Estimates Debate — Police

I rise as deputy chair to report on the Justice Committee’s hearing regarding Vote Police, Vote Serious Fraud, and the appropriations for retail crime subsidy, which we heard from the Minister of Police, the Hon Ginny Andersen, the New Zealand Police, the Serious Fraud Office, and had advice from the AuditorGeneral’s office.

In opening, I note a continuing trend of significant increased funding for Police over the last three years and the levelling off of funding for Serious Fraud following two years of very significant increases. The first discussion was of police numbers and both the Ministers and the Commissioner of Police confirmed that the Government has achieved its target of increasing the number of frontline police by 1,800 from 2017 staffing levels.

The Police commissioner noted that some of those staff focus on organised crime, working COVID operations, and forensic accounting that, and I quote, “doesn’t sit naturally in a police station, but which is having a direct impact on organised crime.”

The Minister also reported on significant increases in diversity within the police, with around 40 percent more Māori, 80 percent more Pasifika, 60 percent more women, and 157 percent more people of Asian descent serving in the police compared to 2017.

Next, the Police commissioner explained that their struggle to meet performance measures is due to the challenging environment following COVID, which created heavy demand for urgent mental health and family violence responses, which had risen and which needed to be prioritised. We asked what work is happening to ensure an interagency response to those kinds of incidents to reduce pressure on the police.

The Minister highlighted Te Aorerekura’s ongoing work, increasing interagency cooperation in family violence, and the promising results of the Government pilot of joint police and mental health experts or paramedics in mental health callouts.

We heard from the Police that target time frames for processing firearms licences have increased from 30 days to 90 days because of the greater diligence required by the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack on the Christchurch masjidain. The Police said they have cleared a large backlog and are confident they are on track.

We asked also about the impact of the new nationwide firearms register. The Police acknowledged that while the vast majority of firearms offences are committed by unlicensed individuals, most such firearms have come through licensed owners, through burglary as much as by anything else. On the register, the Police stated “helps ensure accountability”. We also heard that in the last year the Police completed more safety compliance checks than ever before and under the new system they pointed out that they can prioritise checks for higher risk individuals.

We asked also for an update on the nationwide roll-out of the tactical response model (TRM) which improves safety by, inter alia, doubling the tactical training of front-line staff from 3.5 to 7.5 days a year and introducing tactical two-person dog teams. The Police told us that the four district trial of TRM had shown increased safety for front-line police who felt safer and more assured in their decision making.

We also addressed changes to the fleeing driver pursuit policy with the commissioner, following the review of the December 2020 changes which, while designed to reduce the level of deaths following pursuit, had seen an increase in fleeing drivers. The new policy increases the criteria available in decision making for individual officers. But the commissioner emphasised, and we acknowledged, the difficulties of setting and operating these parameters.

Finally, we discussed the Government’s November 2022 retail crime subsidy scheme, giving small shops and dairies a subsidy to install fog cannons with a $4.5 million funding, for which the Minister is responsible. The Minister reiterated that the level of retail crime is unacceptable. She reported positive feedback from those accessing the subsidy scheme.

We also heard that the Police’s new dedicated retail crime unit has already initiated the prosecution of 200 people for 1,200 offences, while the Minister told us that the involvement of a specialist unit in prosecutions has meant higher sentences on average. She refuted the suggestion that the rise in retail crime was linked to the Government’s work to reduce the prison population, since sentencing rates for retail crime offences have not changed and most of the reduction in prison numbers is due to reduced imprisonment for traffic and drug offences. I commend this report to the House.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much. I just want to acknowledge that we have the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the Chamber, and acknowledge the work that his staff did in Auckland recently with that tragedy in downtown Auckland.

My question to the Minister is this: in an internal email sent out to police, it was said that “as we continue to operate in a more fiscally constrained economy with growing demand on services we deliver, there remains pressure on Police’s financial position.” Can the Minister please stand and just give us some background and let us know exactly what that means and what the implications are, please.

If the Minister doesn’t want to answer that question, can she answer this question or respond to this and explain to this committee and to the people of New Zealand who are currently experiencing the worst levels of violent crime that we have seen in our history as a country—and I think that they deserve an answer to what seems to be an apparent attempt to apply some fiscal restraint to our police service at a time when they’re trying to respond to enormous demands, certainly on their front line.

So my next question is this: are there going to be any delays to recruitment for non-specific constabulary roles? And, if they are non-specific constabulary roles, what exactly does that mean because the Minister stood in the House two or three weeks ago and quite clearly told the House that authorised officers, now, are considered the front line of policing and so, if that is the case—if there is going to be a restriction on these roles—how is that going to impact the new front line of policing and what sort of pressure is going to be put back on the front line if these fiscal restraints are going to mean that either positions can’t be hired for or they can’t be replaced?

