 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||
|
Leader's LetterSeptember 2006
Stand up and be CountedIn July changes to the Police fitness test for would-be recruits, the Physical Ability Test (PAT), came into operation following a review of recruitment standards, including health, conducted by Police. Prior to this both National and the Police Association claimed that what they called a "lowering of standards" was aimed at artificially boosting recruitment numbers to achieve the target of 1000 extra frontline police promised in the New Zealand First/Labour Confidence and Supply Agreement. Consider this. Late last year I was visited by two potential recruits, both passionate to become police officers, who represented a group of like-minded people struggling to attain the PAT run time, even after long training. Some were, according to the spokespeople, failing only marginally. They showed me how demanding the time trial was, and how it made no allowance for age and only a slight one for gender. With further research it became apparent that the required time was faster than any other law enforcement agency we looked at - the Met in London, Queensland Police, State Troopers in New York and even our own Army. Furthermore, of the two spokespeople the male, at 38, was being required to run as fast as a 20yr old: 2.4km in 10 minutes 15 seconds. He had served as a police officer in England for 11 years and New Zealand was about to lose a potentially excellent officer. How many others were we set to lose in similar circumstances? Futhermore, after graduating, police officers never again have to take this test - the yearly (optional) Physical Competency Test that serving officers undergo is completely different, reflecting more accurately the kind of challenge they would face on a day-to-day basis. It is actually less demanding than the PAT. Faced with these anomalies, and as a direct result of that meeting, I took this information to the Minister, and to Police who were already looking to review other recruitment standards, something that has not happened since 1993 when the height requirement was abandoned - under National. They agreed to look at the fitness requirements as part of that review. The Police undertook international comparisons of the differential in abilities between age groups, and between men and women, and adjusted the run times to reflect those differentials (which exist even between international-standard athletes). Further, they agreed that climbing a six-foot wall actually involves technique and training, and reduced the wall height to 4’ initially, although, after training, recruits will have to tackle the 6’ wall as before or they will not graduate. Is this as a ‘lowering of standards’? No, it is a rationalisation that makes the test fairer and in line with international standards. Was this done in order to ‘artificially’ boost numbers? Absolutely not. Incidentally, the former UK police officer is now a proud member of the New Zealand Police and I was honoured to attend his graduation. Ron Mark MP
|
|
|||
|
|
||