Securing the future: Networked policing in New Zealand
Proceedings of a symposium held on 22 November 2006

Preface

Programme

Introduction - Minister's opening address

Keynote address

  Professor Jim Dator: Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies

New Zealand respondent

  Greg O'Connor: President, New Zealand Police Association

Session 1 - Principles/Foundations of policing

  Jane Stichbury: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, UK

  Paul Evans: Director, Police and Crime Standards Directorate, Home Office, UK

  Professor Philip Stenning: Centre for Criminological Research, Keele University, UK

Session 2 - Policing in a wider context: Private sector and community views of co-operative domestic security

  Peter Walden: National President, New Zealand Maori Wardens Association

  Scott Carter: Chairman, New Zealand Security Association

  Ron McQuilter: Managing Director, Paragon New Zealand

  Mayor Meng Foon: Gisborne District Council

  Simon Murdoch: Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Session 3 - Policing into the future

  Senior Assistant Commissioner Ang Hak Seng: Singapore Police Force

  Professor Clifford Shearing: Institute of Criminology, University of CapeTown/Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University

  Commissioner Howard Broad: New Zealand Police

Session 4 - Securing the future: Facing current and future realities

  Discussion panel led by Professor Gary Hawke: School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

In early 2006 a project was launched to review and rewrite the legislative framework for policing in New Zealand - the 1958 Police Act and 1992 Police Regulations. The project will inform the development of new legislation which better reflects the challenges of modern- day policing and better positions New Zealand Police for the future. In order to achieve this, the Police Act Review is providing opportunities for ideas to come forward. As well as consulting on a series of eight Issues Papers and hosting discussion forums on key policing topics, a special symposium was convened to examine some of the wider issues around how policing and security is conducted in modern New Zealand society.

An important context for the symposium is the idea of `the risk society'. The issue of risk, and its production through society's concern with an uncertain future, has a significant impact on both public expectation of Police and the way in which policing is managed. Such a perspective has become more dominant in western democracies during recent decades:

The desire for security, orderliness, and control, for the management of risk and the taming of chance is, to be sure, an underlying theme of any culture.

David Garland (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p 194.

The growing infl uence of the private security sector on policing activities is another area of interest, particularly given the issues with policing mass private property or quasi public/ private spaces, such as shopping malls and sports arenas. A conservative estimate of the size of the private security industry in New Zealand suggests there are already more private security guards than Police employees. This has led researchers to describe the developing security arrangements as a blurring of the public and private, where there are increasing public/private spaces, increasing private contributions to policing, and increasing formal and informal co-operation arrangements between different sectors offering security services.

Internationally, police chiefs have expressed an interest in discussions around these new policing networks:

What I am proposing is a position in which the police service puts itself forward, fi rst, as the central point for inter-agency co-operation designed to strengthen communities and, secondly, as the centre-point of a coordinated system of patrol services, carried out by a mixture of police, volunteer, local authority and private sources. It is not abandoning a monopoly of patrol - it is admitting that we haven't had one for years and then moving the discussion on.

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, 16 November 2005 (accessible online at http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy_organisational_news_ and_general_information/commissioner/the_richard_dimbleby_lecture_2005_by_sir_ian_blair_qpm).

To focus on some of the key issues arising from this diagnostic, a symposium entitled Securing the future: Networked policing in New Zealand was held in Wellington on 22 November 2006. The symposium was jointly sponsored by the Police Act Review and Victoria University of Wellington's School of Government. It attracted a large number of participants from a wide range of government agencies, non-government and private sector organisations. The symposium provided a unique forum at which speakers and attendees could share thoughts and ideas relevant to policing in twenty-fi rst century New Zealand. This volume comprises edited papers presented at that symposium.

iii

Unfortunately, it is not possible to convey in this volume the reactions of the symposium participants to some of the issues discussed. In particular, presentations relating to the growth of private sector security organisations, and their call for the privatisation of some policing functions, prompted healthy debate. It is therefore hoped this volume of edited proceedings will continue to encourage an ongoing exchange of opinions and ideas.

Readers who wish to continue to contribute to the development of a contemporary legislative framework for policing in New Zealand are invited to let their voices be heard during the ongoing public consultation process during 2007.

Howard Broad

Gary Hawke

Commissioner

Professor, School of Government

New Zealand Police

Victoria University of Wellington

iv

7.00 am

Registration opens

8.30 am

Welcome and introduction

Superintendent Hamish McCardle (NZ Police)

Professor David Mackay (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Victoria University of Wellington)

8.40 am

Keynote address

Professor Jim Dator (Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA)

9.05 am

New Zealand respondents

Maarten

Wevers

(Chief Executive, Department of the Prime Minister and

Cabinet, NZ)

Greg O'Connor (President, NZ Police Association)

9.30 am

Session 1 ­ Principles/Foundations of policing

Chair: British High Commissioner, H. E. George Fergusson

Paul Evans (Director, Police and Crime Standards Directorate, UK)

Jane Stichbury (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, UK)

Professor Philip Stenning (Keele University, UK)

10.45 am

Morning tea

11.15 am

Session 2 ­ Policing in a wider context: Private sector and community views of co-operative domestic security

Chair: Associate Professor Greg Newbold (University of Canterbury)

Peter

Walden (National President, NZ Maori Wardens Association)

Scott

Carter (Chairman, NZ Security Association)

Ron McQuilter (Managing Director, Paragon NZ)

Mayor Meng Foon (Gisborne District Council)

Simon Murdoch (Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, NZ)

1.00 pm

Lunch

v

Session 3 ­ Policing into the future

Chair: Professor Peter Grabosky (Australian National University)

Senior Assistant Commissioner Ang Hak Seng (Singapore Police Force)

Professor Clifford Shearing (Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town/Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University)

Commissioner Howard Broad (NZ Police)

3.30 pm

Afternoon tea

4.00 pm

Session 4 ­ Securing the future: Facing current and future realities

Chair: Professor Gary Hawke (School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington)

Panel led discussion and open forum of key themes from the symposium

5.50 pm

Closing remarks

vi

Minister's opening address

The following is an edited and revised version of the address given at the symposium's launch function by Hon Annette King, Minister of Police.

It is my pleasure to welcome you all fi rstly to Parliament's Grand Hall, but most importantly to the New Zealand Police/Victoria University of Wellington School of Government symposium on policing.

The theme of this symposium - Securing the future: Networked policing in New Zealand - is one I have taken a close interest in during the year I have been Police Minister. And one reason for that, apart from wanting to help create an appropriate legislative environment for policing in the twenty-fi rst century, is the infectious enthusiasm of tonight's MC, Superintendent Hamish McCardle and the other New Zealand Police staff involved in the 1958 Police Act review. Everyone taking part in the review - and I count myself among them - is delighted to be in at the ground fl oor of work that we all hope will endure for many decades to come.

There are a number of other people I want to welcome especially tonight, including Police Commissioner Howard Broad, of course, and His Excellency George Fergusson, the British High Commissioner who has kindly agreed to chair tomorrow's symposium session featuring three of his highly-respected compatriots in the areas of policing and criminology. I also want to warmly welcome senior members of Victoria University of Wellington, co- hosts of this symposium along with the Police Act Review team; and welcome also to a number of my Parliamentary colleagues, members of political party research units, and representatives from police service organisations, including Police Association President Greg O'Connor. The future agenda for policing is too important for politics to divide us, and I welcome the constructive approach which has been taken by everyone participating in the Police Act Review. I also want to welcome our special guests from overseas, and thank you also to our own New Zealand speakers and chairs who are contributing to the symposium. I am sure you will all have much of value to add to a debate which will assume increasing importance as the new Police Act takes shape.

And as for the current Act, I don't like to think of something conceived in the late 1950s as being past its use by date already, but I think everyone here can see the need to bring Police legislation up to date for the twenty-first century. Modernisation of the legislative framework is not about throwing out all old thinking simply due to its age, of course, because the principles underpinning policing are as relevant today as they have been since they were developed by Sir Robert Peel in the 1820s. However, the 1958 Police Act was written when society and police were vastly different from today. Police technology mostly consisted of a set of handcuffs, a baton and a torch. Instead of a radio, officers carried a whistle. A car was as much a luxury for a police officer as it was for a member of the public. Police walked the beat to maintain law and order on the block, and were pretty much the only enforcement agency on that block.

Those early legislators could not have envisaged the changes to the society police now work in. The review of the Police Act is an opportunity to develop legislation that builds on the best of the past while adapting for the present, and preparing New Zealand Police for the future. This symposium is set to play a crucial role in that review.

1

This forum brings together experts who have been thinking about the kinds of issues that need to be carefully considered in advance of the new Act. What will future society look like? No one has a foolproof crystal ball, but I know Professor Jim Dator, of Hawaii's Research Center for Futures Studies, has been thinking about what will happen for longer than probably anyone else here this evening. Singapore is a country that sits at the hub both geographically and in terms of international policing. Singapore Police have had to grapple with many issues yet to face New Zealand, and that is one reason Senior Assistant Commissioner Ang Hak Seng is so well positioned to share important views on the future of policing. And Professor Clifford Shearing, of Cape Town University's Institute of Criminology, has been involved with a number of policing changes, including those in Northern Ireland and Canada, with more recent experience garnered in the new South Africa, of course.

Our existing policing model refl ects both New Zealand's own development and a mix of policing practice that is partly based on the British colonial policing model and more latterly on other international policing developments from regions such as North America, Europe, and Australia. It is therefore entirely appropriate that our international guests include Jane Stichbury, of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, Paul Evans, from the Home Offi ce Police and Crime Standards Directorate, Professor Philip Stenning, of the Centre for Criminological Research, Keele University, and Professor Peter Grabosky from the Australian National University. Their viewpoints and experience will be invaluable, and I am sure that they will all contribute toward what we create here as the new model for policing the New Zealand way, a model that draws on the best we can learn from other jurisdictions as well as the best we have learned from our own experience.

The process we are going through, including this symposium, will enable us to identify our unique strengths and opportunities to best serve New Zealand's policing needs. As you all know, New Zealand Police are no longer the only law enforcement agency on the block. The security industry, local government and volunteer groups all play a major role in policing today. I'm sure that Gisborne Mayor Meng Foon, Foreign Affairs and Trade Secretary Simon Murdoch, Maori Wardens Association National President Peter Walden, Security Association chair Scott Carter and Paragon Risk Ltd Managing Director Ron McQuilter can highlight issues raised by this overlap, and help point the way to using all our resources as well as we can to provide the best possible service to New Zealanders.

When I announced this review in March I said the legislative process would allow local and overseas input. This symposium is at the heart of what is, and will be, an extensive consultation process. If I needed reassurance that we are going about the process in the right way, I certainly received it when I visited the UK in May, and was told by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair in London how important he believes it is to start a dialogue with the public on rewriting our Act, and about the shape and nature of policing. Sir Ian says there is a crucial link between legislation, policy and operational leadership, and urges a comprehensive, big picture approach. The good news is that is exactly what we are setting out to do here, and we may actually be ahead of any such public engagement in the UK about the future of policing. I also met Sir Ronnie Flannigan, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who emphasised New Zealand's major advantage in having one national police force compared to the 43 forces in England and Wales. Sir Ronnie's best advice to New Zealand, in terms of the review, is to be measured, `taking the organisation with you'. That is also certainly what we are setting out to achieve.

2

This symposium is an important step along the way of helping us all understand more about how criminal and anti-social behaviour can be tackled more effectively, how public confi dence and assurance can be increased and how better partnerships can achieve better outcomes.

If the symposium can achieve all that in even only small degrees, it will count as a major success as far as I am concerned. Thank you all very much for supporting this most important initiative.

3

Professor Jim Dator

Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies

This opening session aimed to engage participants in thinking about the future of both the world and New Zealand. Professor Dator's discussion of four alternative futures sought to stretch the imagination regarding the possible international future and future policing scenarios.

Jim Dator is Professor and Director of the Hawai'i Research Center for Futures Studies, Department of Political Science and Adjunct Professor in the Programme in Public Administration, the College of Architecture, and the Center for Japanese Studies, of the University of Hawaii at Manoa; Co-Chair, Space and Society Division, International Space University, Strasbourg, France; former President, World Futures Studies Federation; and Fellow and member of the Executive Council, World Academy of Art and Science. He is a Danforth Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and Fulbright Fellow. In 1966 he taught the fi rst course in any U.S. university on the future and in 1977 he founded the Institute for Alternative Futures with Alvin Toffl er and Clement Bezold. As a futurist Dr. Dator has worked in several major topical areas including the media, government, space exploration and travel, and the judiciary. His work as a consultant with The World Futures Studies Federation and the International Space University has taken him to more than 30 countries where he has consulted extensively with other governmental, military, business, educational, religious, and especially many non-profi t, public- interest organizations. He consults widely on futures of law, governance, education, and space.

I am honoured and delighted to have this opportunity to talk with you about such an important topic. As you know, I am fortunate to have been asked to come from my small island to visit your somewhat larger and culturally-related islands several times over the last decade and a half. The fi rst time was in 1992, to speak at a conference on the futures of higher education organised by John Hinchcliff, who I came to admire very much and count still now as an inspiring friend. My visit was just after New Zealand had boldy - and I felt rashly and perhaps unwisely - transformed itself from being the world's most outstanding welfare state into a nimble player in the neoliberal global political economy. The future was quite uncertain then. Many long-standing comforts and privileges had been abolished and many people for the fi rst time were thrust very much on their own. Yet, in spite of my concerns, it seems everyone rallied and came out OK in the end. If that is not the case, I am sure someone will set me straight me later.

I next came to New Zealand for two years in a row - 2000 and 2001 - to meet with different groups of your fi ne judges to discuss the futures of the judiciary. This was a continuation of a long set of such consultations that I have had over the years, beginning fi rst with the judiciary of Hawaii, then spreading to every state and federal judiciary in the US, then to the state of Pohnpei and the Federated States of Micronesia generally, and eventually to Singapore, Australia and New Zealand.

So I am very happy now to be asked back to meet with your police as you embark on a task that seems not to have undertaken for half a century. But that is the way we islanders prefer to work, isn't it? - slow and easy. We prefer to make things that last, and don't embrace changes easily or lightly - I will assume that your romance with Rogernomics, like ours with Reaganomics and its even more unpleasant successor Bushnomics, was an uncharacteristic bit of daring-do that you will not likely repeat again any time soon.

But it seems to have occurred to someone in your midst that perhaps some things might have changed a bit over the past half century and so it might be good to revisit your sturdy Police Act of 1958 and see if it can be revised or re-imagined so that it can last for another

4

Futures and planning

As you heard, I have been engaged in futures research, teaching and consulting for a very long time, so let me say a word or two about what futures studies is in relation to strategic planning so you will understand exactly what I think can and cannot, or at least should not, be done in this regard. First of all, an assessment of the futures should be done before you engage in any planning, and then your planning should be made on the basis of your assessment of future problems and possibilities, and not only or even mainly on the basis of past or even current problems and possibilities. This is easier said than done. Humans have an almost irresistible urge to plan for the present - or, more precisely, to assume that whatever is happening now will continue, and thus to project the present into the future and then plan for it.

This is one major reason why such plan almost always fail, some before the ink on the plan is dry, others very soon afterwards. This is also a major reason why there is such massive resistance to planning in the fi rst place, since it is almost always an exercise in futility - a total waste of time that could have better been spent in many other ways, including catching law breakers instead of merely planning to.

So a proper futures assessment should begin with various techniques that get people out of what I call their `crackpot realism' - their fully understandable but quite misleading belief that the world of the present will dominate the future - and to fail seriously to consider other possibilities. The events of tonight have not been designed for me to do this with you now. But I hope some such exercises are in fact envisioned for you before you sit down to revise your Police Act and develop a strategic plan based on it. If not, the new Act, and your plan, may be satisfying to you and others now, but it may fail to help you anticipate those things about the futures you most need to know.

So I will simply state certain concepts about futures studies in relation to planning in the form of `laws'. I do this in part because I want people to take them seriously before they ignore them, and in part because you are police accustomed to thinking in terms of laws and their enforcement and I would like to have some police around to enforce these laws of the futures and to bring their violators to justice - although reality will sadly punish most violators better than any court can.

From THE future to alternative futures to preferred futures

So here are some very important basic principles upon which I urge you to base all of your futures envisioning and strategic planning:

1. First, it is impossible to `predict' THE future. It is not possible to say precisely what will happen, or what the world will be like, fi ve, ten, 20 to 50 years from now. It is foolish to try, and it is even more foolish - and dangerous - to believe anyone who purports to predict the future. I certainly cannot predict the future, you can be sure of that.

2. However, what is possible, and necessary, is to forecast many alternative futures--to try to understand and explore many of the futures before us. Moreover, these alternatives futures are not merely variations around a single set of assumptions, but rather are profoundly different possibilities based on different assumptions of the way the world works, and of

5

3. Among these many alternatives, there is no such thing as `the most likely future'. Indeed, I encourage you to view the idea of a likely, default, or highly probable future with great suspicion - as an assumption that is more likely to be harmful, causing serious misunderstanding, than as the norm from which a few so-called `wild card' futures might diverge. In my understanding, all futures before us are more or less `wild cards'. There is no `normal' future from which others might deviate any more. While that which is often thought to be `the most likely future' is indeed among the possible alternatives, it is, in fact, no more likely than many of the alternatives.

Continuities, cycles and novelties

My next set of assumptions arises from what I consider to be `the three components' of the futures. By that I mean the next 20 to 50 years will emerge from three factors in relation to the past and present.

First of all, some percentage of the totality of the futures will be things that exist in the present. Indeed, some percentage of the futures will be things that existed in the past as well as the present. I call this component of the futures `continuities' - those things that have been important parts of all societies from the beginning of time to the present, and hence will be in the futures.

To the extent most of the futures will be basically the same as the past and present, we need only to study history and contemporary sciences to understand the most important features of the futures. Indeed, to the extent we are successful and learned people, we can trust our own knowledge, experiences, and intuitions to anticipate, and to help others anticipate, what is most important about the futures.

However, some percentage of the totality of the futures may be different from the present, but very similar to, and perhaps even identical with, some or many factors in the past. If most, or the most important parts, of the futures have been experienced in the past, but are not existent, or not signifi cant, in the present, then we have a problem. The problem is that we are animals who learn primarily by doing and feeling, and not by thinking and imagining. We of course do learn a great deal from reading and lectures, but when push comes to shove, we fall back on what we have directly experienced, whether we want to or not. That is the way we are biologically disposed to learn and act. On the other hand, well- produced mediated experiences - fi lm, video and electronic games - often make an even greater impact than does direct reality even though they are entirely fanciful.

Nonetheless, a good and deep knowledge of history is essential to anticipating the futures IF most of the futures will be like some aspect of the past, but not of the present. The more we can learn about these aspects of the past that will be dominant in the futures, the better prepared we should be intellectually if not emotionally.

But what if most of the futures are novel - not part of the present, not part of any past, but very important in the futures? Then we may be in deep trouble, personally and socially. We can rely confi dently neither on our knowledge of history, nor on our understanding of the present, nor our own experiences to anticipate the futures. So if most of the futures may be novel, we may be largely incapable of anticipating or shaping it effectively without considerable effort and training.

6

And I think most of the futures may be novel. Once upon a time - and for a very long time - past, present, and futures were largely the same. It made total sense to look forward by looking backward. But over the last two to three hundred years the pace of social and environmental change has been increasing so much that less and less of the future is like the present and the past.

I put it this way; whereas for tens of thousands of years people lived in a world where 80% of the future was like the past and present, 15% of it cyclical, and only 5% novel, we now live in a world where those fi gures are reversed - continuity may only account for about 5% of the next 50 years, cycles may remain at 15%, but novelty may overwhelm our futures at 80%.

I am not using those fi gures precisely, of course, but I am indicating orders of magnitude of change that I believe you should expect and plan for here. You simply must not use the past 50 years, or 500 years or 5000 years as a guide for anticipating the next 20, 30, 50 or more years and beyond. You need other sources and other criteria.

Dator's Second Law of the Futures

And that gets us to Dator's second law of the futures. If most of the future is novel, then most of what you learn about the future should be out of your commonsense and experience. Your reactions to useful statements about the futures should be disbelief, avoidance, shock, revulsion, denial. Or as I state it `Any useful idea about the futures should appear to be ridiculous'. Please bear that in mind not only tonight, but more importantly as you move forward in developing your act, vision, and plans. The really worthwhile ideas you need to consider may be those you fi nd the hardest to accept or even acknowledge, and yet `any useful idea about the futures should appear to be ridiculous'.

Now, unfortunately, I must also admit that not all ridiculous ideas will be useful. Some will just be ridiculous. And therein lies the problem. Since any useful idea about the futures should appear to be ridiculous but since some ridiculous ideas will not be useful, you have the diffi cult job of sorting the useful ideas from the un-useful ones. But don't make that judgment too soon. Be willing to consider crazy ideas long and hard before you reject them. And don't throw them away too far. Keep them close by in case you see they begin to make sense later on.

Four Generic Alternative Futures

A few moments ago, I said that it was important to think of the futures as plural and not singular - as alternative, the arena of many possibilities. Time is not like a telephone pole, with a single past fi rmly rooted in the ground, a sturdy present clearly in front of us, and a single future rising predictably overhead. Rather time is like a banyan tree that has many roots in the past; a complicated present; and a rich abundance of futures spreading out all around and over us. The actual future - the present at a later time - will be one of those thousands of individual leafs above us. There are indeed thousands - if not billions - of

7

We can do this because over the years I have learned that it is possible to bundle the many possible futures into four major generic alternatives. That is to say, if one takes all of the millions, if not billions, of images of the future that are in the minds of humanity now, and sorts through them, they end up in one of four piles. While the details of each image differ, the underlying assumptions, I have learned, fall into four more or less neat categories that I call continued growth, collapse, discipline, and transformation.

