Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePolicing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment BillProcedureMr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. [Interruption]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): If I am slightly slow off my feet it only expresses the irritation of having to do it in the first place. I seek leave for the question on the bill’s first reading to be taken without debate and following its second reading for the bill to be set down for a third reading forthwith. With those grumpy statements I would be very careful not to offend—Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.First ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I moveThat the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.Second ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I moveThat the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill is validating legislation that will deem oaths of office taken by police employees between 13 October 2009 and 13 October 2013 to have been administered as though the persons administering those oaths had been authorised by the Commissioner of Police. It is a straightforward amendment involving the insertion of one new section into the Policing Act 2008. It is to come into force the day after it receives the Royal assent. [Interruption] It gives me no great pleasure to be here either.The background to this bill is as follows. On 1 October 2008 the Policing Act came into force. Prior to this under the Police Act 1958 the constable’s oath was taken before a justice or a commissioned officer of police at the rank of inspector or above. A justice or commissioned officer of police was not required to be specifically authorised to administer the constable’s oath. However section 22 of the Policing Act instituted a new procedure for administering the constable’s oath. Under the current Act the oath can be administered only by the commissioner or a person specifically authorised by the commissioner. In addition the person administering the constable’s oath must be satisfied that the police employees who are taking the oath have been adequately trained and are capable of exercising the powers of a constable.Between 13 October 2009 and 13 October 2013 the constable’s oaths were administered to ex-constables who were rejoining the police by district commanders or inspectors based in the police districts who had not been formally authorised by the commissioner. The district commanders and inspectors had assumed that they had the authority to administer the oath. The constable’s oaths have now been administered to the affected police employees by persons formally authorised under section 22 of thePolicing Act so all affected employees have had full constabulary powers conferred upon them.However uncertainty about conferral of constabulary powers continues for those affected police employees who purportedly exercised constabulary powers without the necessary authority between 13 October 2009 and 13 October 2013. It is very important that people should have confidence that officials are properly invested with statutory powers and that taxpayers should not be obliged to meet the significant expenses that would be incurred if all exercise of statutory powers taken by the affected employees was subject to legal challenge.The bill will deem the oaths taken by affected constables to have been administered as if the persons administering the oaths had been approved by the Commissioner of Police. It will remove any doubt about the validity of the actions of the affected police employees and thereby promote certainty and confidence in the acts carried out by them. The legislation is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The bill does not retrospectively validate actions that could be seen as inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.I have been assured by the Commissioner of Police that steps have now been taken to make sure that this does not happen again. They are putting in place a system that will not fully register a constable who has been undergoing training until the oaths are checked and it is ensured that the appropriate process has been followed. I thank my colleagues in the House for their forbearance at having to put through this legislation under urgency this afternoon. I commend this bill to the House.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]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Have we finished? I call the honourable member Mark Mitchell.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very happy to take a call on the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to commend the Minister of Police and also the Commissioner of Police for realising that there had been an administration error and moving quickly to fix it. I do want to highlight and point out the fact that Ms Ardern made which is that this relates directly to 63 police officers. It does not relate to new recruits; it relates to 63 police officers who have rejoined the police. Actually it is a great testament to the quality of the leadership within our police currently that we do have experienced officers who have left and who are choosing to come back and rejoin the police. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.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.DAVID CLENDON (Green): A few days ago when I first saw the title of this bill we are debating today I actually assumed it was on my desk by mistake. I saw the top line and thought: “Why has somebody disinterred that old thing?”. For a moment I thought: “Was there a sunset clause in that legislation we passed back in 2009 under urgency?”. Of course there was not. It was a piece of legislation necessary to remedy an error and sadly here we are again some 4 years later once again retrospectively putting right virtually the same mistake. Clearly that is an unacceptable situation. It brings no credit to anyone. It chews up a great deal of time in this Parliament at a time of year when we have a long Order Paper and after this only five more sitting weeks. It is a wholly unsatisfactory situation but there you are.The new bill of course the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill 2013 will sit alongside a bill entitled exactly the same but the last number would be 2009. The Greens will support this bill simply because it would be irresponsible to do otherwise and that point has been made by our Labour colleagues. The situation that the bill remedies is untenable and cannot be allowed to stand. I would make the point that we are supporting this bill of our own volition despite some rather over-excited media commentary which I saw earlier today suggesting what the Greens and indeed Labour have done: “A backstairs deal has been sewn up to ensure the legislation…” passes. I would just like to put on record that neither I nor any of my Green colleagues have met with Minister Tolley on the backstairs or anywhere else. It is a nonsense report. We are supporting this legislation because as I said it would be irresponsible not to.The situation is untenable. It is untenable for a number of reasons. We cannot allow the error to stand. To do so would put 63 serving police officers in a position where they could be prosecuted for carrying out their duties which they have done in good faith for the time since they have been sworn in. If any one of us was to present ourselves as if we were police officers we would clearly be subject to some fairly serious legal consequence and that is as it should be. Impersonating