Prosser Richard: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third ReadingText is subject to correctionProsser Richard: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14286. Text is subject to correction.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this the second reading—notwithstanding that it is actually the first reading—of the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill.This is retrospective legislation being passed under urgency and in almost every other case New Zealand First would be totally opposed to it for those two reasons alone. The fact that this House is being required to dispense with both the first reading and the Committee stage of this bill is further reason for us to oppose it under normal circumstances as is the reality that there will be no public submissions and no examination by a select committee. However this is not a typical case and the Government’s reasons for bringing this bill—and bringing it in the manner in which it has—are not typical either. We realise that and we understand that a part of being a constructive party of Opposition sometimes requires us to put pragmatism ahead of pedantry. We believe this is one of those occasions.We could choose to oppose this bill and the manner in which it is traversing this House on principle. We could decry the Government for trampling on the constitution riding roughshod over established convention violating the essence of democracy and tearing down the ramparts of due lawmaking process. In almost any other case we would and in any other case we would be justified in so doing and indeed it would be our constitutional duty to do so. But this is not an ordinary matter and the nature and realities of the issue that this bill seeks to address dictate that we are compelled by reasons of pragmatism to view this bill and this process through a different lens. As such New Zealand First does endorse the use of this process in this case and we will therefore support the passage of this bill.This bill is a short simple instrument of legislation. Its passing into law will have no great ramifications for the New Zealand nation. In fact it will go unnoticed by ordinary people as they go about their everyday lives. However the consequences of not passing it even in this somewhat abrupt and irregular fashion do have the potential to cause much upset and disquiet.This bill corrects what is in reality nothing more than a technical error in the process of thereswearing-in of a small number of returning former police officers. These areofficers who have been police constables in the past who have been sworn officers and who have carried out police duties in that capacity. They have left the service of their own volition and then chosen to return. In doing so it is required that they beresworn.However for a small number of them—some 63 in total—sometime during the period in which they were out of the police force the rules changed around who was and who was not authorised to carry out thatreswearing. This has meant that for some of them—the 63 officers referred to—the oath taken when they re-entered the force was administered by a person not authorised to administer it under those particular circumstances. This bill corrects that anomaly and it is necessary that it does so because if the anomaly is not corrected the officers in question are technically not sworn police constables.The implications of this are that the arrests they have made over the period since they returned to the force and all other police duties are technically illegal. It does not require a great intellect to deduce from this that many people who have been rightly arrested brought before the courts found guilty and convicted and subjected to the penalties of the State may find themselves with the legal avenue by which they may have those convictions overturned. We would find ourselves having to let people out of jail despite the fact that they are in fact guilty of the crimes for which they have been incarcerated. This would of course be ridiculous. The only winners would be criminals and of course lawyers who would have a field day and—dare I say it—a rather large pay day as well. And we cannot have that.New Zealand First understands and accepts that in some circumstances—on some rare few occasions—circumstances dictate that normal due process must be dispensed with in the best interests of the greater good. This we feel is one such case. I reiterate that it is a simple straightforward transparent and necessary matter to advance this change and for those reasons we will be supporting the bill even though under normal circumstances we would vociferously oppose it on the basis of urgency and truncated process.I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House or give the legal vultures any more time to circle before closing by saying again that New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.