A convoy of cars illegally jammed the streets of central Wellington during the anti-mandate protest in February last year, hampering police movements as well as the public. Photo / Samuel Rillstone, File
A convoy of cars illegally jammed the streets of central Wellington during the anti-mandate protest in February last year, hampering police movements as well as the public. Photo / Samuel Rillstone, File
Editorial
EDITORIAL
Despite the “smile and wave” response to a review of the police handling of the Parliament march, occupation, and protest in February last year, there were serious failings that should worry us all.
Overall, the Independent Police Conduct Authority found police “served the public of New Zealand well in dealing with this difficult and complex set of events”.
The top line and main takeaway from authority chair Judge Colin Doherty is that: “Frontline officers faced extreme provocation and violent behaviour from some of the protesters, and a level of public disorder rarely seen in New Zealand. In the face of that, almost all police officers involved exercised professionalism and restraint in their dealings with the protesters. It is commendable that police were able to end the illegal occupation of Parliament grounds on March 2, 2022, with as few injuries and as little damage to property as they did.”
All of this is true of course, but deeper in the report we find lapses that should shake a few epaulets far beyond the shrugs we have seen.
For instance, we now know that police did not sufficiently consider the particular risks posed by this event, especially in the light of disruption reported from similar recent convoys overseas.
Illustration / Rod Emmerson
On February 6, Waitangi day, two convoys of vehicles departed, one from Cape Reinga and one from Bluff. As their numbers grew, they made no secret of being bound for Wellington and being inspired by disruptive blockades of bridges in Ottawa, Canada. Canadian flags were flown by the convoy as clear indications of support for the firey confrontations there.
Two days later, police watched on as vehicles jammed downtown Wellington and an encampment was set up on Parliament lawn. Only on February 10, did officers attempt to remove protesters from Parliament grounds, arresting 108 people but being forced to withdraw at about 4.40pm.
Historically, Parliament has been the target of dozens of hikoi by aggrieved Māori, and by upset farmers on tractors. But this was clearly something different from day zero on Waitangi Day. These protesters were not peaceable Māori or down-to-earth rural folk. Police should have seen the footage from Canada and known what was possible.
As it happened, authorities were not prepared in terms of planning, resourcing, staff, or equipment and did not clearly communicate to staff what was intended. From then on, the occupation held the whip-hand in running the operations on the deteriorating grassy land outside the Beehive, despite having no discernable leadership.
It was left to the Wellington Police District to handle for the first few days, despite it obviously being a national event, and with the potential to grow exponentially more problematic.
The IPCA report proposes a multi-agency review of the laws governing such public disorder events; urgently purchasing more hard body armour; developing their operating model for public order policing as a matter of priority, ensuring it addresses the lessons learned from this event; and developing standard operating procedures for policing the Parliamentary precincts, including scenario planning with partner agencies.
It has to be concluded that police were woefully unprepared but they were also let down by intelligence agencies. Somehow, a Police National Intelligence Centre report on February 3 stated a protest was “likely to occur but not to the scale indicated on social media, or the likes of similar protests seen in Canada”.
However, an intelligence report on February 4 from the Wellington DIU said there were suggestions of an occupation at Parliament, although it included the caveat that “previous suggestions by similar groups” had not been followed through.
It’s not clear what “similar groups” were considered as most New Zealanders were aware of a notable increase in the numbers at Covid-related protests and an escalation in levels of activism and in anti-authority and anti-police sentiment, particularly on social media.
To simply point to Judge Doherty’s comment that, “overall, [police] served the public of New Zealand well” is to miss the opportunity to learn from what went down last year - and to do better should such an episode ever arise again.