a police officer is an extremely serious offence and so it should be. Effectively the 63 officers have been in effect impersonating a police constable and that is an untenable situation for them. They could be personally liable for their actions at any point where they have gone beyond carrying out activities that a normal person a civilian a non-officer would carry out. They are then vulnerable to being charged personally and that is simply unacceptable.The other side of it of course is that any of the prosecutions arrests or legal processes that those officers or their activities have stimulated could be deemed invalid. It could clearly result in ongoing prosecutions having to halt and convictions having to be overturned. Effectively some people who committed crimes people who have performed criminal activities could get off and could escape justice if we do not put this error right. As I say it would be simply untenable to do otherwise.I actually enjoyed the hospitality of the Police Association at its dinner last night. I had to bite my tongue quite hard on a number of occasions to not reveal the content of what we would be debating today. I looked about that room and I wondered whether any of these 63 affected officers were in that room. In all likelihood at least some of them were. It puts them in a very unhealthy situation.I think it is worth quoting the insertion into the Policing Act section 115A of the 2008 Act which was inserted as a result of the 2009 legislation. It says: “A Police employee or judicial officer who has administered the constable’s oath described in section 22(1) in the period 1 October 2008 and ended with the close of 12 October 2009 is to be treated as having been authorised throughout that period by the Commissioner to administer the oath…”. Now we are going to see yet another paragraph inserted below that one to remedy this latest oversight. One hopes that we will not be back in a year’s time inserting yet more text into that already much amended Act.At the time in 2009 when the first mistake was uncovered I think that the media commentary—and indeed academic commentary—was reasonably benign. It was accepted that a mistake had been made. People make mistakes. It was a technical error a glitch. I think there was certainly some reporting in theNew Zealand Heraldfor example and Television New Zealand ran a story on the matter. It was as I said reasonably benign; it was not overly critical. I guess we all recognised that we can make mistakes. But to make the second mistake—or rather to make the same mistake twice—simply smacks of carelessness and lack of attention to detail and that is completely unacceptable.There was an academic study done recently on the use of urgency by this Government and preceding Governments and there was an interesting analysis done of situations where these academics judged the use of urgency to be justifiable or not against a set of criteria and I think “or not” equalled political expediency. The particular piece of legislation passed in 2009 was deemed to be a justifiable use of urgency and arguably today is also a justifiable use of urgency in order to avoid any appeals against what may have happened in the interim. It may be justified in that sense but it is not justifiable to simply accept that this mistake could have been made not once but twice.It is critical that we put this right but it is unfortunate that a recent citizen satisfaction survey—as recently as September of this year and it was a 10000 respondent survey so it was a pretty robust investigation—found that 79 percent of those 10000 people reported they were confident in the country’s police officers. The survey asked people their views about police their feelings on how safe they felt and what their service experience was when they had interactions with the police. The overall satisfaction with service delivery sat at 83 percent and given that for numbers of us our interactions with officers are going to cost us money—if for example we have been misbehaving in terms of speed limits or whatever it might be—I think that is a remarkably high display of confidence and I believe that is well justified. Our police do a good job they do a difficult job and I believe that for the most part they do it very very well.The repetition of this mistake cannot do other than weaken the public’s confidence in the police service. It can do not other than cast doubt on the organisation: not on individual officers necessarily but certainly on the administration of the police force. It is most unfortunate that the officers out there—who are working very very hard to do the right thing to fulfil the oath that they take in good faith and doing all the right things by the public to do their best to keep the peace and ensure public safety—are being compromised by these administrative errors which cannot stand.We heard from the Minister earlier that there will be an internal investigation lead by Police Commissioner Marshall to discover what went on and to ensure it does not happen again. That is a good thing and I have the greatest confidence in the commissioner’s integrity but I think we need to go beyond that. I believe we need an external inquiry into how these mistakes happened and how we can be sure that they do not reoccur. For that reason I have today written to the Auditor-General’s office askingthe Auditor-General under section 16 of the Public Audit Act to undertake an inquiry into this matter to endeavour to identify what has happened why it happened and how we can ensure that this situation does not occur and that we do not find ourselves once again in a year’s time passing legislation under urgency to fix something that ought never to have happened. With that point I will end my speech but I will seek leave to table a letter that I have today sent to the Auditor-General. I do seek that leave now.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The honourable member has sought leave to table a letter. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may table it.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): None of us came to Parliament to pass this type of legislation but having said that it seems a pity to me that we have to score cheap political points over a genuine if unfortunate mistake by a very competent and effective police force. It is a tall order to expect the Minister of Police to delve into her portfolios so deeply as to ensure the correct person witnesses a signature. Surely to quote Ms Ardern the Minister has the right to expect the police to ensure that process is followed correctly. I support the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill for all the reasons the Minister outlined in her speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Have we finished? I call the honourable member Richard Prosser.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.