Ardern Jacinda: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14279. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): For some I am sure it will seem quite unbelievable that we can be here again—and I do want to emphasise that we are here again—dealing with a similar matter that we have dealt with before. I will go through the history of the police oath in a moment but I just want to say that as much as the Minister—less so actually the Minister—and indeed much more so as Gerry Brownlee tried to express his faux grumpiness at the police for the situation that we find ourselves in I have to say the way he has conducted himself in the House this afternoon procedurally means that most people were probably more inclined to think that it has been incompetence on that side of the House that may have actually led us to this place today.We can only assume that this is indicative to a certain degree of a Minister who has taken her eye off the ball. We all know about the concept and importance of constabulary independence but that certainly should not mean distancing yourself so far from your role as Minister of Police that not even your constables are being sworn in properly. That is how far constabulary independence has gone today.For the sake of those listening today though I want to go back over how we have come to the point where we are now going through urgency in order to rectify an error in the way that the law has been administered and constables have received their ability to do their duties under the Policing Act. So let us go back to the background.The Policing Act of 2008 which was indeed passed under Labour was the culmination of an incredibly large amount of work. It was conducted in a cross-party way because of course for matters like the way that the police are governed it is only right that we get bipartisan support on an issue like that. It took roughly 2 years of consultation before that bill came to the House.Before the 2008 Act the Police Act of 1958 set out how a constable’s oath was undertaken. That was set out in section 37 of the Police Act 1958. The old law was more liberal in the way that a constable was conferred their power. There was no specific authorisation required in order to confer an oath. It could be carried out by anycommissioned officer. That was section 37 of the Police Act 1958—quite liberal in the way that it set out those oaths.The Policing Act 2008 was quite different. I want to refer to section 22 of the Policing Act 2008 which says: “A Police employee may become a constable only by taking the constable’s oath in either of the following forms before the Commissioner or a person authorised by the Commissioner to administer the constable’s oath:”. That was the change that was made in 2008. It was recognised however in October of 2009 that that Act was not being appropriately administered and that was essentially because people who were not correctly authorised had continued to act in the way that they had under the old law.That meant that we had an amendment made through the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Act that provided that for the period from 1 October 2008 to 12 October 2009 everyone who was conferred on oath over that period was retrospectively covered and their oaths were validated. So that brings us up to date with today. That is the history of this saga thus far.At some point it has been brought to the Minister’s attention however that even then that amendment was not being appropriately applied. I would not mind hearing from the Minister of Police when she rises to her feet to make another contribution to the House at what point she became aware of this. I would not mind hearing from the Minister—or from her colleague Judith Collins who was I believe the Minister in charge at the time in October 2009. It was her job to ensure that this amendment was then implemented appropriately across the New Zealand Police. Be under no doubt that it was the Minister’s job then to make sure that this was carried out appropriately.But what happened instead? Well we now know that although that was being done appropriately within the Police College situation there are 63 ex-constables who have rejoined the police since 13 October 2009 who took their oath before a person not authorised to administer the oath. How did that happen? Well in the old days it used to be that a superintendent or an area controller could administer the oath locally to someone who was coming back into the police because of course they were not coming back through the Police College. That was how the old Act allowed that to happen.Of course as I have already outlined and in fact if we go to section 22 of the Policing Act it very clearly states that an oath is to be taken before the commissioner or before a person authorised by the commissioner. “A Police employee may become a constable only by taking the constable’s oath in either of the following forms before the Commissioner”—really clear; that is set out in primary legislation and nothing more is required—“or a person authorised by the Commissioner …”.So what happened? The Government did not authorise district commanders to carry out those oaths locally for ex - police officers who returned. It was pretty explicit though that that was exactly what needed to happen according to the Act. The one thing that needed to happen and the Minister needed to ensure was happening was that it was either the commissioner who carried out the oath or it was someone authorised by the commissioner—pretty straightforward.Why did the Minister not ask who had been authorised to carry out those oaths? Why did the Minister not make the checks and balances to ensure that if they were not happening through the Police College it was at least ensuring that those oaths that were happening outside the Police College were authorised? It was a very basic thing after reaching the situation that we had got to where we had to go through urgency surely a Minister who had her eye on the ball with regard to what was going on within the police would have asked that very question. So that is a significant concern for the LabourParty. I would like to hear from the Minister why those checks and balances were not in place.But let me be absolutely clear: it would be irresponsible of members on this side of the House—in fact it would be irresponsible of any party in this House—not to support this legislation. We need to ensure that those 63 officers in the performance of their duties have their role validated retrospectively. We have serious qualms any time that retrospective legislation is used but if you are going to use an example of where something just has to be accepted this would be one. It would be irresponsible to take any other position. But I think it is only fair and right that we ask the questions as to why those checks were not made when we have already been here once before.I do want to make a clarification though. The first time that these oaths were changed from the Act from the 1950s to the Act in 2008 that was a significant change for the police in the way those oaths were administered. In fact you could almost see how that error could have occurred. Of course there is no excuse but you can see what happened there. This time I think it seems a little more difficult to see how this could have happened and so I would like to hear the Minister’s explanation around that in terms of her ministerial oversight.I do want to say that you get the inference from the fact that we have had 63 police officers returning to the force and who have had this oath administered on them that perhaps we have got growing police numbers under this Minister. That is something that I want to refute up front. In fact I will be speaking more on the issue of policing numbers in my next contribution because this Minister has absolutely broken her promises to New Zealand around front-line policing—absolutely broken her promises.She told the police—indeed she told the country—that we should have a ratio of one officer for every 500 New Zealanders. How many new officers have we had in New Zealand currently since 2009? We have 52—52 new front-line police officers. I have plenty more to say on the impact that we have had of having 52 more officers but 234 fewer non-sworn staff in support roles for those officers. So functionally those 52 officers are not there out on the beat—absolutely not. They are having to do the duties of the more than 200 non-sworn staff who are no longer serving with the police.I have much more to say on that but for now I would like to hear what the members on that side of the House have to say to explain how the Minister kept her eye off the ball so badly that we have ended up back here now. [Interruption]