Annual Review Debate — Police

It’s a real pleasure to lead off the debate into the annual review of Police for the 2022-23 year. Look, the Justice Committee met with Police for two hours in our review, one of three major reviews we did this year, and we are very much looking forward to finalising our scrutiny plan and looking into a few of our other entities and departments throughout the end of this year and over the term.

I thought the committee worked actually pretty well, pretty collegially throughout our annual review process, ably led by our Deputy Chair Jamie Arbuckle, and Opposition members all, I think, contributed fairly well and fairly collaboratively to the annual review debate.

Now, I’m hoping that that collegiality and that spirit of cooperation continues throughout the term. The Justice Committee is an incredibly busy, effective, hard-working committee with a lot of legislation coming through from a busy, busy Government, and a busy backbench as well, because we’ve got lots of members who are keen to put their views on justice bills coming through.

But in terms of the annual review, look, we covered a lot of territory for Police, and I wanted to just highlight the key items that the committee ended up moving through over the two hours that we had. And can I just say it was a real pleasure to have the commissioner with us. I thought he conducted himself really well in front of some pretty good questioning from all sides of the committee. I think the questions answered were answered in pretty good detail and in pretty good spirit. And where the Police didn’t quite have all the answers, they committed to come back to us and provide them in writing if we needed anything further. So I just wanted to acknowledge the work of the commissioner and, of course, of all our police men and women who serve throughout the country and who have done for many, many years.

And can I just take the opportunity to give a shoutout to my brother’s partner, who is a police officer, who had her baby boy late last month. So just a shout-out to wee Lachlan James. And finally we get another James in the House, given that we lost one last week, and I’m the last one standing. So just want to acknowledge Stuart and Jackie and the family.

We did go through quite a number of topics with the annual review, and I just wanted to highlight a few of the key ones there. So one of the big topics that we talked about during the select committee stage was about reducing gang intimidation and violence. The commissioner was very clear that he found dealing with gangs over his time as a police officer incredibly frustrating and challenging. And I think that’s why the Minister and the Government have placed a very large focus of their law and order agenda moving forward on controlling gang behaviour and eliminating the response and the presence of gangs in our community.

And I wanted to touch on something that happened during that review period, and that was what happened down in Timaru in my patch, when the local police and local authorities took a pretty hard-line approach to gangs. They decided that they wanted to reject gang presence in our community down in Timaru, and also then start looking at replacing what they stand for. So, yep, they went in and they knocked down the pads and they got rid of the gang presence, and they sold out the land from underneath them, but now we’ve also got to work on that underlying problem of what it is in those gang communities that those young men and women are looking for and how we can we replace that. And that’s going to be, hopefully, part of the strategic intentions of the Government moving forward.

So we talked a bit about reducing gang intimidation and violence. There was some discussion on the legislation to ban gang patches, which hadn’t come before the Justice Committee at that point, but now we are currently considering it, and I think we’re doing a very good job on that too.

We talked at length around retail crime and around how we were very, very concerned at the spike in retail crime over the past few years and what police’s response had been to that. And it was actually very pleasing to see that some of the changes in the approaches of police towards the end of the last term of Government have actually led to a bit of a down-tick in some of those ram-raiding offences. And part of me probably suspects that when you take the individuals out of the communities who are doing those crimes, they can’t do them. They’re not there to drive the cars, they’re not there to do the ram raids. So let’s see how we continue to progress with looking at retail crime and supporting victims of retail crime in that space as well.

The committee covered off topics around youth offending, we looked at increases in cyber-crime, and also an interesting stat that came through during the select committee stage was that a good 25 percent of what police deal with now is family harm. And at the same time, there’s also an increase in cyber-crime. So if you consider how different those two areas of policing are, it’s going to present a real challenge to Governments going forward about how you resource those effectively. So that’s going to take a good amount of leadership from the Government on that too.

