7. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
Does she stand by her statement yesterday that she does not underestimate the difficulties in recruiting extra police; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this
Yes. I have been saying publicly for about 6 months that the recruitment and training of 1,000 extra front-line sworn and 250 non-sworn police staff, which will be funded by the Government in conjunction with our supply and confidence agreement with New Zealand First, is a challenge, but it is one that the New Zealand Police and the Government are prepared to rise to.
How will she recruit extra police when even temporary constables are not up to the job, according to a Christchurch police officer, who claims that some decoy cops have abused their status as sworn officers to have their home phones connected quickly, or to go through customs without being stopped, and also that some have used their uniforms to pull over drivers, or to give a talk at a primary school, although their experience is limited to guarding crime scenes?
Because the 1,000 police we will be recruiting will be full-time sworn police—they will not be temporary sworn police—
Hon David CarterI am glad David Carter just interjected about cardboard police, because the only decoy cops I can remember were the cardboard cut-outs that National put into shopping malls when it was last in Government. Those were the last decoy cops we have seen. However, National was prepared to have temporary sworn police when it was in Government. I said last week that we have had temporary sworn police for around 10 years. I was wrong: we have had them for more than 10 years. They were OK under the National Government, but National is trying to make an issue out of them now. New Zealanders are laughing at those members.
Is the Minister concerned about the competence of potential recruits when, according to a Christchurch police officer, decoy cops have fallen asleep while guarding a crime scene, smoked and worn jandals while in uniform, and driven police cars with lights flashing because they did not know how to turn them off, which caused other traffic to pull over?
Madam SPEAKERI remind the gigglers at the back of the Chamber that it is an interruption to giggle—and it is a member of their own party who is asking the question. I am trying to apply the rules evenly.
I do not have any doubt about the competence of the 1,000 sworn police officers whom we are about to recruit. They will be competent, because that will be a requirement. However, I know that Labour questioned the competencies of the cardboard cut-outs put in place as decoy cops by the National Government—and we should have questioned them. But I certainly have a lot more confidence in the New Zealand Police and its recruitment campaign than the National Party does.
Does she stand by her assurance in the House last week that these decoy cops surrender their uniforms once they cease duty, given that their exploits reported in the Christchurch Press clearly show that they have been using their uniforms while off duty to masquerade as fully trained officers; and will she now admit that last week, on this issue, she misled the House?
No, I will not admit that I misled the House. The member asked whether they hand in their uniforms when they leave their positions as temporary sworn police, and I answered that, yes, they do. That was the question; I answered it. I have no knowledge, and I have not been advised, that temporary sworn police are acting in an inappropriate manner, other than the reported comment that one was seen smoking—I do not approve of that, either; I do not approve of smoking.
However, I have not got that information. What I do know is that that member has misled the House. Last week he took the answer to a supplementary question that Tony Ryall had asked, about the number of temporary sworn police in 2004—he changed it to 2005 yesterday—during a muster crisis, and used it to say that that was the number of temporary sworn police in New Zealand. He misled the House.
Why has the number of decoy cops increased massively from just 17 in June last year, as reported in the annual report, to 330 now; and if they are counted by the Government as part of the total number of sworn officers, what is the real number of fully trained, sworn, front-line police officers?
They are not counted by the Government in our total number of fully sworn police officers. The member is incorrect. I can tell the House that, throughout the time that New Zealand has had temporary sworn police, they were never counted by the National Government. The New Zealand Police has no record of the number of temporary sworn police. However, I can tell the House that in 2003 there were 200 temporary sworn police, because we started to keep a record of the number we had. I do not know why the National Government did not do that, but I suspect that it was counting them as front-line police. This Government is not.
Can she give an assurance to the House that police recruitment staff are using objective criteria to identify which people might make the best recruits, and that they are encouraging applications from a wide cross-section of society?
I have been advised by the police that they are using the criteria they have used for some time. Recruitment is the job of the police. I am not involved in recruitment itself, but I have been told the police are using criteria that have been used for a number of years. I cannot add to that.
Ron MarkDoes she recall an incident in Christchurch a number of years ago, when a Government introduced the policy of employing Armourguard security officers to secure a crime scene, which comprised a house, and one of the Christchurch gangs implicated in the crime that had been committed in that house managed to sneak in behind the Armourguard security people and burn the house to the ground; if so, does that suggest that problems associated with employing temporary officers, or contract people such as Armourguard officers, are not new, and they are things that have to be worked through?