What does it mean to front-line police officers when another point that has been highlighted is that they’re looking at minimising the collection of time off in lieu (TOIL), annual leave, and the appointment of any new non-constabulary position.

Minister, these questions are critically important not just to this House, not just to the people of New Zealand but to the front-line police officers that are actually out there every day trying to keep our community safe whilst at the same time dealing with a huge increase in violent crime.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Thank you to the member for those questions. I’ll run it so I won’t answer every single question, if that’s all right, but I’ll clump them and do them all and then do a bit, if that’s all right.

So, in relation to the email that was sent out by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, that was in relation to funding that has been allocated. So there is no cut to funding. It was, I think, a very prudent and wise reminder for how those funds will be utilised. So things like not doing excessive travel are really important ways of making sure that we get good value for taxpayer money.

What that does not change at all is the fact that this Government has committed funding to continue the ratio of one police officer to every 480 New Zealanders. So that funding has been taken as part of Budget 2023 and that will continue forward. So the fact that there was an internal email sent out to police staff to remind them to be prudent in terms of not overly engaging consultants if not necessary is simply what I think is good practice in terms of the Public Service and that we are making sure that that money is being used effectively. So I think it was a wise thing to do and it’s good to see that we see those sort of practices happening within Police.

In terms of the pressures on demand, the member knows I’ve already stated quite clearly in this House that, from the front line, what we do here is the two big areas we see putting pressure on demand—the increased number of family violence occurrences that we’re seeing, and also mental health; they’re the two main areas.

So, in terms of making sure that we meet those demands, there is nothing in that email that takes away from the fact that we will continue to maintain that 1:480 ratio and that we will also continue to work with wider programmes like Te Aorerekura and Whāngaia Ngā Pā Harakeke, which works alongside, to make sure that we have good practices in place for sharing information, for ensuring that community safety is paramount, and we’re also working smarter in the area of family violence because we know it’s those long-term investments in community resourcing that will have an impact on that demand over time.

When we look at family violence, in particular what we are seeing in the statistics is that, while we’re seeing an increase in the numbers of family violence occurrences, the level of really serious ones is not as high as it has been. So that demonstrates to me that there is an increased appetite within the public to report family violence, and that’s a good thing, I see as Minister, because it shows trust and confidence in our front line, it shows trust and confidence to report family violence, and it gives us some hope that we can continue to work in this space to bring down that reporting.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just continuing the more fiscally restrained environment theme—just this week, teachers got a 14.5 percent pay increase and I’m just wondering what sort of advocacy the Minister is taking to her Cabinet to maybe secure police a 14.5 percent increase?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Could you repeat the question, please? The Minister had difficulty hearing it.

CHRIS BAILLIE: Just this week, the schoolteachers got an increase of 14.5 percent approved by Cabinet, I understand. And I’m just wondering what sort of advocacy the Minister is taking to Cabinet for police officers and whether she is also asking for a 14.5 percent increase.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’ll ask two questions on two different topics—just to give you some time to be able to answer them. The first one is looking at the Budget. In 2017, Police were given $1.8 billion in their Vote Police budget. This year, they’ve been given $2.6 billion. We’re seeing an increase in crime and, as such, we’ve seen money allocated to crime prevention drop from $564 million to $537 million; investigations and case resolution from $819 million to $808 million; primary response management from $702 million to $662 million—at a time when crime is increasing. So, Minister, I’m wondering why it is that, with the actual overall increase in Police budget, there is a decrease in some of the areas that actually need more input and improvement so that police can get out there and tackle crime. That’s my first question.

My second question is around the $200-plus million that has been given to establish the Firearms Safety Authority and how, when we have allocated that much money to the authority, we are in a position where emails are being sent out. I have to wonder, Minister, whether there has been no input into the ability to have a secure email facility, because this is the second time that this has happened in four years. It’s not acceptable. It doesn’t help with the registry. I also just want to know whether or not there is going to be improvement in that—what sort of improvement are we looking for?—because the firearm owners out there are telling us that they are sick and tired of being at the end of data breaches by New Zealand Police and no one being held accountable for it.

So, Minister, when we’re looking at this massive amount—over $200 million—going into the firearms sector, why are we having such fundamental silly mistakes occur? And before I sit down, I’d also just like to acknowledge Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming and also policy people that are here. I look forward to your answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister got up and she spoke for five minutes on family harm. By the way, this Government’s got an awful record on family harm, especially when you consider that they have a dedicated Minister for that role. But she is not here to answer our questions or respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Mitchell, you know you don’t comment on the absence of people from the House. So just carry on. You’ve been around long enough.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Chair. So I am going to ask the Minister again to, rather than talk about family harm, please address these issues that are very specific and very direct. How is the fiscal constraint that has now been introduced and is having to be dealt with by the Police actually going to impact and affect the day-to-day operations? Please stand up and explain to us and let us know and give us some confidence that this is not going to impact on districts—that, if someone leaves a position, it is going to be filled even if it may not be a sworn constable position—and please explain delaying recruitment for specific non non-constabulary roles. What does that mean and what impact is that going to have?

