Southern police district commander Superintendent Bob Burns said there were no plans to employ any authorised officers (AOs) at this stage, but it was likely the district could employ them as appropriate positions became vacant.
There were roles within police where the power of arrest was not often used, and these were the roles that might be considered for AO positions in the future, but only as they became vacant, he said.
He was unable to anticipate how many AOs were likely to be employed eventually in the district.
Authorised officers work for the police, but do not have the authority to arrest people or take DNA samples.
In other parts of the country, mainly Auckland, they have been working for up to three years, largely in jail escort, custodial and watchhouse positions.
Last year, the police started rolling out a new black uniform to all authorised officers, at a cost of $1.3 million to kit out all authorised officer staff, which then numbered 368. The uniforms differentiate AOs from the constabulary.
The positions were introduced in legislation in 2008, the idea being to free up constabulary staff members to focus on roles that need their broader range of skills.
The more narrowly defined roles would be done by authorised officers, who needed only a handful of statutory powers and therefore less training.
A recent article in the Police Association's magazine Police News said there were some inherent risks with introducing the new class of officer, including that it would be attractive to use AOs for a role on the basis full constabulory powers and authority were not "normally" needed in the position.
That carried various risks, the article warned, including the "creep" of AOs into near frontline positions; the loss of the flexibility a constable offered (for example, a youth education officer or a scene-of-crime officer could be redeployed to the front line in an emergency and be able to arrest people or carry guns); that the perception and reputation of the service could be harmed when the public's expectations were not met because the person being dealt with was not a constable; and legal and personal safety risks to the AO when they were compelled but not empowered to act.
