Mitchell Mark; Lubeck MarjaHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Well I'm totally confused in relation to that answer. The Minister just stood up and said there's going to be no change that the funding is still there and that there are not going to be any changes. But it's very clear by the email that's been sent out that there is going to be a delay for recruiting of specific non-constabulary roles and that they're going to be minimising the collection of time off in lieu (TOIL). She hasn't answered this question and this question is very pertinent for front-line police officers many of whom will finish their night shift and have to carry on working because there's enormous pressure on the front line—often understaffed trying to deal with the calls that are coming through and being triaged and getting backed up. They'll work past their night-shift finish time. They'll work past their early shift finish time. And they collect TOIL time off in lieu. What does it mean when you've got a police service that is already stretched—and the police Minister acknowledged that in the House today in relation to the Police Association president's comment that the police front-line are overwhelmed with the increase in crime—and what is meant by the fact that they're looking at minimising the collection of TOIL and annual leave and why is that being looked at and proposed if she's standing in this committee and telling us that there is going to be no change? Either the deputy commissioner is wrong or she's wrong. It can't be both so which one is it? I would please drive home the importance of articulating very clearly as the police Minister—and I hope that the Minister understands how TOIL and annual leave work and how it impacts the welfare and the mental health of front-line staff who are under enormous pressure. I would like her to stand up and clearly articulate for us exactly what the proposed minimising of the collection of TOIL and annual leave actually means to our front-line staff.MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is about some of the repeated questioning that she has received with regards to people feeling safe and of course the 1800 additional police that we have added to the front line. So my question is specifically to the roll-out of the tactical response model and what we can expect to see from that roll-out over the next 12 months.Hon Ginny Andersen: Sorry I couldn't catch the end of that.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just repeat that last part of your sentence?MARJA LUBECK: Oh sorry. It's about the roll-out of the tactical response model and what we expect to see from this roll-out roughly over the next 12 months.Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I thought the Minister would at least be able to answer a patsy from someone in her own team.Marja Lubeck: Sour grapes over there. Sour grapes.Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Minister couldn't even answer a patsy. It's ridiculous. It makes a joke—it makes a mockery of this process.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): On task Mr Mitchell. On task.Hon MARK MITCHELL: I am going to ask the Minister why we had to roll out the tactical response unit in New Zealand. What was it a response to? Was it a response to the fact that our front-line police officers are having to deal with a lot more violent incidents involving firearms? Is that the fact that assaults on our front-line police officers were increasing at an alarming rate? Is it recognition that it was a mistake to get rid of the armed response unit that was already in place? If the Minister is able to answer any of those questions it would be much appreciated. But the one that I'd really like an answer to—the one that I'd really like to know about—is about those officers that are on the tactical response model and take great pride in the service that they're providing the back-up that they're providing to their friends and their colleagues in keeping communities safe. They'd be very interested to know why there's an email that's come out as part of fiscal constraints that have been applied to the police out of Police National Headquarters that's looking at minimising the collection of time off in lieu and annual leave. There needs to be a very clear succinct answer to that. Thank you Mr Chair.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Like all organisations Police is facing increases in costs reflecting the inflation that we've seen. I think that email is simply a reflection of that reality. So just to be really clear the recruitment freeze doesn't affect—I've said this before but I'll say it again because I don't think I was heard the first two times—constabulary or authorised officers; it is only support or Police National Headquarters staff. Now it is interesting that that member made quite a point of the fact that in terms of the views that I've seen expressed there were far too many bureaucrats and far too many non-sworn. And so now it seems quite a different angle where you're saying that you want to see more of those people and you're actually quite concerned that if we don't employ those it will have an impact on front line. So that's quite different to the line of argument that we've heard in previous weeks. But just to say it again to be crystal clear that email does not mean that there will be any impact on authorised officers or front-line constabulary.In terms of the time off in lieu (TOIL) reduction it also ensures our staff aren't overstretched in terms of health and safety issues. That is standard management to make sure that if people are accruing annual leave or TOIL it is being used. That's a good reflection and a good employer that encourages people to utilise what they're owed and not let it add up. If someone has lots and lots of hours of TOIL or lots and lots of annual leave accrued that's a good indicator they have not had a break. That's not my job as Minister; that's the job of Police in terms of operational management to make sure their staff are well looked after to make sure they're getting adequate breaks to making sure they're getting adequate time to take a rest. It's a good employer that encourages staff to take their TOIL and take their annual leave so I do not see that as a reflection of stopping good service being delivered and good safety to New Zealanders; I see that as a prudent employer who's thinking about the wellbeing of staff.In terms of the questions in relation to the tactical response model (TRM): to both I'd just like to say that the benefit of the TRM as asked over here—just to answer the patsy for the benefit of those members—is to really combine intel with kit. We know we've got some great capability within the police service. We want to make sure that that's being used where there is risk. It's tailoring the intelligence weighing up the risk that's there for the front line and having a proportionate response to that risk. And so the feedback I've had from the Wellington district alone is that they've actually been able to do some quite big jobs that they were anticipating being problematic and they were done incredibly swiftly and safely for front-line officers. The best thing about the TRM for me and the benefits of using intel alongside capability really means a decrease in front-line assaults. You're right; I take the member's point that we have seen an increase in weapons in the community; we have seen an increase in more brazen crime and that can sometimes more often than not bring risks to our front-line officers. This model is the right thing to do to make sure our front line are appropriately equipped both in terms of the intelligence and the kit to be able to respond to those threats. And what we see in those areas where the tactical response model was trialled is that we had a significant reduction in the number of assaults on police and those are the numbers that I watch clearly. I'm really pleased to see that now this will be rolled out right across New Zealand in all 12 districts. I'm really looking forward to seeing a continual decline in those assaults on front-line staff.