Nearly one in three respondents to a Police Association working from home (WFH) survey say they would consider leaving Police if they are required to return onsite fulltime.

Police issued its finalised Flexible Working (Work from Home) Policy last month while the association was still collating survey feedback and data from more than 2000 of its members on potential changes to WFH.

That timing, combined with the substance of the policy itself, has done little to alleviate concerns that staff views and personal situations have not been fully explored nor taken into account – the very reason the association did its own WFH survey.

One respondent captured the tone: “The way this has been handled is abysmal… requiring executive approval for more than one day just signals a lack of trust in both managers and staff.”

The survey results also send a clear message that flexibility is working – and tightening it could come at a cost. More than 65% of respondents have worked from home in the past two years. For many, it is no longer perceived as a discretionary benefit, but an established working arrangement since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Policy sets tighter framework

Under Police’s new policy, WFH is explicitly not an entitlement and must now be formally applied for and approved. Arrangements are limited to one or two days per week.

Requests for more than one day must be endorsed by senior leaders, and final approval will come from an executive leadership team (ELT) panel, instituting a multi-layered approval process aimed at ensuring “consistency across Police”.

The policy also makes it clear that “the expectation [is] that work will be performed from Police workplace locations” in an effort to support “culture, collaboration, and connection” and that any travel or homeworking costs sit with the employee.

Police says the framework is designed to support “a culture of high productivity” and organisational oversight. However, many association members say the changes represent a shift away from the flexibility that has become embedded in day-to-day work.

Senior employment adviser Catherine Bates says a key question remains unanswered: “What problem is Police trying to solve? That concern was central to our submission on Police’s draft policy – and it remains.”

The policy risks “tarring everyone with the same brush”, she says. “There are so many aspects to policing – roles, functions, workgroups – and those need to be accounted for. Lumping everyone into one framework doesn’t solve anything.”

Catherine says the rationale for change remained unclear and did not stack up in practice.

Flexibility ‘critical’

The strongest theme to emerge from the association’s survey is the importance of flexibility to wellbeing and retention. More than 71.5% say WFH improves work-life balance, 62.4% cite reduced commuting time and cost and 37.2% say it supports caregiving responsibilities.

Sus Roberts, who represents Police employees on the association board, says flexible working is often what makes the job sustainable – particularly for those balancing caregiving responsibilities and/or little if any discretionary income.

“For a lot of people, it’s what allows them to stay in the job,” she says, adding that flexibility had often been promoted in recruitment. The retention risk is significant. If required to work onsite fulltime, 29.2% of respondents say they would consider leaving Police, while 30.7% would look for other flexible arrangements. “If that flexibility is reduced too far, I will seriously consider leaving,” one respondent said.

Steve says the impact will fall most heavily on Police employees – often the lowest-paid staff – who are staring down an even tougher economic environment. “Extra commuting time and cost all add up, especially for lower-paid staff, and they’re not offset by allowances.”

Members – including several managers – also strongly reject any suggestion that WFH reduces effectiveness. Nearly 54% say it improves their productivity, with similar numbers reporting better focus and fewer distractions. “When I work from home my output is noticeably higher.”

Sus says if it is performance issues that sit behind the change in policy, they should be addressed directly, rather than through broad restrictions. “For many, working from home actually enables better output and deeper focus.”

Capacity questions

Concerns have also been raised about whether Police has the physical capacity to enable increased onsite attendance under the restrictions in the WFH policy.

Much of the member feedback points to limited desk numbers, increased reliance on hot-desking, and teams unable to be co-located – raising questions about how a shift towards more in-office work would operate in practice.

“My team is spread across the country… it’s hard to see the benefit of mandating attendance,” one member said. 

Catherine says this had not been fully addressed. “There have been real questions for some time about whether there is enough space for everyone,” she says.

Police News understands that only days ago, the Service Group leadership team requested an exemption for the 60-strong transcription services team to fully work from home because of a lack of space.

Police, however, says its property model is designed for flexible working, not full onsite attendance. Assistant Commissioner Sam Hoyle says the standard is about six to seven desks per 10 desk-based staff, reflecting a mix of shifts, remote work and flexible arrangements.

That model, however, relies on flexible working continuing at scale – the very thing Police has just pulled back on. Member feedback suggests the system is already under pressure.

At Police National Headquarters (PNHQ), some teams report limited space as well as staff being unable to be accommodated at stations near where they live. In Auckland, one transcription team reported having five specialised desks for more than 15 staff, while other units described extremely limited workstation availability.

At the Royal New Zealand Police College, earthquake assessments have forced staff to hot-desk in other areas, adding further pressure to shared workspaces: “There might be six desks and 12 staff – you physically can’t have everyone in at once.”

Consistency v rigidity

While members acknowledge inconsistency in how WFH has been applied across Police before now, many say the new policy risks overcorrecting. The survey shows that arrangements are often agreed between staff and managers, with 38.9% using WFH on an ad hoc basis.

The message from members is not opposition to policy, but to rigidity. Survey feedback suggests strong support for clearer expectations, but with decisions to remain at the local level rather than moving to centralised approval panels.

“The people who understand the work and the operational needs best are the managers and teams doing it,” Sus says.

Concerns were also raised about centralised approvals creating delays and reinforcing a top-down approach that risks damaging trust. Catherine says the association would support members to challenge changes that aren’t fair or significantly shift the goalposts.

WFH is also seen as an important support for staff managing health conditions or personal circumstances. Nearly 20% of respondents say it supports health or accessibility needs, while close to half report reduced stress.

The association says restricting flexibility risks disproportionately affecting caregivers (predominantly women), lower-paid staff and those with chronic illness and/or disabilities – concerns it also highlighted in its submission.

The survey also exposed ongoing tension between roles that can and cannot be performed remotely. More than half of respondents work onsite only, with operational requirements the main barrier to WFH. However, both members and the association say removing flexibility for those who can work remotely will never resolve that disparity.

Across both the data and member feedback, one message stands out: Members are not opposed to policy, but to blanket restrictions that remove flexibility and hint at distrust.

Catherine says the risk is not just operational, but cultural: “This goes to trust and confidence in the organisation. It has potential to disengage staff and drive people away.”

As one respondent warned: “Police risk losing a lot of good, experienced people over this… people will vote with their feet.”