We spoke also around strengthening Police’s relationship with Māori, addressing the activities of organised crime. We talked a little bit about recruitment of front-line staff and some of the challenges that are going to be there about making sure you get the right people into our police services, because we have high standards for our police and we want to make sure that we have the right men and women going through our police service. So I’m confident that with the recruitment work that the police can do over the next three years, that will quite comfortably meet our targets around that. So with that, I will resume my seat.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to the chair of the committee. We had a good session, and the Commissioner of Police gave a good outline of all of the challenges. The key challenge that was sort of identified is that Police—with a $2.2 billion budget, $1.7 billion of which is in staff—is that they’re facing into a 6.5 percent budget cut, so that’s really looking at personnel. So we’re quite keen to understand what is front line and what is not front line, given that context. I’d just like a bit of clarity from the Minister in relation to that, I’m a bit confused. Today, we established that it’s for the commissioner to determine what is front line or not, but also the Minister today said that 111 call responders were not front-line staff. So I’d just like to confirm if those 111 callers are front line or not.

In addition to that, I’d also like to know whether authorised officers are front line or not. And in addition to that, also those who answer the 105 reports in communication centres—are they front line or not?

First of all, can I just acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee, the outstanding work that he does chairing that committee—it is important; you have got a very heavy workload. I know that you’re taking a very bipartisan approach and I think that’s important with the type of legislation that you’re dealing with because it’s around public safety and security. Can I acknowledge him becoming an uncle again and I’m hoping that Lachlan follows in his mother’s footsteps into the police service.

I just do want to acknowledge our police force. Without a doubt they’re doing an outstanding job protecting and serving our communities, and they’ve done it under a fairly difficult set of circumstances, certainly in 2022-23, because we have seen a massive increase—an ongoing massive increase—in violent retail crime, we’ve seen an increase in family harm incidents, and we’ve seen an increase in mental health call-outs. That’s put massive pressure on their services.

One of the things, as the incoming Minister, that I’ve been very focused on is making sure that we get the agencies responsible and the most appropriate agency to actually deal with, for example, mental health call-outs; being able to actually attend that and free up our front-line police officers to get back on their core role—and that is the protecting and the serving of the community that they joined the police to do.

In terms of the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question, it’s actually for the police commissioner. The police Minister does not interfere, nor does he or she have any say over how the police commissioner deploys his or her staff or how he deploys them operationally. That is for him. But the one thing that we’ve been very clear about as the incoming Government is that we want to see resources pushed to the front line. She’s right in that under the previous Government, in the 2022-23 year, there’s been a big investment in numbers but their core funding has not increased; in fact, quite the opposite. They were asked to fund from baseline the competency service increment payment. It’s an incremental payment that goes to police officers as they advance through their career and it recognises their experience. As an incoming Government, we became aware of that and I’m pleased to announce for the member that we have decided that we would fund that, the Government would fund that again, that we’d not ask the Police to find that from their baseline, which means that it’s freed up more resources and more money to be able to support the additional numbers and their deployment.

Thank you very much. My questions follow on from some of the stuff that the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, brought up—around the gang patches stuff. Now, obviously, we’re looking at the former year rather than looking forward to the future. I really want to ask the Minister how he’s found the existing gang patch ban to have worked. My understanding is that you can’t wear them in public places, but the number of fines that are being handed out for the legislation that is currently in place does paint a picture of it being a very ineffective policy. So could you have a chat with us about how you reconcile that in your mind, and, I suppose, about the police officers that are being charged with enforcing the gang patch bans.

I mean, surely that’s a really dangerous and difficult position to put police officers in, and just looking at the amount that they’re being paid, particularly those starting officers, I mean, is that a fair and reasonable expectation to have on them? And is it a fair expectation to set with the public? If the existing bans are not being enforced and we’re still seeing gang violence and we’re still seeing that harm being created in the community, then how do we reconcile that fact—that we’ve got a police force that is unable to enforce the existing bans and future bans—and that we are putting more police officers in danger through setting that expectation for them and for the public? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Tamatha Paul for the question. I think that it’s timely, obviously with the legislation sitting in front of the Justice Committee, which she’s a member of, and the fact that there is a lot of public debate around it at the moment, in terms of the gang patch ban—not so much the dispersal notices and the non-consorting orders, but certainly the gang patch ban.