One alternative future: continued growth

Without a doubt, the most common image of the future is that of continued growth. It is the offi cial image of the future of all modern societies and institutions. Every organisation on the planet is organised around the assumption of the possibility and desirability of continued growth. Until they learn otherwise, even institutions opposed to continued growth generally - such as various organisations concerned about population growth or environmental pollution or energy exhaustion - nonetheless view their own success as an organisation by whether they are growing or not.

The reason so few schools and universities have courses about the future is that in fact ALL courses are about the future - about the single future of continued economic growth. The entire purpose of modern education is to get and keep the economy growing; to turn peasants and lords into workers and managers (or into soldiers and generals) in the service of the growing industrial state, and then more recently, into knowledge and support workers in the service of the growing post-industrial, information society.

So with the four alternative futures in mind, I looked over the work that you have done so far in thinking about a new Police Act and a new strategic plan based on it. I have been very impressed both by the WAY you have gone about your work, which is such a good, serious, scholarly example for the rest of the world, and I have also been impressed by your results.

Nonetheless, I feel that essentially all of your thinking has been along the lines of the standard continuation future. Of course, there is plenty of novelty in simply a continuation of what has been and is happening now. And you have identifi ed a lot of that novelty very well.

But, at least in what I have been given or I have found to read, you have not shown much appreciation of any of the other three futures at all. And this may be a big mistake.

A second alternative future: Collapse

Consider collapse. First of all, nothing is forever. Everything that exists now at one time did not exist, and at some point in the future will not exist - either not exist at all, or not exist in anything like its current form or importance. All civilisations, all businesses, all forms of governance, and all institutions come into existence at a certain time for a certain set of reasons and fade away at some point in their future. Some things last for a long time, but nothing is forever.

8

Diamond asks us to image what, if anything, they were thinking when they felled the last tree long enough to make into a canoe and so, from that point on, had to patch together existing canoes until eventually they no longer had any seaworthy vessels at all, and thus were unable to do any signifi cant fi shing. As a consequence, already-limited protein sources became fewer and fewer until the best sources of protein were each other. `May the skin of your mother rot in my teeth' is said to have been a curse that the dwindling Rapa Nuians hurled at each other as they were forced into cannibalism because of their complete focus on the present and failure of foresight.

Though experts may quarrel about the details of the story, Rapa Nui is a riveting metaphor for space ship Earth, and it certainly should be an even grimmer example for Hawaii and New Zealand, I believe. We in Hawaii are totally dependent on massive daily imports of food, goods, oil, and visitors to keep our economy going. If something happens to prevent the delivery of those things, we starve. We too may be reduced to cannibalism as we struggle to adjust to a way of life none of us has ever personally experienced or anticipated.

And of course it might happen. I take recently-renewed warnings of `peak oil' very seriously, and have tried to get our policy makers to move from oil to other sources for the past 30 years. But we are still completely unprepared for such an eventuality. While more and more people are becoming worried, not much is actually happening to anticipate the event. Indeed, when Hawaii enjoyed the little earthquake you might have heard about a short while ago, we learned, yet again, how utterly dependent we are on so many fragile things going right, and how vulnerable we are if even a few go wrong. But then, the lights came back on, and we immediately forgot about the future.

What about here? How resilient and self-suffi cient are you? You certainly have many more resources than Rapa Nui did or than Hawaii does now, but you seem clearly vulnerable. And while you probably could survive and indeed thrive quite well, it would be with a very different lifestyle from what you have now, or from what your police strategic plans assume. Clearly there will be different and important new roles for the police in such a future. You won't be nearly so busy with traffi c offensives and auto crashes if everyone is walking or riding bicycles.

Lack of oil and the failure to fi nd equivalent energy sources quickly enough is indeed a future worth seriously thinking about and planning for at the same time you are planning for continued economic growth, but is only one of many looming possible causes of social collapse that also need to be anticipated.

For example, I am equally worried about the global economic system that you so daringly bought into two decades ago. It is so over-laden with debt - primarily led by the US which

9

And global warming, sea-level rise, ozone holes, and all of the other environmental challenges which not only may impact New Zealand in some signifi cant way but, more importantly, may make New Zealand very attractive to those Pacifi c Islanders and many others whose communities may soon sink beneath the rising seas.

And... Well, you get the point, I hope. Collapse is no longer just titillating fodder for horror movies. It is a real and growing option - locally and globally - that must be anticipated quickly, honestly and well.

Now, you may be discussing these things as you plan, but I didn't see much evidence of it in what I have read. I think it should be there if it is not - not instead of continued economic growth, but in addition to it, with plans, policies, resources, personnel and continuing attention paid equally to both.

The end of `Police'?

So far I have only been talking about collapse only in terms of society. But each of the four futures should be considered in terms of the organisation itself--in this case of the very idea and institution of the `police'.

At the present time, military, paramilitary, and police organisations are growing more than anything else - except for the growth in terrorists, criminals and violence generally. I have noted that you are very much aware of this trend in New Zealand, including of the growth of private `crime prevention' institutions in response to it. It is not too much to imagine in the US - and maybe here? - that at some point in the not-too-distant future, all Americans will either be law-enforcement offi cers, or lawyers, or criminals, with individuals moving freely back and forth among the three categories.

The famous science fi ction writer, Arthur C. Clarke, was also president of an association of crime and murder-mystery fi ction writers, and he said the motto of that organisation should be `Crime doesn't pay - enough.'

That is clearly the case for many of you here. You are in a growth industry and more and more time and money is going to you and related organisations and away from education, health, and welfare personnel. You expect - you probably hope - that this will continue. And you probably think it foolish for me to suggest that it might be otherwise.

But I think a very convincing case can be made that while violence and terror may seem to be growing and thus that crime prevention and punishment institutions must grow as well, in fact humans are becoming less and less violent as a species, and hence less and less tolerant of violence that we once accepted without serious social alarm or even notice.

I read that you are concerned about the rise of child and spouse abuse in New Zealand, as we are in the US and elsewhere. But think about it for a moment. What is now called child abuse were often highly desirable child rearing practices a very short while ago. I grew up in the South of the United States where the social values of the time very clearly said, `spare the rod and spoil the child.' It was expected that a child should be beaten - beaten until the skin was broken and blood was fl owing - for any number of behaviors that we now

10

While I was not beaten - only because I had no father (I was reared, fortunately, by three strong and supporting women) - all of my friends were beaten almost every day. And being sent to the principal's offi ce at school meant we were going to be beaten by the principal for some misbehavior. And then of course beaten again at home for bringing disgrace to the family. As for spouse abuse, any southern woman knew that a good beating by her southern husband was a sign of his Christian love and fatherly care.

And while I don't want to comment on race relations here, I can tell you that it was perfectly acceptable and laudable when I was young in the American South to lynch a nigger if he looked too long at a white woman. And a few years before that, black men, women, and children were the lawful, God-ordained property of white men to do with them as they pleased.

And yet all of that is entirely illegal and thoroughly reprehensible now. I thought it was then, and if I was in danger of being beaten when I was young, it was because I was a well- known nigger lover who spoke out against violence against blacks, women, and children. And I was told repeatedly that I was stupid for being concerned; that God made the races and genders separate and unequal and that I should learn to act like a man. Well, now men cannot legally or morally beat their wives or children, and so-called interracial marriages and families are entirely the norm where I live now. And I won't even mention attitudes and policies towards what is often called `police brutality', then and now. All of this change came within my own lifetime.

So I see a very great deal of moral and ethical and legal improvement in our world - and the possibility of much more.

Clearly the American and Australian positions and actions on the War on Terror are wrong in every aspect, I believe. Clearly the dominant American attitude and policies towards incarceration and capital punishment are wrong as well. And while the war on terrorism escalates and the number of people armed to kill each other grows, so does moral outrage, and policies and practices of non-killing and non-violence.

Though it may be ridiculous, it is not irresponsible to imagine and work for a society that does not have armed police or military at all. And if you want to know more about why I feel that way, I urge you to read the work of one of my colleagues at the University of Hawaii named Glenn Paige. He has done more detailed and realistic as well as inspiring work on what a non-killing society might look like and how it might be achieved than any other person on the planet. And of course, he is roundly rejected and ridiculed for his belief and work.

One of the issues that has long been on my mind is the impending end of the nation-state and the international system. I wrote several articles about that for The Futurist and the World Future Society Bulletin in the late 1970s when `globalisation' meant the emergence of global governance and not the global triumph of the neoliberal economic system, which is what the term means now. But in both instances, there were many people anticipating the weakening and eventual demise of the nation-state and the emergence of global governance perhaps led by major global corporations. Those voices have been muted since 9/11 when the US brought back triumphant nationalism with a vengeance and thus

11

Still, I have had several discussions with American military leaders in Washington recently asking them how long they think the US can remain a strong nation but a weak state. That is, how long will Americans remain loyal to the symbols of `America' as a nation when the US federal state is so purposely weakened by debt, scandal, and neoliberal ideology that it is incapable of governing anything - as the Federal government's non-response to Hurricane Katrina (not to mention the `democratisation' of Iraq) made very clear?

While interpreting American elections is akin to reading the entrails of a dead chicken given the structural restraints of the single-member district system, it may be that one meaning of the outcome of the 2006 mid term elections is that US voters have fi nally said that they want America to re-join the global community - if the global community will have us - as a participant and not as a bully. If so, creating effective and democratic global governance beyond the nation-state might be on the agenda once again. Certainly addressing environmental issues effectively requires a global governance system. And there are many other reasons for pursuing global governance as well.

If the nation-state system were to end, then who would be `the police' and who would they serve?

So `collapse' has many meanings, and many consequences that need to be carefully explored, I believe, before you set your Police Act too fi rmly on paper and in practice.

A third alternative future: A disciplined society

Of course, collapse - whether of the society or of the police - is no more inevitable than is their continued growth. These are just two possible futures. A third is often a preferred alternative to both collapse and continued growth. I call it, generically, a disciplined society. It also comes in many varieties.

There are many people who feel that the price of continued economic growth is just too high. It is too high not only environmentally, but also culturally. Neoliberal capitalism is not only eating our planet, they say, but it is devouring our heart and soul. It is changing us from loving, family-oriented, sharing and caring members of meaningful communities, and turning us into selfi sh, self-centered, narrow-minded, individualistic consumers. Whether rich or poor, we have no other interest than to try to have more things and make more money to the detriment of all other values and human concerns. Such a way of life is not only not worth living, it is pathological, many believe.

And it may be unsustainable as we destroy the very planet upon which all life is dependent. Many people argue that we must stop this maniacal pursuit of economic growth and become focused around some set of cultural and/or environmental values, values that perhaps once sustained humans quite well for millennia, or that at least now need to be invented if we are to survive and thrive once again.

I am certain there are many people and groups here in New Zealand who express concerns of this kind, though I did not see them very prominently displayed in the material I have read. There are comments about `sustainability' perhaps, but within the continued growth image of the future, it seemed to me.

12

But more than that, I actually think we are well past the time where we can `sustain' any thing. Nature is dead. Nature - in the sense of places and processes untouched by human activities - does not exist anywhere, not even in these most wonderful of southern islands. The human task now, as Walter Truett Anderson said some years ago, is "to govern evolution". We live in an artifi cial world that is becoming ever more artifi cial, and we need to do something that humans have never had to do before, and that is to create a new environment fi t for humans as well as for all of the other creatures with whom humans once shared this beautiful planet; creatures whose lives and environments we increasingly, irresponsibility, and unfairly threatened and all too often have extinguished.

Learning to govern evolution, envisioning the kind of world we would like to create, and then creating that brave new world may well be beyond the capabilities of humans, who, like most children, are much better at tearing the blocks down than in setting them up again. We humans evolved into a wonderfully sustaining wilderness that we soon turned into a garden that required our perpetual and intensive care. We are now seriously in danger of turning that garden into an iron lung - a metaphor that perhaps only those of you who remember the days when polio was rampant will appreciate. So the alternative is not `sustainability' - it is centuries too late for that. Rather, it is for us to envision, invent and then carefully manage a cybernetic environment that merges whatever can grow with whatever needs to be manufactured into an evolvable and pleasant artifi cial world.

A fourth alternative future: A transformational society

Which gets us to our fourth and fi nal generic future. I call it the `Transformational Society'. One version of it assumes that the world that is rapidly emerging from the post-industrial information society - itself a relative newcomer to the global scene - can be called `a dream society of icons and aesthetic experience'. It is itself a step beyond what the Japanese, Koreans, and some Europeans are calling the `Ubiquitous Society' - a world where tiny computers are embedded in everything all around us, becoming as common as and as essential as the very air we breathe - to a world where the distinction between humans, artifi cial intelligence, and biological modifi ed intelligent cybernetic-organisms, and indeed the distinction between life and non-life, is blurred; where most mental as well as manual labor is performed not by humans, but by robots, cyborgs, and artilects, leaving humans free to dream, create, play and pray. It is based on developments in electronic and biological communication that sees emerging new forms of life and intelligence already prefi gured in robots, artifi cial intelligence, and varieties of cyborgs all around us now, and eagerly looks forward to the emergence of various forms of posthumans and other kinds of intelligent and non-intelligent life driven by the abundant energy of life, and not by the residue of fossils, and on new methods and materials that now often go by the name of nanotechnology.

In the transition to this world, humanity will be challenged to learn to love and live with many new species that may stretch our tolerance and understanding to the breaking point. If many of us have problems dealing with cultural differences now, wait until our daughter says she intends to marry a robot. And when that robot tells us our daughter isn't worth marrying.

13

Your responsibility towards future generations

Dator's Second Law of the Futures says that any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous. You may make your Police Act and the plan based upon it safe and comfortable and acceptable - and potentially useless. Or you may dare to prepare for and take advantage of the many new and renewed opportunities in these alternative futures, while expecting to be ridiculed for your courage and foresight.

So who do you want to please? People now, or future generations?

The wellbeing of future generations is in your hands. Don't disappoint them. When future generations trace their genealogy back to you, let them be proud of the vision and courage you displayed on their behalf. Don't make them ashamed of your cowardice and irresponsibility. At the same time, you do have responsibilities for people in the present, and so your plan must balance the needs both of living and of future generations. Achieving the balance takes wisdom and compassion as well as courage, but I know you can do it. And I challenge you to try. In the words of William H. Danforth: "I dare you."

14

Greg O'Connor

President, New Zealand Police Association

In his role as respondent to the keynote address, Greg O'Connor provided a view of New Zealand's future from a New Zealand Police Association perspective.

Greg is a Senior Sergeant of Police seconded full time to the elected position of President of the NZ Police Association. The Police Association represents 8,400 sworn police offi cers and, almost uniquely among Police Associations, also represents the non-sworn civilian staff of Police. The NZ Police Association's primary role is to ensure that the voice and experience of frontline police is heard and considered when policy and strategy is being created and implemented which will affect the law and order environment. Greg's background in Police is in General Duties, CIB and in Undercover. He has served in Wellington, Porirua, Masterton, Royal NZ Police College and Christchurch. At an international level, he currently chairs the International Police Council of Police Representatives Association, the international body of Police Associations. He also sits on the Board of APPSC (Australasian Police Professional Standards Council) and as an observer on the Police Federation of Australia.

Thank you for the opportunity to represent the view of the New Zealand Police Association at this forum. The Police Association endeavours to be a well informed voice of its membership on policing matters and it is pleasing to note that police associations and police unions around the world are now more and more being seen as legitimate participants in the policing environment including police reform. I have been fortunate to be part of two signifi cant international academic forums recently addressing police reform and I strongly believe practitioners and academics benefi t from the resultant exchange of views and ideas.

Any discussion on police, policing or law and order should begin with an understanding not just of the environment we police in, but also of what industry we are all in. It is my contention that we are all in the fear of crime industry. From the security guard on the door of a nightclub to the Minister in Charge of Policing, to the leading criminologist at the local University, to the police offi cer in the i-car, we all exist to reassure those who directly or indirectly are responsible for our appointment that we are contributing to the safety of society. The owner of the nightclub knows he won't make money unless people can come to his business and they will only come if he can control the activity within to reassure his patrons. The Minister of Police is entrusted by her peers to ensure voters feel that the government is acting to make them safe from crime, and even criminologists only receive the funding to study their science on the premise that such study will ultimately enable the understanding necessary to improve the safety of society.

It is my contention that were there no crime, there would be no fear of crime, and therefore none of us, whether we be police offi cers, support staff, forensic scientist or judge would be required to exist. Given this is the industry we are all in, discussion around any legislation which governs or impacts on a signifi cant component of that industry, namely the public police, is always going to be heavily infl uenced by all the other players in that industry. I would argue that in the fear of crime industry, it is the public police which are the most obvious component, if not necessarily the most important. They are the most obvious because they are visible, and have traditionally been looked to by society to deal with civil disorder and the victimisation from which the fear of crime grows.

However, as I have discussed, there are many other components of the industry, to each of which the fear of crime is an important factor. At the poles are the private security firms and

15

The Commissioner or Police Chief is tasked with maintaining public order, reducing the incidence of crime and apprehending and prosecuting those responsible for breaching the law; essentially being the public's representative using the resource and powers necessary to keep the citizens safe. The Commissioners and each of their Constables are given the power to do what the citizens, through their government, require them to do. They develop an individual and institutional craft and specialist knowledge which enables them to do this to the best of their ability. However, what has occurred in most countries, including New Zealand, is that crime and consequently the fear of crime, has risen over recent decades. The public police have been unable to suffi ciently reassure the public that they are as safe as they wish to be. Evidence of this has been the growth of the private security industry which I would argue grows at the same rate as the fear of crime.

What has also happened is that considerable pressure has gone on governments to deal with their constituents' fear of crime. Increased media portrayal of crime, both actual and as entertainment through the television, movie and book industry has raised public awareness of crime and its consequences. This real and imagined belief that society is an increasingly dangerous place has led to electoral demands that something be done to reduce crime.

Politicians ignore such demands at their electoral peril. They respond by being seen to invest more in law and order, often through the obvious means of increasing police and related budgets. Being electorally conscious of the need for such spending to be obvious to the voters, the politicians are anxious to have a considerable say over how such money will be spent. Increased funding will inevitably come with demands for accountability and with increased compliance to ensure it is spent where intended by the politicians, thus giving rise to increased bureaucracy and the need for measurability.

Advice and direction of how resource is best spent, and which strategies and philosophies should be employed are sought from many sources outside policing, including academia, other government departments, private industry, and community groups. Politicians seek to ensure funding is directed in the area they think best by directing and tagging the funding to areas which are both obvious to the electorate and are measurable. By this method, they are able to establish a degree of control over the way police is operated; a classic case of he who pays the piper calling the tune.

A major risk develops if the area in which the funding is directed, or the philosophy imposed on police is not compatible with the realities of delivering a full policing service, one maintains the necessary balance of policing activity across a broad spectrum. By the time problems become media, thus political issues, often there have been failures in other areas that need to be addressed before the symptom can be addressed. The increase in methamphetamine use in New Zealand is an excellent example of this, where police offi cers were aware of the extent of the problem long before the symptoms of abuse of the drug, such as the rise in violent crime and the entrenchment of organised crime became obvious to the electorate. An opportunity to attack to problem before it became unmanageable was lost because of a failure to direct resource into the area due to it not having been recognised by the expert advisors or the funders.

16

The problem is the inevitable unmet demand will be carried in other areas, invariably areas that are diffi cult to measure. 24/7 response is the most obvious sector. This is the area of traditional policing where other agencies are increasingly fi lling the gap in public demand. Organisations such as Wellington's Walk Wise are a combination of both, being private security guards employed by a private fi rm who are funded by the Council. They are essentially contracted to walk the beat in Wellington CBD and satisfy the demand for safety that is not able to be met by the public police. This situation is replicated throughout New Zealand; private fi rms can be found patrolling the wealthier suburbs of most New Zealand cities. They are rarely found in the lower socio economic areas, other than patrolling commercial premises.

The question of whether it matters who does the job is a topic on its own, but the point is that the Commissioners are left with little discretion to use their knowledge of their policing craft to decide where policing resource is best deployed, where they are able to be directed by political masters. As more and more unmet demand is picked up by other groups, including government and local government organisations, there is a serious risk of duplication and ineffi ciencies, a feature of policing in countries like the United States and Canada where thousands of independent forces operate. In those areas, local cities and councils generally fund police with a wide variation in the level of service delivery, and a vastly increased amount of political infl uence over police strategy and even operation. So, if we are to continue down this track, not only is there likely to be more political infl uence, there will be more political organisations seeking to infl uence policing direction.

What is important then in New Zealand is that, with the appropriate level of accountability and compliance, police commissioners should be able to rely on their knowledge of the policing craft to best police their area of responsibility. An analogy is getting ones car repaired. You can tell the mechanic to fi x the vehicle within a set budget or alternatively, give him set and measurable instructions on what to do to the car, what to replace and what to recondition. The mechanic can carry out your instructions, but the car may still not be fi xed at the completion of the job.

Reducing crime and fear of crime is the goal of most of those involved in the fear of crime industry. Ensuring those with a vested interest in this fear being reduced or increased, do not have control of the policing agenda is an important feature of cornerstone legislation like the Police Act. Every decision which affects policing must be taken in the context of how it will impact on the whole police and policing industry.

In summary, maintaining an adequate funding base to deliver core non specialist policing is not as attractive to political funders as directing new or existing funding towards a defi nable and media attractive area. Continuing to silo funding into specialist non frontline areas of policing without maintaining other essential areas will simply create a greater gap between

17

The inevitable fragmentation of delivery will result in the public receiving a more expensive and less effective response to their policing needs. It is essential that police commissioners have the fl exibility to allocate their policing services according to a strategy designed to cut the incidents and fear of crime without being forced to police according to strategies designed to cater to the constituency with the greatest political leverage.

Any new legislation like the Police Act must be created as part of a wider strategy. That strategy should be to make our citizens the safest in the world by reducing crime. Legislation which ensures that decisions made around public policing are made in an informed and co- ordinated manner is essential.

