8. The Future

8.4 In early 2005 Police Commissioner Robinson established a project known as the Corporate Instrument Review Project designed to review and streamline all police policies and procedures. This project is a comprehensive review of all aspects of police policy-making and the various documents in which police policy is recorded. I was told that there had been recognition for some time that a review of this kind would be desirable, and the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct brought the need for this review into sharp focus.(973)

8.5 In November 2005 Police Commissioner Robinson told me of some of the insights gained from the internal police review of the structures around internal investigations and the police relationship with the Police Complaints Authority:

8.6 In November 2005 as a result of his internal review of the Professional Standards function, Police Commissioner Robinson issued a directive that in future the police districts must consult with the national manager of Professional Standards regarding the appointment of internal investigators in all but minor cases.(975) The police also submitted a proposal to me in November 2005 outlining suggested changes to the Police Complaints Authority, particularly that complaints of serious misconduct be managed outside the police.(976) This proposal is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

8.7 Police Commissioner Robinson told me in November 2005 of another key initiative that he had taken concerning potentially inappropriate relationships by police officers:

8.8 Also, as a result of information that came to light during the inquiry process, the police general manager of human resources told me in November 2005 that police officers facing criminal or disciplinary charges who resign no longer received standard commendation letters thanking them for their service and wishing them all the best for their futures; every attempt was being made to ensure that any letter sent was appropriate to the individual to whom it was addressed.(978) This issue is discussed further in Chapter 5, in relation to term of reference (2)(e).

8.9 Another police initiative outlined to me in November 2005 was that the police had undertaken a survey of their one-, two-, and three-person police stations. The survey focused on identifying the risks associated with small station policing and generated the establishment of a specialised focus group to discuss issues of interest. I was told at that time that the focus group had met in December 2004 and was due to meet again in December 2005.(979)

8.10 A further area of change related to the integration of the Human Resources and Professional Standards sections within New Zealand Police. In their June 2006 submission on my draft report, the police stated that the integration of Human Resources and Professional Standards was something that the police had been working towards for some time and would have accompanied the proposed code of conduct for sworn members.(980) Integration of the two sections had been identified in 2002 as part of the implementation of the draft code of conduct.(981) However, in 2004 the draft code of conduct and the associated integration of the Human Resources and Professional Standards sections had still not been implemented pending the anticipated change to the Police Act 1958.(982)

8.11 In August 2006 the police provided me with a submission to update me on developments regarding the integration of their Human Resources and Professional Standard sections. The police submitted that, in the light of the withdrawal of the Police Amendment Bill (No 2),(983) they have resolved to do what they can to achieve the objectives envisaged under the draft code, subject to the limitations of the existing legislative framework. In their submission the police said that negotiations are under way with the police service organisations about how a code of conduct can be developed in the absence of legislative amendment. The police stated that the integration of Professional Standards and Human Resources was one move that was possible without legislative change and that this had been done with effect from July 2006.(984)

8.12 A full summary of the various initiatives and projects that the police told me that they had under way since the establishment of the Commission is set out in Appendix 4.

8.13 Many of these initiatives complement the work of this inquiry. In addition, the announcement by the Minister of Police on 7 March 2006 that the Police Act is to be reviewed to reflect changes in communities and policing practices over the many decades it has been in force will be likely to lead to further initiatives. That review, for which New Zealand Police is the responsible agency, encompasses some of the new initiatives mentioned above, but also others. The issues include

8.14 Several witnesses commented to me on the interaction the police have with their communities and how there is now much more opportunity for feedback, both positive and negative, from those outside the police, through both formal and informal mechanisms.(986) I see this as a very positive and important development, particularly in the area of dealing with sexual misconduct. Feedback from the community is currently received from many avenues via neighbourhood support groups, community patrols, intelligence-led policing, and community support groups.(987)

8.15 However, although these mechanisms contribute to better policing, they do not directly address the question of how well New Zealand Police is meeting community expectations as a service organisation. In my view the police should go considerably further. The police would agree that effective links to the community are essential to achieving and maintaining a high quality of police service delivery. The community is both the client of New Zealand Police, and also a very valuable resource for providing feedback. I have been impressed by the efforts some district commanders and other officers have made to establish regular contact with a range of people within their communities. This provides helpful information on how the police can use their limited resources most effectively, and also provides a channel for early warning of problems or potential for problems with the behaviour of particular officers or groups of officers.