Look, can I just say that I’ve just recently come back from a meeting in Canberra with the state Ministers, and the federal, the Attorney-General, and their commissioners, and one of the bilateral meetings I had was with the Hon Paul Papalia and his commissioner, Col Blanch. He’s the police Minister for Western Australia. Col Blanch is the commissioner for Western Australia. The legislation that we’ve taken, which is the gang patch legislation, the dispersal notice, and the non-consorting orders are basically the legislation that that Government passed about 18 months ago. So the meeting, for me, was to get feedback and find out how effective that legislation has been in terms of suppressing the gangs and getting on top of the gang problem that they had in Western Australia. Overwhelmingly, the response that I got—the feedback that I got from them—is that it’s been hugely effective. In fact, the day that we met, the front page of the main West Australian paper was running a story saying that the leader of the Rebels motorcycle gang had just left the gang because he was finding it too tough—it was too tough to be in the gang, and he had left. That was the front-page story running in Western Australia the day that I met the Minister and the commissioner.

I just want to give you a little bit of background and a little bit of context around why we felt it was so important to introduce this legislation. In the last six years, there has been a massive increase in patched gang members in this country. We have seen a proliferation of weapons. We’ve seen gang members now that will carry weapons and are willing to use them. We see gang members that think they’re above the law and that, if they come out and take over public spaces, they can abuse and intimidate members of the public. We’ve even seen them go so far as to roll into our provincial towns, take over the towns, shut schools, and stop our kids from getting to school. We have seen a very permissive environment where these gangs feel like they can operate with impunity, and that has made not just the public less safe, it’s made our front-line police officers less safe as well. These gang members do think they’re above the law. They’ve got no respect for our front-line police officers, and part of the legislation and the new tools that we’re giving the police is actually going to give the police the ability to reassert themselves over and above the gangs and give the community that they serve a feeling that they control the streets, and not the gangs.

So, when we talk about it being dangerous for our police officers to go out there and deal with gangs, I accept that; that has never changed. They’re an organised criminal group, and they have a propensity for violence, but we have the best professional police service in the world, and they have a very strong and proud history of knowing how to deal with gangs. It’s just that, at the moment, the gangs think they’re running the show, and we’re going to send a very clear message to them that they’re not. And, by the way, when you actually start to get on top of the gang problem, not only is it safer for the public, it’s safer for those police officers as well. That is why we’re so committed, and why we feel it’s so important, to have this legislation in front of the committee and to be part of our overall approach to public safety in our country.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, I’m just interested to learn a bit more about the Firearms Safety Authority. That was funded under the previous Budget—Te Tari Pūreke. I’m just interested to know from the Minister of Police: can he talk us through how the system would operate if it was to be moved out of police, and, in particular, how would the intelligence that’s very vital for front-line safety—if it was sitting in the Department of Internal Affairs, how do the national intelligence agency and front-line police quickly access intelligence about who may have attempted to buy a firearm? I’m thinking of a scenario when an officer’s approaching a house and there could have been a purchase that day that’s been declined under the Firearms Safety Authority. If it’s moved, how will that interaction happen to protect front-line safety?

Thank you, Mr Chair. As the member knows, that’s an ongoing piece of work, but the one thing that I would say to her is that we are fully committed as a Government to making our country more safe, not less safe, and the police have got a huge role to play in terms of dealing with firearms and public safety. And whatever the model is once this piece of work is finished, Police will have absolute full access to all the intelligence, all the information that they need, to keep the public safe and to keep their front-line officers safe.