18

Principles/Foundations of policing

This session, moderated by His Excellency, Mr. George Fergusson, British High Commissioner, was designed to locate policing within both an historical and international context, so leading to a clear foundation for the subsequent discussions. The discussions began with the cradle of New Zealand policing (the UK models), with a presentation by HMI Jane Stichbury from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, through to Paul Evans, an ex-Boston Police Commissioner, giving an outline of the North American experience of policing both historically and in terms of future directions. Professor Philip Stenning provided an overview of how the principles for policing emerged in New Zealand during the nineteenth century.

Jane Stichbury

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, UK

Jane Stichbury joined the Metropolitan Police Service on graduation from the University of London in 1977. The majority of her service with the `Met' was operationally based in South East London divisions. In 1996 Jane was appointed Commander (Crime) for Central London. Her responsibilities included leading on performance against crime, and crime policy development. She was subsequently selected against national competition for the post of Deputy to the Assistant Commissioner (1 Area) Metropolitan Police where responsibilities included overall performance, complaint investigation, civil actions, inspection and review and developing quality audit. In 1999 she was appointed as Chief Constable of Dorset and in 2001 she was appointed head of the Association of Chief Police Offi cers (ACPO) Personnel Management Business Area and chair of Police Skills and Standards Organisation (subsequently Vice Chair of the new Cross Agency Skills for Justice Organisation). In November 2003 she was elected 3rd Vice President of ACPO. Following 5½ years as Chief Constable of Dorset, Jane was appointed Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary with oversight of sixteen forces. Jane Stichbury received the CBE in the New Year's Honours 2004. She took up her new appointment as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary (South of England Region) in 2004.

It is a real honour to be asked to contribute to this symposium. The future direction of policing in New Zealand is a critical topic which touches every single member of society. The ability to secure a society and environment where individuals can fulfi l their potential and a country can thrive, is critical to the future wellbeing of a nation. You are engaged in a noble mission but one that requires very careful thought and consideration.

Overview

I have been asked to utilise my 30-year association with policing in the UK (MPS, Chief Constable Dorset, now HMI to 16 forces), to refl ect upon the UK operating context. Today I will be covering three main areas: the context of UK policing, and changes in modern UK society; how has policing developed and responded, where I will address three key areas of progress, Neighbourhood Policing, Protective Services and Workforce Modernisation; and fi nally, where to next in the UK.

I would wish to emphasise that policing and its developments really are a journey. The UK has a proud tradition in policing, although unfortunately, we have not always got it right. Increasingly over the last few years the emphasis has not only been on a renewed vision of and for policing, and therefore a new direction, but also on helping police and policing learn lessons about itself. So it is within this context that my address sits.

19

Immediate context: The accountability framework

For those of you who may not be familiar with the accountability and structure of policing in the UK ­ it consists of 43 forces in England and Wales, one for Northern Ireland, eight for Scotland, and `national' forces/bodies including British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary, Ministry of Defence and Guarding Agency. The accountability of policing was set out by the 1962 Commission and the current structure was last signifi cantly altered in 1974. Since the Police Act 1996 accountability focuses on the tri-partite relationship of the Home Offi ce, the Chief Constable, and APA (locally the Police Authority).

HMIC is another body which contributes to that accountability. It has the clear role to ensure agreed standards are achieved and maintained, that good practice is spread, and performance is improved. Above all HMIC provides professional advice and support in all aspects of policing. Essentially, HMIC exists to promote improvement in policing.

The policing context: Changes in modern UK society

Signifi cant changes have occurred in policing since I joined the service in the late 1970s, and the environment remains excitingly dynamic! The vision of policing then echoed back to the `Primary Objects of an Effi cient Police' set out by Sir Richard Mayne ­ focused on preservation of life, prevention and detection of crime, protection of property and upholding `the Queen's Peace'. In fact Mayne saw the test of police effi ciency as "the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it". At this time policing (which was largely unarmed) relied upon public consent.

A critical feature of UK policing for so many years has been the fact that the offi ce of constable is independent and has discretion, but is accountable to the law. As I noted to the Morris Inquiry in 2004, "the pragmatic reality that consistently inspires the confi dence of the community is the undeniable fact that the offi ce is not directable and that it retains political independence and objectivity". Undoubtedly this principle is still held dear, but I shall show that those fulfi lling the policing role now include many who do not hold the offi ce of constable, particularly Police Community Support Offi cers (PCSOs), private security, and volunteers.

This `mixed economy' has arisen following a period which was very different to today. During the 1980s the service tended to be judged on performance against crime and `inputs' and activity rather than outcomes. Environmental scanning was beginning to pick up the implications of the Schengen Treaty and the dismantling of borders in Europe, while the service, certainly in the capital, was preoccupied with regular political demonstrations (for example, CND and Unions' demonstrations of the 1980s, including the Miners' strike)

20

The risk facing the service at this time was an assumption that public support and confi dence was `a given.' There was a real danger that complacency would contribute to the erosion of the relationship with the public which relied upon `consent'. However the UK police service rose to the challenges and took proactive action to address the changes in society which were either already evident by the early 1990s or imminent. These broad changes in society have been depicted as:

· The loss of respect for governments/institutions; · A growing challenge of authority; · The growth of single issue politics; · Increasing pressure on funding; · Radical change in the nature of family relationships and working lives; · Growth of more diverse communities; · An increasing elderly population/tensions with youth; · Globalisation of crime ­ human traffi cking/internet fraud/terrorism; · The development of an `instant information' society/economy.

We could also add to this list a period of major migration of populations.

Essentially, policing at this time was at a crossroads. It was fundamentally rooted in a core role based on maintaining order. However, economic and social change indicated the increasing fragmentation of society and a resultant challenge to traditional approaches. The pace of change, perceived centralism/remoteness of government, perceived and actual changes to local communities has been viewed by some commentators as raising individual apprehension about personal safety. Crime trends show a period where property- related criminality was substantial (e.g. 70s); as the UK became more prosperous, people became increasingly concerned about personal safety and their environment. We continue to experience a situation where fear of crime far exceeds the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime. This period of great shift and change in UK society has continued and the 1990s and early twenty-fi rst century have witnessed critical events which have undoubtedly helped to change the face and direction of policing in the UK. Events of particular infl uence include the focus on local policing issues including volume crime and anti-social behaviour; Signal crimes, the murder of Stephen Lawrence and subsequent inquiry; the Soham murders, and resulting assessment of service failings, e.g. information sharing/intelligence; a recognition of the growth of more serious criminality which does not respect force or national borders; and the emergence of a global terrorist threat.

21

How has policing developed I

Under this broad heading, I will focus here on three main developments:

· The commitment to a citizen-focused and local service -Neighbourhood Policing. · The determination to provide a truly effective response against more complex crime

­ increasingly referred to as `Protective Services'.

· Organisational change involving the development of a new framework for a diverse

workforce/the wider police family/career pathways ­ currently called `Workforce Modernisation'.

Before I delve into these developments, it is worth reminding ourselves that operational changes in recent years have taken place within a revised legislative framework. The Operational Policing Review, the Inquiry into Core and Ancillary Tasks, and the work of Patrick Sheehey led up to the Police Act (1996) which provided a change in a statutory obligation for Police Authorities to "secure the maintenance of an effi cient and effective police force for its area". Every police authority was obliged to publish a local policing plan with objectives for the year ahead. The local policing plan would also take account of the Secretary of State's objectives. The police authority would also set the precept, that an element of tax would relate to local policing. The overall direction continues to be set by the National Community Safety Plan which now includes other agencies in the aim to deliver safer communities. The direction and objectives are translated into delivery by local police forces with the Chief Constable held to account by the Police Authority.

Addressing operational challenges: Level 1 ­ addressing local policing issues

For many years the focus has been on improving performance against volume ­ level 1- crimes, which includes burglary, vehicle crime and robbery. Signifi cant achievements were recently highlighted as longer-term targets were set, e.g. over fi ve years, and were delivered. Crime statistics and the British Crime Survey showed while numbers of crimes were reducing, levels of fear of crime remained high, indicating a need for much greater reassurance of local people. However, it remains a challenge to maintain quality relationships with the public, and to adequately address their scepticism. The concepts of engagement and civil renewal were identifi ed as vital aspects of these relationships so Neighbourhood Policing moved to centre stage.

So, how was this model of police/public interaction different? Neighbourhood Policing involves real engagement with communities. Of particular interest was the approach to judging success; qualitative measures, such as what the `customers' (the public) actually thought about their local police service, have become the new criteria for success. Police performance in increasingly measured by sophisticated user satisfaction data. As an example of how this can be achieved, information is gathered from victims of crimes regarding their `whole experience', from initial response to feedback and updating about the progress of the case.

22

Neighbourhood Policing is rolling out across forces with mixed teams, utilising PCSOs and others, with the complete model to be in place by April 2008. It works on the principles of:

· Access to policing for community safety services through a named contact · Infl uence ­ over community safety priorities in their neighbourhood · Interventions ­ Joint action with communities and partners to solve problems, following

the National Intelligence Model processes of tasking and assessment

· Answers ­ Sustainable solutions to problems and feedback on results

The overall aim is to ensure that the legitimate aim of policing is shored up by increasing public confi dence, promoting safety, reducing crime and disorder geared to each local context and concerns of local communities. Local commanders are challenged to answer these questions; do communities have confi dence that police understand the issues that matter to them? Do communities have confi dence that police are dealing with the issues that matter to them?

The strategy for developing safer neighbourhoods relies on dedicated teams of both police and partner resources, permanently deployed to a local neighbourhood. Police often play a co-ordinating role in the wider team which likely includes Community Support Offi cers, other agencies, volunteers and so on. Due to the pivotal role individual offi cers play, greatest success is evident where there is a well-implemented policy preventing and/ or minimising abstractions of dedicated offi cers. Specifi c `tactics' for closer engagement include on-street briefi ngs, testing out in quick time what the public think of the service, programmes to develop understanding of customer service, and proactive management of a communication strategy internally and externally.

One of the most important early outcomes has been the fact that the service cannot assume it knows what matters to local people or concerns them or frightens them. It must LISTEN to be fully engaged and in tune with local issues. A way to summarise this approach can be with the following aide-mémoire:

Listen to people in the community and take their concerns seriously; Inspire confi dence ­ help people feel secure; Support with information ­ give contact details and tell people what is happening

locally;

Take ownership ­ tell people what you can do to help solve the problem ­ make realistic

promises;

Explain what the team can and can't do and next steps; Notify people of action agreed, progress and fi nal outcomes.

However, neighbourhood policing requires leadership at every level, and relies on National Intelligence Model (NIM) to carry out its purpose, i.e. to engage communities in a systematic way to identify issues, agree priorities and take action.

As I note above, the Neighbourhood Policing strategy must be fully in place by April 2008, but it does not stop there, it will hopefully continue to grow and develop. There is a real drive to ensure that a holistic approach is taken to safer neighbourhoods, and that all parties/ agencies play their full part in this process. Furthermore, the work in neighbourhoods (i.e.

23

How has policing developed II: Level 2 ­ crime and protective services

Now, move on to my second main theme under the `where to now' heading, protective services. Often these services address areas which are not seen or experienced on an everyday basis by the public, but which inevitably impact on quality of life or safety in local communities, some examples include drugs, prostitution and so on. National issues in this area are addressed by SOCA (Serious and Organised Crime Agency); however, over the last 18 months the debate regarding the operational challenges of level 2 crime has intensifi ed. To provide more information, HMIC were asked to examine Protective Services. The Protective Services assessed included: Major Crime, Serious, Organised and Cross- Border crime, Counter-terrorism/Extremism, Civil Contingencies, Critical Incidents, Public Order and Strategic Roads Policing, and Public Protection/Vulnerable people.

HMIC were tasked to review the current structure of policing and answer the following question, in the light of current and projected demands `Is the current structure fi t for purpose?'. You will probably know that the answer, contained in my colleague HMI Denis O'Connor's report `Closing the Gap', was subsequently `No'. Creation of a number of strategic forces was proposed, but as you are no doubt aware, mergers are currently off the agenda, with the focus being on building capability and capacity through collaborative endeavour.

In spite of this result, the issues contained within `Closing the gap' are relevant to the discussion about a new Police Act for New Zealand. The range of threat experienced in the UK is one aspect clearly applicable to New Zealand. The UK National Strategic Assessment highlighted terrorism, Class A drugs (a £7bn market), organised immigration crime, economic crime, fi rearms, serious and organised crime (a £40bn+ business), and that the overall crime trends of the previous ten years showed serious criminality profoundly increasing. `Closing the gap' concluded that it was imperative to re-design police services to grow capability and capacity to deliver protective services to national standards.

Simultaneously there were opportunities to enhance business support/IT/Finance/HR to increase effi ciency.

The challenges for the UK, highlighted within the report, have not gone away simply because certain ideas are not currently appealing. CIFAS, the UK's fraud prevention service tells us that fraud has increased some 58% in eight years. Another powerful example was the declared fact that typically less than 8% of over 1500 organised crime groups acting at force or regional level are targeted by police on an annual basis. While at the time of the `Closing the gap' report, only 13 of the 43 forces had dedicated Major Investigation Teams to address this growing group of offences.

Central to this debate is the ability of the service to respond to clear standards nationally. While the approach to the solution may have changed, the issues and challenges raised by the analysis are being addressed. A clear framework of standards is emerging and HMIC will be inspecting and assessing those areas of police work as a priority for next year. It is perhaps not surprising that Protective Services attracted some of the lower assessments this year. This remains, with Neighbourhood Policing, the key challenge for delivery. But, what does success look like?

24

The challenge now remains to fi nd other ways to enhance the capability of the service to address the `gap'. Forces have been directed by the Home Secretary to propose `collaborations', and police professionals and police authorities are examining proposals they consider will deliver enhanced benefi t and service to the public. Some of the questions being considered here include the potential to procure and/or purchase capability from others. Some aspects, for example protecting vulnerable people, clearly require a level of response from the local force or unit. Other aspects, such as counter-terrorism, might be better addressed on a national basis, so the debate continues. HMIC will also be involved in assessing all of these proposals, and Protective Services are now the focus of inspection plans for 2007.

How has policing developed III: Organisational change ­ the wider police family

The third area of focus and development is that of organisational change to support the two key strategies of Neighbourhood Policing and the approach to more complex crime.

The Royal Commission in 1962 identifi ed the ever changing nature of society as being important and the need for policing to be able to adapt through the generations. However, it did not specify who should undertake any tasks, an issue tackled in 1995 by the Home Offi ce `Review of Core and Ancillary Tasks'.

Under this review, inner core was defi ned as those tasks involving the exercise of police powers and/or the potential use of legitimate force, which should be delivered by police constables. Outer core tasks were those which could be delivered within a framework of accountability for the police service. Potentially these tasks could be managed by the police service, but the method of delivery may alternatively involve offi cers, civilians, special constables or be contracted out of the service entirely.

As a result of the agenda for police reform, the mixed economy model involving both police and other agencies or organisations is increasingly the norm within the UK. As discussed above relating to the concept of neighbourhood policing examples range from the deployment of PCSOs as part of Neighbourhood Teams to volunteers helping to ensure local stations are kept open or have their hours extended. Security fi rms cover both detention and certainly prisoner transport, while civilian investigators likewise are increasingly utilised. There is enormous potential to expand into other areas, such as surveillance.

A major initiative is now underway to explore and test a new approach to workforce planning and subsequent develop and offering opportunities to diversify the workforce and gain fl exibility for local `bespoke' solutions. So, for example, other groups may increasingly perform front-line tasks but be co-ordinated or led by a police offi cer. The offi ce of constable (and with it implicit political independence) would continue to be central to the new model, but fresh aspects include a single mission service and the reward of skills performance and expertise (as opposed to long service).

25

Two key elements are policing capabilities ­ framework for increased specialisation/greater mix of staff/accreditation ­ and skill and competency levels ­ creating an inclusive model for all staff. The benefi ts of this process are the ability to recognise current and future skill gaps, a reduction in cost, and the ability to attract, retain and reward the most talented members of the organisation.

Leadership, as ever, remains a critical factor at all levels in an environment where greater focus, supervisory coaching and support are vital. High achieving forces invariably invest in supporting and developing leaders at all levels. From my perspective I see outstanding examples of delivery against the odds ­ even with a poor resourcing profi le, and I have no doubt that it is the quality of leadership which is a critical success factor.

Where to next in the UK?

Today I have outlined challenges facing UK policing over the last ten years and the key strategies currently being pursued ­ a citizen focused service embodied in neighbourhood policing, tackling more serious and organised criminality (nationally and beyond via SOCA/ cross force/regionally via the Protective Services agenda), the work to enhance capability and capacity through the service resourcing remains a critical issue/particularly in the light of competition (e.g. prisons and CT). We have all been reminded within the last week of the continuing fragility of communities and for the UK the need to address radicalisation of youth and certain sections of society has never been greater. The vision and aim remain to nurture safer communities and protect citizens and in everyday parlance to continue to see crime fall, satisfaction rise and offences brought to justice increasing, instilling confi dence in the criminal justice system. In the complex environment of the policing landscape strong leadership ­ professional and political ­ is essential. Most recently a National Policing Board has been established together with the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). This will undoubtedly initiate even stronger strategic direction, complemented by a support and developmental capability. The Home Secretary left no one in any doubt recently when he declared to Chief Offi cers and Chairs of Police Authorities "Reform is something required from all of us ­ the status quo is not an option". It is likely that there will be an even greater drive to move resources to areas of greatest need.

So where does this all leave us? Looking ahead for the UK, I see a number of things, the framework of accountability will be enhanced. Regarding performance monitoring, The Police and Justice Act is likely to strengthen joint responsibility for delivery, and bring further fl exibility/potential to extend powers for civilians. The performance framework is likely to be `reduced'. The National Policing Board will take on `commissioning' role for police service such as IT projects. The Police Service itself will have to grow capacity, seeking ways to develop the integrated model. It will need to develop new ways to communicate with the public, and share more honestly the dilemmas and challenges facing society. Above all there is a need for something I call `corporate leadership' essentially thinking about the corporate good and service to the public in the long term rather than parochialism. There will be a need to surrender some individual infl uence for the wider good.

26

I personally support and drive the development of a less risk-averse organisation, and favour a service which is curious, prepared to break out of traditional moulds; inspiring, engaged and determined to deliver best possible service; committed to strong relationship building, and frank communication. New approaches to the workforce will, over time, ensure that policing more closely refl ects the communities served.

Conclusion

While here in New Zealand I took the opportunity to ask some local people what they wanted of their police. I found much residual support and a tremendous enthusiasm to engage (particularly among businesses). Visibility is critical, and as ever the importance of managing expectation and having an excellent communication strategy cannot be over-emphasised. One quote perhaps summarised my soundings and demonstrates the enduring nature of Robert Peel's 1829 principles, that any changes could create a `police force by the people, for the people'.

As we continue our drive in the UK to tackle the challenges of achieving a new level of engagement with local people and enhanced capability with regard to complex criminality and the threat of terrorism, I would encourage you all in your current review of policing in New Zealand. You have a marvellous opportunity in seeking a new Police Act for New Zealand. I urge you to be bold.

27

Director, Police and Crime Standards Directorate, Home

Office, UK

Paul Evans took up his post as Director of the Police and Crime Standards Directorate (PCSD) in November 2003. PCSD delivers the UK Government's commitment to raise standards and improve operational performance in crime reduction and to maintain and enhance public satisfaction with policing in their area. Its core objective is to identify and disseminate best practice in the prevention and detection of crime in all forces, in order to reduce crime and disorder as well as the fear of crime. Mr. Evans joined the Boston Police Department (USA) in 1970 as a patrol offi cer and worked his way to Police Commissioner, a post he held from 1994 until his appointment at the Home Offi ce; one of the longest serving major city Police Commissioners in the USA. Whilst Commissioner he oversaw the largest reductions in crime and homicide in the city's history and was noted for working with partnerships to deliver a high quality of service to the public.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate surrounding the New Zealand Police Act review. Today I will be focusing on my experience with the United Kingdom and United States criminal justice systems, and particularly on their different policing systems and structures.

Brief overview

The United Kingdom currently has 43 separate police forces (recent discussions around amalgamations have ceased) operating under a tri-partite system with shared responsibility among the Home Secretary, ACPO (Association of Chief Police Offi cers) and the APA (Association of Police Authorities). The Home Offi ce's role in this system is to provide the priority of funding and it exerts a considerable infl uence, particularly with setting PSA (Public Service Agreements) performance frameworks and so on. Chief Constables on each of the 43 forces exercise by law operational independence. Recently the government has established a new agency, Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which has been designed to combat high level criminal organisations. While SOCA is sponsored by the Home Offi ce, it is operationally independent.

The situation in the US is quite different. There are three levels of policing in the United States that are publicly funded: 1. Federal level ­ agencies at this level are funded completely by central government with the main players being the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). There are also other federal enforcement agencies, all with jurisdictional responsibility and authority throughout the country. Each agency has responsibility that is limited to specifi c fi elds. 2. State level ­ each of the 50 states has its own state police, with jurisdictional responsibly for the entire state. As the name would suggest, state police are funded by the state and are accountable to the state's governor. Duties of the state police would include: supporting local police, conducting major investigations, homicides, organized crime and road policing for major federal highways. 3. Local level ­ there are more than 18,000 police agencies in the US, ranging in size from part time employees to 30,000 offi cers. The vast majority of these are departments with fewer than 100 offi cers, whose primary responsibility is to deal with the demand of police services within the confi nes of their jurisdiction and to deal with local crime problems.

28

In the UK, central government is the major contributor to police funding, supported by a local tax. In the United States, only the federal agencies are funded by central government, while funding for state and local police comes from local government. Accountability is aligned with funding in both countries. So in the UK central government has considerable sway on priorities due to its role as the majority funder, whereas in the US state and local government control their priorities.

An example of how these situations play out in practical terms is the thorny issue of immigration. In the UK the Home Secretary was able to direct local forces to apprehend foreign prisoners, whereas in the States requests of local and state offi cials to deal with immigration illegals has generally met with opposition.

