‘Safer communities … together’? Plural policing and COVID-19 public health interventions in Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract

International media have praised Aotearoa New Zealand for its response to the coronavirus pandemic. While New Zealand Police played a fundamental role in enforcing pandemic control measures, the policing landscape remained plural. This article employs Loader's (2000) model of plural policing to understand responses to public health emergencies. It identifies two forms of policing which were evident in Aotearoa during the COVID-19 lockdown that should be added to Loader's model. First, we argue that contexts with colonial history require that the model not only includes by-government and below-government policing but also next-to-government policing by Indigenous peoples -such as the 'community checkpoints' run by Māori. Second, and further developing Loader's model, we argue that the category of below-government policing be expanded to include 'peer-to-peer policing' in which government responsibilizes members of the public to subject each other to large-scale surveillance and social control. Since plural forms of policing affect each other's functionality and legitimacy, we argue that what happens at the synapses between policing nodes has profound implications for the process of community building. Because community building is essential to fighting pandemics, we conclude that the policing of pandemic intervention measures may require an expanded understanding and practice of plural policing to support an optimal public health strategy.

Policing the COVID-19 pandemic: Police and public perceptions of enforcement of health protocols in the Fiji Islands

“…All police officers suggested that training would have better prepared them to handle their COVID-19 duties. Even in developed countries, there was a lack of proper training (Alvarado et al, 2020;Alexander & Ecki, 2020;Cave & Dahir, 2020;Deckert et al, 2021;Frenkel et al, 2020;Jones, 2020;Lum et al, 2020;Maskály et al, 2021;Stogner et al, 2020). Police officers require training specifically on how to be safe, proper usage of PPE, how often to change masks, and when to sanitize their hands (Lum et al, 2020;Alexander & Ecki, 2020;Frenkel et al, 2020).…”

“…The relevant stakeholders handling COVID-19 responsibility can use these study findings to make some policy decisions. Government policymakers and police leaders need to ensure police officers are adequately trained to ensure police to perform COVID-19 duties more efficiently (Alvarado et al, 2020;Alexander & Ecki, 2020;Cave & Dahir, 2020;Deckert et al, 2021;Frenkel et al, 2020;Jones, 2020;Lum et al, 2020;Maskály et al, 2021;Stogner et al, 2020;Wu, 2021). Secondly, for police safety, officers need to be provided with N-90 facial masks, face shields, and hand sanitizers to carry when police are on foot patrol in public places (Alcadipani et al, 2020;Alexander & Ecki, 2020, Jennings & Perez, 2020Horn, 2020;Stott et al, 2020).…”

Policing the pandemic in Australia and New Zealand: lessons for trust and legitimacy

“…Importantly, besides the potential public health benefits, some Iwi-checkpoint volunteers stated that they believed a key benefit of police involvement with the checkpoints was to improve the historically fraught trust relationships between M aori communities and police (Deckert et al, 2021). Others pointed out that the arrangements came close to resembling a treaty partnership as police were actively seeking guidance from local communities and deferring to localised knowledge in decision-making (Johnsen, 2020).…”

Critical workers? Private security, public perceptions and the Covid-19 pandemic

“…The first and most prominent theme relates to police enforcement of pandemic-related laws and regulations (such as lockdown restrictions) and public perceptions of and compliance with this enforcement (see Biswas and Sultana 2020 ; Boon-Kuo et al 2021 ; Farrow 2020 ; Grace 2020 ; Jankovic and Cvetkovic 2020 ; Jiang and Xie 2020 ; Jones 2020 ; Ka-Ki Ho et al 2020 ; Luong 2020 ; Perry and Jonathan-Zamir 2020 ; Reicher and Stott 2020 ; Deckert et al 2021 ; McCarthy et al 2021 ; Mazerolle and Ransley 2021 ; Sargeant et al 2021 ; Scalia 2021 ; Terpstra et al 2021 ; Waseem 2021 ). The second theme concerns the police response to more established crimes and vulnerabilities within the context of the pandemic, such as domestic violence (Nix and Richards 2021 ; Walklate et al 2021 ; Workman et al 2021 ), mental health (Lersch 2020 ), cybercrime (Horgan et al 2021 ) and the production, supply and consumption of illicit drugs (Marks et al 2020 ; Trappen and McLean 2021 ).…”

“…Where issues relating to private security do come into frame, it is usually as a passing remark in a study about another aspect of the pandemic. For example, in their examination of community-level pandemic policing in New Zealand, Deckert et al ( 2021 ) note how private security officers have been used to quarantine refugees and overseas travellers in secure facilities and maintain order in Covid-19 testing centres (see also: Bozogmehr 2020 ; David and Mash 2020 ; Parker et al 2020 ; Smith 2020 ). The one exception is Leloup and Cools ( 2021 ) investigation of private security and Covid-19 in Belgium, which brings to light a number of interesting dynamics, such as: the disruption of established markets, mostly notably in the transport, cash-in-transit and leisure subsectors; the emergence of new opportunities, especially health screening, the enforcement of social distancing and the provision of security in hospitals, vaccination centres and test centres; and the health risks to frontline officers.…”