Mandate

Mission

14. On October 28 2004, Police Commissioner Rob Robinson announced an external review of New Zealand Police Communications Centres and the handling of emergency or "111" calls for police assistance. This review was prompted by several high profile cases alleging poor performance on the part of police in dealing with these incidents. The Commissioner sought assistance from overseas policing jurisdictions and a panel of international policing communications experts was identified.

15. The Panel was chaired by Chief Superintendent Michael Corboy of New South Wales Police, Australia. Acting Deputy Chief Emory Gilbert of Toronto Police, Canada and Superintendent Ruth Purdie of North Wales Police were also nominated to join the review team by their respective Chief and Commissioner. All three individuals are highly experienced in police communications and emergency call handling each successfully having held or in current command of equivalent Communications Centres in their own jurisdictions.?

16. The Panel was completed by organisational psychologist Kevin McKenna, Director of Human Resources Services at PricewaterhouseCoopers in New Zealand. Biographical details of each of the Panel members appear in Appendix Two.

Role

17. The scope of the review was determined by the Terms of Reference (Appendix One) which were set in consultation with New Zealand Police service organisations, namely the New Zealand Police Association and the Police Managers’ Guild.

18. Although the undertaking of this review came about due to alleged inadequate response to a number of specific cases, these cases were not investigated by the Review Panel. They were considered by the Panel but the investigation of those cases remains correctly within the scope of the Police Complaints Authority.?

19. The victims or their families of these cases were, however, contacted by the Chair and provided with the opportunity to discuss their concerns with Panel members directly. Some, but not all of those concerned, took this opportunity.

Responsibilities

20. The Panel undertook the review in accordance with the Terms of Reference including the requirement to make recommendations and provide a report to the Commissioner, New Zealand Police.

21. This final report discloses the findings of the review, recommendations of the Review Panel and the evidence or rationale upon which the recommendations are based. It is intended that the implementation of recommendations, along with other opportunities identified within the review, be in line with a strategic vision of the development of New Zealand Police communications over the next five to ten years.

22. The theme of this report is Titiro Whanui, to look beyond the horizon.

Activities

23. The Panel Chair, Chief Superintendent Michael Corboy made two visits to New Zealand prior to the full Panel convening in New Zealand. The first visit was made in November 2004. On this occasion, the Terms of Reference were determined. Visits were made to all three Communications Centres to interact with staff and, in addition, initial meetings were held with Communications Centre managers and members of the Police Executive. At the conclusion of this visit the Chair called for public submissions.

24. The opportunity for making a submission was conveyed to all Police staff including all staff working in Communications Centres, by way of internal Police communications. The request for submissions was advertised in national print media, both mid-week and weekend editions and on the New Zealand Police website.

25. In total 121 written submissions were presented to the Panel from Police staff, external organisations and private individuals. A list of those who contributed is included in Appendix Three. A total of four contributors wished their submission to be in confidence and these names are withheld in accordance with those wishes.

26. Chief Superintendent Corboy made a second visit to New Zealand in December 2004, on this occasion accompanied by Panel member Kevin McKenna. Once again visits to all three Centres were undertaken along with meetings with all District Commanders and other stakeholders. Details of those consulted during the course of the review appear in Appendix Four.

27. Prior to this review being announced, the CCSC had engaged an external call centre consultancy firm, Mi-Quality, to conduct a review of the Centres and analysis of call volume and staffing levels. The Panel met with the consultants on several occasions and was presented with their report.

28. The full Panel convened in New Zealand for two weeks from the end of January 2005. All members visited each Communications Centre at least once. Chief Superintendent Corboy and Kevin McKenna undertook multiple visits to some of the Centres to observe operations and have discussions with staff. Visits were planned and conducted on variable days of the week and at different times of day/night to gain a full appreciation of differing working conditions depending on the volume of calls for service which varies depending on the time and day of the week.

29. Panel members also drew on their own experience, research and documentation relevant to their own jurisdictions, as well as internationally recognised best practice.