Police has taken its first concrete step towards potentially putting body-worn cameras (BWC) on officers, with the Police Association welcoming the move while stressing there is still plenty to work through before cameras appear on members’ vests.

Police has gone to the market seeking information about BWC and the digital evidence system that would sit behind them.

Its Request for Information (RFI), released last month, is explicitly described as market research rather than a tender. Police says it is gathering information to help determine its requirements and inform a potential future business case.

There is no supplier being selected, no contract being awarded and no confirmed rollout date. Any future procurement would also depend on funding and Cabinet approval.

But the detail in the documents shows Police is now looking seriously at what a national BWC capability could involve.

Police's wish list

Police’s RFI envisages a BWC capability for about 11,000 sworn officers, including authorised officers. But Police says that figure should not yet be read as a confirmed camera count: it is considering both a hybrid model, with about 90% of cameras individually issued and 10% shared, and a fully individual issue model.

The cameras would need to be suitable for operational policing and support a full shift of 12 hours or more.

Information is being sought on cameras that could be manually or automatically activated, securely capture and encrypt footage, upload it efficiently and potentially provide features such as location services, livestreaming, translation and push-to-talk communications. Police has also indicated particular interest in te reo Māori transcription and translation capability, although the required languages and accuracy have yet to be finalised.

It is also looking at the less visible – but potentially more important – part of the system: how vast quantities of digital evidence would be stored, searched, shared, redacted, retained and eventually disposed of.

Police says its current digital evidence is spread across several systems, including footage from Tasers, helicopters and suspect interviews, while photographs and video can be captured through officers’ mobility devices.

Its stated aim is a “co-ordinated and connected system” for managing digital evidence.

Police News has previously highlighted both the potential benefits of BWC – including officer safety, de-escalation, evidence gathering and training – and the risks around privacy, storage, activation policies, workload and the interpretation of footage without context.

Members on board

At last year’s Police Association conference, delegates unanimously supported the introduction of BWC and called for their considered and safe introduction.

Association president Steve Watt says the association remains firmly behind the principle.

Steve says the cameras’ value goes well beyond simply recording an incident. 

“They are essentially a de-escalation tool. They can also improve safety for police and the public, provide evidence, assist training and increase transparency. 

“Ultimately, that leads to greater trust in relationships between police and the public.”

However, he has cautioned against rushing the process: “There is a lot of water to go under the bridge.”

That includes decisions about the technology itself, when cameras should record, who can access footage, when footage can be released and how privacy will be protected.

Steve’s view is that the capability should ultimately be available to officers well beyond traditional frontline roles.

“Anyone who steps out the back door of a police station and is wearing a vest, whether you are a frontline constable or a detective out doing inquiries, you should have the ability to have a body-worn camera on you.”

Getting it right

The experience of other jurisdictions shows BWC can be valuable but also create significant policy and operational questions.

A key issue is how footage is interpreted.

Senior employment adviser Natalie Fraser warned delegates at last year's conference that a body camera records only what is in front of it – not everything an officer is seeing, hearing, feeling or processing during a high-pressure incident.

“A camera does not follow your eyes and see exactly what you see. It records what your chest is facing – not where your attention is.”

That distinction will be important if footage is later used to assess an officer’s decisions.

The association has also previously highlighted the need for clear rules around activation, retention and access, along with appropriate training for officers, supervisors and investigators.

Privacy protections

Privacy is another significant consideration.

Police’s own RFI acknowledges that the future system will need to reconcile privacy, evidential and policing legislation while managing large volumes of information.

It also asks potential suppliers about data residency, encryption, access controls and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for functions such as transcription, translation and redaction.

For association members, the question will not simply be whether the technology works; it will be whether it works fairly, protects officers as well as the public, and does not create an additional administrative burden for frontline staff.

“We want the benefits of the technology – the safety, the evidence and the transparency – but we also want to make sure members are properly protected when that footage is reviewed afterwards,” Steve says. 

“Getting the camera is the easy part. Getting the rules around it right is the important part. If we're going to introduce them, the policy, training and safeguards have to be designed with the realities of policing in mind.”

What happens now?

For the moment, Police is asking suppliers what is available.

Responses to the RFI were due by September 7, after which Police may undertake further market research and use the information gathered to refine its requirements and potentially develop a business case.

Police has been clear that no decisions have yet been made, and it cannot confirm a timeframe.

Commissioner Richard Chambers has previously identified BWC as a priority and told the association’s 2025 conference that Police would push for their introduction within two years.

At the time, he described the move as a “big investment” that was long overdue, while saying the fact New Zealand was behind many other jurisdictions gave Police the opportunity to “get it right”.

That remains the association’s position too.

Steve says he would like to see cameras on officers sooner rather than later but accepts there is work to do first.

“Police needs to do that evidence gathering but members can be assured that we will be watching closely to make sure that when the next steps come, the people wearing the cameras have a strong voice in how they are introduced and used.”