8.16 Conversely, some of the cases I have examined of serious misconduct by police officers were not helped by what I see as an insular culture within New Zealand Police at the time the incidents occurred. I have discussed in Chapter 3 the particular issues with oversight of smaller and rural stations, and the value of having people from outside the police contribute to internal discussions on ethics. (On this latter point, I understand that most other professions regard external input as essential to formal processes for examining ethical issues, so as to avoid “group-think” within the profession.)

8.17 I believe that, as a service organisation, New Zealand Police needs to adopt an open approach to assessing the quality of its service delivery, and draw upon the resources within the community in both formal and informal ways. From his international research on police cultures, Professor Bayley in his evidence noted that police generally have a tendency to distrust “outsiders”.(988) He described a range of benefits of having external input into police management:

8.18 I am aware that the police governance project is examining the possibility of community input to police governance and I see this as a positive step. I consider it would be beneficial for the police to strengthen their dialogue with the wider New Zealand community about such things as the number of complaints against members and how mainstream New Zealand views the services offered by the police. They could build on the research undertaken annually to gauge public satisfaction with police services. Community feedback provides a chief executive and managers with a very useful additional source of information about how their organisation is operating at the grassroots level, and could be a component of the early warning system referred to in Chapter 6.

8.19 I do not want to be prescriptive regarding how best to achieve a more fruitful interchange with the community; nor do I wish to suggest that many, and perhaps most, district commanders do not already give a high priority to seeking community feedback. However, I believe that a consistent and visible set of mechanisms for involving the community in policing is important for improving public confidence in New Zealand Police.

8.20 In my view, this should involve in some form a group of community representatives in each police district, chaired by a recognised community leader, which meets regularly to provide comment and feedback on police service delivery and policing issues within the area. Having an external chair would give the community a greater sense of ownership over the process, and would minimise the risk that the group is perceived as being “captured” by the police.

8.21 The membership, appointment process, and modus operandi are otherwise matters the police themselves can best determine.

8.22 I am aware that many public sector departments have mechanisms in place at different levels in the organisation in order to obtain feedback from the communities they serve. Such mechanisms include reference groups, consultative groups, and project teams that involve external members. These mechanisms are in addition to the formal surveys often undertaken by organisations (including the police). The police will find some useful models within the wider State sector.

OTHER EXTERNAL INPUT AND OVERSIGHT

Involving other central government agencies

8.25 First, I note that the mandate of the State Services Commission was extended in 2004 to enable the State Services Commissioner to set minimum standards of integrity and conduct, including by issuing codes of conduct, for the wider State services as well as the core public service.(990) (As mentioned in Chapter 6, the State Services Commissioner has very recently issued a draft code of conduct for the State services.(991) ) At the same time the principal functions of the State Services Commissioner were extended to enable the provision of

8.26 Such guidance may be requested at any time by the chief executive of a State sector agency or the responsible Minister, or directed by the Prime Minister.(993)

8.27 I note that the now withdrawn Police Amendment Bill (No 2) would have had the effect of making codes of conduct issued by the State Services Commissioner applicable to all police members (sworn and non-sworn) unless the Commissioner of Police issued codes of conduct in respect of all or any groups of police members. It would also have enabled the State Services Commissioner’s review and advisory powers to be exercised in relation to New Zealand Police.(994) Although that reform did not proceed, and the wider reforms mentioned above do not extend to New Zealand Police because of the Police Act, I understand that the current relationship between the State Services Commission and New Zealand Police does allow for informal advice and review of aspects of the police by invitation, including advice on the proposed code of conduct for sworn staff.

8.28 I therefore suggest that the State Services Commission would be well placed to provide advice and guidance to the police on several of the new initiatives, particularly those dealing with human resource management, ethics, codes of conduct, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. I would support the removal of any legislative impediment to the State Services Commissioner providing more formal advice and guidance on such matters.(995) Under section 96 of the Police Act 1958, nothing in the State Sector Act 1988 applies to people employed as members of the police.