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It is fair to say that everyone has canvassed that no one is a fan of this particular type of legislation—the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. What I am not a fan of—and I think we should actually be above—is actually playing politics about a situation that is actually outside the purview of anyone in this House the Minister of Police included. It is outside the purview of anyone within this House and politicians and outside the purview of any political party because this was an operational matter that a handful of police officers got wrong. That is not to say that that should be forgiven. That is a mistake backed on the back of another one and I would suggest that there would be some police officers who are very red-faced about it.I am very loyal to the police. The police would be the first to acknowledge themselves that a handful of them have made an error in doing what they have done. The implications of this House not acting prudently—as I believe we actually all are—to address the matter would be significant. So we are going about that. But the cheap from-the-hip shots that I have heard to date are unnecessary. Let us focus on what this is actually about and do what is concerned. If any message should be sent it should be sent to those who are responsible to ensure that the attention to detail that they should afford to their operational duties is carried out.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I firstly want to pay tribute to the New Zealand Police and also to the two colleagues opposite who are ex-policemen. Policedo a job that none of us would want to do and very few of us would be capable of doing. They show extreme courage in looking after communities and saving lives and putting themselves between those in society who want to do others harm and our communities.That being said I note with interest that two of the ex - police folk who are now members of Parliament and members of the National Party made some very interesting contributions on this bill the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. Mr Mitchell got up and said that he praised the Minister of Police for her oversight and for the diligent way she dealt with this issue. What he failed to say of course was that the previous Minister of Police one Judith Collins had also dealt in theory with this issue.I say to Mr Sabin that he makes an interesting point. He talks about the need for attention to detail but somehow in that concept he absolves the old Westminster tradition that a Minister is responsible and that a Minister has ultimate oversight. He says that this is an operational matter and that the police—Mike Sabin: But is not in control of operational matters.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Ah well that is where the member is wrong. He notes this is an operational matter but I say to Mr Sabin here is the difference. After there has been one stuff-up at an operational level you would if you were a diligent Minister put it on the checklist and every now and again you would say to the commissioner: “Now commissioner we’re swearing the boys and girls in appropriately aren’t we? This is all OK isn’t it?”. What that actually means is that you know the right questions to ask as a Minister. It is called doing your duty.It is a bit like Mr Brownlee with the earthquake—I am sure he is very diligent. I am sure he was very diligent in ensuring for instance that the Christchurch City Council had consents as its top priority and was doing them properly. That is as we know a goodTui’s ad. I say to Mr Sabin that a Minister has to know. When you are a Minister you have a duty to ask the right questions and to monitor your department especially after stuff-up No. 1.I say this is serious—and I pay tribute to Mr Clendon who made a very good point—because 63 officers as colleagues have said may well have put themselves in legal harm’s way. They have probably put themselves in legal harm’s way—legally that is—and put themselves in personal jeopardy in respect of the law because technically they have acted outside the law because their elders and betters did not swear them inin an appropriate fashion. They were not authorised that is to swear them inin the appropriate fashion and the Minister was asleep at the wheel.So I say to Mr Sabin that Ministers have a duty to ask the right questions. Ministers do not just sit there like a bunch ofmuppets and believe everything that their departmental officials tell them. When I was a Minister I used to ask frequently: “Now can I have some evidence or an example that what you are saying is absolutely correct. Can I can see some evidence?” or by the way I would ask for some third-party advice.But maybe Minister Tolley was too busy dancing on the hood of the odd boy racer’s car and having photo opportunities to actually do her job. And of course National members accuse us of politics. They say: “This was unintentional. This was a mistake.” They always do that over there when it is their crew who have stuffed up. Well I say to the Minister that once is a mistake twice is incompetence and three times is negligence. Minister Tolley ought to realise as the Minister of Police—and Mr Sabin and Mr Mitchell would know this—what would have happened if Mr Sabin or Mr Mitchell had been one of the 63 who had done a superb job looking after our communities only to have their bosses say: “Sorry technically you’ve acted illegally. You could be in trouble. I’ve got to go up to the Minister’s office and ask her whether we can bang through some legislation.”I agree with other speakers who say it is appropriate that we deal with this under urgency. It is appropriate in this one particular case that we put forward retrospective legislation. I say to those commentators who another colleague alleged said that somehow there had been some backdoor deal with Labour and National that my colleague Jacinda Ardern advises me that there has been no meeting with her as police spokesperson. This issue was brought up and dealt with with all parties in the Business Committee by Mr Brownlee.I have got to say that it was very interesting to see the scorn on Mr Brownlee face—he usually has a staccato style; an on-again off-again up-again down-again style of management in the House—which could be directed only at the colleague who sits directly behind him; the Minister of Police. Poor old Gerry Brownlee had to get up move the motion—it took him two goes to do it but hey that is OK—and actually take the hit for the Minister of Police. So that crew over there accuse us of politics—very convenient. But that crew over there of course are always the ones who get up and demand accountability from everybody—from beneficiaries from all sorts of people in the community. They demand transparency. They demand accountability except of course when it comes to them.If you look at the litany of stuff-ups the litany of mismanagement and negligence that this Government has engaged in you see that Solid Energy a State-owned enterprise was run into the ground while they were asleep at the wheel; you see the Mighty River Power botch-up—10 percent down thewazoo—and you see the Meridian Energy share price stuffed up through their greed and incompetence.Now quite rightly I come back to the bill and again the Minister is asleep at the wheel. She did not ask the right questions even after a mistake was made. But there is a pattern here. If you look at some of the other portfolios—as somebody yawns over there—again they were asleep at the wheel with Solid Energy. They made the mistake with the asset sales but they did not learn from it. It was exactly the same as this. They made a mistake in 2009 and it has gone on again since 2009—they never learnt from it.I just ask the Minister to explain in the next speech she may give why that is. Did she ask any questions? Did she have it on her checklist every 3 months to say: “Commissioner our staff are OK? There’s no problem with the oath? There is no problem with the authorisation? I’m not going to have to get down on bended knee to the Leader of the House in an embarrassing way and beg forgiveness and beg for a piece of legislation to be put through this House?”