Thank you very much. There have been reports that the cost of shifting Te Tari Pūreke out of Police into somewhere like the Department of Internal Affairs would cost around $100 million. What advice or reports has the Minister of Police received in relation to the cost of that shift?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, again, as I say to the member, that is an ongoing piece of work. No decisions have been made as of today. The Hon Nicole McKee is leading that piece of work with support from Police. We are making it very clear through that process that the access to intelligence and the ability for police to be able to do their job to keep the public safe and keep our front-line police officers safe needs to be enhanced, not degraded.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In relation to intelligence, there’s been a project that’s been under way for a while within Police—ReFrame—which enables police to have access to good intelligence, technology, and using non-sworn to get back out on the street quickly. I’d be interested to know if there’s any proposal from the Minister of Police to pause or halt that programme of work.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As the member knows, that’s looking forward and that’s Budget sensitive. What I would say is that intelligence is critically important to the efficient running of our police service, and they are constantly looking at ways of being able to increase that.

Tēnā rā koe, otirā tēnā rā tātou, e te Whare. E tū ana hau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori, ā, ēngari mōku ake mō tōku rohe o Hauraki-Waikato, me tōku tino āwangawanga ki tēnei Kāwana kaikiri me ō rātou take.

[Greetings to you, and to us all here in the House. I stand to voice the opinions held by Te Pāti Māori, but also for myself for my people of Hauraki-Waikato, we are very worried about this racist Government and their ways.]

My question is to the Minister of Police; I have a series of questions. I have attended not one but three tangihanga, or funerals, within my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, and I have been absolutely appalled with distress at the amount of police that have barricaded the local marae, and even more so the violation of discrimination to the whānau pani, the family of the deceased, ones during a time of mourning.

I am seeking answers from the Minister today on, firstly, what is the process for 60 police officers to attend a tangi? Secondly, how is it acceptable that 60 police officers can show up to a tangi, have armed checkpoints with M4s, then on burial day have an Eagle helicopter circling around the urupā, or cemetery, as karakia commences, as they are lowering the caskets of their loved ones?

We have witnessed enormous amounts of police cars showing up to the streets of marae to have checkpoints at tangihanga. This is completely unacceptable. These proceedings are highly discriminatory. I would like to seek clarity on the fact: do police now have the authority to interfere in tikanga protocols, cultural considerations, and tangihanga?

A majority of local police officers have a good relationship with their local communities, hapū, and iwi. Our local police have been very apologetic for what has been happening and said it was a direction not from them but from Wellington. By police turning up to tangihanga in this way, which is completely disrespectful and culturally inappropriate, this will cause further pressure and distrust between mana whenua and police. What reassurance can the Minister give to this urgent, disturbing take [subject]?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for the question. Look, I can’t talk in great detail to the examples that the member has used, but I guess if I could sort of give you an overview in terms of the approach the police are taking, I have to assume that they probably involved gang members.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just clarifying just so that constituents know at home, one of those tangihanga was a gang member - affiliated tangi and two of them weren’t.

OK. Point taken.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. So, again, I apologise. If you give me the details, then I can definitely look into that for you, but I just don’t have enough detail now to give you a detailed response.

The only thing that I would say is that, personally, I’m extremely proud of our New Zealand Police service. They are deeply connected with their community, and that’s the entire community. But I think that probably what you may be seeing and witnessing is that a lot of these gang convoys have felt that they have the right to take over public roads. In fact, in your own area, there was a terrible example a couple of years ago where a gang convoy came around a father who was trying to get home and he was scared and pulled off to the side of the road. They pulled him out of his vehicle and they assaulted him so badly that he ended up in Waikato Hospital with a serious brain injury. I’m using that as an example, because what they’re doing is they’re intimidating members of the public. They’re taking over public spaces. Actually, I feel very strongly, as the incoming Government and as the Minister, that we should protect the rights of those law-abiding citizens and reinforce the law and remind the gangs that they don’t get to just come out and do whatever they want. They don’t get to come out and take over public spaces. They don’t get to intimidate members of the public.

I’m only assuming that maybe what you’ve seen or what you’ve experienced is the police trying to effectively manage those convoys in a public space. I’d be very surprised if the police have come on to any private property, but they definitely would be dealing with that assertively, because that has been an expectation of this Government, but it would be in a public space.