Short analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each system

The UK system of centralised control of police services has certain advantages: the ability to deploy resources faster; all forces/services operate in similar systems; it is more cost effective; there is far greater accountability, and responsivity; and it has the ability to establish standards that apply across the entire country. Although there are also inherent disadvantages: there are acknowledged gaps in fi ghting cross border crime; capacity issues surround major incidents and terrorism for smaller forces; and there is a much greater bureaucracy due to the nature of centralised control.

In assessing the American system of multi-level police services, there are also a number of advantages: more accountability for local issues which is then retained at a local level; overlapping resources and state and federal uncommitted forces allow for focus on higher crime; joined up task forces bring the best of each level to the crime fi ghting arena; and there are more options of policing services for the consumer. Disadvantages of this system include that it can be very expensive and uncoordinated; it suffers from `turf war'; it is not responsive to central control unless recognised as high level crisis; performance is often highly varied with wealthier communities affording greater levels of protection; and there are no minimum standards.

Private security agencies/police agencies

Given this brief summary of policing in the UK and US, it is also valuable to consider the growing demand for security services beyond what publicly-funded police can and do provide. As crime has become a bigger and bigger issue in the twentieth century, private security fi rms and policing agencies have emerged, often as a result of lawsuits. The accusation that public police have `failed to protect' citizens, and particularly private fi rms and institutions, has provided major leverage.

The demand for private security has sky-rocketed in many areas as it fi lls a void that publicly funded police are unable to meet. For example Boston, Massachusetts, a force I led, now has more than 32 police-type agencies with full police powers operating within the confi nes of the city. Private security is best utilised when properly regulated licensed and trained. It is mandatory that they are responsive to local police ­ often they have police powers but only on the specifi c premise they are employed under, and any and all crimes that come to their attentions should be reported. Examples of these specialised and limited

29

However, there are a number of challenges with having multiple and varied agencies operating in one area, the most important of which is a matter of control; there must be one public agency with overall responsibility for public safety. Coordination, information sharing and leadership must rest with that institution and must be well organised.

The community's role in policing

Up to this point we have focused on the different methods, structure systems if you will, of private and public policing organisations. A discussion of policing and its future, would be incomplete without reference to the role of the community, the most critical and valuable partner.

Community policing, neighbourhood policing, or however it is described, has been a buzzword of policing for the last 25 years. There is widespread recognition that the community plays an absolutely vital role in policing, however, the degree to which it is truly embraced falls on the responsibility of a few offi cers and is often markedly varied. Policing in the twenty-fi rst century, with its increasing demands, requires a true partnership with communities. People live in these communities, they know the issues, the problem and they are often in the position of formulating the solution ­ no one has more of a vested interest in the safety of the neighbourhood than they do. In terms of their wants for policing, the public want policing to be personal; they want to know who their local offi cers are, they want to help identify problems and then work together to solve them.

Whether it is fi ghting crime, either at a national or local level, success will depend on our ability to engender trust in the public, trust will only develop when communities feel their priorities and concerns are recognised and acknowledged and they have a say in the strategies that are employed to combat these. Basically the public should not merely be a receipt of a service but should actually have a seat at the table as strategies and priorities are determined. People are realistic ­ they may have unrealistic expectations when they have no understanding of resources and demands, and in my experience honest dialogue will often cure this problem. While police must learn that they cannot be all things to all people, they must clearly demonstrate that agreed upon priorities for police and communities is the way of the future, and that above all community safety is everyone's job. We must set out to make that a reality in which everyone has a role to play.

30

Centre for Criminological Research, Keele University, UK

Philip Stenning is currently Professor at the Centre for Criminological Research at Keele University, UK. He was previously Professor and Director of the Institute of Criminology at Victoria University of Wellington from 2003 to 2005, and before that was at the Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto from 1968 to 2002. Early in 2006 year he was one of several international experts invited to advise the government of Venezuela on reform of the police there. He has previously advised governments and commissions in Canada, South Africa and Northern Ireland on such matters, and in 2005, he co-edited a special issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology on Reforming Police: An International Perspective. Professor Stenning has a BA (Hons.) from Cambridge University, an LLM from York University, Canada, and an SJD (Doctor of Laws) from the University of Toronto. His doctoral thesis was on the legal aspects of the status and political accountability of the police in Canada.

Emerging principles for policing in New Zealand - a review of the

historical background

When Captain William Hobson landed in Aotearoa to establish British sovereignty over the land in January 1840, he brought with him just fi ve mounted troopers of the New South Wales Mounted Police to help him keep order in the new colony. It quickly became evident, however, that a much more substantial and organised force was going to be required to maintain order both within the scattered and rapacious European settlers here, and between the settlers and the indigenous Mäori population. So in October 1846, an ordinance was promulgated for the establishment of an armed Constabulary Force for the colony.

The Constabulary Force was essentially a military organisation, modelled on the Royal Irish Constabulary that Britain had established to pacify the Irish population and suppress any resistance to British rule there. Although styled `Constables', the members of the Constabulary Force were in essence trained, mounted soldiers equipped with military rifl es. Section 4 of the 1846 Ordinance made it clear that the principal duty of the Force was to "suppress all tumults riots affrays or breaches of the peace, and all public nuisances and offences against the law, in any part of the colony where they may be on duty."

This policing model, which Britain had introduced into all of its colonies during the nineteenth century, remained the dominant policing model in New Zealand throughout the nineteenth century, such that by the end of the century police were still be described as "the right arm of the ruling class" and "effi cient and proactive agents of offi cial morality" (Hill, 1995: 30, 31).

It was not, in fact, until 1886 that a process of moving away from this model of repressive policing began with the passage of the Police Force Act and, in the following year, of new Police Regulations and Instructions. The most important feature of this new regime was that for the fi rst time it separated the police force from the armed militia, and began the process of establishing police as a civilian body whose members were not routinely armed with fi rearms. I say `began the process' because this was not a transformation that occurred quickly, but rather one that unfolded gradually over a period of about 40 years. Initially, recruitment to the new police force was to be exclusively from members of the Permanent Militia, and it was not until 1897 that this requirement was relaxed in favour of recruitment of civilians.

The Force was responsible to the Minister of Defence until 1896, when responsibility passed to the Minister of Justice. In 1912, a separate offi ce of `Minister in charge of Police' was created, but these three portfolios - Minister of Justice, Minister of Defence and Minister

31

The 1886 Act and Regulations and Instructions were modelled largely on the more civilian London Metropolitan Police Act of 1829, rather than the more military Royal Irish Constabulary model. But the fi rst three Commissioners of the Force were military offi cers, and it was not until ten years later that the fi rst Commissioner who came from a police (the London Met) rather than a military background was appointed.

The Regulations and Instructions, however, portrayed the Force as primarily a preventative force, refl ecting the policing principles that Sir Robert Peel and the two fi rst Commissioners had prescribed for the London Metropolitan Police some 60 years earlier. The Force was divided into two `branches' - the `preventive branch', the attention of which was to be `specially directed, in the fi rst instance, to the prevention of crime', and the `detective police', whose attention was to be `principally directed to the detection of crime, and to a special surveillance of the criminal class'.

Despite this, as with all the British colonial models of policing, the New Zealand Police Force retained a quasi-military tradition and ethos well into the fi rst half of the twentieth century. Front line offi cers (all men) were subject to rigid discipline, were housed in barracks, were regularly required to engage in marching and drill, and were not, for instance, permitted to get married without the permission of the Commissioner. Despite the recognition of a measure of `constabulary independence' and individual discretion that every member of the Force supposedly enjoyed, the Force was managed according to an hierarchical `command and control' philosophy, in which obedience to superiors was the most salient precept. Force members were regularly transferred to different locations to avoid them becoming overly `familiar' with those whom they were to police.

Although crime prevention was supposed to be the primary focus of policing, this was not refl ected in the everyday realities of police work, and by the middle of the twentieth century, the principal focus of policing in New Zealand, as in every other country of the Commonwealth, as well as the United States, was reactive law enforcement rather than proactive prevention. This was accomplished through the despatch of offi cers on routine patrol to `occurrences' or `incidents' of which the Force became aware mostly through calls by the public to its central or regional communications and despatch centres. Proactive crime prevention was very much a secondary focus, undertaken when time and resources permitted after response to incidents had been attended to.

The fi rst 120 years of policing in New Zealand following its initial colonisation in 1840 can thus be seen to have involved two roughly equal 60-year periods, refl ecting two quite different philosophies, or fundamental principles, of policing. The fi rst 60 years involved the systematic, militaristic and armed imposition on an often unco-operative and sometimes actively resistant populace (Päkehä as well as Mäori) of a colonial order determined by the ruling Päkehä elite. While that tradition lingered on for some time during the next 60 years, it was gradually superseded by a philosophy of unarmed `policing by consent' in which essentially reactive law enforcement policing was mobilised in response to calls for service from a more or less co-operative and supportive public.

Of course, this is an over-simplifi cation; there were many moments in which more aggressive, proactive and repressive policing approaches were employed in response to

32

Which brings us to the last 40 years or so since the last major revision of police legislation embodied in the Police Act of 1958. The 1958 Act did not introduce any very signifi cant changes to the essential principles that had guided policing in New Zealand for the preceding 50 years or so. Indeed, the major functions of Police, let alone the fundamental principles of policing, were nowhere spelled out in the Act. It modernised provisions concerning internal employment relations and management, but the only change of any signifi cance that indicated any shift in the philosophy of policing was the rather symbolic dropping of the word `Force' from the name of the organisation, which henceforth was to be known simply as the New Zealand Police.

In the intervening years since the 1958 Act was enacted, however, some very signifi cant developments have occurred which have caused police policy-makers and legislators in many countries to rethink the designated role of police, the principles that should govern the policing that they do, and their relationships both to the government and to the communities that they police. It is these developments that provide the basis for the view that the time has now come for a `fi rst principles' re-write of the Act.

Most important of these have undoubtedly been radical changes in attitudes towards the role of the state, and relationships between the state and its citizenry. Specifi cally, from the 1960's onwards, expectations of public involvement in governmental decision- making, and of public accountability for, and transparency of, such decision-making have dramatically changed. The idea that government could be conducted by ruling political and bureaucratic elites without signifi cant consultation of, and accountability to, the public gave way to growing demands for consultation, accountability and transparency. Although they clung to their claim to political `independence' with respect to the application of the law in individual cases, in other respects police were just as vulnerable to such demands as other public servants. The idea, refl ected in Section 7 of the Police Regulations, that police's fi rst duty was owed to the Government increasingly gave way to a conception of `community' or `community-based' policing in which police's fi rst duty and accountability was to be to the communities it policed. Expectations began to develop that citizens and `communities' should have a direct and signifi cant `voice' with respect to police decision-making, policy and priorities, and that policing should be tailored to the particular (and varying) articulated policing `needs' of the various communities they policed.

Governance generally came to be viewed not so much as `rule' imposed by the elected government, but as the co-ordination and provision of public services to meet public demand. Police organisations accordingly came to be thought of as police services rather than as police forces. In the 1980's this trend was further entrenched through the adoption, by the Lange government, of a neo-liberal conception of governance that has come to be known as the new public management, in which, mimicking the private sector, public services are `purchased' by government through audited quasi-contractual agreements entered into with service providers such as the police.

This "new contractualism", as it has come to be referred to (Vincent-Jones, 2006), and the private sector mentalities that inspired it, quite naturally gave rise to the idea of a `market' or `quasi-market' for the provision of public services, in which the public sector would have to compete with potential private sector providers for `market share'. Privatisation and

33

But this was not all. Relaxation of previously highly restrictive immigration policies led to an increasingly diverse, multicultural and multi-ethnic society, in which there was a dilution of the earlier moral consensus with respect to acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and in which toleration of `difference' became a guiding social precept. For police this posed two great challenges: in the fi rst place, they were expected to demonstrate much greater `cultural sensitivity' and responsiveness in doing policing; and in the second place they faced growing demands to recruit their personnel from a broader social pool that would enable the police organisation to `refl ect' the diverse communities that they police. And the `communities' to which such demands related were not just geographical communities, but included `identity' communities such as gay and `lifestyle' communities.

In New Zealand, this emerging multiculturalism was matched by a resurgence of Mäori political activism that included a demand that, in the performance of their duties, the police should take particular account of the special place and historical entitlements of Mäori in New Zealand society. Part of this involved the expectation that in performing their duties the police should recognise and respond to the preference of Mäori for an alternative, `restorative justice' approach to policing that challenged the traditional European approaches of the New Zealand Police.

And in the 1990's, a growing regional consciousness led the government to commit New Zealand Police resources to foreign policing assistance to Pacifi c Island nations in confl ict and post-confl ict situations, in which the protection of human rights, rather than simply effi cient law enforcement, was of paramount concern.

And fi nally, developments in the fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst century have generated demands for the New Zealand Police to develop appropriate and effective responses to growing international threats from terrorism, the drug trade etc. on a hitherto unheard of scale, and to develop the necessary co-operative international linkages to meet these new policing challenges. This has led to the development of `harder', more militaristic and intrusive policing practices that are not easily reconciled with the `softer', more `community- based' policing style that has evolved domestically. It is this, as well as the overseas missions in the Pacifi c Islands, have both led, once more, to closer co-operation between the police and the military.

To sum up, over the 160-odd years since `modern' policing was fi rst introduced into New Zealand in the 1840's, it has evolved from a military, repressive approach, through a traditional civil, law enforcement approach, to a more `community-based' approach, placing greater emphasis on prevention and community policing in a plural policing environment. But in recent years, with respect to some policing functions, we have seen a resurgence of `harder', more coercive and intrusive policing practices, with renewed collaborations with the military. Each of these different approaches to the police role, and the policing task, has been based on rather different fundamental principles and values. But it is important

34

I emphasise that most of the developments during the last 40 years or so that I have outlined have not been unique to New Zealand, but have been experienced to varying degrees and at different paces in almost all of the Westminster-style democracies with which New Zealand might usefully be compared. And in many of those countries they have been the basis for major overhauls of policing legislation enacted during the immediate post-World War II period. In Canada, for instance, the late 1980's and early 1990's saw such legislative reform in almost all of the provinces, to whom responsibility for policing is constitutionally assigned, as well as in the legislation governing the federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Similarly, Britain has enacted signifi cant revisions to its policing legislation four times since the 1950's, and the 1990's saw major revisions to the policing legislation of most of the Australian States, as well as with respect to the Australian Federal Police.

Many of these legislative initiatives have followed, and been inspired by, the reports of commissions of inquiry established to investigate particular problems experienced with the police. In Canada these have frequently concerned the diffi culties that the police there have experienced both in adapting to the demands of an increasingly multicultural population, as well as to the growing public recognition of the special place and needs of Canada's three main Aboriginal groups. In Britain too, police reform has followed investigations into the police's relations with members of minority ethnic (especially black) communities, and tensions raised, for instance, by the Brixton Riots in the 1980's and the inadequate investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence in the 1990's. In Australia, regrettably, inquiries in many states (e.g. the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland and the Wood Royal Commission in New South Wales) have been instigated to investigate allegations of police corruption, undesirable political interference in policing, and excessive police violence, as well as deteriorating relations between the police and Australia's Aboriginal communities.

In almost every case, reform of police legislation has focused particularly on several or all of the key areas that the developments that I have discussed above in respect to New Zealand have highlighted as requiring a reconsideration of the police role and the principles by which policing is undertaken. These include: improved and closer relations between the police and the communities that they police, including giving communities a greater `voice' with respect to policing policy, priorities and key decision-making; enhancing the public, political, legal and administrative accountability of the police; diversifying the ethnic and cultural composition of the police, and improving offi cers' education and training with respect to the needs of increasingly multi-ethnic communities; adapting police administration and governance to the demands of the new public management; enhancing the preventative capabilities and priorities of the police; developing more effective partnerships with other public, private and voluntary sector providers of policing and policing-related services in the increasingly plural `policing family' (as it has come to be described in the UK), and developing general principles for the allocation of responsibilities for policing provision as between such potential providers.

Undoubtedly (in my mind, at least) some of the most progressive and radical proposals for reform of policing and of police legislation in these respects have come from South Africa and Northern Ireland. I do not propose to dwell on these here, however, as I'm sure that my colleague, Professor Clifford Shearing, who has been intimately involved in the police reform processes in both of these countries, will have much to say about them in his presentation this afternoon.

35

These trends refl ect two fundamental points. In the fi rst place, they refl ect the view that the traditional, rather secretive processes for determining policing policy, priorities and principles are no longer appropriate or acceptable as a basis for policing societies and communities in the twenty-fi rst century. And secondly, the refl ect the growing conviction that such matters are far too important to be left to be determined by the police themselves or the government bureaucrats and politicians involved in police governance.

There is no doubt in my mind that both of these conclusions are equally applicable to New Zealand in 2006, and that they confi rm both the necessity and the desirability of a fundamental `fi rst principles' reform of its policing legislation. The challenge will be to fashion legislation that takes account of the different roles the police are nowadays expected to fulfi l - a `democratic', `community-based' style of policing, in a `plural policing' environment domestically, and a `harder' more intrusive and coercive style, often in collaboration with military forces, in fulfi lling their new international obligations with respect to `the war on terror' and securing stability in some of the troubled states in the Pacifi c region.

Fortunately, there is something of a treasure trove of relevant overseas experience in this respect on which New Zealanders can usefully draw in their efforts to fashion new `made in New Zealand' policing legislation to meet the changing circumstances and demands for policing services here at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century. The recent (2006) report of the Canadian Law Commission on the future of policing in Canada (Canada, Law Commission), and the 1999 report of the Patten Inquiry in Northern Ireland, for instance, may well prove to be helpful resources in this respect.

It is important, however, not confuse reform of police legislation with reform of policing, or to place reliance on legislative reform as a suffi cient basis for reform of the police and of the way policing is done in New Zealand. At best, a modernised Police Act (or, better still, a Policing Act) provides an important affi rmation of the fundamental principles and values that Kiwis, through their Parliament, have agreed upon as the basis for policing in the years to come. But, valuable as this is as a fi rst step, political commitment and a willingness to invest the necessary resources to implement these principles and values on the ground will be essential if genuine reform of policing is to be achieved.

And fi nally, I would remind you, as the developments during the last 40 years or so clearly illustrate, signifi cant reform of policing often occurs quite independently of, and is not dependent on, any reform of police legislation.

36

Canada, Law Commission of Canada (2006). In Search of Security: The Future of Policing

in Canada. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada.

Hill, R. (1994). `Policing in New Zealand - A Short History' in Young, S. (ed.) With Confi dence

and Pride: Policing Wellington Region 1840-1992. Wellington: Wellington Police Trust.

Hill, R. (1995). The Iron Hand in the Velvet Glove: The Modernisation of Policing in New

Zealand 1886-1917. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Northern Ireland, Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (1999). A New

Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland (`the Patten Report'). London: HMSO.

Vincent-Jones, P. (2006). The New Public Contracting: Regulation, Responsiveness,

Relationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37

Policing in a wider context: Private sector and community

views of co-operative domestic security

This session was moderated by Associate Professor Greg Newbold from the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Canterbury, and sought to introduce voices from a range of the other groups and organisations involved in policing and community safety in New Zealand. The topics ranged from the partnerships of groups such as the New Zealand Maori Wardens Association and territorial local authorities with New Zealand Police, through to the developing role of the New Zealand Security Association and Paragon New Zealand's part in presenting corporate cases for prosecution. The final speaker was Simon Murdoch, Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who discussed the role of policing in a more global context, particularly considering the new domestic and international security environment.

Peter Walden

National President, New Zealand Maori Wardens Association

Peter is the National President of the New Zealand Maori Wardens Association. Peter has been a member of the Association since 1968 and has been its President from 1979-1985, 1994-1997 and most recently since 2003. He is also a past Secretary of the Wellington and Auckland District Maori Councils, a past Chairman of Porirua and Papatoetoe Maori Committees and a past member of the New Zealand Maori Council.

Recently we lost a great Maori matriarch - Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu - the longest serving monarch in Maori history (1966-2006). Dame Te Ata promoted wellbeing and goodwill amongst our people and encouraged us to look after each other. In particular she recognised the need for education and for communities to look to themselves to resolve their problems.

It was during the reign of her ancestor King Tawhaio (1860-1894) that a group was formed to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of his people was taken care of at gatherings in the Tainui area. This saw the adoption of Pirihimana (Maori Wardens) as persons charged with looking after the people and ensuring their safety. At the same time the Maori Warden was to stamp out mischief and adopt a preventative role in Manaakitanga (compassion with care) among his people. This was to be undertaken in a peaceful (Rangimarie) manner.

In 1920 the late Wiremu Ratana of the Ratana Church Movement in Whanganui adopted a similar stance by forming the Katipa Wardens. Katipa Wardens are still active today but work solely within the Ratana Church environment.

Between 1900 and 1945 Maori had assisted in both the World Wars, which considerably broadened their contact with the outside world. Up to this point Maori Wardens had existed primarily within Marae or Pah (village) structures in the rural areas where most Maori resided. The Wardens maintained the peace and cared for their people as they had been charged to do from the 19th century. However, from 1935 Maori were increasingly encouraged to move to the urban area of South Auckland as part of a labour force. This began the migration from the Taitokerau (Northern Region) into the cities. Subsequent migrations from other rural areas were to follow.

38

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of this urban migration was that the level of alcohol abuse by Maori was becoming alarming. Maori were not allowed to drink in many licensed premises instead they were directed to a shed out the back. In an attempt to control this type of behaviour, a pilot scheme was established in Rotorua in 1942 where four Maori Wardens were to visit local hotels and control the drinking behaviour of the local Maori.