. It is interesting and I wonder what police are doing as they scratch their heads and look at the incompetence with which this Government carries out its activities.This Government demands accountability from the police. It demands that they do their job and hit their targets even though their budget has been cut. The annual reports say that this crew have brought in 52 police since 2009. As my colleague Phil Goff said we back the police all right. We backed them with 1000 extra front-line staff. No ifs no buts no weasel words we just did it—we just did it.So I say to Miss Tolley that maybe she needs to go to do a ministerial course with the Cabinet secretary or something and get some advice on doing her job. If the standard of ministerial responsibility is: “Gee whizz it’s a bit of a mistake. Sorry it happened but you know it’s not really our fault.”—and it is always the fault of the officials of course; the Government is never responsible for anything—then she ought to get a life herself to quote Shane Jones about another Minister there because there is a pattern here. They do not stand up and take responsibility for anything. Well if they take responsibility—Hon Anne Tolley: I’ve taken responsibility.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Do you? That is great. Well in the next speech that the Minister gives she might actually get up and tell us what she did what monitoring she put in place and whether she asked the right questions because there was already a precedent of a stuff-up and a mistake back in 2009.It is a pity that Judith Collins does not take a call because if there was ever a Minister who stands up and pontificates and looks down her nose at everybody else with that familiar Tory sneer on her face that sneer of betterment that she is better than everybody else of course it is Judith Collins. I would not mind a bit of accountability out of her. I would not mind a bit of accountability out of her in respect of her part in this—her part in this. [Interruption] Oh yes they are full of mouth when it comes to interjections but they stand up and make 27-second speeches because they want to get out of jail on this one big time. They want to run away and hide big time on this—even “Ruby Wax” down the back there.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I rise to take a short call to say I support the Policing (Constable’s Oath Validation) Amendment Bill through all stages today. I would first of all like to thank the Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee for consulting me prior to the introduction of the bill. If we do not pass this bill there is a risk of consequences for current and past police investigations prosecutions could be jeopardised and there might be claims against the Crown. In supporting this bill we are backing the New Zealand Police and the maintenance of law and order. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I take a call on this very important—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry. Is this a split call?ANDREW LITTLE: It is a split call. I understand I have 5 minutes which I will fill to the full. This is a very important matter and we should not take it lightly. This Parliament should not take it lightly. My starting point is the principle of the rule of law. The rule of law starts with this House and its conduct and the laws that it passes and when Parliament with the power of the people passes laws that bind and constrain the people we require all those with authority under the law to act properly and within the authority conferred by this Parliament. If there is one group of people for whom acting within their powers is absolutely crucial and is the sine quo non of their job it is the police. Their job is to uphold the law not any law but our criminal code. Their job is to uphold the laws that affect our conduct and our behaviour. There is an underlying morality to our criminal code and we expect our police to uphold it. But because we confer on them very coercive powers—the powers to arrest and detain to deprive of liberty—we require them to act within their powers.This House has the job of passing laws but this House has another job too. We elect members of the executive—the Ministers who are in charge of departments and agents of the Crown. Parliament having voted funding having voted money requires the executive to do its job to ensure that money having been appropriated is used for the purposes for which it is appropriated but also that those who act under their executive delegation do so within the powers and the authority conferred by this Parliament which itself acts in the name of the people of New Zealand. So when we find not for a first time but for a second time that some of those people within whom we charge the most serious powers—powers that can constrain the liberty of an individual—are acting without the appropriate authority and power required by this Parliament we should sit up take notice and act with an appropriate level of sobriety.It is for that reason that it does pay for this House to take some time to pay some attention to it and to give it scrutiny. This is a mistake that has happened. I do not accept it when people say that the police officers themselves should be somehow held responsible because they should know the law. Those police officers are reliant on their superiors exercising their powers and authorities appropriately and that has nothappened. It is not just a matter of 63 constables not having been sworn in properly but everything they have done in the execution of their duty without this bill would be invalid. That goes far and wide. That is not just arresting people. It is not just intervening in domestic disputes. It is everything they have done. Had anybody known about it and had there been some resistance had those constables been assaulted in the course of their duty because that is a common occurrence with our police force unfortunately and had that then gone before the court then the police officers themselves would have been left with no protection at all.I take my hat off to this Minister for bringing this bill back to the House. But the question must go really to what her predecessor was or was not doing. How is it that the mistake had been made once but now it is being made a second time. That is where we can talk about the police pass this bill shore up their authority and validate those actions. That is the sensible thing to do but there must be some accountability. It is the Minister who has failed to act. It is the Minister who provides oversight. It is the Minister who ought to be asking the questions. And having made the mistake once I would have thought that any self-respecting Minister of Police would then continue to ask what has happened. Has the law been complied with? When that police Minister then becomes a Minister of Justice—a senior Minister and sometime heir apparent to the throne of the National Party—that failure runs even deeper. So we support the bill but let us not deny that this is a very serious situation.