Editorial: Local police initiatives prove worth

It can safely be assumed that accident and emergency departments throughout the country have more doctors and nurses on duty on Friday and Saturday nights than on other nights of the week. Likewise, any business with an eye on customer service and, indeed, its own survival will roster its staff to cope efficiently with times of peak demand. It seems only common sense that the police would adopt the same policy and have their resources targeted to the rowdiest days of the week. Remarkably, that appears only to be starting in earnest now.

Low staffing levels seem to have been much of the problem. But since November, the Counties Manukau police have used the first of their intake of an extra 119 officers on days when there are usually high levels of offending. Unsurprisingly, this has had a substantial impact on crime in South Auckland. In December, street and business robberies dropped as officers patrolled crime hotspots for 446 more hours than in the same month in 2008.

On the one hand, this says something about the importance of police visibility. The time-honoured bobby on the beat serves not only as a deterrent to criminals, but also as a point of easy access and reassurance for the public. The standard of policing can hardly help but improve. But the initiative is also notable for its origin. This was a local development, spurred by the astute, albeit strongly logical, use of extra staff allotted to the district. It is likely to be all the more effective for its genesis.

Similarly, a second local trial, this one aimed at low-level offending in the Waitemata district, has proved its mettle, reducing arrests by 10 per cent. This also reflects a back-to-basics approach, allowing the police to use their discretion and not involve the courts when dealing with the likes of youthful disorderly conduct. In such instances, the chances of recidivism are low, and the consequence of tying up an already overloaded court system will be a $100 fine or suchlike.

This is poles apart from a zero-tolerance approach, typified by the broken-windows policy which was popular in the 1990s following its use in New York. The fatal flaw in this concept is that it denies the police the opportunity to be understanding and compassionate when confronted by out-of-character offending. The Waitemata trial gives them back that discretion. The Police Minister, Judith Collins, is right to condemn critics who say the approach is "a bit soft", and to conclude that "it's sensible policing, using discretion wisely".

Yet the same minister has been guilty of policies that will surely prove far less effective than, and may run counter to, such local initiatives. Too often this is the way with central Government. Take the cutting of the police vehicle fleet by 10 per cent, which, over time, can hardly enhance police visibility. Or the maximum sentences to be imposed on third-strike violent offenders. If that has any effect, it will produce a costly increase in the prison population, requiring the building of more jails - hardly the best use of taxpayer funds and not the best way of tackling recidivism. The money devoted to this policy would be better spent on measures that prevent crime.

The Counties Manukau experience gives one strong pointer to the importance of adequate police resourcing. It has put officers on patrol during the hours most associated with crime without compromising their effectiveness at other times. The Government says it could be used nationwide to the same effect. But that will be the case only if sufficient officers are allotted to each district. Good common-sense local policies must be backed by equally sensible decision-making and resourcing from Wellington. If not, the standard of policing is bound to suffer.