Police slammed for claim they had plan

The Ombudsman has slammed the police for telling the public it had a 10-year plan to roll out an emissions-free fleet when it actually only had an ‘‘aspiration’’ to do so.

He also criticised the police for attempting to use an extension of the Official Information Act (OIA) to ‘‘buy more time and get its internal organisational reality to match its public statement’’.

However, Police deputy chief executive Ruth Currie rejected the idea that the plan did not exist at the time.

Ombudsman Peter Boshier’s letter came after left-wing anonymous blogger No Right Turn complained about an OIA request.

No Right Turn had requested to see the 10-year plan after it was mentioned by Police Commissioner Andrew Coster when explaining why police were ordering a new shipment of petrol cars, despite a government goal to decarbonise the public sector.

Coster told Newsroom police were ‘‘committed to reducing our carbon emissions and have outlined a 10-year plan to an emissions-free fleet’’. No Right Turn asked for that plan and had their request extended under a clause meant to allow ‘‘consultation’’.

It was then denied because police argued the information would soon be publicly available.

Boshier was asked to look into the matter and found that when the request was made – after Coster had talked about the ‘‘outlined’’ plan – no plan existed outside of a 13-page PowerPoint presentation.

‘‘Police explained that, at the time of [redacted]’s request, it did not actually have what one would consider a ‘plan’ for an emissions-free fleet. It did have a goal of aspiration . . . but not much more than this.

‘‘Work towards this plan was at a very early stage . . .’’ Boshier wrote.

The 13-page PowerPoint presentation, which has been released, does not have any detailed implementation plan, and focuses largely on the current use of the police fleet and predictions on how many more electric cars would be in the wider market over the next decade.

‘‘Police realised the disparity between its public statement and the internal organisational reality soon into the 20 working day period. Police initially thought it might be able to develop the aspiration into a plan relatively quickly. This was the reason for the extension, as well as the [refusal].’’

Boshier went on to say that the police should have immediately alerted No Right Turn to the fact of the ‘‘disparity between the public statement and the internal organisational reality’’, and not attempted to extend the request until a plan could be developed.

He argued that police should have immediately refused the OIA under a clause used when the requested information does not exist.

Currie wrote to No Right Turn to apologise for the handling of the complaint.

Currie accepted that the extension should not have been made but rejected the notion that the plan didn’t exist.

‘‘Police accept the substantive findings of the Ombudsman in this case.

‘‘However, police believe it is not a fair representation to find police did not have a plan at the time of the request, as there was both a clear intent and a draft plan under development.’’

Police have been asked for further comment.