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Passing under urgency retrospective validating legislation is clearly a less than perfect situation. But from time to time for a variety of reasons this House is required to do so. We do not do it lightly. This is one of those occasions and it gives me no satisfaction at all to stand and support this bill the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. My colleagues earlier in the debate have well set out the circumstances and reasons and I am not going to repeat them. I support the bill.Bill read a second time.Third ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I moveThat the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill is validating legislation that will deem oaths of office taken by police employees rejoining the New Zealand Police between 13 October 2009 and 13 October 2013 to have been administered as though the persons administering those oaths had been authorised by the Commissioner of Police. It removes uncertainty about the conferral of constabulary powers for those police employees who purportedly took the constable’s oath between 13 October 2009 and 13 October 2013.This Government is committed to effective public administration and to supporting our front-line police constables. This bill achieves these objectives by removing the risk that the actions of affected police employees can be challenged for the sake of it. The bill does not affect redress in the unlikely event that it is necessary for those whose rights might genuinely have been breached. This bill is a straightforward administrative provision that fixes a technical matter directly and cleanly. I thank the members of the House for their forbearance. I thank the members of the House for their support and their responsible actions here this afternoon. I commend this bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I wish to use my time in the third reading of the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill to really clarify what I think are the quite justifiable questions that Opposition members are asking here. This is notan attempt to politicise a situation that clearly absolutely needs to be rectified. There is no question. That is why it is being passed unanimously through this House. I can see Mr Sabin muttering over there with quiet silent rage. He must be quite upset that he does not get to use his 10 minutes. Perhaps Minister Tolley might let him have his full 10 minutes for that.I just want to clarify that Labour is not liberally spreading the blame across our police force over the fact that we are having to deal with this issue today—of course not. In fact rightly so we have acknowledged the work that the police do on behalf of all of us in our communities. It is an incredibly tough job in that we constantly ask of them to reinforce the notion that no matter how much disrespect they are treated with they continually treat others with constant respect. That is what we ask of our police officers daily and by and large they do an absolutely fantastic job for us. We acknowledge that.What we are saying here today is that yes an error was made back in the way that the original legislation passed in 2008 was enacted functionally on the ground. That was rectified in 2009. Usually of course under normal circumstances it probably would be unfair to say that the Minister of Police should have oversight of every single little individual issue that has been implemented in the 2008 Policing Act. Under normal circumstances that would be a fair comment for the Government to make. But this was not a usual circumstance.The House went into urgency in 2009 to make a specific change and retrospective legislation was passed to cover the fact that for a period one part of the 2008 Act was not implemented correctly. That should have been a flag then to the Minister—in an area where she probably would not usually have functionally operated any oversight—to just ask some questions. That does not interrupt the concept of constabulary independence which is an incredibly important principle just as is the independence of the judiciary—very important principles. But we cannot blur the line between needing to maintain constabulary independence and ensuring proper accountability for a Minister who has oversight of the operational day-to-day functions of the police.Because a set of unusual circumstances did arise I think it is fair to say that at that point the Minister should have said: “Well look OK this law has been passed. Please in my next briefing or update with the commissioner at least demonstrate to me that the proper authorisations have been administered for those who are now giving out those oaths.” Just one question—one briefing. That is all it would have taken and that is not unusual. Once a piece of legislation has been implemented it is not unusual for a Minister to ask for an update on implementation—absolutely not. Because this is one very specific question it would not have taken much to ask for that. So I do want to highlight that yes constabulary independence is incredibly important but I see that used as an excuse time and time again when actually what we are asking for is simple ministerial accountability. We need to make sure it is applied correctly.In my first address I spoke briefly about some of the things that are going on generally within the police right now. I think it is only right to mention that the Police Association members are at their annual conference as we speak and it was a real pleasure to join with them last night at that event. But I would not want to leave the House with the view that the 63 officers since 2009 who have come back into the police force somehow demonstrate this amazing recruitment drive and increase in policing numbers. In fact those 63 returning officers represent more in terms of numbers than what the police force has grown by in its entirety since 2009. In fact we have had an increase of only 52 police officers sworn staff since 2009. Putting that into context that is under a Government that promised New Zealand that we would have functionallyone staff member per 500 New Zealanders. That means we should have had an extra 252 front-line officers if that Government stuck to its word. But it has not.What the Government may claim is that sure we have got only 52 more officers according to the annual report but of course there are all the non-sworn staff and the various roles that they play. Let us be very clear about what has happened to non-sworn staff who perform an incredibly important job on behalf of the policing family. They may not be sworn staff but sworn staff see how important and know how important their role is. They are the ones who do all of the work that often frees up police to do that front-line policing—those patrols that we expect of the police and which the Minister claims they are doing more of. There are 234 fewer non-sworn staff now than in 2009. That means the burden of those tasks is now falling squarely on sworn officers—234. That has not just been because people have left. Let us be absolutely clear. There was a restructure in 2012 which was extraordinarily unsettling for the police generally—not just for the non-sworn staff. The sworn staff felt acutely the fact that the people who were supporting them in their work were restructured out of their jobs asked to take early retirement or asked to apply again in cities that were quite a distance even from where they were performing their duties at that time. I know it affected a number of police officers in police stations deeply and the volunteers who worked for them.Of course we need to remember that there are a number of volunteers who work with our police force. I had the pleasure of knowing one of New Zealand’s longest-serving police volunteers Ian Jenkins who served with the New Zealand Police in Morrinsville—from memory for over 30 years—and did an incredibly stellar job. We cannot ignore that it is not just sworn police officers who play a role in keeping our communities safe; it is all the people who sit around them. I know that the police would want me to mention that and want me to mention