Thank you to the Minister for responding back to my questions. However, I do want to clarify that, yes, one of them had gang member whānau, but two of them had absolutely no gang patches, no gang whānau. It was just a normal tangi where people were attending, and, in one instance, the police officers weren’t actually on the marae but on the actual street—the beginning road of the marae. And the members had then been pulled up or there had been checkpoints, which I think is discrimination. Because there are no gang members there, there are no gang patches there, there is no affiliation to gang member rōpū; it is just Māori people having a tangihanga.

Now, I understand where the Minister is coming from. However, I think it is completely inappropriate for police officers to then discriminate, “Oh there’s a Māori tangi; let’s go to that area.” That’s not right. And I’m liking to get more clarification on not the gang members but the actual tangihanga proceedings: how would those proceedings occur in future for my local electorate of Hauraki-Waikato?

Thank you, Mr Chair. My first question pertains to some worrying numbers and trends in the annual report of the Police 2022-23. Despite victimisations going up nationwide from 155,000 to 185,000 in that period 2022-23 and given all the increases, as the Minister has alluded to, in ram raids, retail thefts, and serious and violent crime, is he satisfied that the net gain of full-time constabulary in the Auckland region fell—well, there wasn’t a net gain at all. Well, there was a net gain but not in Counties Manukau. Overall in the region, the net gain was just five sworn constables, up from 2,929, across the Auckland region, to 2,934, despite the increase in victimisation and the offending, as I’ve outlined. That’s my first question, and what plans does he have around more police and more presence on the streets of Auckland?

My second question follows an appearance to the Justice Committee, as Chairperson Meager has pointed out, by the Commissioner of Police, Andrew Coster. I asked him about the success of the anti-gang policies and overall gang crackdown in Western Australia, and Commissioner Andrew Coster said, “They were quite successful in removing the visible presence of gangs in Western Australia.” Does the Minister expect similar success with his anti-gang policies here in New Zealand?

Thank you, Mr Chair. So starting with the last point first, yes. A big part of the reason why we want to remove gang patches and insignia is we don’t want the public to be exposed to that and we don’t want them being visible to the public. The police still know who gang members are—they’ve got very good intelligence; that’s their business. They know who they are, but we don’t want the public to be exposed to that anymore.

In terms of the numbers, there’s a couple of things that we’re doing. Obviously there’s a commitment to deliver an additional 500 front-line police officers in the term of this Government—the next two years. The other piece of work that’s got going—and it will take a bit of time, but we started it—is trying to free up police resource away, for example, from mental health call-outs and back on their core role.

In terms of presence in Auckland, one of the things that I was very clear about as the incoming Minister in my letter of expectation is that we start to see more police out on the beat—highly visible, developing those relationships with shopkeepers, knowing the patch that they’re in—and the police are responding well to that, from what I understand. I was certainly with Bruce Bird in Waikato, the district commander there, last week and they have had a big increase in foot patrols in Hamilton. I was in Tauranga the week before—the same. I was talking to some retailers there and they said that it’s given them a huge boost of confidence because they’re actually seeing beat constables back out doing those foot patrols. It’s a similar situation in Auckland.

In terms of the numbers, I think what that report reflects is the fact that if you go back to the previous Government, New Zealand First as a component part of that first Government wanted to deliver an 1,800 additional front-line police officers. The target date had to be moved back two or three times—they couldn’t actually achieve the numbers—and then when the final numbers were reported to this House as being delivered, in actual fact probably maybe 300 but possibly as many as 500 of those were authorised officers. Authorised officers have a critically important role to play inside our police service—don’t get me wrong on that—but they’re not sworn officers out on the street that are able to respond to a member of the public putting their hand up for help.

So we’ve got quite a bit of work to do in terms of being able to free up our police resource and get it back focused on the work they want to do, their core role; delivering the additional 500. I think that we will start to see a real difference in terms of visibility in our police actually doing what they want to do best and that is protecting the public they serve.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just have one more question on the Firearms Safety Authority. One example from overseas where it was moved away from Police into another department was Canada, and it did not work so well there. I just want some reassurance or commitment from the Minister—if Nicole McKee, as the responsible Minister for that, makes decisions in relation to Te Tari Pūreke and if he has real concerns about the front-line safety of officers, particularly in relation to getting real-time intelligence in relation to firearms, will he make a commitment to step up and speak out? Will he speak out if he has concerns about decisions being taken by the Associate Minister that may potentially endanger not only front-line officers but our community?