The success of this programme saw the position of Maori Wardens enshrined in legislation in the Social and Economic Advancement Act 1945. In 1969 this and the successive related Acts were repealed and replaced by the Maori Community Development Act. In 1968 the New Zealand Maori Wardens Association Incorporated was established, following a call from within the Wardens themselves, in an effort to improve administration of and training for Wardens. However, the terms of the 1969 legislation remain in place today:

· Section 7 deals with the nomination by Maori District Councils (MDC) and subsequent

appointment by the Minister of Maori Affairs.

· Section16 ss5 deals with the MDC exclusive power and authority to control and supervise

MW

· Section 30 deals with the prevention of riotous behaviour · Section 31 deals with prevention of drunkenness · Section 32 deals with Maori may be ordered to leave a hotel · Section 33 deals with disorderly behaviour at Maori gatherings · Section 34 deals with prohibition orders · Section 35 deals with retention of car keys

In essence the role of the Maori Wardens had evolved from the early Marae-only functions to take a role in the wider community. The ever evolving environment has placed the Maori Warden in a precarious position, in that they are now actively involved in a large number of duties: Tangihana (funerals) and Hui (gatherings); local and national events including Christmas parades, sports and community events; in hospitals, on buses and trains looking after the security of people; patrolling streets in a number of cities and towns and observing youth activities; Te Ara Poka Tika walk through programme (an initiative of Police, Alcohol Liquor Advisory Council, local bodies, district licensing authorities); budget advisors; youth counsellors; working with youth and families at risk and many more duties. Maori Wardens are at the cutting edge of society, and are therefore among the fi rst to recognise changes within society structure, especially where Rangatahi (youth) and Whanau (families) are involved.

39

The ability of Maori Wardens to work within the community and in areas of risk is due to their humility and their peaceful approach based on the Taha Wairua (spiritual) beliefs of Maori. The organisational values of the New Zealand Maori Wardens Association are a set of beliefs and morals that form a powerful cultural platform on which the organisation is founded.

· Wairua

­

Spirituality

· Tikanga

­

Customs

· Aroha ­

Compassion

· Manaakitanga ­

Caring, Sharing

· Whanaungata ­

Relationships

· Tu Tangata ­

Empowering

· Mana ­

Integrity, Honesty

· Rangimarie ­

Peace

· Tino Rangatiratanga ­

Self-Determination

· Manawanui ­

Strength

Kaupapa is Manaakitanga.

Motto is Aroha Ki Te Tangata.

Maori Wardens are not policemen but they can work to complement the police, as long as there are clear guidelines and they retain their essential Kaupapa (strength). For Maori Wardens to be seen, by either Maoridom or the wider community, as carrying out a police- type role OR as a secondary police force, would place the Maori Wardens in jeopardy and could lead to their decline. Maori have always had Kaitiaki (caretakers) covering many aspects of their culture and because of this special role, Maori Wardens cannot be merged into a government department or agency. Maori Wardens operate from a Taha Wairua (Spiritual) base under Tikanga (custom) and will seek advice from their own Kaumatua and Kuia where necessary. Maori Wardens is now a `brand' which is well known throughout Aotearoa. They have enormous goodwill and great support from all within their communities. Maori Wardens are a precious Taonga (treasure) that have continued to carry out their work during the numerous social changes of the last 155 years.

In spite of this though, there have been two major periods where numbers of Maori Wardens have declined dramatically. Between 1971 and 1979 the numbers of Wardens went from 1120 to 321, which was probably the result of a government direction to comply with the declaration of Human Rights as well as the repeal of life time warrants for Wardens to a new three yearly term of appointment. From 2000 to 2006 the numbers of Wardens also decreased from 1400 to 600. At this time there was also a decline of the MDC and the New Zealand Maori Council. With the emergence of Iwi and Runanga, and their involvement in Treaty of Waitangi claims, local Maori Committees, which are essentially the grass roots structure of the MDC, have ceased to exist in many areas and the MDC are therefore

40

I believe Maori Wardens play a vital role, along with the Police, in bringing security and peace and stability to today's environment. While we work in a collective and collaborative way, no voluntary group can participate in any such programmes without adequate levels of funding and training. Maori Wardens have been responsible for many initiatives which have begun with energy and purpose only to falter due to a lack of continual funding. Despite this, Maori Wardens continue to buy their fuel, food and uniforms and use their own motor vehicles to carry out their work. Their efforts save Government millions per annum yet we receive $88,888 to administer the National Association and $88,888 for Youth at Risk activities. We receive a special grant of $30,000 for an annual conference, which is run at no cost to the Wardens who attend, and we currently provide $5,000 to each sub branch of the organisation. From those fi gures you can see that most Maori Wardens are paying out of their pockets to voluntarily carry out the duties they see as necessary in their communities. So I believe it is vital that there be adequate support to allow Maori Wardens to continue to provide these services to the community. Funding must be available to allow Maori Wardens to meet the challenging community environment in a positive manner and to subsequently go on and achieve positive outcomes.

The community can help resolve their own problems through participating groups - such as Maori Wardens, local bodies, and police - being part of a joint community programme while each retaining their individual identities. Maori Wardens are an excellent example of a community policing itself and a number of local bodies are now realising the real value of the Maori Wardens and their ability to work peacefully within the community. Continual dialogue within the community is a major factor in the Maori Wardens ability to communicate to all age groups.

In terms of future activities, in 2007 a major recruitment drive by the NZMWA will begin; full training programmes for Maori Wardens is to be delivered in two cities by Te Wananga O Aotearoa following the success of the 35 week pilot training programme for Maori Wardens in 2006 from which 36 graduated with diplomas; the Te Ara Poka Tika programmes and training will be expanded to more cities and towns, providing that ongoing funding is guaranteed for the next three years; six regional Hui are planned to report to and up-skill Maori Wardens throughout Aotearoa.

Given all of this, yes, Maori Wardens are absolutely willing to be part of a community approach to crime prevention, and ensuring social stability; to be responsible for and have ownership in assisting in securing the well being of people within their communities. Each community can be instrumental in assisting police by utilising human resources such as Maori Wardens in a preventative, promotional and educational way.

Titiro tatau, Whai atu tatau, Hei huarahi pai mo te Ao. Look together, seek together, a pathway of success for the future.

41

Chairman, New Zealand Security Association

Scott Carter is Chief Executive Offi cer of the Matrix Security Group as well as Chairman of the New Zealand Security Association (NZSA). His record with the Matrix Security Group is refl ective of his many skills and abilities in the areas of setting up successful organisations and companies. Over the past decade Matrix Security has fully developed a successful community security concept and has established strong brand awareness as a premium service provider within both residential and commercial suburbs of Auckland. As far back as 1993 Scott recognised the changing face of security, and the possibility that Police would no longer be able to be all things to all people. He also realised that this situation could result in a signifi cant increase in the demand for private security services. Accordingly he structured Matrix Security to meet a growing demand for home and business security. He also argues that, along with this increase in demand, there is an increased requirement for professionalism in the security industry.

Introduction

Networked policing, co-operative policing, pluralisation of policing ­ whatever you call it and wherever you look internationally, it is gathering momentum. Why? Because police forces around the world face common problems of budgetary constraints, limited resources, intense public scrutiny and high public expectation. Whether consumer-driven, media- driven, or factually linked to objective indicators of rising crime rates and highly publicised policing failures, the perception remains that government-provided services are failing to give the public the reassurance that they seek.

With the growth of security fi rms at least equal to (and often far greater than) any increases in Police per capita numbers, the obvious innovation is the privatisation of some police functions. Just as in health and education, public demand for protection is increasingly being supplied by the market. There is therefore a blurring of distinctions between private and public policing responsibilities and accountabilities, as the two groups perform many of the same tasks.

The challenge we all face is to meet public law enforcement expectations through the use of cost effective, `on demand' resources of accredited private security providers while retaining the authority, independence and impartiality of needs-based state policing. The answer probably lies somewhere between giving freedom to natural market forces and the implementation of appropriate oversight mechanisms.

International trends and the New Zealand perspective

It would be wonderful if all New Zealanders were able to live in an environment where their actions and reactions to security were not driven or at least underpinned by fear. But the reality is that this will probably never happen, so we are all tasked with the role of minimising the impact of that fear by ensuring that we do as much as possible to eliminate risk. We can begin by consciously acknowledging that private policing is already here, and will continue to become part of the New Zealand landscape.

Let us be clear about what this entails, and what it could mean to us. By private policing I mean the various lawful forms of `for profi t' manpower protection services, including what we refer to as `the security industry'. In our small corner of the world we have a tendency to think private policing belongs in such countries as South Africa and the United States, yet in societies broadly similar to ours such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia it is also a prominent feature of policing. In fact, it is becoming the dominant provider of security to the community. In the United States, the ratio of private security offi cers to sworn police

42

Over the past ten years there has been a huge public uptake in residential monitored alarm systems. Electronic protection for homes is here to stay. In addition, increased demand is evident for new technologies such as biometrics, or new applications of existing technologies as they become more affordable and commonplace; particularly video surveillance and complete building management systems. Other industry activities include vehicle immobilisation, site security officers, patrolling of business districts and residential suburbs, document destruction, cash in transit protection, prisoner escorts, event and venue security.

With this rapid expansion, the public is accepting that safer communities cannot be just the responsibility of the public police. This has lead to the success of companies such as ADT Armourguard and First Security, who have contracted security arrangements with local government in the central business districts of Auckland and Wellington; Red Badge, who provide security services at many of our sports stadia, other companies who specialise in protecting shopping malls, and Matrix Security, who pioneered residential and commercial suburban patrols in Auckland.

Increasingly, there exists significant operational interaction between such companies and the public police. It is commonplace, for example, for informal but direct communication to take place between the police helicopters or dog units and Matrix Security patrol cars as they network resources to apprehend offenders.

Advantages and limitations of market forces

New Zealand's security industry, like any other, is driven by market forces, especially that of consumer choice. There exists a mix of large and small security fi rms, leading to extreme competition and vigorous rivalry. Many security goods and services have become commoditised. With the costs of switching suppliers usually very low or non-existent, the power of the consumer is signifi cant.

Entrepreneurial companies, especially those focused on quality market offerings, have risen to the top. As innovators they endeavour to steer the market away from price sensitivity towards their differentiated services or recognised brands. However, in the absence of significant barriers to entry, little effective enforcement of licensing and no mandatory training or base operating standards, some price-driven operators can and do unfairly damage the reputation of the security industry.

So what can we conclude consumers are wanting from the security industry? Do they want cheap products and services or those of quality? As with any other market I believe this boils down to a fair value proposition. There is little end-value in a security service that fails to live up to the most rudimentary standard, and bottom-end security providers are usually rejected by the market in the medium term. There is no doubt however that affordability is a key purchasing driver. But for most consumers, the ability to meet their expectations of immediacy (i.e. `I want it now') or make choices on the quantity and quality of security arrangements that most satisfies them are the dominant buying motives. When a home owner sees someone breaking into a car in their street they want a fast, effective response ­ and preferably the offender caught. And increasingly they are prepared to pay for that.

While the public have generally accepted responsibility for security arrangements for their homes and businesses, they have developed similar expectations for the state policing of

43

Advantages of outsourced policing include far greater resourcing and responsiveness to `on demand' requirements; thus going some way to meeting the public's immediacy expectation. However, market failure remains a risk to the concept of networked policing, and issues exist around consistency of standards, moderated training and accountability.

For example, as evidenced in the building industry, without accepted minimum performance criteria there will always be fringe operators that do not invest in recognised training or comply with generally accepted practise; seeking only pass themselves off as legitimate businesses regardless of whether they mislead the public over their performance capability. If training standards themselves vary from one part of the country to another then there again exists the potential for the consumer to be mislead.

There are clear roles for the state to play, both in ensuring that New Zealand never evolves entirely into `chequebook policing' and in ensuring the public can have confidence in the choice of their private security arrangements. At present, security industry legislation, licensing and enforcement are hopelessly inadequate and the government needs to recognise the urgency around addressing this.

The New Zealand Security Association

The role of the New Zealand Security Association is one of leadership and advocacy. We understand how the security industry can add value to policing. We have long recognised that if we wish to advance our businesses and move into other areas where we are able to work in partnership with the police, we need to be widely acknowledged as being accountable, responsible and transparent.

Although membership of our Association is not mandatory, we set industry operating standards for many activities through written Codes of Practice, and now ensure compliance with those standards from our members through independent audits. Through the Security Industry Training Advisory Board we have worked with the ETITO to develop NZQA- recognised qualifications for front-line security officers. Acknowledging that voluntary membership of our Association and market forces by themselves cannot regulate critical aspects of industry performance, we have also been lobbying the government for several years for improvements to industry legislation, licensing and enforcement.

To deliver on public safety and confidence we believe in establishing a form of accreditation for professional security businesses that provides transparency and accountability. In particular, it should recognise commitments to formal training, auditable qualifications, and best practise in both operational and health and safety practises.

Policing of mass open spaces

While many people still think of security guards as overweight guys who do bank sentry duties until they can get a `real' job, the reality is now very different. Uniformed security offi cers provide crime control and public order services in many of the places we live and work ­ from shopping malls to sports stadia, commercial districts to gated communities, and even public parks and streets. In fact, there is a recognised link between the growth of the security industry and the emergence of `mass private property' (such as malls) that are privately owned but functionally public, or quasi-public. Where engaged by local government, security offi cers also effectively police public parks, beaches and recreational areas.

44

In only fi ve years time, New Zealand is hosting one of the world's greatest sporting events - the 2011 Rugby World Cup. With such mega-events, police services are invariably under resource pressures due to normal community and law enforcement commitments. There is always a requirement for the procurement of signifi cant private security resources, as a number of the security functions can be performed at professional levels by private security without diverting the public sector resources from more important law enforcement roles. To make the 2011 Rugby World Cup a success, we need to act now. A decision on the right stadium would help! But equally we need to work towards a policing framework that will appropriately secure the event and provide New Zealand's community security needs well into the future.

Conclusions

Most crime is local crime and it is local people and security businesses that will have the greatest impact on reducing the crime rate in their communities. As a profession we can add huge value to our communities through the strength of our relationship with the police.

As a country we need to

· recognise that networked policing is already here · review security industry legislation in concert with the review of the Police Act · achieve balance between the effects of market forces and effective state legislation and

controls through appropriate oversight mechanisms, including a form of accreditation for professional security providers

· formalise partnerships between police and accredited security businesses.

Notwithstanding the obvious differences between state law enforcement and private enterprise, our goals are the essentially similar to those of the police. When it comes down to the detail, both public and private police have a singular focus on making our communities safer by reducing crime.

45

Managing Director, Paragon New Zealand

Ron is the current President of the New Zealand Institute of Professional Investigators Inc (NZIPI) and an Auckland committee member of the Association of Certifi ed Fraud Examiners (CFE). He is a former police offi cer with the Strathclyde Police Force based in Glasgow, Scotland, as well as having worked as a private investigator in Scotland, and conducted assignments in many countries. Ron's special interests include investigating white- collar crime, fi nancial asset inquiries, commercial litigation investigations and he is an authority on the fairly new crime of Identity Theft. He has given evidence in the High Court as an expert insurance investigator and spoke in September 2004 on insurance fraud investigation at the Insurance Ombudsman's annual conference. Ron has featured in many newspaper articles and on television as a result of the various high profi le cases he has investigated. He has lectured to government departments on investigation matters. In the mid 80s he was one of the fi rst private investigators appointed to work for several government departments, such as the then Commercial Affairs Division, Accident Compensation Corporation, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and The Human Rights Commission. He is currently involved in forming a properly recognised New Zealand Professional Investigation qualifi cation.

Introduction

Let me start with a true case. John is a senior auditor with a government department. In September last year John lodged a complaint with the police that an employee had stolen $80,000. After hearing nothing for four months, in January 2006 John wrote to the police enquiring as to the progress with his complaint. Ten days later they called to say they could not fi nd the fi le but they would get back to him. On 26 February 2006 (some fi ve months after he laid the complaint) John received this letter.

So welcome to the `real world' of police fraud investigation in 2006. I have been asked to cover two topics: the growth in `non-government' groups dealing with corporate crime and public law enforcement ­ does it, will it, should it, continue to have a role?

Estimates of corporate crime

Corporate crime has also referred to as economic crime (Price Waterhouse Coopers), misconduct (KPMG), dishonesty, fraud, theft. The Price Waterhouse Coopers Global Economic Crime Study (2005) covering 34 countries and 3,634 interviews with CEOs, CFOs or other managers who were responsible for crime prevention in large companies found that 52% had experienced signifi cant `economic crime'. The KPMG Integrity Survey (2005/2006) of 465 organisations in New Zealand and Australia found that 53% of all companies had experienced fraud ­ up from 45% the previous year. The New Zealand Insurance Council reports that 10% of all claims have some degree of fraud, costing between $150 and $300 million per year. Of course these costs are then passed on to the policyholders with some estimates of around $80 per policy.

Corporate crime and public policing

Considering police comments and the New Zealand Police key strategies; The Independent Weekly on 30 April 2003 quoted the then head of Auckland's Fraud Squad when asked about an alleged 1,000 case backlog as saying:

"Priority must be given to violent crime ­ I can quite happily live with fraud not being investigated"

46

The police issue their `Key Strategies' each year which for the past few years have typically focused on dealing with: violence/drugs/traffi c/organised crime/ burglary/theft from and of cars. For the past several years corporate crime has not been rated a key strategy for the police. And, when `John' called the Detective Senior Sergeant who had signed the `Dear John' letter, to enquire why or where his complaint failed, he was told:

"We can't handle it at this time. We can't give a timeframe and we don't like it anymore than you do"

Can it really be that bad? Let us consider the police statistics themselves. Police statistics for the year 2005/2006 detail that their resolution rate for dishonesty complaints is 15.5% (Auckland out of 36,407 complaints) and 16.8% (Counties Manukau out of 32,125 complaints), the two largest reporting areas of New Zealand. That means that in these two districts alone there are some 57,491 complaints per year or 4,790 complaints per month NOT resolved. The total number of non resolved dishonesty complaints for the entire country is 184,965 per year or 15,413 per month.

Private sector involvement

We have already heard that fraud is on the increase in New Zealand at 53% - up from 45% last year. However, from this brief analysis, it appears the victims are not going to the police. The New Zealand Police National Statistics for 2005/2006 show that the reporting of fraud has for the past several years decreased, down from 17,568 in 2003/2004 to 11,890 last year. So if the victims are not going to the police what are they doing? The answer, I suggest, is evident by the growth of non-government investigators.

In 1974 when the Private Investigators Act came into force, there were three private investigators in New Zealand, in 1979 there were fi ve, in 1989 there were 150, in 1999 there were 250, at the end of October this year there were 384. My analysis suggests that this group are turning over, conservatively, more than $25 million per year in fees. There are also many in-house investigators with various entities such as insurance, banks, fi nance, power, gas, utility, post offi ce, couriers, transport, hotel groups, hospitality, retail, receivers etc and again my estimate is that they are responsible for about $125 million in fees/wages/costs. This means that the private sector has about 1,500 investigators working in corporate crime related areas with an estimated cost of $150 million per year.

New Zealand Police have 10,300 staff of which 75% are sworn offi cers and 25% non-sworn staff. Their budget is $1 billion per year. Therefore for every fi ve sworn offi cers, there is currently one private sector investigator. The private sector therefore is a substantial, market driven work force, dealing with corporate crime and there is no decrease in the reported fraud to us. So, this then begs the question - public law enforcement and does it, will it, should it, continue to have a role?

47

So let's assume for the moment that corporate shareholders do accept that in the majority of cases corporate crime is simply a `cost of business' and that they need to deal with their own issues. Also, let's assume that the police admit that they do not have the resources to adequately investigate corporate crime anymore. Under both these assumptions, at least the public would know where they stand. But like many other countries, legislation only permits a sworn member of police to execute a search warrant and when investigating corporate crime a search warrant is often essential.

So again to revisit John's problem. He came to Paragon after the `Dear John' letter. We examined all the documents, built the case, interviewed the offender and obtained a statement of admission. We then went back to the police who subsequently agreed to act only on the basis that the offender maintained his guilty plea. He did and on 14 September was sentenced to 200 hrs community work and reparation of $15,000. No-one is saying this is ideal, but this is the world we are in now. John received the result he wanted ­ a conviction and reparation, and at less then the cost of investigation. And a clear message was sent to his other staff. But remember this was after fi ve months; imagine if this could be done promptly. What might the benefi ts to John be: increased potential for recovery; criminal and civil matters investigated contemporaneously; speedy complaint resolution and closure; increased staff morale due to the successful resolution of the complaint; preventive/ education components. What about Police? I can see a number of benefi ts for them also: increased resolution rate for dishonesty offences; reduce/remove the backlog; increased effi ciencies and utilisation of personnel; improved response time for other complainants in the queue; enhanced service to the public and improved police morale.

In summary, what is the current `corporate crime' landscape in New Zealand? Expert reports conclude that corporate crime is on the increase. Yet, reported fraud to Police is decreasing. The police have acknowledged they do not have adequate resources to investigate fraud/dishonesty complaints. Market forces are driving the growth in the private sector. There is now one private corporate investigator for every fi ve sworn police offi cers.

Conclusion

What should be the key strategies for New Zealand Police in resolving corporate crime? They need to study worldwide trends. The one lesson I learned from my research into this subject is that in every case worldwide, the police are required not just to remain involved, but they need to be the ones leading the change. They should accept the current landscape and embrace public/private partnerships. And they should look at taking advantage of the huge existing `private' resource that is already available.

48

Gisborne District Council

Meng Foon was born in Gisborne in 1959 and has lived there all his life. He left school at 18 with School Certifi cate in fi ve subjects and University Entrance in three. Meng served as a Councillor to the Gisborne District Council for two terms (six years) before being elected Mayor in October 2001. His Mayoral statement is to encourage our communities to build Gisborne/Tairawhiti into an outstanding region, making our place the fi rst choice to live, play and do business. Meng employs a `commonsense' and `back to basics' approach, and continues to work towards a `user-friendly council' promoting excellent service to all sectors. He has an open door policy and endeavours to make himself available to all. He recently spearheaded a `Stop Tagging' initiative in Gisborne. This whole-community campaign involved the NZ Police, local Runanga, the Corrections Department, WINZ, Gisborne District Council, the Gisborne Herald and many local organisations and individuals who donated time, money and impetus to keep the CBD free from graffi ti.

