Green MP Tamatha Paul has received quite the beat down in the last two days.
Her original comments were part of a panel discussion where she said:
“Wellington people do not want to see police officers everywhere, and, for a lot of people, it makes them feel less safe. It’s that constant visual presence that tells you that you might not be safe there, if there’s heaps of cops.”
The subsequent reporting reveals a deeper issue but first, here are some of the comments she received:
Christopher Luxon:
“I thought it was quite outrageous and insane, to be honest”
David Seymour:
“It’s just weird, to be honest”
Chris Hipkins, who was actually responding to an interviewer’s question on comments from another MP “that people felt safer with seeing gang members, patched gang members on the street, compared to seeing police on the street” said:
“[Those] comments were ill-informed, were unwise, in fact, were stupid”
Why was Hipkins referring to separate comments? We’ll never know.
Mark Mitchell, a man who has form in weaponising disinformation, took the opportunity to sow more:
“I haven’t seen the exact comments but basically they’re along the lines of disestablishing the police...”
The transcript shows Mitchell’s comments couldn’t be further from the truth.
Grant Duncan, a visiting academic and political commentator:
“Is it not time for the Greens to focus on their core business – like saving the planet or something?”
And here are the top comments from a Stuff article this morning:
I woke up disappointed at Paul’s treatment.
Luxon calling her comments “insane” and Mark Mitchell claiming Paul is in ‘la la land” is National at its best - using incendiary words and highlights for the media to run with - while inflaming a conversation for political gain.
It is true that National’s win was aided by frustration at law and order.
It’s one of their strongest political suits - punishment and coming down hard.
Yet ironically, law and order is not improving under National.
In fact, it’s getting worse.
For example:
Despite Mark Mitchell and Paul Goldsmith relying on an anonymous Twitter account to incorrectly claim violent crime was improving, the official data shows it is the same - not better.
Serious victimisation in retail crime is also not improving - at the same rates as 2023:
Meth use in NZ is at a never-before-seen record high over the last year.
Meth consumption has increased by an “unprecedented 96% .. when compared to 2023, with consumption increasing across all sites” according to police.
Police attrition remains significant - meaning the government police numbers have now gone from negative last month to +13 compared to when it took office. It’s more concerning when you consider we are losing experienced police officers as quality is significant in policing.
Gang numbers have continued to climb too + 600 compared to the election period, but that’s made worse when you consider this government is actively culling gang membership lists.
Paul’s comments must have come as welcome distraction for National.
But Paul was clearly speaking for her constituents and sharing her experience in hearing stories from the homeless and community organisations. Paul regularly visits prisons and respectfully listens to their stories, in their space.
Contrast that with PM Luxon, who says he hasn’t visited a homeless shelter in months (or is it really years) as homelesness increases by ~50% on his watch.
There is dignity in hearing from those who are most marginalised in our community, and doing your best to give them a voice too.
Paul quoted police conversations and the Police Minister. And yet because the police did not respond to media, Paul is presented as somehow unhinged.
Benedict Collins asked how Paul felt about her comments being labelled “insane” by the Prime Minister on TVNZ last night. She seemed taken aback, but it was good TV.
Yet most news reports I saw did not provide adequate context apart from sensationalising the drama.
Paul’s accounts that police are often working on removing or threatening to remove homeless folks’ belongings seems to ring true when we look at reports from just over the last few months -
Mental health is another area Paul emphasised, saying the police were not best placed to deal with mental health.
An example she referenced is the recent and tragic capture, handcuffing, detention and double drugging of an 11 year old autistic female.
And while last year, National instructed police to pull back from most mental health call outs, it’s also true they don’t hold the expertise alone. Police have acknowledged reducing their presence in mental health call outs may cause more deaths. Health care workers are alarmed that there will be no police support, and some have quit in response - the risk of harm for all is just too great.
i.e. The formation of units (police and mental health/social workers) was appropriate, but was rolled back under National.
None of this is theoretical, yet in the last few days, the theoretical has dominated our landscape.
What’s the takeaway?
To me, it’s that high paid PR consultants and media management work in politics.
The media are too unwilling and unable to adequately contextualise information at times.
This morning Stuff piled on with more angry commentary:
It’s all why we see politicians like Nicola Willis and Simeon Brown frequently sound like PR puppets, unable and unwilling to go outside the confines of meticulously prepared statements.
It’s also why we see Brooke Van Velden often sheltered and unwilling to give ad-hoc interviews (Van Velden also declines to meet with union representatives) There’s too much risk for her.
We’ve seen Atlas Network trained David Seymour claim multiple times that his school lunches is praised by principals and schools as “better”, yet when asked which ones, “would not give the school names for privacy reasons.” That seems to be enough to shut it down.
That’s much better than Paul’s honest response about being unable to verify the stories she heard definitively:
“When I go into prisons, I get to have lots of conversations with people in there and I heard a bunch of stories.
“I don’t sit down and interrogate them. I just listen to their stories as I’m a guest in their space.”