And by the way, the most important one for all of our 9,000-plus front-line serving police officers out there today doing the job, that are prepared to put in the hard yards, work longer hours to try and respond to what they’ve had to deal with—and that is a massive increase in violent crime and offending—is a proposal here that’s looking at minimising the collection of time off in lieu, annual leave, and the appointment of any new non-constabulary role. I would ask the Minister to get up and actually show some respect to those front-line officers and respond to the question and explain what the implications of this are and what her expectations are as the Minister. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In terms of Nicole McKee, look, I straightaway acknowledged that I was really not happy at all with the fact that that email was sent. I’ve made that really clear. I met with the commissioner that very day within hours of me finding that out, and I’ve asked specifically what happened and what steps have been taken to make sure that what I understand is a human error will not occur again. So the Privacy Commissioner’s office has been advised and also a rapid review has determined what steps we can do in the future to make sure that that never happens again. And so I’ve been assured by the commissioner that the process, when sending emails internally, has now subsequently been changed in order for that never to be able to happen again.

Look, I think it’s important to state that there’s been contact back with all of those people who the email was sent out to. And the mistake was that instead of them being bcc-ed, they were sent in the send, so they received the email addresses of other people. So each of those individuals has been contacted and liaised with. Look, I’ve made it clear I’m not happy with that, but I think it’s also important to note that that email itself is separate to the integrity of the firearms registry and the data that is kept within that registry. It in no way compromises the data that’s held in there and the way that that has been managed.

In terms of the member’s question, in terms of—I don’t have the same figures you were talking to in terms of where the breakdowns of spending occurred. So police projects can fluctuate, and that can depend on things such as proceeds of crime, what money comes in from that process of restraining those illegal items from gangs and organised crime, and also being able to put that into and resource new types of streams. So there are fluctuations in that space—that does occur. Regarding the huge investment in front-line capability, my understanding is that that enables crime prevention to take place because we have more police officers who are able to establish relationships, who are able to do that work in the community, and that means when they call upon that or when they go and investigate a crime, then those issues are resolved more quickly if there is that ability to already have had a relationship in place.

You know, that is very much of the policing with the consent of the community, the model that has been developed over time. And it’s that trust and confidence and investment in the front line that enables good information to come back from the community, in that tight relationship with police.

In terms of the other member’s question in relation to that email—I think I did answer that. My view was that it was prudent, the way that is spent. There is no impact on front-line resources; we have a 1:480 ratio that remains funded. We have had a 50 percent increase in the amount of funding since 2017 to now a 50 percent increase in funding of Police. A big part of that has been increasing those police ratios from the mid-500s to now 480. So that is unchanged and the email that was sent was simply stipulating the prudent management of existing funding. In no way, shape, or form did it erode or cut from what funding has been secured for this Budget. And that also means that that 1:480 ratio will be maintained.

Well, I’m totally confused in relation to that answer. The Minister just stood up and said there’s going to be no change, that the funding is still there, and that there are not going to be any changes. But it’s very clear by the email that’s been sent out that there is going to be a delay for recruiting of specific non-constabulary roles and that they’re going to be minimising the collection of time off in lieu (TOIL).

She hasn’t answered this question, and this question is very pertinent for front-line police officers, many of whom will finish their night shift and have to carry on working, because there’s enormous pressure on the front line—often understaffed, trying to deal with the calls that are coming through and being triaged and getting backed up. They’ll work past their night-shift finish time. They’ll work past their early shift finish time. And they collect TOIL, time off in lieu. What does it mean when you’ve got a police service that is already stretched—and the police Minister acknowledged that in the House today in relation to the Police Association president’s comment that the police front-line are overwhelmed with the increase in crime—and what is meant by the fact that they’re looking at minimising the collection of TOIL and annual leave, and why is that being looked at and proposed if she’s standing in this committee and telling us that there is going to be no change? Either the deputy commissioner is wrong or she’s wrong. It can’t be both, so which one is it? I would, please, drive home the importance of articulating very clearly as the police Minister—and I hope that the Minister understands how TOIL and annual leave work and how it impacts the welfare and the mental health of front-line staff who are under enormous pressure. I would like her to stand up and clearly articulate for us exactly what the proposed minimising of the collection of TOIL and annual leave actually means to our front-line staff.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is about some of the repeated questioning that she has received with regards to people feeling safe and, of course, the 1,800 additional police that we have added to the front line. So my question is specifically to the roll-out of the tactical response model and what we can expect to see from that roll-out over the next 12 months.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Sorry, I couldn’t catch the end of that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just repeat that last part of your sentence?

MARJA LUBECK: Oh, sorry. It’s about the roll-out of the tactical response model and what we expect to see from this roll-out roughly over the next 12 months.