how unsettling that period was.Mr Goff has already talked about what that has meant regionally and I think it is important to focus on it. When we use these statistics at a national level it is easy to lose sight of what it means for a community. But in Counties Manukau 104 fewer police personnel is going to have a significant impact on a community like that where of course our expectation is not that the police simply play a role of respond inquire and arrest. We for a long time have asked the police to form a much bigger role than that. In fact their own commissioner has significantly changed the focus of the police with the notion of prevention first. We applaud Prevention First as an initiative. It is fantastic but it does require police to be able to manage their file and case loads of their major criminal investigations. Unless they are able to do that it is very hard to implement this wider notion of prevention first. It is harder to ask them to do some of those early interventions and preventative work when they are doing just the day-to-day file management that they are required to do as part of their front-line duties.We all lose when we have a police force that is feeling those kinds of pressures on it. That is bearing out in some of the survey work that we have seen where the police have said that only a quarter of our cops claim to be fully engaged in their work and the number that are leaving is significant. In 2013 the average monthly resignations have doubled—have doubled—since 2008. Clearly these are police officers who are feeling the pressure of having less support around them the increasing demands and the fact that their budgets are barely keeping up with inflation and this is bearing out in their ability to do the job that they signed up to via the oaths that we are now fixing today.Those are the issues that I hope the Minister continues to focus on. I think the questions we have asked today have been fair and I would really appreciate a member of the Government benches clarifying some of those questions that we have asked. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I just want to clarify one thing. A recent Police Association survey clearly showed that New Zealand police are far happier and better resourced under a National Government than they were under a Labour Government. I just want to state—and I am sure that Mr Sabin and the Hon Chester Borrows will support me in saying this—that when the air force lost its strike capability we were pretty worried we were going to start losing our dog vans and patrol cars under a Labour Government.Helen Clark the leader of the Labour Government—I could not believe it; I could not believe it when she threw her Diplomatic Protection Squad under the bus. She threw the guys under the bus who are actually employed and are willing to do what they need to and who put themselves on the line to protect her. And what did she do? The first opportunity that she had to stick up for her police for the guys and girls who look after her she threw them under the bus. That is what the Labour Party thinks of the New Zealand police.Mr Cosgrove can get up and spout on and say how wonderful the police are. Yeah they are pretty wonderful Mr Cosgrove. But it is pretty disingenuous when you get up and you are part of a party that had a leader who was quick to throw her own personal protection officers under a bus. You should be ashamed. I am very very happy to commend the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I have got to say that those last comments by Mark Mitchell frankly were quite shameful. I know Helen Clark well. I worked with her for 18 years. I saw the way she related to and treated her diplomatic protection staff and I think those people in the Diplomatic Protection Squad whom I know personally would be actually disgusted at the comments that somehow she belittled them or talked them down. Could I pick up another comment that has been made by Mark Mitchell and it is that the police are far better resourced and are far better off under a National Government. Every time I meet with my local police or I go to the Police Association they tell me exactly the opposite. They say: “Look our members vote right across the sphere but you will not find a member who will not recognise the fact that it was a Labour Government that increased our police force numbers by over 1000—Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: And New Zealand First.Hon PHIL GOFF: —in conjunction with the New Zealand First Party—by more than 1000 extra front-line staff.” Mr Mitchell what is the record of this National Government? It has increased the number of sworn staff over 5 years by 52—52 against the 1000 additional police staff that the Labour-led Government working with New Zealand First introduced.Then Mr Mitchell mentioned this: “Well we were worried about the air force’s loss of the strike force and that Labour would take the patrol cars off the police force.” I want to say to Mark Mitchell that it was under his Government that the patrol cars were cut back. That is on record. That is a fact. That is his Government’s proud track record. Do not come at me about the Defence Force because we know that the National Government has cut the Defence Force by 1200 since 2009—1200 or 12 percent—and there are the highest attrition rates in the history of this country. Even in the police force we are seeing attrition rates that are double what they were 3 years ago. That does not indicate to me Mark Mitchell that the police are really happy with what this Government is doing. In fact if the member listens to what Greg O’Connor said this morning he said: “One thing that’s really worrying us is that they have slashed the non-sworn staff down by 234 and what is the product of that? The product of that is that the officer—man or woman—who should be out on the front line is having to do the jobsthat once upon a time were done by the non-sworn staff.” That is not my comment as a politician; that is the comment of Greg O’Connor who has been once again re-elected president of the Police Association. I just want to clean up those particular remarks.For the public listening to this debate and hearing that this Parliament is now in urgency and passing the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill a piece of legislation that will have retrospective effect through all of its stages—all of its stages—they will be saying: “Oh no not again. When is this Government going to get things right?”