Well, that’s my job. I mean, I’m glad that the member highlights Canada, because, you know, I would expect and I’ll make sure that officials are looking at that so that if there’s lessons to be learnt from what Canada have done, we should be adopting and looking at those. But I just come back to the fact and just say to her and give her a commitment that, in terms of the way firearms are treated and dealt with in this country, this Government is committed to making our country a safer country. And a big part of that is the way that firearms are dealt with, and my commitment is to make sure—police have got a big role in that—that the police continue to have the ability to collect and have access to the intelligence and the information that they need to be effective to keep the public safe and to keep our front-line police officers safe.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just in relation to recruitment and retaining police, police are able to take 10 wings consisting of around 80 recruits per year. I’d just like to get the Minister’s view. Is he concerned about the first two wings of the 500 new front-line police officers—that wing 376 only had 58 recruits, and then wing 377 just had 61 recruits? What does this do to the forecast date for when that 500 new police officers will be reached?

Well, our commitment hasn’t changed. We’ve committed to delivering 500 new sworn front-line police officers in two years. And, look, the Police is doing some great work around the country in terms of recruiting. The one thing that they’re very clear about—and I fully support them—is that there will not be any reduction in standards. The quality of our police force reflects the quality of our recruits and police officers. But, look, there’s some very good work going around the country. I was in Gisborne a couple of months ago. They’ve got a young constable there who is working with the schools in identifying year 12 and 13 students that they can get alongside of, give the training, give them the skills that they need to enter and enjoy a rewarding career in our New Zealand Police service. And the most recent graduations that I’ve been at, Gisborne is constantly having four or five constables there. So there’s some outstanding work being done around the country, and I’m confident that solutions will appear in terms of delivering those 500 additional police officers.

More questions?

Mr Chair, if there’s no one else—just being fair. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In relation to gangs, over the past six years, police have prevented an estimated $6.7 billion of social harm. I’m interested to know if he has done any modelling into the estimated amount of social harm that police will prevent as a result of the changes outlined in the Government’s coalition agreement.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, look, I’ve been given a good crack of answering a lot of these questions that are looking forward, not looking back over the review period. But in the spirit of what this is meant to be about—and that is transparency and trying to give the best possible answers that we can—I have been answering those questions. But that question that the member just asked is projected forward, not back. I would recognise and agree with you that the police do an outstanding job of reducing social harm, and I have no doubt—and my expectations moving forward, in this term of Government—that, as we free up their resource, as we actually give them more tools, as we give them the ability to be able to dig even deeper into those issues, then we’ll continue to see very strong results.

Just to support the committee, I’ll get members to reflect on Speaker’s ruling 147/2, and that is around when we do have future-focus questions that they’ve got to be about progress against the strategic intentions of the plans and intentions of those organisations, and those strategic intentions are, of course, the annual review.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. So retail crime has continued to be a problem for our business community as well as our communities. Funding for the Retail Crime Prevention Programme was provided in the last Budget. Does the Minister have any intentions to halt or pause the funding of that programme?

Sorry, I was talking to the chair. Does she mind just repeating the last part of that question.

The Retail Crime Prevention Programme: does he have any intention to halt funding to that programme?

No, I don’t—anything to do with retail crime and getting on top of the violent retail crime in New Zealand is a huge focus for this Government. And if anything, we want to invest into that more, because there’s a huge human cost to this and it’s awful. And in my view, we’re a small island nation, we’ve got a lot in our favour in terms of trying to get on top and deal with this, and we should be, but that is going to require ongoing investment to make that happen.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was reluctant to take another call because I had a good crack at the start, but given the enthusiasm of the committee on this topic, I did want to look back a little bit. I wanted to ask a question about past resourcing of police, and in particular, in the technology space, and in and around this idea that if we can get our systems to work smarter and not harder, we can actually gain a lot of efficiencies and a lot of resource out of the existing resource that we have. The reason I raise that is because I didn’t make a lot of contributions during the annual review debate—I allowed members to have a pretty free-flowing debate back and forth—but the one contribution I did make was towards the end. It might sound a little flippant now, but hear me out because I’ve got a good train of thought going on this. It was around health and safety, and resourcing for our local police.