I thought the Minister would at least be able to answer a patsy from someone in her own team.

Marja Lubeck: Sour grapes over there. Sour grapes.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Minister couldn’t even answer a patsy. It’s ridiculous. It makes a joke—it makes a mockery of this process.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): On task, Mr Mitchell. On task.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I am going to ask the Minister why we had to roll out the tactical response unit in New Zealand. What was it a response to? Was it a response to the fact that our front-line police officers are having to deal with a lot more violent incidents involving firearms? Is that the fact that assaults on our front-line police officers were increasing at an alarming rate? Is it recognition that it was a mistake to get rid of the armed response unit that was already in place? If the Minister is able to answer any of those questions, it would be much appreciated. But the one that I’d really like an answer to—the one that I’d really like to know about—is about those officers that are on the tactical response model and take great pride in the service that they’re providing, the back-up that they’re providing, to their friends and their colleagues in keeping communities safe. They’d be very interested to know why there’s an email that’s come out as part of fiscal constraints that have been applied to the police, out of Police National Headquarters, that’s looking at minimising the collection of time off in lieu and annual leave. There needs to be a very clear, succinct answer to that. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Like all organisations, Police is facing increases in costs reflecting the inflation that we’ve seen. I think that email is simply a reflection of that reality. So, just to be really clear, the recruitment freeze doesn’t affect—I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again, because I don’t think I was heard the first two times—constabulary or authorised officers; it is only support or Police National Headquarters staff. Now, it is interesting that that member made quite a point of the fact that, in terms of the views that I’ve seen expressed, there were far too many bureaucrats and far too many non-sworn. And so, now, it seems quite a different angle where you’re saying that you want to see more of those people, and you’re actually quite concerned that, if we don’t employ those, it will have an impact on front line. So that’s quite different to the line of argument that we’ve heard in previous weeks. But just to say it again, to be crystal clear, that email does not mean that there will be any impact on authorised officers or front-line constabulary.

In terms of the time off in lieu (TOIL) reduction, it also ensures our staff aren’t overstretched in terms of health and safety issues. That is standard management to make sure that, if people are accruing annual leave or TOIL, it is being used. That’s a good reflection and a good employer that encourages people to utilise what they’re owed and not let it add up. If someone has lots and lots of hours of TOIL or lots and lots of annual leave accrued, that’s a good indicator they have not had a break. That’s not my job as Minister; that’s the job of Police in terms of operational management, to make sure their staff are well looked after, to make sure they’re getting adequate breaks, to making sure they’re getting adequate time to take a rest. It’s a good employer that encourages staff to take their TOIL and take their annual leave, so I do not see that as a reflection of stopping good service being delivered and good safety to New Zealanders; I see that as a prudent employer who’s thinking about the wellbeing of staff.

In terms of the questions in relation to the tactical response model (TRM): to both, I’d just like to say that the benefit of the TRM, as asked over here—just to answer the patsy for the benefit of those members—is to really combine intel with kit. We know we’ve got some great capability within the police service. We want to make sure that that’s being used where there is risk. It’s tailoring the intelligence, weighing up the risk that’s there for the front line, and having a proportionate response to that risk. And so the feedback I’ve had from the Wellington district alone is that they’ve actually been able to do some quite big jobs that they were anticipating being problematic, and they were done incredibly swiftly and safely for front-line officers. The best thing about the TRM, for me, and the benefits of using intel alongside capability really means a decrease in front-line assaults. You’re right; I take the member’s point that we have seen an increase in weapons in the community; we have seen an increase in more brazen crime, and that can sometimes, more often than not, bring risks to our front-line officers. This model is the right thing to do to make sure our front line are appropriately equipped both in terms of the intelligence and the kit to be able to respond to those threats. And what we see in those areas where the tactical response model was trialled is that we had a significant reduction in the number of assaults on police, and those are the numbers that I watch clearly. I’m really pleased to see that, now, this will be rolled out right across New Zealand in all 12 districts. I’m really looking forward to seeing a continual decline in those assaults on front-line staff.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just regarding the fiscally restrained environment again and the freeze on the non-sworn, Police National Headquarters increased over the last six years by 806 members; 153 of those I believe were sworn staff, the rest non-sworn. Can we assume that those numbers won’t increase at all over the next however long this freeze is on for the non-sworn staff? Just on another topic, I’ve heard anecdotally on a number of occasions that there are front-line staff who aren’t equipped to go out and deal with front-line duties—mainly the reports I’m getting are the body armour, the lack of body armour—and I’m just wondering whether that is an issue anywhere around, and what they should do to remedy that. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, first of all, I’ll just address your comment that we didn’t seem to put any value on backroom staff or authorised officers—let me correct the record on that one. Our point was quite simply this: you led the country to believe that the 1,800 new staff—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, I didn’t do anything, Mr Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —were front line. I’m addressing an issue the Minister raised.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Minister did.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. So I’ve got no right of reply to that, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, no, just don’t use the word “you”.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, sorry, sir, I apologise—I apologise. So the Minister raised that issue. Quite simply, our issue was this: you misled the—sorry, Mr Chair. The Minister quite simply misled the country and was deceptive in making just about every Kiwi believe that they were delivering 1,800 front-line sworn officers.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Mitchell, just be careful with that choice of terms, please. You know the rules; you’ve been here long enough. Just be careful with your choice of terms, please.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m being very specific in my choice of terms, Mr Chair, because, in my view—and I’m entitled to my view—it was deeply deceptive to keep standing up in this Chamber—