. They remember the Crown Minerals Amendment Act earlier this year when exactly the same thing happened. Sadly we had the same thing happen with the Policing Act earlier on. To paraphrase the words of Oscar Wilde one mistake might be unfortunate but a second mistake is careless. I want to ask the Minister of Police whether her predecessor was careless in not exercising oversight over whether this legislation was properly implemented or where the nature of the fault lies because in having to pass this legislation we are letting people down.First of all Mark Mitchell we are letting down the police because how do you think it feels to be a front-line police officer who came back into the force after leaving to find that for 3 years they had been operating unlawfully because of a botch-up in the administration of the Policing Act? How do those police officers feel? You know how they feel. They feel terrible that they have been out there in good faith doing their job only to find that when they were sworn in as a police officer in a ceremony that made them incredibly proud it had been botched. They were not lawfully sworn officers and that is a disgrace. I have to say that normally I would not be in this House advocating that we support a piece of legislation that is retrospective and going through under urgency. But I have to say as a member of a party in Opposition the Labour Party which has always been responsible in regard to this sort of legislation that we will pass this legislation because I do not want to see victims see the people who offended against them—sometimes grievously—getting off the hook and not being accountable for their crimes because of a botch-up in the administration of the Policing Act under this Government. That is why we are passing this legislation. We are passing it to protect the victims and to give back respect to those 63 unfortunate officers who have been working hard in good faith only to find that the rug was pulled out from under them because the Government did not get it right—because the Government did not get it right.What I am really worried about is that this botch-up is symptomatic of a malaise that is now affecting the police force. Look I do not care what the members of the Government might claim. When you have the number of sworn staff cut by 234 making it harder for the front-line staff to do their job when the numbers of front-line staff are not even keeping up with the increase in population—Hon Anne Tolley: Crime is at a 30-year low—17.5 percent reduction.Hon PHIL GOFF: The ratios of police to population have gone down Anne Tolley. They have gone down under your administration. At the Law and Order Committee you were finally forced to own up that the police budget has been cut in real terms over the last 2 years. You were forced to admit that. The Minister of Police was forced to admit that because the facts were there and her own officials said: “You’re wrong Minister.” This Government is not increasing the funding in real terms for the police force; it is cutting it.” That is on record. That is in the transcript—Hon Anne Tolley: They never said that.Hon PHIL GOFF: That is in the transcript of the select committee Anne Tolley and the Minister cannot deny that. This Government—Mark Mitchell you were there—has cut the funding for the police force. It has not kept up the increase in police numberswith the increase in population and it has slashed the non-sworn staff to put more responsibilities and more work on the shoulders of the police officers.On top of that it has done what every one of those members who fought in the 2008 election campaign promised they would not do. It has closed police stations. You know what those members said at the select committee? They said: “We haven’t closed police stations; we’ve closed kiosks.” Do you know what a kiosk is? It is something that is three-sided with one side open to the public. It is not a police station. I have got the photos—and offer to table them in this House—of police stations that have been closed across Auckland by this Government which said it would never do that. My police station in Mount Roskill South was closed to the public with a notice which is now yellow with age which says “Temporarily closed”—temporarily closed for 8 months in breach of the undertaking that the Minister and the Commissioner of Police gave me at the select committee.It is an absolute disgrace that the police should be put in those circumstances facing these sorts of botch-ups not having adequate levels of staffing having police stations closed and having the non-sworn staff who are there to support them being slashed. That is a poor record Minister. The reason that crime came down in this country was the reforms the increase in staffing for the police the reforms of the law and the reforms of the corrections system that happened under a Labour Government. I am proud of that and I am glad to see the police doing their job well because we increased their numbers by 1000. But this police force is getting no support from a Government that allows botch-ups like this to happen and allows police resources to be cut back. As for the money they are funded with their numbers—you know Counties Manakau is an area that I and other members of this House know well. What was the cut in the police personnel numbers there under this National Government? It was 104—104 police personnel were cut from Counties Manukau an area that has had traditionally one of the highest crime rates. The Government will not cut numbers in Remuera and Parnell but it will cut them in South Auckland and Counties Manukau because it does not care about the victims of crime if those victims of crime happen to be people from low-income communities.Regrettably we need this legislation. We need to put right the botch-up that has happened. We need to protect the police officers. We need to protect the victims of crime. That is why we are supporting this legislation but it brings no credit to this tawdry National Government.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.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I do reiterate my words from the second reading and the words of Minister Collins. I just want to spend a moment or two commenting on one or two other topics though.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Minister Collins? Minister Tolley!IANMcKELVIE: Minister Tolley—my apologies to the Minister. That has taken up a couple of seconds of my time. Shush!I just do not get the Opposition’s poor view of the work of our police. When this Government came into office we had some aspiration around the police and crime levels. We are now after some 4 years—or nearly 5 years in fact—looking at achieving as much as a 30 percent improvement in police front-line efficiency as a result of the new technology that was introduced this year. This combined with an 18 percent reduction in crime that has been achieved by our Minister of Police and our Minister of Justice over the last 4 years means effectively that our front-line police could well be more efficient by a factor of some 48 percent.It is typical of the Labour Party desperate to score points. The world has changed and it appears to have passed straight through the keeper on that side of the House—in fact the score is Bangladesh is nought for nought at the moment—as has the fact that on the whole the public have good ears and do not need to be told the same thing time after time.I support this legislation the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. Although not happy with it we have to support it. Good job.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): There have been some valid points made on both sides of the House with regards to this process. I think it has been impressed upon all of us that mistakes have been made. Certainly it is important that the Opposition holds the Government to account in matters like this. But I think it is also important for us to remember that as far as the public is concerned nobody has sent us here to simply snipe at each other. Nobody has sent us here to score cheap points when there is important business to be done. We are sitting under urgency and I think that is a state in which the public wishes us to remain for as short a time as possible. I am sure that the importance of what has gone on has not been lost on those in officialdom. I am sure that if there are inquiries that need to be done they will be done and it will be investigated as to how the mistake came about. We will look to find ways of making sure it is not repeated.I do commend the Minister of Police for stepping up and bringing this matter back to the House where the mistake can be addressed before it becomes a problem. I am very glad that it came to the Minister’s attention and not to the attention of a criminal lawyer or some investigative journalist somewhere. I am glad that it did not blow up and cause a lot of cases to be revisited and a whole lot of people to be released from prison when they were in fact guilty of crimes. So without wanting to go over old ground I say that once again we do not like having to be here under urgency—none of us do—but we understand that the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill has to go through and the sooner it does so the better. We support this bill. