more than it can achieve.

In a June 2006 survey, New Zealanders thought that it was better not to relax recruitment standards for people joining the police but that it was better to increase the pay of police officers. Fifty-nine percent thought it was better to pay police officers more, while only 28 percent thought that relaxing standards was a good idea. In Hamilton, for example, it is commonplace for experienced officers to leave the force after many years of service. The bureaucracy and thanklessness of the job can often lead to a lack of faith in the system and in the Minister. Police officers feel they are part of an institution that is not valued and is not being resourced, and they certainly feel as individuals that they are not being paid for their work. It is a shame that people who give the best years of their life to this country through serving in the police force feel they have to leave that career after 20 or 30 years of serving our country just to look for some financial reward for their retirement.

That is the reality of the system we are facing at this stage. Police officers are disillusioned and are leaving the force in droves. Evidence of this is in the Government’s failure to meet its coalition deal of providing those extra police numbers. It simply cannot achieve that goal. The police force is losing too many experienced officers, so it is treading water on its recruitment plans.

The police’s recruitment drive has been a joke. In September 2006 there were 7,545 sworn officers, 14 fewer than when the recruitment drive began on 1 July. Only 13 days into the recruitment campaign, the police admitted that the number of police recruits was already below target and that they were moving to a fall-back plan. Well, I ask the Minister what stage of that plan we are at now. What is she doing now to make sure that the police achieve their goals?

There have been situations when the police have had to strengthen the thin blue line by putting civilians in uniforms. The Government has looked further afield and has tried to recruit from overseas, but most officers from overseas run a mile when they see the terms and conditions being offered. Then the police tried to reduce the recruitment standards. This has many limitations, as the public expects—and deserves—certain standards in its police force. Even with these relaxations, the Government still cannot meet its pledges. Perhaps if it actually reassured the police and recognised the years of service of our current police, then it would get a better staff retention rate. The Minister needs to support her force of police.

The Minister also needs to look at some of the issues the police are dealing with. They feel they are getting caught between the social issues of this country and the Government’s requirement to fulfil its election pledges. This Government will not even recognise that there is a group of New Zealanders who feel that this country does not offer hope and vision for them to go forward. If this Government cannot even recognise the problem, it certainly cannot provide solutions. It is not good enough for a generation of New Zealanders to grow up in youth gangs and think that that is their only option to gain pride and respect. It is not. Those kids need to know that there is another way of doing things. The Government has a role in that process and should not just leave it to police to pick up the pieces.

We will not get to that stage unless we have a change in Government. Only one person in this country is standing up for those people at this stage, and he is John Key. He is providing the vision to bring a new country and a new order to that new generation of New Zealanders.

Report noted.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

State Services Commission