Tangi Utikere: Point of order, Mr Chair. The terminology that the member is referring to or using is something that is long held as inappropriate in terms of being used in the House, whether it is someone’s view or not. It is a reflection on the member, and I invite you to rule accordingly.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Mitchell, I did warn you. You have a reasonable range of vocabulary, could you just widen it, please? You’ve been here long enough to know that. You’re just detracting from your message.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Chair. So the message is this: you had two Prime Ministers, you had at least two Labour police Ministers stand up in this House and reconfirm that the 1,800 were front-line beat officers and sworn officers. They clearly were not.

Hon Stuart Nash: They were.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: There was 1,530 that were—no, they’re not. They were not sworn police officers with the power of arrest; 270 of them were authorised officers. And although authorised officers have got an important role to play—I recognise that—albeit in a non-sworn position where they can’t respond to a member of the public that’s putting their hand up to try and deal with an aggravated robbery, with the power of arrest, the point was quite simply this: it was not 1,800 front-line police officers. The Police Association has come out, as recently as today, and reinforced that and supported us in that position as well.

I want to come back to the time off in lieu (TOIL) and leave—and the Minister needs to be very clear about this. Is the Minister saying that there is going to be no interference or no directive coming out of Police National Headquarters (PNHQ) in terms of how the front-line police officers are choosing to use or take their time off in lieu or annual leave? The issue seems to be this: time off in lieu and annual leave has always had to be managed within the police service—that goes back for as long as the police service has been in existence. But the concern here is: are front-line police officers now going to be dictated to and told by those that sit in PNHQ, when they are to take their leave or when they are to take their time off in lieu?

By the way, if time off in lieu is becoming such a big problem, why is that? Is that because there’s too much pressure now on the front line and, because they’re dedicated and because they want to provide the service to the communities and the public they serve, they are taking more time off in lieu or they are accruing more annual leave because they’re trying to keep their head above water and they’re trying to support their colleagues on section so that they don’t drop down to a dangerously low number? What is the reason that is driving, now, a focus coming out of PNHQ, whereby they’re saying that there has to be a minimisation of the collection of TOIL and annual leave? I’d like a very clear response to that, thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, when I spoke about increasing crime and an increasing budget for Police but a decreasing budget to actually go after crime, one of the things that you had answered in your answer to my question was about the changing priorities of the New Zealand Police. And at the time that we have at the moment, where we do have or are seeing ram raids at a huge amount—an over 500 percent increase—when retail crime is happening, 14 events every hour of every day over a year, we do have to ask whether or not those priorities need to be reset, Minister. Then, with that, we look at the 700 percent increase in youth on the National Gang List, and yet funding for youth services has also decreased at a time when I think that it is critical to policing that we do have money in these areas for police to be able to work solidly on it. So I just wonder, Minister, rather than saying it’s about police looking at their priorities, what are the critical policing areas? Because if it’s just going to be domestic violence—as an example, which is very, very important—but we have a 500 percent increase in ram raids, then we need to, please, have an explanation as to why we have some areas more critical to others and why we cannot accomplish it all.

Thank you very much. Just in relation to the member Mark Mitchell’s questioning around this Government, or me in particular, misleading the committee or being deceptive in terms of authorised officers being counted as constabulary staff, I would just like to refer the member to the Policing Act 2008, which was passed under a National Government. It is that 2008 Act which provides for authorised officers. And I would like to highlight the fact that not only did that Act establish authorised officers, it was decided when that Act was passed under that Government, that those authorised officers would be counted as constabulary staff. So I don’t think it is a correct reflection of history to say that that was a new thing under this Government. It is something that was initiated by the National Government in 2008, and that is where authorised officers were not only established but also it was agreed upon that they would be counted as constabulary staff.

In terms of the other point in relation to specific comments around time off in lieu (TOIL), I have covered this before but I will go back to it again. It might help the member Mark Mitchell if I read from the email that was distributed to staff. It’s quite long—I could read the whole thing; I won’t do that. But it says, “Manage your budget. Make sure we have good corporate hygiene”. And the points covered under that heading are to limit non-essential activity such as discretionary travel and consumables, approving timesheets in a timely manner, monitoring allowances and only approve when it’s an allocation and not being accrued unnecessarily, managing annual leave balances, and minimising the collection of TOIL to ensure it is being taken within the policy guidelines. And I think that’s the really important part—that the email has encouraged staff to simply abide by the existing policy guidelines. It also reflects that members needed to review the Budget forecast and actually reflect expected cost during the year and to be realistic about what will be spent to monitor and update forecasts on a monthly basis, to manage cost pressures within budget and avoid taking on new costs, and to make sure that credit card monthly returns are being reconciled and submitted within the specified time frames.

