Editorial: Police need reasons to stay in job

Police problems, the subject of our Informed Choice series this week, have featured less in in this election campaign so far than they usually do. That is a surprise on two counts. For one thing, it is hard to recall a worse time for police morale than the past few years, when officers have been unable to attend to all categories of crime; 111 calls have not been adequately handled at times; the "culture" of at least one station has been criticised in court; and a district commander and former officers are facing trial for alleged gang rape.

Secondly, this is a spending election, which has been rare in recent times. With parties competing to use or return the Budget surplus, police needs would be expected to be first in the queue. Personal safety and public order are at or near the top of most people's expectations of the state. While violent crime does not touch the lives of most people in this country, people do not assess their safety by statistics. It is no consolation to the random victim of robbery or assault to know that the chances of something like that happening to them were reassuringly low.

People assess their safety by the standard of service they receive from the police and in recent years, sadly, they have had to lower their expectations. It has become no longer automatic to call the police when property has been stolen or damaged. Everyone now knows that station officers no longer have the time, nor the means, to do much more than fill in a form.

It is not hard to convince voters they urgently need more more police, but how many would be enough? Five parties are proposing a number. Labour is offering 250 more "community police", whatever they are, at a cost of $25 million a year. National promises to increase frontline numbers to match Australia's ratio of one officer for every 427 citizens (our present ratio is 1:554).

Those are probably the realistic offers. Among the minor parties United Future favours an increase in the number of sworn officers that would cost $180 million; Act a $200 million outlay on an additional 2500 police; and the Peters Party a whopping $550 million to $600 million for an additional 5000 officers. "Think of a number and double it," seems to be the prevailing method of policy-making.

Doubtless we do need more police; we have fewer proportionately to population than Canada, the United States, Britain or France, for example. But all the political promises are worth nothing while the police are unable to find sufficient number of suitable recruits. Despite good pay and early retirement pensions, the job is simply not attracting sufficient numbers. The department has tried attracting extra staff from Britain and put out a lure to school leavers to consider a police career, but neither approach has solved the problem. Politicians as well as police headquarters ought to be finding out why the job lacks appeal.

Is it that the publicised problems have tarnished the public image of police, or that officers are not receiving the unequivocal support of the commissioner when they are criticised in public? Is it that today's social sensitivities make the job too hard? Or that self-respecting officers have to spend too much time lying in highway speed traps to issue a requisite number of of tickets? Possibly all.

It needs to be said that New Zealand has had, and undoubtedly still has, an exceptionally good police force. It produces sworn officers with a style of quiet authority, good sense and utter incorruptibility. If the culture in some stations at some time has let down the corps, it is the exception to the rule. Political parties should be talking about morale and efficiency as well as numbers. Police and the public would be happier if we could make better use of the fine people dedicated to our safety.