10. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
Does she stand by her statement that the Cerno report on police standards and assessment practice “provided assurances that the Police are training recruits to an acceptable standard, and that police are capable of doing their jobs when all their training has been completed.”; if so, does she have the same level of confidence that the standard of recruits being accepted into Police College has not declined?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this
Yes, and I can do no better than quote from Dr George’s report: “On balance, the assessment processes used by Police seem capable of ensuring that those achieving permanent appointment as Constables are able to perform the job. Primarily this is because of the multiple hurdle approach adopted by Police, whereby any weaknesses in one aspect of the assessment process are tempered by other, subsequent, parts of the process. Indeed, the demanding and broad range of tests that aspiring Constables must pass are significantly greater than those required for entry to most New Zealand organisations.”—and, I would add, including this Parliament.
Can she confirm the finding of the report that when it came to the performance of new recruits on the general mental ability entrance test “Overall, the changes in pass marks in Examination support the claim that there is a decline in performance”, and is that not an acknowledgment that more people are going to the Police College who would not have made it in the past and who require extra tuition before they can graduate?
The report does point out that the police do spend, in the report’s view, too much time on helping recruits during their training. But I think it is important to point out that the report stated that those who graduate meet the standard required and are fit for purpose. What do New Zealanders want? They want police officers on the street who can do the job. That member, among others, claimed they could not. This report shows they can.
Jill PettisDoes the report conclude that constables who go out on the beat are fit for purpose and probably thinner today than some former serving officers—that they are able to perform the job—or does it support the unfortunate headline in the Dominion Post that described New Zealand police as the “thick blue line”?
Dr Dave George, who was the author of the report, said that Professor Hattie’s conclusion was that the police were actually at least at the population average of intelligence or greater. The speed at which some politicians and some media attacked and denigrated the police was unfair and gratuitous and no doubt had an effect on those officers who are out on the street trying to do their job 24 hours a day. I think it would help if some people would withhold their judgment on the police on some occasions and engage their brains before their mouths.
Can she confirm that when it came to the reasons why recruits were doing worse on entrance tests, the report stated: “It is not clear that any decline is attributable to the change in assessment, but is more likely related to decisions about the standards”; and can she confirm that one of those decisions was to exclude the bottom 23 percent, when the police had previously excluded the bottom 40 percent, after the agreement signed between Labour and New Zealand First?
No, I cannot confirm the final part of that member’s question. I can confirm that Professor Hattie said the police should not use stanines in testing. He said they should not use them, and the police are as intelligent today as previously—probably more intelligent than when that member went through. The constant attack on New Zealand police by saying they are not fit for purpose is proved by this report to be untrue. I ask the member to get over it. He has lost it, because this report shows the claims that member was making were wrong.
Can she confirm the finding of the report that the decision last year to make two of the physical standards for recruits easier, the new run times based on age and gender and the lowering of the height of the scaling wall from 6 feet to only 4 feet, “did not follow a sound and rigorous process” and “lacked a sound rationale or research evidence on which to base the changes”, and that this drop in standards came after the Labour - New Zealand First agreement; and was not the real reason for that to meet the target of 1,000 new police, which the Prime Minister had stated before the election was simply not credible?
No, no more than the National Party’s decision to allow shorter people in the police meant that they are not good police officers. This report showed that the people who graduated met all the standards that were required at graduation. The member is trying to say that people who came in and who may not have met all the standards when they started were therefore not capable of being police when they graduated. This report showed that they met the standards and that they were capable of graduating and capable of doing the job. I ask the member to stop attacking New Zealand police officers. They are out there doing the work that he used to do but is not capable of doing now.