We have seen Mark Mitchell and Paul Goldsmith use claims from an anonymous unverified Twitter account as official evidence of falling serious crime, yet when asked about this, simply doubled down.
That’s enough to close the media cycle.
It shows how carefully curated political life needs to be for politicians.
But in being so, are we better for it or not? I’d argue the latter.
When I watched Paul, I saw someone speaking in an unguarded manner but also representative of the constituents and social workers she has been in contact with.
I heard her say that police could be better put to things such as sexual assault and domestic violence rather than clearing homeless belongings.
It’s easy to be sensationalist and angered, but Paul was speaking to a reality where police resources are limited, and where their training and background may be better suited to “core business” - i.e. getting back to basics - rather than helping with clearing the homeless, or mental health.
Police presence is welcome, but for some, too much of it can be intimidating and feel questionable.
It also speaks to difference experiences of policing - and how valid they can be. For example, an article in Spinoff confirms Māori are around seven times more likely than Pākehā to be the victims of police violence.
IPCA has found police use unjustified force that results in community deaths or assaults.
These are not new experiences or conversations.
And while most people feel safer with police presence, the underlying nuances of the comments are not undeserving of recognition and conversation.
I didn’t see Paul speaking for anything other than that type of context - and facilitating a potential, wider conversation. I also appreciated her point that someone in the halls of power should be unafraid to hold police to account where necessary.
The conversation was unfortunately cut short by the mania of reporting that didn’t provide the full context, and opposition members keen to slag off a young, female leader for politics.
Emmerson Cartoons
Tamatha Paul Transcript (Video Above)
Q: Can you explain to us what people have been raising concerns about?
TP: In terms of the beat patrol?
Yeah, so one of the big complaints I heard last year especially was around beat patrols just picking up homeless people's stuff and putting it in the bin.
When I inquired about it, they said that that was because it was a Wellington City Council bylaw, and I don't think that that should be what they're dedicating their resource towards.
Q: What do you think their [police] purpose is, and do you think that they should be there?
TP: I think that the police should be responding to incidences of domestic violence, sexual violence, things that only they can do.
I think beat patrols is an easy thing that can be substituted for by Māori wardens,
by hapa-aki kind of community people walking around, which we have in Wellington, and I think they [police] should focus on their core business.
Q: Is this the position of the Greens, or is this your position as Wellington Central MP?
TP: We haven't actually updated our justice policy around beat patrols because they are a new thing, but these are the feedback that I have been hearing from the community, but also from organisations that support homeless people.
Q: As Chloe Swarbrick yesterday said it wasn't what she'd been hearing in Auckland, so do you think there's a disconnect there?
TP: There could be, but in terms of the way that the different cities are being policed, I can only speak from the experiences that I've heard in Wellington in response to our significant increase in police in the CBD.
Q: Do you believe we should defund the police?
TP: …I think there are some functions that the police are currently carrying out that other people would be better suited at.
Mental health support and responding to people in significant distress is a big example.
We know that there was an 11-year-old autistic girl who was detained in custody and drugged.
That's not okay.
That's just one incidence of police doing a job that I don't think that they're trained and resourced for.
Q: What do you think of the criticism that you're receiving from the ACT Party and Mark Mitchell for your stance on police matters?
TP: I think it's unusual for them to see someone be critical of the police, but I think it is important that somebody in this parliament are critical of police because the IPCA who investigate misconduct by the police only investigate 2% of all of the complaints that they receive.
They've got significant amounts of power and discretion, and I want to make sure that they exercise that in a way that is fair to the public.
Q: You made some comments a while back about most of the people being in prison not having committed violent offences.
Why did you make those comments?
TP: The reason that I made them is because our prisons are overcrowded and there are too many people in there that are serving short sentences for very minor things.
I spoke to a woman last week in one of the three prisons that I visited last week and she was in there for shoplifting $12 worth of items.
Now that's $151,000 worth of taxpayer money going into locking someone up who couldn't afford to feed themselves.
That's not justice. That's unfair. It's cracking down on people who have got no other means to survive.
Q: You do recognise that most prisoners have committed violent offences though, right?
TP: It is about half and half, but there are a significant amount of people who are in there that should not be in there, and the minister has acknowledged that himself with me.
Q: Do you regret saying that beat police are only there picking up homeless people's stuff? Do you think that's the only function they serve?
TP: That's the only feedback I've received.
And isn't it my job to communicate what people are saying to me about certain things?
Q: ..I mean, the Minister is saying that crime in Wellington CBD has fallen by about 5.5%, whereas it's 2% everywhere else. So is that not, I guess, evidence that they are helping reduce crime?
TP: Well, that assumes that police are the only safety mechanisms that exist within Wellington.
That completely dismisses all of the organisations that are working really hard to keep our city safe.
In fact, I think Wellington has been one of the strongest cities in asking for alternatives to policing because the heavier visual presence of police does not make people feel safer. It makes people feel more on edge because there are more police around.
Share this post