In terms of the question in relation to those priorities raised by the member Nicole McKee, I will need to get the breakdown—I’ll have to come back to you in terms of the youth offending figure that you have. But what I will say is that a lot of that work has actually been expanded with, now, Circuit Breaker. So that programme is specifically targeting youth offending and specifically responding to the increase in ram raids we’ve seen—that started in two places in Auckland. That’s now been expanded to Hamilton and also into Christchurch, and there’s a number of other sites that are currently being looked at. So while that doesn’t sit within the Police budget—it sits within Oranga Tamariki—there is a significant amount of resource that’s going into providing that full wraparound support.

I think the success rates we’ve seen out of programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro and Circuit Breaker are because they take a whānau approach. And the problem or, I guess, the fault in the past is quite often that young person was lifted out, given some treatment, and put back into the same unit that maybe was not good for them or maybe was dysfunctional in other ways. But this approach is different—it’s looking at mum, dad, siblings, and all those other factors going on in their life. And, yes, it probably does cost a bit more, and, yes, it probably does take a little bit longer, but it also stops the nine- or the six- or the five-year-old in that whānau taking the same pathway as the 12 or 13yearold has.

So I think that’s a really good use of resource. And I also see it’s a really huge improvement in terms of the way Police and Oranga Tamariki are now working more closely together in that 12 and 13- and 14-year-old space, where we’re seeing the problem occur the most.

I’d have to assume that, as the police Minister, you’re actually talking to front-line staff, and I think that you’d find their view of Oranga Tamariki and the way that the two agencies—or certainly the Police—are supported is quite different from the one that you’re putting forward in this Chamber today.

My question to the Minister is this: is she, in the Chamber today, standing and saying that it is business as usual; that there is not going to be any impact on front-line staff in terms of the loss of back-office support that will have to go somewhere; that there is going to be no change in terms of time off in lieu (TOIL) and annual leave, other than the fact that people have been reminded to manage it; and that districts are not going to be impacted with the loss of staff or the failure of filling positions of someone that has left? Is the Minister basically standing and saying that it’s business as usual? Because I don’t even know what the point of this email was to send out to people, other than a reminder that we’re just going to keep doing things the same way.

Or is there going to be changes, and if there are going to be changes, would the Minister please tell us what they are? Because up until this point, with her responses, it’s quite—especially when it comes to TOIL and leave—nothing’s changed. It’s just “stick with the guidelines, everything’s carrying on as normal.” If that’s the message, then send the message, because this is something that does worry and concern front-line staff. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to Mark Mitchell’s question, I think the email was sent out to prepare front-line staff for not much of a wage increase.

I’d just like to get back to my original question: will the Minister be advocating for a 14.5 percent pay increase for police like teachers got this week?

Following on from my colleagues Mr Mitchell’s and Mr Baillie’s concern for the wellbeing of our front-line officers, I wondered whether the Minister would also like to—we’ve talked about the tactical response model and the changes that that has made to the officers’ sense of safety and security. But I wondered whether she perhaps would like to talk to us about the tools—the increased tools—that we have given the police under legislation which she has been so much involved in.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, thank you for the question, Mr Baillie. I can’t get ahead of Cabinet. I appreciate your interest and advocacy, but I’m afraid in matters of pay negotiations, I’m not going to make a comment now. Those will have to go through a formal process and a Cabinet decision. I wouldn’t be able to pre-empt that, so I can’t give you the answer that you’re looking for.

In terms of the increased tools, there’s been some great increase of tools. The Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill is one that was put through this year, and, and that’s already being utilised. We’ve seen in Ōpōtiki that that’s been really useful in terms of that 14-day new warrant when there’s intergang conflict, being able to search specifically vehicles.

Front-line police, when I speak to them, told me that what really surprised gang members was that they weren’t expecting their vehicles to be searched, that they’d seen in the past that houses were searched, but they were relying on the fact that they could carry weapons within their vehicles and not have those searched. So that was the element that was utilised in Ōpōtiki that enabled weapons to be seized under those warrants that were granted. And it was, I think, the district commander at the time during that operation who commented that the new legislation was effective and it was used well.

The other one that’s going to be really interesting to watch is flipping the onus on the proceeds of crime. I recently got to have a trip to check out all those things that are seized by the group that does all that work and some very high-value vehicles, some very-high value goods are regularly seized as part of that process, and so when those items are sold, that actually puts money back into some really good community initiatives that are then able to prevent crime.

