Editorial: Focus on crime long overdue

Opinion

The Police Commissioner's idea to once again separate his crime-fighting officers from the tedium of traffic law enforcement will be seen by many as tacit admission that speed cameras are revenue generators not accident preventers.

Though the Government edict to bring the road toll down was the impetus behind the growing fines for breaking the speed limit, it wasn't only those caught in the $200 stings who disliked the sight of our thin blue line sitting on the side of roads hoping to trap otherwise law abiding citizens.

Efforts to catch a burglar or car thief seemed lacklustre when compared with the number of police cars patrolling country roads or waiting around corners for drivers who only slowed at stop signs.

For many New Zealanders, their only contact with the police was through being issued traffic fines or being told by phone that their stolen car or household goods would not be found. The community constable appeared to have been replaced by a radar-toting driver hiding on a motorway onramp.

Officers themselves disliked that role. Unlike the mustachioed swaggerers in black-and-white cars immortalised in TV dramas of the 1970s and '80s, the current crop of traffic cops/police officers had the brains to realise their best work was not being done in cars. As the Police Minister stated on Friday, "people don't join the police force to sit behind speed cameras".

So Howard Broad's proposal to anoint new "transport enforcement officers" into those roles will be welcomed, but only if the mix of crime fighters versus traffic enforcers is weighted heavily in favour of the former. The money saved by what will presumably be a lesser-paid, less dangerous police role must be reinvested in more fully trained officers, free now to do what is really needed, protecting the community from crime.

Broad's second suggestion to Parliament's law and order select committee - ending firearms training for officers unlikely to require it - was far less sensible. Under that proposal, up to 40 per cent of police in main cities will no longer be able to use guns, a move away from the current system which gives firearms training to every officer. Instead, training would be increased for those most likely to find themselves in dangerous situations.

This supposes that there are indeed parts of the country where violent crime involving guns is unlikely to occur. And that it is possible to pinpoint which officers will come across criminals with guns, and which ones won't. As residents of the nation's biggest cities can attest, crime involving dangerous weapons is now more widespread than ever. Guns are no longer an unlikely weapon of choice. Batons and pepper spray are unsuitable protection for officers faced with experienced criminals who seem easily able to attain firearms. Sending a young constable into a situation where his only real weapon is to "talk someone down" as Broad suggested, is wishful thinking for the more peaceful days of the past.

As for the idea that a "critical response unit" will be called in to more volatile situations, one need only remember the 25 minutes police took to enter a Manurewa liquor store where shopkeeper Navtej Singh lay dying to believe that sort of secondary team response will not work. Defusing violence and preventing gun crimes is a job that does not have the luxury of a planned response. While New Zealand is not yet at the stage that our officers should carry guns on them at all times, it has reached the point where the ability to quickly retrieve a gun and use it is vital. Basic training in the use of firearms is protection for both the police, and the public.

Fragmenting the force into those who issue traffic tickets and those who need not is sound thinking. Adding a third group - officers who are untrained in firearms but may still face violent dangerous situations - is not.