Goff Phil: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third ReadingText is subject to correctionGoff Phil: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14281. Text is subject to correction.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I was hoping that when the member Mark Mitchell took to his feet he was going to give the House some explanation about the Slater father and son LuigiWewege and the nefarious activities at the Auckland Council.I have to say that I do not agree with Mark Mitchell. I often respect what he says but I do not agree with his statement diminishing the significance of what we are doing inthe House today that only 63 police officers are affected. It is not only 63 police officers who are affected. These are police officers who have taken statements supposedly as sworn officers. They are people who have given evidence before the courts. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I have two members who are interjecting on each other and who do not have the floor. That is not permitted.Hon PHIL GOFF: If only the member who is interjecting from his seat Mark Mitchell had taken more than 1 minute to speak to this bill. I can understand why he took only 1 minute because frankly it is a profound embarrassment that this has happened. It is a profound embarrassment that we are here today under urgency passing retrospective legislation. This is not even an uncommon event. We were here doing the same thing for the Crown Minerals amendment legislation earlier in the year. As a member of Parliament in most instances I am not in favour of pushing bills through all of their stages under urgency. I am even less in favour of pushing bills through all of their stages that have retrospective impact. The constitutional purity of that is not good. It offends against our principles in both of those areas.I have to say to the House that we are doing this today only because in all of the circumstances it is the responsible thing for an Opposition to do. Nothing that we are doing today should be taken by the Government as providing a carte blanche for ramming through legislation under urgency or ramming through retrospective legislation. Why is it the responsible thing to do this today rather than oppose it on both of those grounds? It is the responsible thing because if we do not do this it is clear that that would have an adverse affect on the victims of crime. There are many people who have been the victims of crime and who would otherwise find that the convictions of the people who offended against them were overturned. People who have been found guilty by the courts of this land would not be held accountable and their convictions would be overturned because of the invalidity of the oath administered to the officers concerned. So Mr Mitchell can say that it is only 63 officers but I am sorry that is 63 police officers too many who through no fault of their own have been acting unlawfully in the pursuit of their duties. It is always a serious matter when something like that comes before the House.I want to refer briefly to what Gerry Brownlee said. It is not my habit to quote the Leader of the House because most of his statements are frankly not very quotable. But he said it was embarrassing—and it is indeed embarrassing to the Government and to this Parliament—that a mistake of this nature should be made. What I found just as embarrassing was when the Leader of the House got up and then resumed his seat without moving the motion that he had got up to move. Then the Minister of Police got up to begin the second reading debate with her speech and forgot to move the motion that this be read a second time. What this says to me is that we are seeing a tawdry Government that is not on top of its game. This is a mistake-ridden Government and this bill which is having to be passed retrospectively and under urgency is again just symptomatic of a Government that has lost touch that is tired that is tawdry and that is not on top of its game.Anne Tolley the Minister of Police said that this was a straightforward amendment. It is relatively straightforward. It has only four clauses. But it is an amendment that would never have been necessary to bring before this House if in the administration of the law passed the Government and the police force had done it properly. I want the Minister to tell us when she became aware of this mistake and to tell us why the mistake was made. We simply cannot afford to have Parliament brought together under urgency to pass retrospective legislation and send a message to the civil servants of this countrythat it is OK to get things of fundamental importance wrong. I am really worried that the wrong message will be given by simply saying that this is straightforward it is a minor mistake and we will fix it up. It was a mistake. I accept that. I know it would not have been done deliberately. But it is a mistake as I have pointed out that has serious implications for the functioning of the law of this land the rule of law and doing things properly through this Parliament. So I want to know when the Minister of Police first became aware of this.Obviously if you became aware that people were acting unlawfully because they were not properly sworn then every day that you delayed bringing in legislation before the House to remedy that those 63 officers would have been acting unlawfully—again I stress through no fault of their own. They were not aware that the oath had been improperly administered. I find no fault with the constable on the beat who was out there doing his or her job and who was doing it in good faith. I make no reflection on them at all. But I think it reflects on the adequacy of how we are running a significant body such as the police force if we make mistakes of this nature.I actually want the Minister to reflect to the House whether she believes that this in any way represents a failure on the part of her predecessor Judith Collins under whom the legislation was passed and whose role it was as Minister of Police to ensure that the law was properly carried out and carried into effect.I want to now go through what this bill says but just before I do that I really think that the Minister needs to give us an explanation in the context of whether this mistake is symptomatic of a malaise within the police force today. I was very proud Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson as you would have been to be a member of a Government that in 3 years increased in net terms our front-line sworn police officers by 1000. It made a huge difference. If our crime rate is less than it was before that is because we have got more people out there acting proactively. It was a big expense but I think it was a worthwhile expense. Never let anybody forget that a Labour Government was the Government that increased the number of police officers by 1000. I was worried Minister when I heard you before the Law and Order Committee and the Commissioner of Police indicate that that impetus of having sufficient police officers on the beat has been lost.In fact when I look at the figures that you gave us they represent a cut in numbers—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: I meant the figures that the Minister of Police gave us. I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; you would never have done anything like that. The figures that the Minister gave us show that right across the country there is a reduction in sworn police personnel. Northland is down by 16.Waitematā is down by 53. Auckland is down by 22. Counties Manukau an area that has unfortunately suffered from a higher than average crime rate as you will be aware Mr Assistant Speaker—using “you” in the proper sense this time—is down by 104 officers down by 104 police personnel. Waikato is down by 36. The Bay of Plenty is down by 14. The central district is down by 38. The eastern district is down by five. Wellington this city is down by 46. Tasman is down by four. Canterbury is down by 60. The southern area is down by 26.We have also had a dramatic reduction of non-sworn personnel. The president of the Police Association this very morning was saying that when you slash non-sworn personnel by over 234 you are actually putting the work that they should be doing on the backs of the police officers who are on the front line.I am worried too that this malaise is reflected in the closure of police stations all around the country. The police commissioner and the Minister promised me that my police station in Mount Roskill would not be closed to the public. For 8 months thisyear it has been temporarily closed. It is not open to the public and right across Auckland and my area we have seen police stations closed.So this bill is necessary. It is sad that it is here. There is a wider malaise within the police force. It is time that this Minister started to get things right and to put her energy into making sure that this country is policed as well as it ought to be and as well as the citizens of this country deserve.