So what the change in the legislation will mean—and those working in those positions that take on that work are really looking forward to—is the onus changing. So instead of it being incumbent on police to demonstrate that a gold-plated Harley was illicitly or illegally obtained and having to go through the extensive work and use forensic accountants to be able to identify that that was not legally obtained, instead the onus will now be on the accused to demonstrate how they got that high-value item legally, and if they are unable to demonstrate that, then that item is able to be restrained under the proceeds of crime Act.

So I’m looking forward to, hopefully, seeing a whole lot more organised crime assets and money coming into that account so that we can continue to fund some really excellent community initiatives, including a lot of the youth programmes that we see going on. I think it’s a good example of a smart way of operating to take money off gangs and target it into areas, in particular, to discourage young people from ever wanting to join those gangs in the first place.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I want to refer to a statement that was made by the member Emily Henderson in the opening remarks, where she made the statement that Police had said most firearms that are found by criminals have come from the licensed firearmsowning community. That’s something that this side of the House absolutely disputes. We don’t believe that most of the firearms found by criminals come from there, and have seen no evidence presented at all that actually stacks up with that claim.

So, Minister, I’m asking what part of the firearms budget for New Zealand Police will be looking at the illegal importation of firearms to New Zealand; perhaps the illegal manufacturing such as 3D printing? Also, I wonder what the Minister’s aspirations are for criminals to be able to register their firearms in the new firearms authority’s registry.

I’m hoping that the Minister will stand and take a call and let us know that this email here talking about cuts in time off in lieu and leave is something that we shouldn’t be worried about; it’s just a Clayton’s report and it’s just business as usual. So I’m hoping that she will get up and she will reconfirm that.

In terms of numbers, what is the police Minister’s plan now with the additional numbers—and, by the way, most front-line police officers’ eyes glaze over when they hear us debating in this place about additional numbers; they don’t feel like they’ve been reinforced at all. I was recently in Ōpōtiki meeting with the mayor there, David Moore. Ōpōtiki is meant to have—or he’s telling me—a full strength of 15, and they have got seven. There’s 68 stations around the country that have lost police officers and there’s over 100 that have had no additional numbers.

So rather than sending emails out from Police National Headquarters (PNHQ) saying we’re going to have to cut numbers—and by the way, I hope that when that email comes out, there’s a clear focus on cutting numbers at PNHQ and not the districts. Again, I’ve asked the Minister to stand and actually give us a sense of confidence that the districts are not going to be impacted by the fiscal restraints that are supposedly being applied.

But what is her answer to the fact that you’ve got the Police Association president—who’s pretty well in touch with the front-line members—saying they’ve been overwhelmed when her only response in this House when asked, “Do Kiwis feel safer?” is to say, “Yes, they should feel safer because we have delivered additional officers.” when clearly Kiwis don’t feel safer, by her own admission? What is the plan now?

Briefly, before I begin, my comment regarding the passage of firearms to offenders through the hands of licensed buyers was straight from the report, which, of course, my friend across the way actually sat on and approved. It was advice given to us by the police, who said that unlicensed offenders usually get their firearms which have passed at some point through licensed buyers—and thus through the hands of people who are licensed.

But my question to the Minister is actually about when we are looking at the 1,800 more police officers that we have now and looking toward the future. Where is she looking for the police to be interested in terms of the increasing of diversity? Is that still something that she is concerned with? I’d also actually like to hear more—and I think this is probably my primary thing—about the impact of Circuit Breaker compared to other initiatives such as, oh, I don’t know, boot camps.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Thank you to the member. In relation to the firearms question, the value of having the registry and having a map of where all firearms are in New Zealand will take five years to establish. But we will have a better picture on if there is a burglary and a weapon is taken and if someone is purchasing a weapon legally and then passing it on illegally. While we can do that a bit now, when we have the full map and the full picture, that will enable faster tracing of a weapon that’s been used in an illegal setting.

My hope is that now that that targeting will be risk based, the lives of those law-abiding legal hunters, recreational firearms users—those who present as having a low risk to the community—are made, I really hope, easier and smoother. If you’ve had a licence for 10 years and you’re good with a gun, then you should be low-risk and not treated. It is in those instances that touch on family violence or other issues that are raising flags for police that that information will be able to be used.

In terms of importing, I’d need to get some additional information. But, from my understanding, police do work really closely with customs and are using intel they receive to identify people who are illegally bringing weapons into New Zealand. I know that there is always, in terms of national intelligence and in terms of what the NIC does—the National Intelligence Centre within police—there’s always more work being done to identify risks such as 3D printing, where that technology is evolving, and identifying potential risks that police need to be staying abreast of here in New Zealand. So just the fact that we are establishing a firearms registry does not detract from the fact that there is always good police work going on to identify particular risks within the community and to be able to put in place ways of preventing those from causing harm within our community.

