Clendon David: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14296. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID CLENDON (Green): I rise once more with feeling the second time in an hour or so to express support for this Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill albeit dare we say it grudging support. All of us would rather not be here debating this particular retrospective fix-it for a failed process. It is unfortunate that we are here once again and we hope it is for the last time in this context.The bill is of course the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. I think it is worthwhile to reflect just for a moment on the nature of that oath that our police officers take as the last step towards becoming fully fledged constables and before they step into the role and actually start exercising those powers and duties of a police officer. I will not read the oath directly. That would seem wrong because I think people earn the right to recite this oath so I will paraphrase slightly. Essentially it says that the constables—the recruits the officers coming into the role of constable—swear to faithfully and diligently serve effectively the Sovereign the Crown. This is because of course the police force is ultimately answerable not to the Government of the day but to the Crown—to the head of State not to the head of the Government. That is entirely as it should be and I think it is worth recalling that.The constables go on to say that they will serve without favour or affection malice or ill will. They say they will to the best of their power keep the peace prevent offences against the peace and to the best of their skill and knowledge perform all the duties of the office of constable according to law. So that is a very profound statement. That is a very powerful unequivocal statement. There are no weasel words within it. It is something that is clearly a very solemn oath entered into solemnly. It is a great shame that for the 63 officers the integrity of that moment—that oath—has been compromised by the administrative errors that we are seeking to retrospectively put right today.Again the point has been made that the powers of a constable are significant. They have the power to detain the power to arrest the power to stop vehicles and search vehicles and the power to search individuals in some limited situations. There are significant powers involved such as a right to use reasonable force that goes beyond what a normal citizen can do. So these are not trivial matters. These are not trivial issues and it is important that we acknowledge the importance and the significance of what we are doing today and indeed the significance of the errors that have been made over several years which we are now putting right.Similarly it is worth just reflecting on what a constable actually is. I think that the common understanding would be that constables are those sturdy men and women whom we see out on the front line in the patrol cars and on the street. But in fact every police officer remains a constable from the Commissioner of Police on down. Every officer is a constable so we are talking about the entire police force. They never relinquish those powers and duties and responsibilities while they are serving. As the principal legislation says a constable is an “employee who—(a) holds the office of constable [and is appointed under whichever Act]; and (b) includes a constable who holds any level of position within the New Zealand Police”. So it is not only shall we say the front line or the new recruits who are affected by this but in fact every serving police officer.I think it is worth reflecting on the fact there are at least 63 returning officers we are talking about whose swearing-in has been effectively invalidated by the error. I am speculating here but I think we can safely assume though that at least some of those 63 returning officers would have some degree of seniority and would have some rank. So not only have they been performing their own duties but they would have been directing other officers other units to carry out duties which again makes the problem even more severe. Effectively the orders they have been giving the instructions they have been giving to less senior officers could be invalid and that just creates all sort of a rat’s nest that we really do not want to see untangled. It is important that through this legislation we put it right and validate what has been done.So I think that in the absence of a Committee stage for this bill we clearly have not paid much attention to the substance of the bill. I have to say that it is a model of brevity. The explanatory note is actually longer than the bill. It consists of four clauses. It has a title a commencement date it identifies the principal Act and then it has a short paragraph that will be inserted into the principal Act the Policing Act of 2008 which says simply that “A Police employee who has administered the constable’s oath described in section 22(1) in the period that commenced on 13 October 2009 and ended with the close of 13 October 2013 is to be treated as having been authorised” to administer that oath. That is the bill in its entirety. It is a very small bill but what it does is actually important and significant and we should attend to that.I made the point earlier that I had written to the Auditor-General seeking an inquiry from that office into how these mistakes occurred and how we can ensure that they do not occur again. I think it is worth just commenting that I am appealing to the Auditor-General under section 16 of the Public Audit Act which is headed “Performance audit”. Specifically that section says: “The Auditor-General may at any time examine—(a) the extent to which a public entity is carrying out its activities effectively and efficiently:” and clearly there has been an effectiveness deficit here. It goes on to say that the Auditor-General may also examine “a public entity’s compliance” with its statutory requirements and clearly that goes right to the heart of what has occurred here back in 2009.The section goes on to talk about “a lack of probity or financial prudence”. Clearly there is not the least suggestion that the police have in any way transgressed against those parts of this section of the Public Audit Act. It is very much about the effectiveness the efficiency and the compliance with statutory obligations and under those particular provisions I am writing and appealing to the Auditor-General to pick up this inquiry.It may well be and the expectation clearly is that the responsibility for these errors will be seen to lie with the senior administration of the police force but clearly it is also possible that some responsibility may be found to rest with the Minister of Police or indeed with this Parliament. Each of us as parliamentarians may need to bear some responsibility and that is fine. That is as it may be and if that is the finding of the inquiry then so be it.The point is really that it is not a witch-hunt. It is not seeking simply to assign blame for its own sake; it is actually to ensure that we do understand. Clearly there was a process failure here on at least two occasions—serious failures of process serious failures to fulfil what could be seen on the face of it to be the quite straightforward obligation to make sure that this was got right. It has not been got right so the intention of an inquiry must be to uncover how this happened and to be as sure as we can possibly be that this does not occur again.So with those words I will end my commentary and I say again that we support this legislation. Nobody is happy about it but it would be simply untenable not to see this retrospective legislation go through. Thank you.