Mrs Hercus receives no-confidence vote

Press, 6 March 1987, Page 5

Mrs Hercus receives no-confidence vote

The Christchurch police yesterday afternoon . carried a resolution of noconfidence in the Minister ; of Police, Mrs Hercus. The national president of the Police Association, Mr Keith Morrow, addressed a meeting of ; police before the resolution was carried unanimously by the 200 members who attended. The chairman of the Christchurch branch of the association, Senior Constable Graeme Pierson, said that members were particularly upset by the proposed Police Complaints Authority Bill. The Auckland police carried on Tuesday a resolution of no-confid-ence in Mrs Hercus, saying that she ignored their concerns and had a negative attitude to the police.

Senior Constable Pierson said that the Christchurch branch “totally rejected” the Police Complaints Authority Bill in its present form. If passed, the legislation will establish an independent authority to deal

with allegations of misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of the police. The legislation has been sponsored by Mrs Hercus. The Christchurch police said in their resolution that the contradictions of Government policy and the lack of support of the police had given more credence to criminals than the police.

As a result, the branch had no confidence in Mrs Hercus. “Certain sections of the legislation have eroded our civil rights,” said Senior Constable Pierson. He said that the Christchurch police were also concerned about sponsorship of police services.

These concerns would be conveyed to the Government by the Police Association.

The meeting yesterday lasted about 90 minutes. Mrs Hercus said the resolution carried by the Christchurch police showed that the police union was “still feeding out misinformation about

the bill.” To say that certain sections of the bill “eroded their civil rights” was a highly emotional piece of rhetoric, and was wrong, she said.

The bill provided that any person before the Police Complaints Authority had the same privileges in answering questions and giving information as witnesses had in any court. Anyone could decline to answer questions on the ground of self-incrimina-tion, Mrs Hercus said. Further, answers given to questions before the authority were inadmissible in a court unless on a charge of perjury, or a prosecution for an offence.

“I hope the police union is not suggesting, in a roundabout way, that police officers ought to have a more privileged position than other people appearing before the authority,” she said. These provisions of the bill were identical in substance to those contained in the Ombudsman act, to

which police officers had been subject for years, and never objected. The police union was running the risk that people would think the real reason for opposing the bill was that some police feared an independent specialist body to examine complaints about them, Mrs Hercus said.

Concern about sponsorship also-showed a misunderstanding of what was involved.

The policy was not one of user-pays but to enable community gifts to be made to the police. The guidelines set up would enable the propriety of any offer to be judged properly.

Mrs Hercus rejected the charge of “ignoring their concerns and having a negative attitude to the police.”

If that were so, how had the police secured through her the early retirement package sought, increased resources, and substantial salary increases, she said.