I’ll go back to the email again. I feel like I’ve read out the email, Mr Mitchell, and then you asked me: what does it mean? Well, I read it. So if I read it and you still don’t know what it means, I don’t know what else to say.

Hon Mark Mitchell: No, you didn’t read the whole email; you read part of it.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I did read the email out. So just to reiterate, the email sent by the deputy commissioner does not mean cuts to districts; does not mean cuts to the front line. I’ve said that five times now. I’m happy to say it again—and if you ask the question again, I’ll even say it again if you want me to.

So in terms of the point made in relation to police losing numbers, every single police district in New Zealand has received additional police staff as a result of the 1,800 additional police that are now on the front line. That means that we do have more police in districts. If the member wants to—as I think he’s hinting at—break it down by station, we do have new hubs like in Auckland where you have Eagle, where you have tactical being run out of there. So if he wants to make sure that those districts—it is up for the district commander and the area commander where they wish to deploy to demand. They have been given additional staff, and it is for those front-line officers to be able to determine where best placed their staff are put. That is not a call for the Minister of Police.

In terms of Circuit Breaker, 80 percent is the mark, which is an interesting mark for Circuit Breaker, and also Kotahi te Whakaaro. So that 80 percent is roughly the number that do not reoffend. Those youth offenders who have been involved in crimes such as ram raids, when they go through those programmes, the indicators demonstrate that approximately 80 percent of those are not reoffending. It depends on the age group, but we’ve seen between about 72 and 80 percent.

Flip the number if you’re looking at boot camps—about 80 percent do reoffend. I think that was even picked up on by the Chief Science Advisor appointed under the previous National Government. Peter Gluckman actually highlighted the fact that boot camps really don’t work.

Just in relation to the boot camps, it amazes me that I cannot find one Labour member—and I challenge the Minister, because I don’t think she has either. It’s deeply insulting to our defence personnel, to our police mentors, to our Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff, to the community organisations that are supporting and running our Limited Service Volunteers (LSV) programme out of Whenuapai, Trentham, and Burnham, and who take young people from 17 through into their 20s that have been in trouble with the law—sometimes they’ve been in jail. They get an eight-week intensive programme, and they’re running on a 70 percent success rate. So who’s challenging that on the other side?

Marja Lubeck: It’s not a boot camp.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because I would invite them—Marja Lubeck; no surprise. Go along to the LSV. Front up to the LSV and actually—they’re all shaking their heads. You of all people should know how successful this programme is. ’

Hon Member: It’s not a boot camp.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, it’s not a boot camp? Well, that’s your term. You’re the one that uses “boot camp”. It’s a military academy to us.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, Mr Mitchell; I don’t use any term.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Mr Chair. This is the ignorance: they just fired back at us, “It’s not a boot camp.” You’re right. It’s not a boot camp; it’s a military academy. So thank you very much to the Labour member that just highlighted the fact that it’s not a boot camp; it’s the LSV programme and it works. And I want to challenge—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Tell you what; that whole back row’s all gone.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely. I totally agree with you, Mr Brownlee. It just shows the absolute ignorance that’s generated from the other side.

So, Minister, I would ask you—I would make a genuine plea to you: go along and visit the LSV programme—the Limited Service Volunteers programme that’s run out of Whenuapai and Trentham and in Burnham. I’d like you to go and meet the soldiers, the men and women of our Defence Force that run that. I’d like you to meet with our police mentors. I’d like you to meet with the MSD staff that are deeply passionate about it and who are delivering the 70 percent success rate. Then I’d like you to come back to this House—all of you—and say that it doesn’t work and the work that they’ve been doing for the last 14 years is a failure, because it’s not; it’s hugely successful. We believe passionately that it’s the best way to invest in our young people that are off the rails and to prevent them from going into the adult criminal justice system.

Minister, I’m pleased that you have stood and you have said publicly that the fiscal restraint that has been applied to the police is going to have no negative impact on the districts—they are not going to lose any staff, they are not going to lose any resource, and they’re not going to have Police National Headquarters staff telling their staff how to and when they can take their time off in lieu and their annual leave. Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that.

I’d just like to thank the member for that contribution and note that he really backs the Limited Service Volunteers courses, because I just had a quick look, and he might want to look himself, just to bring himself up to speed. But if he googles Limited Service Volunteers courses at Trentham, in 2015 a cut was made under the then National Government, funding from 15 to 1,800 places. It was cut under National, and it was a real loss. So I just would like to point out that if he thought it was such a successful programme, then why was it cut?

So what the investment has been from this Government is into programmes like Kotahi Te Whakaaro and also like the Circuit Breaker programme, because that happens at the first time that people are presenting, and it’s an intervention that, when the research is backed up, we know that it works. We know that those return rates of young people that go through those courses do turn their lives around and it’s the best way of getting them younger. So I suggest that maybe the reason his own Government cut that course was maybe they read their own research.

The Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end.

Finance