Candor Trust Media Release

Special Road Police Branch Crucial

The State Services Commission review of the merger of traffic and general policing, which has found the current situation acceptable was a short sighted exercise in predetermined outcomes, say Candor Trust.

"This is due to parameters placed on the review having been too restrictive - again the economists led the charge in considering only short term demerger costs and not the big picture," says Spokesperson Rachael Ford.

"Some stakeholders consulted even implied Police all need traffic stopping powers to enable big brother type Policing - therefore it seems road safety is viewed as a taonga not to be relinquished to a seperate body. For all the wrong reasons".

SSC's review was spearheaded by NZ First which had concerns the merger eroded respect for Police, oft seen as being bonded to ticket quotas to such a degree Police's time resource to investigate off road crimes was taxed.

Candor has observed a reverse trend with the quality of road policing actually diminished by lost expertise. And too great a tendency for Police attending traffic incidents to give traffic offending low priority, given spicier stuff pops up.

In many instances significant road safety and traffic duties seem shoved aside; Police after pulling over maniac drivers have a tendency to forget such matters when they become distracted by detection of even minor criminal matters.

Even with dangerous drug fueled excess speeders exemptions from road safety laws apply - if they are carrying drugs or perhaps "marked men".

The notorious John Gillies was arrested after leading Police on a high speed chase recently - but he wasn't charged with driving under the influence or anything road safety related which was surely his greatest crime - rather with drug possession.

Did Mr Gillies lose his license or begin to stack up demerits or get a slap of reality with a hefty fine or get featured in his local papers hall of shame for Driving Under the Influence?

Certainly not, he was processed only for drug possession with his serious road safety threat going completely without sanction.

A strong argument against the merger arises when it's considered that one Police objective is to reduce Maori and Pacific Island Offending and Victimisation, "and so meet obligations to these communities" (Departmental Forecast Report).

Police allegedly aim to develop positive attitudes between Police and Maori yet using traffic stops to "sniff out" other crimes rather than to focus on traffic issues and save lives isn't a top strategy for increasing trust and rapport with minorities.

This is an important point given that Maori have horrendous toll statistics, and their children are far more likely to die in crashes than by abuse.

Do we really prefer for drug driving Dad's to get done for possession and to keep driving the kids, or would we prefer they get done for drug driving with safety benefits and a road safety message taken aboard instead?

Though the NZIER mentioned a sensible option of a 'traffic unit' within Police (less costly than full demerger) it noted this was beyond the scope of the review and so no proper analysis of the option was undertaken.

What use is a review when it's parameters prevent effective problem solving?

The SSC did however see fit to opine (without proper inquiry) that it is probable that many of the disadvantages of a full de-merger, as identified by the review would also arise with creation of a specialised Police 'traffic unit.'

The review further opined this could include a reduction to holistic management of offenders, such as when a general Police type response may be warranted eg in the event a gun is seen in the car.

This argument is a non sesquitor, given that Police would not normally be sighting such things at stops anyway, unless search powers are utilised.

And the main reason search powers should be utilised after a traffic stop should surely be suspicion of impaired driving, in which case alcohol or drugs could be searched for under the Land Transport Act.

It seems clear that Police when addressing traffic offences are not crystal clear about their roles and responsibilities.

By their own admission within the SSC review Officers may be very interested in using traffic stops opportunistically, often for purposes unrelated to road safety.

There is surely a conflict of interest in Police wearing two hats. Are Police who're keen to also chalk up other convictions really going to do their best performances on behalf of the road safety program?

This conflict and the situations that arise out of it throw up civil rights issues, but Candor asserts the crux role confusion may also occur quite regularly to the detriment of road safety.

"It can't be coincidental; the phenomenally worsening trends and lower public safety we've experienced in recent years on the road, and all since the merger".

Injury producing crashes have risen no less than forty percent in five years, ACC claims are through the roof and road fatalities may be significantly under reported.

Alcohol is but a part of that being a greater factor than over limit speeding. Fatigue and drug intoxication are close rivals to alcohol pipping speed at the post (per figures not utilised by Police) as headstone epitaphs.

If the Government is truly interested in eliminating road trauma it will lump the SSC report, convene a multi party advisory committee and go back to the drawing board.

Police currently possess too much dominance in road safety. The scary aspect to this is that many frontliners and people higher in the organisation lack expertise in what is a complex art and science.

Either we hand over the road safety reins to Public Health or Government must acknowledge the weakness of putting general staff on traffic duties.

It should consider investigating the possibility of a specialist division within Police as a logical outcome from the SSC report, if a lesser injury burden is still sought by 2010.

Ends

© Scoop Media