Introduction

My name is Meng and I'm from sunny Gisborne. If you have a look at my CV, you'll see I left school in the sixth form and growing vegetables was my forte, and to get that job done, it needed action. So now I take this practical approach out into my community in all aspects possible, including in terms of its safety. My talk today is about these two subjects - fi rstly what local government can add to policing local spaces and how local government could work together with Police and secondly, the role that local government can play in the creation of safer communities and where this role could go into the future.

Types of local government strategies

I think back, to when I used to watch a lot of cowboy movies and in these movies when the crises arose and the bank robbers came to rob the town time and time again, the locals got their shotguns out and hid behind the buildings and got ready. Such a reaction is still evident in many areas throughout New Zealand today. We had a case in Ruatoria recently where a local group burned down the local church, the marae and a number of homes. While, obviously, a legal group was involved (Police), there was also a community group involved, and it was this group that really helped resolve the situation. This example helps to illustrate that we are working towards community safety together.

I've gathered information from 20 councils and here you can see a number of initiatives that are mostly facilitated or promoted by local volunteer groups:

· Neighbourhood Watch · CCTV · City Safe/Night Watch/Town Watch · Safer Communities Council · Maori Wardens · 101 Patrols · Neighbourhood Patrols · Police Volunteers · Family Violence Networks · Youth Initiatives · Victim Support

49

The common theme I see amongst all of these initiatives is visibility; the visibility of each and every one of us that volunteer to be `out there'. Once upon a time there was the really visible `bobby on the street', and now we see more cars doing traffi c patrols rather than the cop on the beat. I'm not sure why, maybe it is related to resources, but people do want to see police on the beat, out on the street, in their neighbourhood, in the parks and at events doing what they consider to be their job. My father said to me: if you want to be successful in business, get out of the offi ce and meet your clients - it is all to do with people, and that's something that we all must keep in the forefront of our minds.

I'd like to highlight Maori Wardens on this list and to acknowledge and praise Peter Walden, National President of the Maori Wardens Association. Maori Wardens play an integral part in our community, but, they are not well resourced. As you've heard, Peter is waiting for the Minister of Maori Affairs to provide further funding, which I very much hope happens. I was thinking more particularly about using Maori Wardens as one of the major organisations to implement strategies, with them going within neighbourhoods, from home to home. To do this Maori Wardens need to be trained to identify the various issues. They need to be trained and given enough resources so they can then communicate with the variety of other service providing organisations such as CYFs, Police, drug and alcohol councillors and so on. But safety in our community is not only dealing with burglaries, fraud, thefts, muggings, and so on, safety also includes dealing with traffi c offences, so we can't neglect those in this scan. There are a number of other groups and individuals involved in developing a safer community who are not quite as obvious as Police and Maori Wardens - the life saving organisations, those who support search and rescue, the tramping and hunting organisations, volunteer fi re brigades in rural districts who are usually the fi rst ones to car accidents and so on. We hope there is an acknowledgment of the important roles these people play and it is heartening to hear discussion about whether it should be a Police Act or a Policing Act. Hopefully there will be some recognition of the wide range of participants involved in policing when the Act is reviewed.

Police is a big business

I would now like to talk briefl y about what some of others have touched on, particularly that the Police is a big business. It is probably one of the biggest businesses in the country. While the dollar amounts are large at $1.03 billion in 2005/6, the number of potential clients that Police have contact with is even larger with 4 million citizens and another 2 million visitors annually. I run our city and we have 45,000 customers, I have a budget of $70 million and I see my relationship to them similar to a shopkeeper at a dairy - when they want something they need to get it instantly, they pay for it obviously, but if they need a service they should get it instantly. This is an exceptional customer service which we provide to our community but it is really important. I hope the idea of `service fi rst' is not just held in a book of rules or regulations by the Police, as service is a very important industry for our country. Looking at the number of tourists who come to New Zealand every year, maybe a levy could be charged to offset some of the work of Police which relates to them.

50

Our view is that local government and Police really need each other, but do not necessarily play a part in each other's operation. At the end of the day, each of us in this room, whether you have authority and make decisions or are just Joe on the street, have a responsibility to enhance or better our community. And some of these decisions need to be based on future needs. For example, new footpaths in Gisborne are going to be twice as wide as they have previously been because one day I might be on an electric scooter! And I'm doing that for me, but this means I'm also doing it for everyone else as well. Keep this is mind - with any innovation, or strategy that seeks to make a change to the community, do it for the benefi t of yourself, don't worry about being selfi sh, because the results of the innovation or strategy will then permeate into the wider community making it better for them as well.

Working together with Police - should they have to police themselves?

So while we know we need Police, Police also need to recognise that they need us and must work to maintain effective relationships with both local government and the voluntary sector. Both these groups need to be valued and really appreciate the acknowledgment of our actions by others. The acknowledgement of the work of volunteers is vital in maintaining good relationships amongst the variety of groups involved in this work. Along with the acknowledgement though we also need guidance, training and help to show us what are we doing wrong and what are we doing right. This will then enable us to enhance our work within the community and also with Police.

What can local government do to create safer communities?

· All matters of planning · Urban and rural design e.g. lighting, trees, roads, buildings, streets, playgrounds, public

amenities

· Integrated neighbourhoods · Support policy and programmes · Leadership · Communication · Better collaboration, task sharing

Probably the most important aspect in terms of the relationship between Police and other groups, including local government, is communication; talking to each other and getting to understand each other businesses. It is the visible small things - the broken glass on the street, groups of people drinking in the street, old car bodies dumped in residential areas - that matter to our community and we need to make sure that we are communicating our priorities back to the Police. So this issue of visibility arises here too. The problem of the drug `p' is not as visible and it therefore does not seem to be as problematic to our communities because it is not directly affecting them, whereas for Police this is seen as a high priority. But when lifestyle, environs, vista is compromised by some of these smaller more visible things, communities want something done, and whether this is a Police, council or job for volunteers, we all have the responsibility to be involved, and to make sure that the community's concerns - or to see it in another way, our clients or customers concerns - are being adequately addressed. None of us live and work in a vacuum and as I said, we must understand our business, and mine is to address the concerns of my 45,000 customers.

51

Should Police have a role in crime prevention?

Issues involved in crime prevention can include:

· Town planning · Road network planning · Building design · Shop layouts · Factory design · Information sharing

But do Police have the necessary skills to be involved in crime prevention? Maybe the Police should not have a role in the some of the more detailed issues above, but it might be an idea for Police to produce a set of guidelines to help businesses design physical or other strategies to assist in crime prevention, i.e. how to place goods to stop theft, `shrinkage' etc. Although providing information on more substantial issues such as building design, factory design may not be as important, Police do have such vast experience in dealing with all aspects of crime that could and should be shared with communities.

It takes a community to raise a child

It is important to be relevant to our communities but not to necessarily continue with providing `more of the same'. While we can't know what will happen tomorrow, we can forecast and provide at least some idea. But basically we want things to be kept simple and this means not changing some of the fundamental underpinnings of Police and on a more general level, the way our community operates; if a member of the public rings for help really all they want is a positive action, which is probably something as simple as someone coming when they call, whether that may be Police, private security or a member of a volunteer group.

Regarding the potential for CCTV in our communities, in UK there are a large number of CCTVs all over the country. In NZ maybe our CCTV could be nationally co-ordinated, instead of being largely staffed, installed etc. by volunteers. We realise that this is a `big ticket' item which incurs signifi cant operational costs. In Gisborne, the CCTV is only watched on Friday and Saturday nights, which is probably enough for our city, but we hope that CCTV will be more embraced by Police. We appreciate that Police do try to do this when they are not busy with other activities, but for them to be effective, they need to come under the umbrella of Police.

Continuing education is also important as well as continuing to see Police dressed in uniform. Seeing Police in uniform is particularly effective with children in schools so they can learn to trust Police and will be more willing to provide help back to Police. If we can instil this early we can achieve a lot.

52

And fi nally a warning - another saying is that it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it can catch mice. I know the Police are legislated to do the job but don't think you are the only ones who can do that job. There are other people in our community - professional, voluntary or otherwise who can catch mice as well.

Tena tatou.

53

Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Simon Murdoch is a graduate of Canterbury University with a BA in English and American Studies and an MA with First Class Honours in American Studies. He joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1972 and, after working in the Information and United Nations Divisions, was posted to Canberra from 1974 to 1977. He later served in Washington from 1983 to 1987 and returned to Canberra as High Commissioner from March 1999 to August 2002. He has also worked in the External Aid, Economic, Asian, and Australia Divisions of the Ministry. He was appointed as Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade in September 2002. He is directly responsible to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Trade/Trade Negotiations and the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control. Simon also worked for a number of years on secondment in the Prime Minister's Department, Prime Minister's Office and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, first as foreign policy adviser and subsequently as Chief Executive from 1991 to 1998. In November 1998 he was Visiting Professor (Public Policy and Management) at Victoria University of Wellington.

I acknowledge the role of Marion Crawshaw in helping me formulate the views I will express.

Talking about New Zealand's role in international policing, we are already playing a substantive role in enforcing the rule of law internationally in a variety of countries, particularly in our closest neighbourhood - the Pacifi c and near Asia - but demands are increasing and there is pressure on the government to respond to those demands and to supply more offi cers for international duty. When this paper was written, there were 82 police deployed overseas but this number has now risen to 93 in the last few days with 11 going to Tonga. Three or four years ago there would probably have been less then 15 police deployed outside New Zealand, so it is obvious that the practice of utilising Police staff internationally has experienced a phenomenal growth rate over recent years.

Specifi cally relating this to the Police Act, and I note the interesting discussions about police versus policing here today, it is clear that at least domestically we are at a watershed, and that the Police Act Review is an opportunity to effect real change. In line with this I believe the new Act needs to encompass some of the newer changes in New Zealand Police which in this case means the international dimension of policing.

Let me now turn to one of the key points of my presentation, that a broader international role is necessary for New Zealand Police and some discussion of how we can go about supporting this. As a short aside, it is important to recognise that the style with which we go about engaging in international policing is signifi cant as it becomes a part of the projection of New Zealand's international image and therefore goes towards the perception of our overall foreign policy. When other countries perceive New Zealand as a country of value and one they want to work with, it makes them tend to look more favourably on what they can do to help New Zealand. So, apart from the intrinsic good of being involved in international policing, there is considerable benefi t in terms of our overall foreign relations.

Current international environment

Before I proceed, let me fi rst touch on the international environment of the policing effort - what is happening in the region, in the world, the character of international relations today.

54

A second feature of the current international environment is that globalisation, both commercial and economic, is moving incredibly quickly and is forcing transformational responses on all of us and our governments. The question is, how far and how fast can we transform? Some countries can and do react quickly to change, while others cannot and struggle. The larger developing countries have a signifi cant advantage as they can more easily compete in the age of global markets and will increase their share of market trade and investment fairly quickly.

The third feature of the contemporary international environment, and probably the most important for New Zealand foreign policy at present, is what I call the new paradigm of poverty, security and governance. This is connected to economic and commercial globalisation but has wider ramifi cations. As I have previously noted, smaller, poorer and more remote countries simply do not have the resources to adjust quickly to globalisation. If they are fortunate they may be pulled along by wider regional momentum, and by bigger locomotive economies. For many, however, there is also a downside to globalisation; their economies may contract as they cannot put goods and services into international trade at a rate suffi cient to maintain their economic progress. Against such a backdrop, economic stresses arise and often these accentuate gaps in the postcolonial order. These gaps are then visible in the form of collapsing political structures, weakening service delivery, internal social disorder and corruption, all features of a failing state. To compound this already problematic scenario, failing states often then attract trans-boundary criminals, due to the weakness, or indeed lack, of regulation. Such a scenario means that the old boundaries of offi cial development assistance need to be and are being reinterpreted. Offi cial development assistance, (leaving the voluntary sector to one side), has to respond to the wider issues, not just poverty or rates of growth of GDP, but actual human security. There are a considerable number of countries who are New Zealand's neighbours in the Pacifi c facing this new poverty, security, governance paradigm.

So this post cold-war world, with its rapid commercial globalisation and this new paradigm, is working to place states under considerable stress. The existing international system - predominantly the United Nations and its related organisations, the World Bank, the UN, the WTO the GATT system - are also under great pressure from both internal and external sources. In less complicated times, maybe 20 or 30 years ago, the threats to international security were mainly related to relationships between nations distant from us. As a good international citizen New Zealand was fairly active in voicing concerns, but the kind of choices we were making in the 1960s, 70s and 80s were really often about the words that were used to say what we thought. Today we are facing a different and much harder set of operational choices and decisions with more impact on New Zealand's own interests. The policy responses that we have to make in this new age also have real impact on societies and human environments, and therefore they have hard implications.

We participate in large and complex interventions in other states - East Timor, Solomon Islands, Afghanistan and Lebanon are just some examples - where we have to continually assess real risks to our people. However, in this new world, threats to security don't only come from the actions and behaviours of other governments, they also come from what we call non-state actors; groups that have to capacity to operate internationally in ways that can challenge governments. Obviously this is the current manifestation of international terrorism.

55

New Zealand's domestic and international security are becoming increasingly diffi cult to separate and are deeply intertwined - one affects the other constantly. All of this means that the Police in New Zealand and other developed countries who have largely been domestically focused are expanding very rapidly - driven by demand - into international roles. International policing roles now go deep into areas in these other countries that were once considered exclusively domestic. As little as 10 years ago we said we would never put New Zealand Police into front line roles in other countries but this situation has now changed. The environment of Solomon Islands and Timor Leste also require active management of a complex set of relationships - by this I mean relationships with the receiving government as well as with other international governments. In our deployment to Timor Leste, New Zealand Police, as well as NZDF, are working with, among others, Portuguese and Malaysian Armed forces in an international policing environment. But we also have to manage internal relationships; along with other New Zealand agencies on the ground, and more often than not Australia, we seek to have a whole of New Zealand, joined-up approach to deployments. This essentially means that Foreign Affairs, our Ambassadors and our High Commissioners are very much involved in the diplomacy around operations; it is wider than being only about Police, or indeed any other single organisation.

So from this brief description, it is clear that these deployments are often very complex environments to fi t ourselves into, so why do we bother? Firstly, there is obviously a moral imperative which goes to what we think of ourselves and our role as a good international citizen. There is also some level of self interest - countries where law enforcement is weak attract international criminals. This means that we have to accept that there are national security vulnerabilities arising from governance and law and order weaknesses in our near neighbourhood. The second reason is that you cannot be effective with offi cial development assistance and utilise development interventions in an insecure environment. The added cost of operating for New Zealand Aid trying to start education or rural livelihood programmes in an environment where the people are fundamentally frightened to venture out or send their children to school is sizeable.

The role of international policing

Now, to talk a little bit more about the role of international policing. Obviously we have a best practice factor, that community policing is transferable, and that we can pass on to other countries our accumulated best practice on community policing. We can do this in a two main ways - theoretical, or in practical form, by using trainers and/or bringing police from other countries to New Zealand to see community policing in practice. But overseas deployments not just about community policing, we are increasingly fi nding ourselves being asked to provide New Zealand substitutes for ineffective or compromised local police. Quite often this means we become involved in long term operations, not only training local police to take the responsibility for law and order back, but operating inside local services at the management and command level, which means that senior New Zealand Police are being deployed to these new environments.

However, there are a number of levels of involvement by New Zealand Police. For example, in countries where security hasn't fully broken down, but there are concerns about the level of effectiveness, we are often involved in trying to increase the quality of the police service performance.

In all of these international roles - training interventions, at the Police management or headquarters level, commanding forces out in the fi eld, or working towards best practice

56

Conclusions

To conclude, I would like to make a few short comments about the current model of New Zealand Police internationally, which can help to inform the process of developing the new legislation. The international role of the Police needs to be positioned inside a comprehensive framework emphasising a whole of government approach but this legislation should not be too prescriptive, to allow for a fairly rapid response to international situations. Any legislation relating to international deployments of Police needs to supported by a dedicated structure, by which I mean a clear outline of international capability, with the necessary resources in place. In line with this, we need to continue to work on developing our whole of government arrangement. Structures don't always work in practice and they certainly, in this case, have to work under pressure both at the policy and the operational level. Essentially, any strategy developed needs to support good clear decision making in the fog of war.

Along with our own structures and strategies, I also need to mention that any legal base developed must cover, in relation to the international dimension, the need for the right legal connections, especially with the jurisdictions in the other countries we are working with. Currently the legal division of Police, Foreign Affairs and Defence need to spend a lot of time thinking through what is the correct legal permission and consent around our operations.

Finally I think I would say that participation in international policing is here to stay, it can enhance New Zealand overall standing, if it is competently performed - by this I mean that we deploy the people and groups who are able to execute under pressure - it can really make a difference in fractured or failing states. At the end of the day, making that real difference is affecting the lives of people who are fearful and oppressed and who may never having known the security of living under the rule of law. We shouldn't be complacent when there are many parts of the world, and many of them not too far from New Zealand, where that sense of security that we in NZ enjoy, from living in the surety of the rule of the law, is quite heavily eroded. So thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to be here.

57

Policing into the future

This session was moderated by Professor Peter Grabosky, Director of Security21: International Centre for Security and Justice at the Australian National University. It was designed to consider the issue of where policing is evolving and may evolve in the Pacific Rim. Senior Assistant Commissioner Ang Hak Seng from the Singapore Police Force provided an overview of some of the ways Singapore is seeking to reframe policing and ways to manage policing in the future. Professor Clifford Shearing spoke about his view of who the police should be as we move more steadily into the twenty-first century. Commissioner Broad spoke about his vision for a future New Zealand Police.

Senior Assistant Commissioner Ang Hak Seng

Singapore Police Force

SAC Ang Hak Seng has served in the Singapore Police Force (SPF) for 19 years. During his tenure of service, he has held the positions of Head of Special Intelligence Branch, Head of Computer Systems Division, Commander of Training Command, Commander of Central Police Division and Deputy Director of Criminal Investigation Department. Currently, SAC Ang is the Director of Planning & Organisation (P&O) Department. In this role, SAC Ang is responsible for charting SPF's future, and ensuring that it continues to remain nimble and relevant in facing the challenges of the unknown and increasing complexity in today's operating environment. SAC Ang has made signifi cant contributions to SPF in shaping its learning culture in an increasingly globalised environment, and also pioneered several initiatives by integrating concepts such as Learning Organisation (LO), Strategic Corporate Planning, Portfolio Management and Balanced Scorecard to SPF. Notably, he played a major role in SPF's achievement of the Singapore Quality Award (SQA) in 2002, equivalent to the US Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award and the European Quality Award. As a strong advocate of LO practices and organizational development within SPF, SAC Ang is often invited to share his experiences and expertise through talks and speeches to external parties, both locally in Singapore and internationally.

Before I start my presentation, I would like to ask you all a question - how many of you regularly exercise your brain? I exercise my brain. There are many forms of brain exercise - some like to play mah jong, which I can assure you is a very good form of brain exercise. But I have another favourite form of brain exercise - assembling puzzles. Assembling a 1,000 piece puzzle would certainly stimulate the mind. Sometimes, after you have fi nished you have an extra piece. So what do you do? The easy way out is to throw the extra piece away but a more diffi cult challenge is to fi t the piece into an already completed puzzle. However, you can only do that if you are prepared to change the frame. In fact if you look at this picture, you can see that this is not just a group of happy dinosaurs, they are actually about to be made extinct - a meteor is about to slam into the earth and wipe them out. But we can only see this additional piece of information if we are prepared to change the frame. And therefore changing the frame is what I intend to discuss with you this afternoon.

My presentation today will be divided into three parts; fi rstly, a short description of the evolution of the Police Force; secondly, a review of the discontinuities that have punctured many of the assumptions made over the years; and fi nally, how we can re-frame ourselves to see and manage the future.

Evolution of Police

The business of policing has evolved over the years. In the past our police force operated like pizza delivery - if you want a pizza delivered you dial a particular number and a pizza will be delivered to you. If you want a policeman you dial 999 and the police will come to

58

Our overall policing strategies can broadly be categorised into three thrusts - enhancing operational capabilities, building organisational resilience and of course strengthening community partnerships. These strategies were the past, are the present and I think will be developed for use in the future. But for the future development, something must change. These strategies must take on different meanings. Why? Because the world of the future will be very different.

After 911 a bottle of milk could be a weapon. If you tried to carry a milk bottle onto a plane these days, you might be denied. Could you have conceptualised the idea that an airplane from your own country could be a weapon of mass destruction? Could you imagine that the way we treat pneumonia actually helped SARS to spread? With today's globalisation and liberalisation, it is also no longer possible for us to simply say `No' to the public, or hide under a veil of secrecy.

What do all these changes, which have occurred in such a short space of time, mean for the three policing strategies we have subscribed to over the years? I want to suggest that we need to see these three strategies within a different frame. By this I mean that, regarding operational capabilities, we must see that our business lies beyond crime. Internally we must see ourselves existing beyond the Police Department. Externally with partnerships, we must see beyond simple partnerships towards building community resilience. To tie all three of these together we must see beyond individual leadership towards a more networked style of leadership.

Beyond crime

Let me focus on the fi rst of these policing strategies - beyond crime. Our job 10 years ago was very simple - to go out and fi ght crime. Then after 911 I also had to fi ght terrorism and today, apart from crime and terrorism, we also have to fi ght another thing - the unknown. An example of an unknown could be bird fl u. I'll give you a scenario and you tell me whether you think it is realistic. Imagine if, while we are talking, suddenly there is an earthquake in Japan. As a result, a tsunami is formed and the tsunami then hits the west coast of New Zealand's North Island. As the same time there is an outbreak of bird fl u at a local farm in the South Island. In the midst of all this confusion, a terrorist detonates a small explosive device in Auckland. Do you think this is impossible? Well, it pays to consider this as a real possibility. Essentially I am saying that individually dealing with crime is no problem, individually dealing with terrorism is no problem and even individually dealing with the unknown is no problem. But dealing with the nexus of crime, terrorism and unknown, is a very big problem indeed.

