EDITORIAL: Time to find new police minister

Louis Pierard
Police Minister George Hawkins is, from all accounts, a decent cove. But there comes a time when party loyalty and sterling service have to take a back seat to the need to perform ably.
The police portfolio is strategically important to any government because law and order are a matter of high public expectation. The issue of police resourcing is constant and worrying and the recent failures of responding to 111 emergency calls further erode public confidence.
Reports that three police units on traffic patrol in Christchurch were logged out of service and did not respond to an emergency call to alleged child abduction follow others about deficiencies in 111 responses. Other units were sent but apparently arrived later than the traffic patrol units could have. In Hamilton, a woman called 111 with a sexual violation complaint and was told to walk to the nearest police station.
The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, their families and their property from violence and rapine.
So the heat was on for a minister who needed to reassure the public and his critics that the shortcomings in 111 responses were being addressed and that police were not being assigned to gather revenue from motorists at the expense of public safety elsewhere.
But he didn't. His blundering and aggressive performance last week when handling Opposition questions about police priorities was cringe-inducing. Those looking for a straight answer were left wanting.
Mr Hawkins vaguely referred to a 2001 police survey which, he said, showed the public were more worried about traffic accidents than serious crime. Then he made the bizarre claim that criminals were often poor drivers who were picked up by traffic patrols, thus preventing crime - a bizarre justification that further boosts public perception that it is police policy to place the fining of speed infringers (which they do with considerable efficiency) well ahead of investigating burglaries or assaults.
Mr Hawkins' responses - or lack of them - would have been deeply unsettling, not least to the police. He had trouble even with the soft serves, answering patsy questions with some difficulty and requiring assistance. All of which must be delight for the Opposition, which has been casting about for a new target.
Prime Minister Helen Clark accuses the opposition of picking on Mr Hawkins for his speech impediment (the minister suffered a stroke in the early 1990s). That's an easy accusation to make.
She says there is no reason to dump Mr Hawkins in favour of someone else. After all, why should she? Mr Hawkins' disability makes him a handy political human shield. Any criticism of his performance is seen to be taking advantage of, or abusing, the minister's infirmity. Ergo, his critics are ignorant, insensitive schoolyard bullies, whatever Mr Hawkins says.
It's not perception blighted by his inability to speak clearly, nor is it prejudice, but a clinical assessment of Mr Hawkins that reaches the inevitable conclusion he is just not up to the job and should go. The police and public deserve far better.
The sorry fact is that it's what Mr Hawkins says, not how he says it, that's ridiculous.