8.29 Secondly, I do not question the Government’s decision that the police be responsible for the review of the Police Act. But when it comes to legislative change resulting from that review it will be vital for constitutional reasons to have the Ministry of Justice involved – to remove any inference that the police are driving a process that may affect the nature and extent of their powers. Other Government departments should be involved in other aspects of the reforms relevant to their expertise.

8.30 As an aside, I believe there is risk in the view that New Zealand Police is a unique organisation whose management challenges therefore cannot be compared with those facing other Government agencies. Although the particular combination of roles may be unique, I have no doubt that New Zealand Police has much in common with a range of other Government service agencies. I have noted a tendency within the police to look to overseas police jurisdictions for ideas to solve their management problems rather than sharing good practice ideas with other New Zealand Government service delivery agencies. The police challenge the accuracy of this perception, but I am convinced that it is valid. To the extent that it is true it represents a risk that the police are overlooking the wealth of knowledge and experience available in this country. New Zealand has been a world leader in managing change in the public service, and there is much that the police can learn from the experiences of other public service organisations, as well as looking to good overseas models.

Implementing the reforms

8.33 First, it is important to ensure “buy in” from throughout the police organisation when implementing significant change. Police Commissioner Robinson told me how he liked to have an innovative organisational culture where operational staff could pick up good ideas and “Johnny Appleseed them across the organisation”. He said that, in his experience of police, there would be “a problem with a good idea, if it is handed down from on high, because it’s come from upstairs” and that there would be “a degree of compliance but it will be sufficient to tick the box”. (996)

8.34 Secondly, the full range of initiatives and projects needs to be rationalised, with proper planning to ensure that interdependencies between projects are identified, priorities are assigned, and adequate resources are made available to do the work. Where projects need to be prioritised, I recommend this be done by the Commissioner of Police in consultation with the Minister of Police as part of the process of preparing an annual statement of intent.

Monitoring the implementation of change

8.35 Finally, I also believe it is important that the changes I have recommended, and the various police initiatives, are carried through to implementation. In my view an external body should undertake an independent oversight role and report regularly to Parliament over the next decade on progress with implementing the recommendations in my report (assuming they are adopted by Government) as well as progress on the various projects the police have initiated in response to the establishment of this Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. I have carefully considered the nature and form of the external oversight that is needed, and acknowledge this is a matter for the Government to determine. I am aware of the operational independence of the Commissioner of Police, and the importance of not limiting that independence by imposing external supervision or control of police operations. As noted above, I am also aware that New Zealand Police is not a part of the core “public service” which comes under the primary jurisdiction of the State Services Commissioner.(997) However, it is part of the public sector, and is a Government department for the purposes of the Public Finance Act 1989. The Commissioner of Police, as chief executive of New Zealand Police, is responsible to the Minister and, through her, to Parliament for its administration and control, and financial management and performance.(998) As Dr Warren Young explained in his evidence, a modern police force is subject to many of the same accountabilities as other state agencies.(999)

8.36 I suggest the appropriate agency to undertake this external oversight and reporting role is the Office of the Auditor-General. The Controller and Auditor-General already has oversight of the police under the Public Audit Act 2001, with responsibilities that include performance auditing as well as annual financial audits. The Auditor-General is also an Officer of Parliament, and his staff regularly advise select committees of the House for the purpose of their annual financial reviews of public sector organisations including New Zealand Police. His office would be well placed to perform the monitoring and reporting role I envisage. The annual financial review of New Zealand Police by a select committee would be the appropriate forum in which his report could be considered.

8.37 I record that the Police Association and the Police Managers’ Guild do not support an external agency reporting to Parliament on the performance of the police. The Police Association believes that this is a task appropriately and exclusively the purview of the Commissioner of Police. Likewise, the guild does not believe this is necessary because the Police Project Management Office also has responsibility for monitoring in this area. For the reasons given above, I am not dissuaded from my view.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

8.40 It might then be asked what ongoing significance has the Commission’s report, and its snapshots of current and past practice, for the future development of police standards and practices. The answer is a great deal of importance and ongoing relevance. I repeat my observations in Chapter 1 that the historical examples used in this report involved real people. They are not forgotten. The evidence from the police investigations of their complaints provide valuable lessons from the past, and for future practice.