The issue is that in my electorate, mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury, over the history of the past few decades, we have had about three or four of the top five temperatures ever recorded. So when you are a front-line police officer and you’re operating in the middle of summer in those temperatures, wearing your full kit—and the Minister of Police will know probably what it’s like to wear some of that kit. I tried to carry a bit around when I visited Ashburton a couple of weeks ago, and after a couple of minutes of just holding it, I could feel the strain—that was in an air conditioned office. So if you have our police officers running around in 38 or 39 degrees wearing this kit—one of the suggestions from the police in Timaru was looking at different types of uniforms and looking at a summer uniform for some of our police officers in those areas where it is quite stifling, or looking at different ways of operating—maybe they could remove their tactical vests sometimes.

The reason I come to that is because that is probably a question around resourcing. Every time we make a decision, we’re going to have to make a decision on what stays and what goes. So I just wanted to ask the Minister if he’s satisfied with the work that’s happened in police so far around looking at where they can gain efficiencies, where they can use technology to replace some of the paper-based systems.

I visited Ashburton Police Station a couple of weeks ago and I met two pretty brand-spanking-new constables who’d been in there for a couple of months. They love their job; they love being part of the police force. The one thing that surprised them was the amount of desk work that they had to do and the amount of paperwork they had to do. They pulled open a filing cabinet—it was empty at the time, but they said, “Here’s where my next files are going.”

So I just wanted to know if the Minister’s satisfied with the amount of work that’s happening, has happened in the past year, around trying to look at where we can gain efficiencies and use technology to operate in a more effective way, and if he has any strategic intentions moving forward about where we’d go in that space.

Yeah, look, very good question. I’m not sure I’ll be very popular raising this, but there was a time when the part of the police uniform was walk socks and shorts.

Hon Member: Yeah, bring it back.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m not sure we’re going back there.

Cameron Brewer: Show us the photos.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Nah it wasn’t in my era. But, look, you raise a really good point. There was a very big investment made into police back in 2013-14 in terms of technology. They got tablets and they got mobile phones. The reason for that is, obviously, we wanted a modern police force with the best technology available. And it was a big drive to the point that you raised: get them out of the office, allow them to be back out on the street, visible and back in the community—and that was very successful. But the police have got an ongoing programme of always looking at updating, modernising the technology that they have. There is a big project under way at the moment around a new digitised communication system for police, for St John’s, and for Fire and Emergency New Zealand. Probably, once that’s delivered, we could probably broaden that out even further.

In terms of uniform, I agree with you. Police are constantly looking at providing a uniform that is functional, that police officers can feel comfortable in. I agree with you—when you think about a hot summer’s day and the amount of equipment that they are wearing, the core heats up pretty quickly. So it’s trying to get that balance between making sure they’ve got the protective equipment and they’ve got the tactical equipment—that it’s functional and it’s comfortable and they can work a whole shift without putting unnecessary strain on the body.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I just wanted to clarify one point—the answer the Minister gave before in relation to front-line staff and non - front-line staff. I understand that he said that is a clear decision for the commissioner to make, but then he’s also provided the answer in a written parliamentary question, and today, that those 111 call responders are not front line. So if you could just reconcile those two different pieces of information, I’d really appreciate that.

Well, I just think that she’s conflating the two issues. The first thing is the commissioner will decide what’s front line. He’ll decide where he deploys his staff and he’ll decide the best use of all his  resources and his staff. The member asked me as the Minister of Police what I would define as a front-line police officer and I said I consider a sworn police officer as front line.

Members, our time with the Minister of Police has ended. The Minister of Local Government is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Local Government