So, in order to deal with the nexus of these three threats we must change the way we see our jobs. We are no longer simply in the business of `police and thief', we are in the business of securing the future of the nation. We are no longer merely crime busters but are now expected to play the role of guardians of peace and security. If we believe that we are in fact guardians, then our role has to change and expand. We are no longer only involved in crime prevention and detection, we are also responsible for security, and we are also part of the national response to non-law and order incidents. Furthermore, we are part of building the capacity of the community, working to empower the community so they can look after themselves.

59

Beyond the Police Department

The next frame I want to introduce to you, to enable seeing a new future, is that we must think beyond the Police Department. The civil service has evolved and transformed greatly, especially over the last fi ve to ten years. Today we are given more fi nancial autonomy, which unfortunately comes with a price tag. We are supposed to deliver higher returns on investments. Some of us are subject to right-sizing, another word for down-sizing. On one hand demand increases, and on the other hand supply drops. If you have a situation like this in terms of resources, you cannot continue to do the same thing. If you do continue to do so, or try to improve on the same thing you may fi nd yourself forever chasing your own tail. There is only one way to get out of this situation and that is you must fi nd a way to work differently.

Today we are no longer administering police resources, today we are managing police resources and there is a big difference between administration and management of resources. When managing resources you are expected to do more with less; you are supposed to deliver the biggest bang for your buck. However, to do this you need to have business acumen, and you must also run the Police Force not as an institution but as a business.

Now, the objective is simple; we need to ensure that we have the resource agility to match a moving strategy and we also need to ensure that whatever we invest in gives us the best return. We need to embrace business practices in a variety of ways. Today we are not only measured by the crime index but by a broader portfolio of indicators, including how much trust we have created between us and the community. How the community rates us in terms of reliability of service, these are all very important indicators. Other indicators that may be important are the crime index, service solution rates, conviction rates etc. But we also need to perform in terms of the social based indicators. To gather this information we need a tool to manage the indicators, and the tool we use is our Balanced Score Card.

On top of all this we have to do more with less; I give you $10 and you must produce a $30 output - how do you do that? We must take risks, and to take risks we must build a risk management culture. We also must build in a safety net so that with the slightest mistake the risk takers' heads won't be chopped off. Because if this happens, no one will take risks.

One day I hope, in the not too distant future, we may even be listed on the stock exchange. And when that happens, I hope we go on a bull run because I will be a stake holder, entitled to stock options! But when I talk about market value, I am also referring to public values. There is such a thing as a social stock exchange, where we are managed, tracked, accountable, and transparent continuously by our stake holders.

60

The third frame to see the unknown or to see the future is that we must think beyond partnership. But how do we deal with this unknown of who, what, where, how? We must leverage partnership. Partners can be categorized into three sectors ­ the `Three-Ps' of people (communities, NGOs, local governments), public (people within police and other government departments) and private (essentially private corporations). In the past, the emphasis was largely on the people sector. But there is untapped potential in the corporate or private sectors; the private have resources and public have the expertise that we must leverage. On top of that in the public sector, we need to embrace the concept of whole government. But the idea is not to embrace or engage each of these sectors independently, the idea is to engage the sectors as one. If you engage them as one system, by building what I like to call a security eco-system, the effect of the system will be magnifi ed. Why? Because you get synergy from the eco-system.

To get this synergy, to build the `Three-P' eco-system, we must redefi ne what our role is. Is our role always leading or should we act as stewards? Are we co-ordinating or facilitating? Are we the centre of gravity or are we part of the solar system? It is a big mental change to think this way about ourselves - remember the fi nal objective is to empower the community. At the moment, in Singapore, we have 10,000 Police offi cers, and for you I think the number is about 9,000. That is only 9,000 pairs of eyes and ears but in both Singapore and New Zealand we have about 4 million citizens. Are 4 million citizens better than 9-10,000 police offi cers? Of course, if all 4 million take ownership of law and safety and order I would be very happy, but also very sad because I'd be out of a job! But that doesn't matter; our objective should be to work ourselves out of the job.

The `Three-P' initiative allows you to have a diverse range of solutions for dealing with diffi cult problems. This diversity will then create trust, which in turns strengthens the network itself. In addition we must not only do, do, do and do, we must move up the value chains from the activity to pattern level. We must build capacity in our partners. Better still, we must build structures. A local example of this which we heard this morning was to reform the security industry. Having the security industry together with us, I think, means we are in a better position to fi ght crime and terrorism.

Now, I'd like to tell you a story, once upon a time a few years ago, we received a complaint which had its roots in the feeling of insecurity within a particular community. If you have been to Singapore, you have probably been to the place known as Little India. This is a place where during the weekends, about 30,000 foreign workers congregate; they sit around, leave litter and mess which resulted in the residents not feeling safe.

So, how to solve this problem? As a policeman my fi rst instinct was to send in a car to chase them away, but this would not be enough, so we need to send in two cars, but that's still not enough, so we send in 50 cars! But this means that, instead of one Little India we would then have ten Little Indias in various places around Singapore, having effectively dispersed the problem. Now, you have to realise that the leverage is not in displacing the problem; the leverage is in building capacity in the residents to deal with the problem. And that is exactly what we have done in this area. We formed a `Three-P' working group comprising the public (in this case the Police and the Ministry of the Environment), the private sector (the Contractors Association - the employers of the foreign workers, who have a moral responsibility for the workers - and the shop-keepers association who make money from the foreign workers) and the people sector (residents, Hindu Endowment Board and other representatives, who are very important in aiding an understanding of the culture of the foreign workers). We undertook a number of discussions with these groups, facilitated by

61

Beyond leadership

The fi nal frame that ties all the other frames together is beyond leadership. Today we can choose to be an individual leader to lead and serve, but better still is to place ourselves in a network of leadership, of like-minded people and organisations. If you asked me today if the Singapore Police is run by one man or a team of offi cers, I would say that Singapore Police and the majority of other police organisations around the world are run by a team of offi cers. In Singapore we call ourselves the collective leadership. This collective leadership is then connected to the `Three-P' leadership of the nation, which is then connected to international leadership. It is important to connect to international leadership as doing so enables us to overcome the limits of our resources, the limits of our size, the limits of our infl uence. Essentially it enables us to punch above our weight. Collective leadership has now been pushed out from HQ level, to the division level and even out to precinct level. In terms of `Three-P' relationships, we are encouraging our offi cers to be involved in national `Three-P' leadership; you may be surprised that in the near future police offi cers may report not to a police station but to the local Chamber of Business!

Finally we need to build up useful networks, not only local networks but also regional and international networks. Next year we are likely to chair ASEANAPOL and this year we were made the Vice-Chair of Interpol. It is important to develop and maintain these links because that is our gateway to building not only regional but also international capacity. At the end of the day it is a win-win for everybody, including us.

Conclusion

So this afternoon I have shared with you a number of new frames through which to see the new future. I shared with you that there is a choice for us between being a crime buster or the guardian of peace and security; between running the place like a police institution or a business; between being involved in community engagement or the business of building community resilience; between a single leadership or a network of leadership. Mark my words, I used the word choice and yes, you and I have the choice; we need not accept everything although we can remain with status quo and may achieve good results. But the question I want to ask you is - should we choose to be a world class police organisation, to be the force for the future of our national, or should we choose merely to be a police organisation? Thank you very much.

62

Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town/Regulatory

Institutions Network, Australian National University

Clifford Shearing is the Chair of Criminology and the Director of the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law University of Cape Town. He also holds a position as a Professor at the Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University. His most recent book (with Jennifer Wood) is Imagining Security published by Willan in 2006.

Who should the police be in an age of plural governance?

Introduction

My question today is going to be: Who might we imagine the police as being as we enter the twenty-fi rst century? Or expressed differently: Who might we imagine the police to be in an age of plural governance, and more particularly, in an age of plural policing?

This is a question that Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London, asked last year at the beginning of his Dimbleby Lecture on BCC Television when he asked his audience ­ What kind of police do we want?

I have been involved in thinking about this question in a variety of settings over the past several years. In my remarks today I want to draw in particular on one of these settings, namely, a research and innovations partnership between the Victoria Police in Australia and the Australian National University, funded by the Australian Research Council. In my remarks I will report on the emergent fi ndings of this research.

The research (together with a number of other collaborative research projects) is designed to enable the Victoria Police to answer the question of who they should be. It is not a general answer to the question, nor my answer, but rather the answer that the Victoria Police are beginning to articulate through this research.

Ian Blair's question is being addressed through this research within a number of different policing contexts. Within each of these contexts the research is engaging citizens, using a variety of methodologies. The fact that Ian Blair's question is being raised and debated as often, and as energetically, as it is at the moment, suggests that something has been happening to policing that is calling into question established conceptions of the police role.

In the time available to me I will fi rst briefl y review how police have traditionally come to be viewed. I will then sketch what it is that has been happening that has led people to consider revising this conception. Finally I will talk about the research I have just mentioned.

Established conceptions

Since the inception of the police, as we know them in the English speaking world, there has been a very clear and widely accepted answer to the question I have raised. This answer has been that `The police role is to monopolise policing'.

When the police institution, as we know it today, emerged and took hold it was widely conceived of as a fi nal stage in a centuries old centralising trend. Maitland, an early 20th century historian, captured this trend very nicely when he talked of a historical development

63

The situation that this centralisation was viewed as leaving behind, and as overcoming, was what in today's language might be called `plural policing'. What Maitland, and others, saw as having been progressively taken place was a swallowing up of plural policing. A swallowing up of what Macauley (1986) called "private governments".

This swallowing up, or squeezing out, of plural policing had been motivated, many police historians argued, by a host of problems associated with the fragmented sovereignties that plural policing expressed. These problems were precisely the problems that the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes had identifi ed in the mid-seventeenth century when he argued that what effective governance required was a single unifi ed sovereignty. Fragmented sovereignties, Hobbes' argued, led to a state of anarchy ­ his famous `war of all against all'.

This aspiration for a single unifi ed social or public sphere, governed by a single sovereignty has been one of our most deeply embedded, and widely supported, of our political aspirations. The police idea that we associate within the English speaking world with Sir Robert Peel was, and remains, emblematic of this aspiration.

There has been, and continues to be, considerable debate over whether the police ever actually achieved, or indeed could ever have achieved, a monopoly over policing. Whatever the facts about this are, by the time the present New Zealand Police Act was passed in the middle of the twentieth century, it was widely accepted that police did, and more importantly should, monopolise policing.

Perhaps the clearest evidence of this is the fact that by the middle of the twentieth century the meaning of the word `police' had shifted its meaning from being commonly used as a noun to denote a state of affairs in which orderliness prevailed to denote the police institution.

The police by mid-twentieth century `owned' policing. There was, in most people's minds, no police other than the police and no policing outside of what the police did. To use Fukuyama's language (Fukuyama, 2004), it would have made sense at that time to speak of an "end of history". Within this sensibility the idea of `private policing' made no sense. To put `private' and `policing' together within a single phrase would have been a contradiction ­ an oxymoron. The previous age of plural policing was for most people, essentially, over.

Recent developments

How very different things look today, at the turn of the twenty-fi rst century. Few people today would claim that the police `own' policing. And, today, `private policing', while still often objected to especially by the police, is no longer an oxymoron. A tide, that everyone thought would always move in one direction and would end history, has turned.

The concrete development that has, more than any other, epitomised this turning point has been the emergence of private security. I need not spend any time on this here as the facts about this development, and other related plural policing developments, are well known. Whatever the exact fi gures about the size of private security and the ratios of police to private security, or the number of volunteers engaged in policing, it is clear today that the police do not monopolise policing.

64

It is this return of plural policing that lies behind the urgency and relevance of the question I have posed. If the police do not monopolise policing, and if they do not monopolise coercion, and if there are others that do everything that we thought were their core tasks, then, who are they and what should they be doing?

It is these questions that we have sought to address in the Australian National University ­ Victoria Police research project I mentioned at the outset. In answering them the project had not sought to develop top-down, or ivory tower, answers but rather has sought to work from practice up. Let me now share with you the tentative answers that have begun to emerge within the Victoria Police. I say tentative because the project is still ongoing and the position I am going to articulate has not yet been fully debated.

The project

The project has been organised around a series of sub-projects that locate the question, `who should the police be?', within very specifi c policing contexts. In each of these contexts we have engaged in consultations with a wide range of people about, `who they imagine the police can, and should, be?' I will briefl y canvas three of these sub-projects.

The fi rst one I want to share with you is a project that sought to develop a strategy for responding to organised crime. This team adopted what the 2006 report of the Dutch Board of Police Commissioners, The Police in Evolution, has called a "nodal orientation".

The research team conceived of nodes as sites that promoted social orders ­ both good orders and bad orders. These nodes they argued could be, and frequently were, networked. They called "nodal networks" that promoted legitimate and desirable orders "bright networks". Those that promoted bad orders they termed "dark networks". Policing, in their view, constituting a bright network that sought to make society safer (Raab and Milward, 2003).

The project team saw contemporary organised crime as constituting a dark network and one that could only be effectively challenged, and managed, through effective policing networks. The police could not, in their view, effectively challenge organised crime alone. They could only do so by being a part of policing networks that involved others. In the words of the organised crime strategy project team:

A networked response to the threat of organised crime... require[s] a policing network. Victoria Police needs to develop the capacity to identify and encourage other nodes to become involved in... policing... networks to deal with organised crime. The problem therefore is not just one for the public police, or for the whole of government, but one [for the] whole of society.

Plural policing, within this view, was not seen as a problem to be overcome but as an opportunity to be embraced. What was required was what the team called a `whole of society' response. Compared to the `police should monopolise policing' conception, this way of thinking expressed a radically different understanding of policing and the police role.

65

For me, one of the signifi cant things about this conception is not how new it is, but how old it is. This conception resonates very closely with arguments put forward by Patrick Colquhoun, one of the most infl uential thinkers on policing reform in Britain at the end of the nineteenth century. Colquhoun, in arguing for the establishment of what he called the Criminal Police, and that we now think of as `the police', insisted that they should be conceived of as forming part of a much wider "police system" (Neocleous, 2000; see also McMullan, 1996 and 1998). Within this police system the police were to play an organising and coordinating role.

Plural policing, in Colqhuon's conception, was to be managed, not eliminated. The police were, in his view, to play a critical role in this management. Private peaces where not seen as antithetical to a wider public peace. On the contrary, what might be thought of as good private peaces, were desirable and were to be encouraged.

Somewhere along the line, as these ideas were translated and developed as a Peelian conception, this vision of police as critical players within a policing system got lost. It is precisely this vision that the Organised Crime Project research team sought to retrieve when they talked of taking a `whole of society' approach that positions the police both as a policing node, with important capacities, and as coordinating the activities of nodal networks.

This view of the role of the police as nodal coordinators was nicely expressed by Lucia Zedner in a paper published earlier this year. In this paper she not only endorses the approach adopted by the Organised Crime Strategy Project but offers a very similar interpretation, to the one I have just offered, of eighteenth century policing reform proposals.

With policing increasingly shared amongst individuals, communal and private providers, the state can no longer claim a monopoly over policing. It can, nonetheless, insist upon its right to delineate and uphold the normative structures essential both to protect the public interest in policing and maintain the ligatures of civil society (Zedner, 2006: 92-93).

The second of the Victoria Police projects that I want to talk about briefl y today is a Youth Project. While this project was concerned with a very different policing arena from organised crime it came to very similar conclusions about the role of police. This project worked to establish sustainable institutions that would enable school children to contribute as policing nodes within a policing network. These arrangements enable young people to identify and resolve problems themselves without, for the most part, involving police. The police constituted an important resource in creating and supporting youth as a node within a policing network (Wood and Marks, 2006).

The third, and fi nal, sub-project I would like to discuss today is the Transit Sub-Project. This project was focused on safety on trains and sought to establish mechanisms for mobilising and sustaining a policing system that operates to promote what the project team termed `whole of journey safety'. The project has developed a conceptualisation of the police role in transit that captures very nicely the conceptualisation that has emerged in each of the other two sub-projects.

66

For this project's team creating systems of coordinated and effective guardianship capacity is diffi cult and challenging and requires considerable innovation and opportunism. The role of police as coordinators and managers of guardianship capacity, within this conception, is one that requires police to promote and learn from it as part of a wider policing system. For this team, what transit passengers demand of the police is not that they should always be present but that they should ensure that journeys will be safe.

Conclusion

Let me draw my remarks together by sharing with you the way the Victoria Project team has conceptualised what they are doing across the various sub-projects that make up this research programme. They have used the term `nexus' to capture the way in which they are imagining the police role. Nexus has three related meanings. First, it means a connection, a tie or a link. Second, it means a connected series or group. Finally, it refers to a core or a centre. For the project team `nexus policing' means a connected set of resources with the police as a vital centre that promotes effective guardianship. Nexus policing means an effective policing system.

This view of police as nexus coordinators and facilitators presents the idea of a police monopoly differently to the way it has traditionally been understood. Police are not seen as monopolising policing activities but as being central, and indeed the central, guardians of the public peace. They are the institution that people should be able to turn when they seek assurances of safety. The role of the police is to ensure that safety is effectively governed. Whether this involves them as a direct source of guardianship capacity themselves will vary across time and space. A useful term that captures this understanding of the police role is Loader's and Walker's term "anchored pluralism" (see also his and Neil Walker's development of this idea in Civilizing Security, 2006).

If this police role defi nition were to be embraced in New Zealand it would have profound implications for a new Police Act which, as we heard this morning, might be better thought of as a Policing Act as its focus would be on promoting effective and accountable policing systems rather than simply an effective and accountable police.

References

Blair, I. (2005). Transcript of Sir Ian Blair's speech delivered at the Dimbleby lecture 2005.

Available online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4443386.stm. Accessed 28/10/2006.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York, Free Press.

Loader, I. and N. Walker (2006). Civilizing Security. Cambridge: University of Cambridge

Press.

Macauley, S (1986). `Private government' in Law and the Social Sciences (L Lipson and S

Wheeler eds). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

67

Maitland, F. (1913). Constitutional History. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

McMullan, J. (1996). `The new improved monied police', British Journal of Criminology,

36(1): 85-108.

McMullan, J. (1998). `Policing reform and moral discourses: the genesis of a modern

institution', Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 21(1): 137-158.

Neocleus, M. (2000). `Social police and the mechanisms of prevention', British Journal of

Criminology, 40: 710-720.

Raab, J. and B. Milward (2003). `Dark networks as problems', Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 13(4): 413-439.

Watkins, R. (2004). Responding to Organised Crime: A Case Study. Paper presented at

the Victoria Police Organised Crime Conference 24 August 2004.

J. Wood and M. Marks (2006), `Nexus Governance: Building New Ideas for Security and

Justice', pp. 719-738 in Slakmon, C., M. Rocha Machado and P. Cruz Bottini (eds). Novas Direções na Governança da Justiça e da Segurança Brasília - D.F.: Ministry of Justice of Brazil, United National Development Programme - Brazil, and the School of Law of the Getulio Vargas Foundation São Paulo.

Zedner, L. (2006). `Policing before and after the police', British Journal of Criminology, 46:

78-96.

68

New Zealand Police

Howard Broad was appointed to the position of Commissioner of the New Zealand Police in April 2006 after completing eighteen months as Assistant Commissioner: Planning, Development and Deployment. His career spans 31 years and encompasses a range of operational, policy and administrative posts. As a detective he rose to the rank of Detective Inspector in Christchurch. As the fi rst national corporate planning offi cer under New Zealand's public sector reform (1989), and subsequently as Superintendent of national planning and policy, he was responsible for the development of many of the current corporate planning instruments used by Police. In 1998 he was appointed District Commander of Auckland City. During a time of unprecedented demand for policing services, he oversaw a redesign of strategic and tactical intelligence processes, and developed more effective links with community organisations including the City Council. He re-developed the management of diversity issues, including a substantial revamp of appointments and processes relating to Maori and Pacifi c Island peoples in Auckland. On an international level, in 2002 Commissioner Broad was the inaugural winner of the International Law Enforcement Award by the Society for the Policing of Cyberspace (Canada) for his work in developing a national multi-agency Internet Safety programme. He has also presented ideas on policing in seminars throughout Australasia and North America, while from September 2003 until March 2004 he was seconded to the Police Standards Unit, Home Offi ce, London.

Introduction

It gives me great pride, as New Zealand's 30th Commissioner of Police, to join with you today to explore what it means to me to be part of an increasingly networked landscape for policing and to sketch out for you the evolving place of New Zealand Police in this networked policing environment.

In my remarks this afternoon, the story will be one of both continuity and change. Although I'd like to think New Zealand Police is one of the more `open book' police services in the world, sometimes people don't feel like they have permission to give that open book a close reading. One of the great things about today's symposium is that such a wide cross- section of people are coming together to share their `readings' of Police and policing. What I'll try to do with my comments is to add to this narrative - to talk about some of the themes I see in this current chapter of Police's history, and offer some thoughts on how I'd like to see that story develop.

In essence, I'll cover three areas:

· First, I want to refl ect on the recent history of policing as a means of highlighting some

important trends;

· Second, I want to sketch some of the tensions that come with the role of Commissioner of

Police, as a way of illuminating what I see as some key issues in modern-day policing;

· Third, I want to fi nish by casting ahead. How do I see New Zealand Police as it responds

to the challenges of policing in a networked world?

Changing New Zealand; Changing New Zealand Police

Leading off, then, what are some of the changes I see as signifi cant for policing New Zealand? Contrast the situation we fi nd ourselves in today with features of New Zealand society from 50 years ago - in 1958, the year Police's current foundational statute was passed by Parliament.

69

There are now four million of us, ethnically diverse, and just look at the high-tech information and communications gadgetry which many New Zealanders use (almost casually) in their daily lives.

Police, too, has grown - from a `Force' of some 2,200 to the present 10,500 staff (soon to be 12,000) - which is responsible for expending some $1.2 billion each year in public resources.

In the 1950s, we Police were almost all constables, with few support staff. Generally speaking, a `one-size-fi ts-all' style of policing prevailed, and enlisting the public's cooperation in preventing crime was limited to the roles of potential victim and witness. Policing was centred on burglars and thieves, and the problems resulting from alcohol.

When people were arrested and convicted, justice was perceived as working, and if police offi cers got it wrong, a military-style disciplinary tribunal system swung into action. This court-martial model is still with us today, despite being a punitive hangover from a Victorian age that is ill-suited to allowing an employer and employee to work together on improving performance.

Fast forwarding to the present, as you've heard from others, a consumer culture prevails today (`If it feels good - do it'), and we seem to exist in a more demanding, litigious, expectant and accountable environment. Signifi cantly for today's discussion, policing is no longer a unitary activity. We were once the only policing agency. As you've already heard from other speakers, we are complemented by a myriad of central and local government agencies with enforcement powers, private security companies, volunteer and not-for-profi t organisations which link together in complex networks, with complex problems to solve.

Throughout my career I can also trace a steady emergence of a human rights focus in policing - the effects of 1980s and early 1990s legislation, such as that relating to offi cial information, police complaints, children and young people, the Bill of Rights and privacy - which have all had a profound impact on policing practice and yet are issues which still challenge us today.

Speakers in the morning session touched on some of these evolutions - demographic, cultural, technological, and governmental. Faced with these shifts, New Zealand Police hasn't stood still, and some of the most profound changes I've detected are in the operational domain of policing.

It can help to picture this in parts. Imagine a three-panel painting (and I acknowledge Sir Ian Blair in helping to construct this analogy). In the centre panel are the traditional staples of policing: dealing with street crimes, property offences, answering various calls for service from members of the public; and also helping keep the roads safe. In these areas we've adopted better analytical techniques, better deployment of resources to risks, and a stronger citizen focus to service provision. And faced with increased public expectations, I'm pleased to say we've consistently lifted Police's performance.

On one of the side panels are the tasks that stretch the police mission towards the serious end. In today's `risk society', this is where we see increasing public concern about danger

70

As this side of the policing mission expands, some of the work in areas like trans-national crime, counter-terrorism and peacekeeping stretches police towards the roles of security intelligence agencies and the military. As we search for the nexus of these crimes, we inhabit new places - for example, we build global linkages to wire up our early warning systems for major drugs importations, terrorism alerts, and to protect internationally-mobile VIPs. Less directly, we also build international infl uence and resilience through New Zealand Police and Defence Force personnel working side-by-side to restore stability after violence and unrest in places like Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands.

The fi nal panel in this three-part painting is where public anxieties often focus most strongly. This involves what can concern local residents most directly - the graffi ti'd or vandalised bus stop, the neighbourhood with abandoned vehicles which seem to cry out `we don't care', the open drug-dealing from `tinny houses', and threats posed by kid racers in their neighbourhood. In short, those aspects of daily life in our cities and towns that can make people feel unsafe. Overall recorded crime may be coming down (when viewed over the longer term), but the public doesn't feel this is the case.

It might be argued this third panel in the triptych is Police's traditional home; the space we used to be seen in most often, as `bobbies on the local beat'. Have we left this behind in an elusive battle to respond to the law enforcement demands of modern society and paid the price of a disconnected public is a question all police agencies have had to confront?

But it is not all about fi ghting Miami Vice type crime, or battling racer-kids who want to emulate The Fast and the Furious. Police is also being looked to increasingly to join in multi-agency efforts to help break cycles of dysfunction - with the intensive role of police in Family Safety Teams or our Youth Development initiatives really good examples of this trend. The `network' of modern policing is truly diverse, as we often now include community and family-strengthening dimensions to the work we do. These new additions to the police toolkit, in my view, are not the `soft' or social work options that cop culture might want to have them portrayed - in my view this approach is a direct assault on the most diffi cult and intractable crime causing vehicles in society - the family. I take the view that good policing, as a cross governmental effort, must aim to identify and take back civil behaviour family by family, house by house, street by street until the community is safe.

What we're seeing, in other words, is a real transformation in what it means to do policing. The reach of a public police service like ours has been extended much wider as well as deeper.

Police don't shy from that, nor have we through the years. The reality is, though, that the world has moved on, New Zealand has moved on, yet in many ways Police's own legislation and some common perceptions of Police haven't moved with the times. This must, and will, change.

This new era of a plural policing market raises questions over how best the various contributors to our community safety can be organised, regulated and developed. As Police Commissioner, this raises important questions about:

· the appropriate role of my organisation, in amongst others, in this modern networked

environment;

71

working together needs legislative assistance;

· the best way to deploy my staff to meet New Zealanders' public safety needs now and

into the future; and

· what this means for going about developing the right capabilities for policing New Zealand

in the decades to come.

The New Zealand Police I want to lead through this fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst century is one that sits at the hub of public safety; is an organisation known for its integrity and impartiality; remarked on for its `can do' attitude - including the acceptance of reasonable risk; envied for its great connections with the people of New Zealand and the ease by which we can be worked with; working intelligently and sensibly with all the players in the overall safety and security marketplace, and contributing as a full partner with other agencies to the meaningful decisions of government.

In a nutshell, that is the vision which I hold for Police in our contemporary New Zealand society. It is this vision which informs how I will go about marshalling New Zealand Police's resources to help deliver `safer communities together'.

Tensions in the role of Commissioner

So what are some of the factors I see infl uencing how we play our part in securing the future?

Before I refl ect on what a future New Zealand Police might look like as part of a growing network of policing activities, I want to shine some light on what I see as tensions inherent in the role of Commissioner of Police. My reason for highlighting these tensions is to provide an insight into some of the uniqueness of the public offi ce I'm proud to hold and to which I will return in closing this paper.

By way of example, I think in today's ever more complex policing world, there will be a demand for additional powers for police - witness overseas examples - and I think we'll soon have to address this issue in relation to terrorism and organised crime. But, let me say, to the extent you increase police powers, there must be matching oversight. Not, I believe, by overlaying heavy bureaucratic processes. Rather, as an extension of promoting values- based policing, I can see a need for more proactive, professional standards, approaches - probing for corruption risks, to nip problems in the bud as an early intervention strategy. `Trust, but verify'. But this verifi cation will test the level of trust between Police staff and their Commissioner. The issue is: just where is the balance between trust and control to be struck?

Pictured in a wider frame of reference, this balance between trust and control often crops up in policing. In my role as Commissioner, it sits behind the tension I experience in wanting to support my staff to pursue innovative approaches at the local level, against my need to be a directive head of a national organisation. This may not sound like the sort of thing that's all that unusual within any large state sector organisation (or, indeed, any large organisation), but there are some very real differences that play out when you're talking about law enforcement.

The issue is highlighted by criticisms of a lack of `national consistency' in police decision making, strategy or tactics. Can, or should we aim for `like' cases getting treated the same no matter whereabouts you are in the country - `equal application of the law'? Can

72

This tension in which trust is the core component also arises in the development of a values-based organisation - in which the people we deploy are truly `people of integrity'. Can the view that a leadership model that inspires staff, models ethical behaviour, gives trust easily and seek outcome results be reconciled with the need to inspect and check the activities of staff to identify and deal with emergent unethical or corrupt practice early. In my view there is an appropriate balance to be struck but sustaining the trusting approach in the face of perceived serial bad behaviour is going to be diffi cult as the organisation morphs to the desired state.

Another tension in my role as Police Commissioner involves my connection here in Wellington with the formation of whole-of-government policy; versus recognition of the operational independence of my frontline staff.

While Police is a disciplined service, with a rank structure, and a formal chain of command, this does not mean that constables can act as robots when they get a tasking from a senior offi cer. In ways which are important both practically and constitutionally, police offi cers need to exercise independent judgment and discretion in how they deal with individual cases.

For example, when dealing with a family violence incident, while I can put in place guidelines for attending offi cers that (all other things being equal) they should arrest offenders and take them away from the home environment, my offi cers still need to gather suffi cient evidence of an offence at the scene, and form the independent view that an arrest is the appropriate course of action in that situation. Every constable must make that judgment call him or herself, and he or she cannot and must not hide behind `just following orders'.

If we are to preserve what is good about the constitutional independence of the offi ce of constable, I must always be slow to substitute my judgment for those on the ground. Indeed, I have to work hard to ensure staff feel supported in their decision-making. But the fl ipside is that, when I'm contributing advice to Ministers, or signing Police up to government- wide policy decisions, I can't put hand on heart and categorically promise everyone in my organisation will follow the agreed course of action every single time. Real life situations are simply too complex to guarantee the same result every time. Sometimes it's OK to tailor a general policing response to a particular situation, and I need to trust my staff to make that judgment, and live with it, when I might have made a different call had I been there. It's all about balance.

Balance is an underlying theme in other tensions which exercise me as Police Commissioner. For instance, one of the features of a more contestable market for policing services, with the emergence of competing security providers and a proliferation of agencies that do investigation and prosecution work, is a fragmentation of the policing landscape. But recognising that there are now a range of mini police-like units in agencies like the Immigration Service, Department of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Economic Development, and so forth, a further tension arises.

Should I give priority or allocate resources to enforcement work in these different areas based on some sort of objective measure, or is it appropriate to allow for a degree of `queue jumping' because some agencies are prepared to do more of the preliminary policing work in-house? And it has been asked in this symposium - should I control the queue? Further,

73

These are not hypothetical questions. Without mentioning any names, I've had approaches from both government and non-government agencies who effectively wish to pay Police to prioritise cases which have been investigated and prepared for prosecution by these other agencies, and they are wanting me to formalise this in some way. Putting effi ciency arguments to one side for the minute, this scenario raises some interesting ethical questions.

Police can not do it all. We need to embrace opportunities to get the work done. But also, we must always strive for balance.

The fi nal tension in the Police Commissioner's role that I'd like to highlight is that between a tradition of silent service to the law, the government of the day, and the broader community, versus the increasing call for police voices to be heard in policy and/or political conversations.

Many police chiefs overseas haven't been as reticent as my predecessors and I in this area. They're recognised as infl uential commentators and policy/political actors in their own right, and indeed in the United Kingdom a fairly powerful advocacy group - ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Offi cers - has for many years busily worked behind the scenes in Whitehall, and in the national media, pressing for sought after changes.

Whereas the Commissioner's role has normally been to jealously guard the independent role, and give the stock response: `Police uphold laws as passed by Parliament', more and more we're invited into policy and legislative debates that result in new laws and particular ways of working. This is a fairly novel area for us, and we need to tread carefully, but there are real benefi ts from being more closely connected with mainstream government departments and Ministerial decision-making, not just for policing itself, but also for our shared outcomes of safer communities and a fairer, more credible and more effective justice system.

Looking ahead

So where do I see the future of New Zealand Police in a growing network of policing activities?

The starting point must be the reality that, increasingly, we are not alone. In almost every area of policing - from `keeping the watch' through to investigating crime - other private, public and volunteer groups are now working beside us. The media, academia and civil society are also playing an important role in monitoring policing activities, and calling for accountability in this expanding `network of policing'.

The diversifi cation of who does policing also works in the other direction as well. Not only are more agencies working with Police to achieve traditional policing functions, Police has been increasingly drawn into new areas that would not have been so readily foreseen as recently as 30 years ago; such as peacekeeping, and responding to international emergencies.

This is our reality. The key issue for us is whether we embrace, or try to resist, the implications.

74

For example, a critical issue in the `networked policing' future is: what helps keep things stable, and guards against fragmentation? This is where I see my organisation playing a pivotal role. In this evolving network, Police needs to stay true to its central purpose of ensuring the safety of public spaces; and providing the known, reliable, and trusted offi cer when members of the public call for help. That's what we primarily do - provide good people when needed capable of acting responsibly, fl exibly and effectively.

This is a real challenge to all involved; and ultimately, it's where our most meaningful actions take place, day-to-day, case-by-case; and it's where our effectiveness gets judged by the public. In the fi nal analysis, New Zealand is also probably too small to support a vast proliferation of policing agencies. The paying market is just too small to sustain it outside of the major centres, and the relatively small tax base available to fund public services means that government will always look for synergies within existing arrangements. For this reason, Police is sometimes called the agency of last resort - a view supported by the large number of statutes which refer to police as primary or secondary enforcement agents.

In summary, my position is that New Zealand Police must remain the hub of community safety and law enforcement activity. Police are the primary law enforcement and safety services organisation in New Zealand, and the essential differentiation of our product is the `offi ce of constable', with its generally exercisable powers, co-ordinated and networked over the entire country. And while we'll most likely have to operate a little differently in the future, this is nothing new for Police. As I pointed out earlier on, we haven't stood still; we're not a monolith. Not only am I confi dent that this trend will continue, but while I lead the organisation, I intend one of the defi ning features of my Commissionership to be that New Zealand Police embraces the opportunities presented by `networked policing'. This means we must meet the challenge of working with others in non-traditional ways, as an actor or facilitator. We should not shrink from being either bold or innovative.

What might a new Police Act bring?

To the extent that our ability to do so can be facilitated by legislation, I want to leave you with some of the hopes I hold for the review of the 1958 Police Act ... which, as you know, is one of the prompts for today's symposium.

As a preface to these comments, I should make clear that I'm not seeking to steer the debate in any particular direction. As Commissioner, though, I do have some views on what needs to change. And I want to conclude my remarks today by highlighting three ideals I hope will be refl ected in new policing legislation.

Firstly, I'd like to think the new Act will enable Police, rather than being prescriptive and full of `shalt nots'. The days of rote learning, of memorising and regurgitating things, are mostly gone. When we send young people out into the world now, we realise we have to equip them with more than the ability to call on pre-ordained answers. We now formally teach decision-making, managing complexity, and how to apply principles to work out appropriate responses to given situations. The current crop of young New Zealanders, and younger staff already in Police, are searching for a similar feel to legislation they work with. Yes, rules are important. But there's also a desire for fl exibility to deal with the complexities of

75

This is not to suggest that anchors to history are unimportant. History has much to teach us. And as much as I hope a new Police Act will refl ect the future faces of New Zealand, which will help safely guide Police through the next 50 years, I trust it will also contain some bedrock principles of policing - principles that would be familiar to members of the earliest constabularies, and yet be couched in a manner that citizens can understand their current relevance.

This is our most signifi cant challenge in writing a new Police Act. My belief is the Act should say as much about New Zealand, the type of society we are, and how we consent to being policed, as it will say about New Zealand Police itself.

My aspiration that a new Police Act be enabling also extends to the way it deals with the offi ce I'm proud to uphold - that of Commissioner of Police. I've spoken already about some of the tensions in the Police Commissioner's role, and the need to balance competing interests. Let me focus in on one example to explain my view of the functioning of the Commissioner's role.

One of the trickiest balancing exercises for any Commissioner, I think, comes from wearing two hats: employer and potential prosecutor. Unlike other employers, if there's any evidence of criminality amongst my staff, I can't `turn a blind eye' or deal with it internally to avoid embarrassment. I must act swiftly and decisively to shore up the public's trust and confi dence in Police, and those who have the privilege to serve as members of Police.

Like Commissioners before me, I fully accept the challenges that come with this dual role. But if I am trusted to be the guardian of trust and confi dence in Police, my plea is that my hands not be tied when I need to exercise the leadership which is rightly demanded of me. What this means, I believe, is the public interest may be better served if a Police Commissioner can act in an employment context where any cases of the most serious misconduct come to light, notwithstanding there might be parallel criminal processes or Police Complaints Authority investigations underway.

I recognise that there may have to be a shift towards the public interest in maintaining confi dence in the Police at the expense of some rights that individual members of Police have.

In the operational domain, as well, having regard to the need for the police to adapt to changing circumstances in this policing network I seek the freedom to remain operationally nimble, to use the talent invested in police to create public value where it can be found.

My stance is this: the role of Police Commissioner comes with these sorts of weighty responsibilities; I'll gladly be held to account for how I discharge those responsibilities (including serving `at will' myself), but in doing so I'm looking to a new Police Act to better enable me to lead and be accountable. I don't think the leadership and accountability of Police will be enhanced by transferring authority to, or allowing proliferation of, external oversight bodies, as seen in some jurisdictions overseas. There exists, after all, only so much authority in an organisation and the issues are not necessarily better handled by proliferating responsibility outside of line command. Rather than setting up an even more complicated monitoring architecture in new legislation, my wish instead is for a Commissioner to be fully enabled to perform the functions of the offi ce. For the avoidance

76

My second big hope for the new Police Act is that it fi nds a durable place for the constable. The constable is the basic unit of currency within Police; it binds all offi cers together, from myself as Commissioner to the newest graduate from the Royal New Zealand Police College. The blue-shirted constable is also what most people identify with as `the Police'.

There is tremendous value in the offi ce of constable. Constables are a fl exible and trusted resource. Police commanders can deploy them to a variety of situations, we can be confi dent they'll have the skills and training to do the job required, and their presence in communities will be respected and supported by most members of the public. This element of public trust and confi dence is vital. My sense is New Zealanders want constables to remain. Within Police, the constabulary career path also gives my offi cers lots of shared experiences that contributes to a high degree of connectedness within the organisation. It provides offi cers a common language - a cop is pretty much a cop, from the Bay of Islands, to Stewart Island, to the Chatham Islands.

In addition to all these strengths of the constabulary system, I also know we need to attract more people into Police - people with high-end skills in forensics, people with specifi c community skills, and competencies in policy, law and other areas. Some of these skills may come from the existing pool of constables, but increasingly it is clear many people who are interested in contributing to New Zealand's safety and security want to perform their roles as specialists, not as generalist constables.

The current Police Act sets the conditions for me to employ members of Police as either sworn or non-sworn staff. This division splits the organisation in two. At one level, the divide is logical; it simply acknowledges those who hold a constable's training and powers, and those who don't. But the divide operates at deeper levels, and unwittingly characterises the contribution of non-sworn staff to what is perceived as a lesser role to that of sworn staff. While this is not true, the perception is there, and it cannot be allowed to continue.

Another important feature of the current Police Act is the way the constable's designation is the switch that activates virtually all police powers. Swearing the oath turns all these powers on. A new Act should provide for more bespoke categories, and therefore what we deem to be a Constable will have to change.

The future success of Police relies on increasing the richness of its staffi ng genome. We need to move forward as `one New Zealand Police', a single organisation made up of many people and one increasingly easier to deal with. The new Police Act must address this issue by removing any barriers to a more integrated and seamless workforce of policing professionals. And my hope would be we can come up with a more inclusive term than `non-sworn'. I'd far rather all Police personnel were defi ned by what they are, instead of what they're not.

My fi nal hope for the new Act echoes a plea heard from other police chiefs around the world. The plea is this: discussions about police must move beyond a fi xation on numbers or duties. As long as the measure of policing is a simplistic counting of how many `blue shirts' there are, or how many offi cers are `frontline', it will remain diffi cult to move New Zealand Police forward.

77

I'm not sure insulating us from the boom-bust syndrome is a burden we can legitimately place on the new Police Act, but my hope is that the new legislation supports a move away from an unsophisticated obsession with Police staffi ng. There are valid debates to be had about Police staffi ng - in the same way as there is public interest in teacher-pupil ratios in schools, and hospital beds or waiting times for surgical services - but as in the education and health sectors, we really do need to lift these debates to a more well-rounded level. And in an increasingly networked environment, where the policing load is shared by a growing number of contributors to safety and security, the time to elevate the public discourse about policing is long overdue.

Closing thoughts

I indicated at the outset that Police is changing. I hope some of the tensions and infl uences I've described chime with your observations of my organisation, and for New Zealand's future.

I've emphasised that I see Police as part of a wider co-operative network, and less of an agency that `stands apart'. To be blunt, the complexity of modern life demands this of us. As Commissioner, I intend to lead New Zealand Police through the next period of its development with an eye open for opportunities for us to be more networked, more connected.

Police has so much to offer in helping achieve the best for New Zealanders. I'm sure you share this confi dence, but I'll be really interested to hear any thoughts you feel you can offer about the contribution New Zealand Police can make to securing the future.

Thank you for your attention.

78

Securing the future: Facing current and future realities

This session, moderated by Professor Gary Hawke from the School of Government at Victoria University of Wellington, was an opportunity for participants to engage specifically with speakers. Professor Hawke first provided his overview of what he saw as the most significant issues that had emerged during the day.

The themes that emerged included:

· The various aspects and meanings of `community policing' It was commented that being responsive to communities and being effective at policing are both things most people want, but it is not at all obvious that they can be reconciled. There are also disparate senses in which the word `community' is used, covering both geographically-defi ned communities and different communities of interest.

· The notion of police versus policing It was suggested that people should not get hung up on the name, although referring to a `Policing Act' rather than to a `Police Act' might be useful symbolism. The structural dimensions of whether an Act reaches beyond a single agency is important, however, and it is also useful to think in terms of public value (in particular, how do we manage the value inherent in policing networks, especially when we know that people see value in things being public, or at least being held very closely by the public?).

· Police as a public sector agency, and as a policy instrument and institution A key question here is: how does New Zealand Police fi t into the state sector as a whole? It was recalled that discussion earlier in the day had drawn attention to some of the complexities which go with having 43 police forces in the UK, and 18,000 police agencies in the USA. Yet, it was observed that there can be just as many problems with co-ordination within a single organisation, so people should not get too diverted simply by the number of policing actors within a particular landscape.

· The role of police in building trust between citizens and public services Behind these three main themes detected in the day's discussions, another linked theme had at its heart the place of the constable within a complex policing organisation.

79

Police National Headquarters

New Zealand Police

PO Box 3017

Wellington

New Zealand