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I would just like to endorse the comments that have already been made and I guess despite the fact that there has been a little bit of political ping-pong going on from some members of the House—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The pong is over there!MIKE SABIN: There we go! There is one—he has got a racket in his hand as we speak. I commend the fact that the House has taken this matter on board in the serious manner that it needs and deserves. The Minister of Police has rightly taken responsibility for this situation in so far as the Minister is responsible. But it is important to remember that in terms of operational matters there are people who are directly responsible for these sorts of decisions and the policemen responsible for making these errors would be the first to admit that. I think that should not be lost in this discussion but I do acknowledge and commend members of the House for having found it in their hearts to ensure that this Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill is passed for the reasons that have been clearly outlined.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): The previous speaker Mike Sabin is right. There has been a bit of verbal ping-pong across the House. I am glad he maintains unlike some of his other colleagues a good sense of humour. I do want to address just for the record a bit of political bile dished out by Mr Mitchell around police funding and cars.Grant Robertson: Felicity Ferret.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Felicity Ferret my colleague says. I am not quite up to speed—Grant Robertson: Gossip columnist.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: A gossip columnist—ah I get you. Mr Mitchell made a lot of comments about—[Interruption] Oh that has fired them up. There are a few columns coming out as we speak I think. That has fired them up. They are awake now.Mr Mitchell made a number of sort of derogatory comments about police funding and Helen Clark throwing the police under the bus and not supporting the police. He talked about police vehicles which is very very interesting because I was reminded bythe former Minister of Police Mrs King—and this might be a bit of a lesson for Mr Mitchell if he is paying attention—that when Labour came into Government in 1999 some of the police vehicles were 4 or 5 years old. These were not the commissioner’s car or the plain clothes jobs; these were the front-line eye car police vehicles. It was the Hon George Hawkins—Mark Mitchell: At least Andrew thinks about what he’s going to say.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I know that you do not like it. I know that he does not like it but he is going to have to hear it. For the record it was the Hon George Hawkins who as Minister of Police introduced the 3-year renewal programme for police vehicles. There were so many olddungers in the police fleet—I am not calling those membersdungers; I am talking about police cars—that it took 6 years to renew the entire fleet so that the police could get in a car that could actually go over 80 kilometres an hour to chase the burglar down the road.We got rid of things like cardboard cut-out police that you were supposed to stick on the side of the road or a street corner and somehow the burglar would take flight at the cardboard cut-out. Mr Mitchell or Mr Sabin may have been serving at the time.Grant Robertson: He may have been one of them.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He may have starred as one of the cut-outs my colleague says—who knows?Mike Sabin: Not enough cardboard for this cut-out.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Mr Sabin says there is not enough cardboard for his cut-out. I would not go there. But I just say to Mr Mitchell that I challenge that member to actually if he wants to in a dispassionate way go and talk to the Parliamentary Library and do the research about who backed the police the mess we had to clean up the equipment—you see history repeats itself because of course under Minister Collins the cars were cut back. We were told that there would be no cutbacks in front-line cars and yet in the area that I look after one community policeperson in Rangiora was forced to chase after criminals in the local police van. Because it is a big van the burglar goes down the road doing 120 kilometres an hour in the Holden V6 and there is the local community cop chugging along in the old paddy wagon with a bit of smoke coming out the back trying to do his or her duty. But they simply cannot do it because the old paddy wagon will not keep up. So I challenge any member over there as they sit there and try to rewrite history—rewrite history—to challenge our record in terms of resourcing the police.Putting that aside we will support this Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. We are supporting this bill retrospective though it is. It is a serious issue in respect of this bill. Like other members have said there are 63 constables out there who may indeed—well technically they have actually—acted outside the law not out of any intention on their part but because a technical issue has occurred in the authorisation of those who administered the oath.There is talk of politics and stuff and operational matters and all that but I just come back and say again as I said in my previous speech that it is always very convenient for Ministers to quote operational matters—and that may be technically correct—but the question then is what you do as a Minister to ensure that those operational matters are corrected and to ensure that those mistakes do not occur again. One thing you can do is that in our constitutional arrangements no one can stop a Minister from demanding information asking questions demanding evidence and verification from their departments monitoring asking the right questions and ensuring that officials have done what they have said they would do or administering certain operational processes effectively.No one is going to shoot a Minister. No one in the community is going to have a crack at a Minister for actually asking questions and asking for verification—was it Ronald Reagan who said “Trust but verify.”—and asking officials to verify that what they are doing is correct especially when there is a precedent of a mistake that has occurred previously especially when it was a high-profile mistake that occurred previously.You would think that as a Minister Minister Collins or Minister Tolley—whom I note in her speech in the third reading never got up and answered any questions. She said she was responsible in an interjection to me but never offered any explanation as to whether she asked questions about this of her department or the commissioner or whether she had it in the weekly monthly or 3-monthly brief and said: “Now look I just want to be assured that there are no problems here.” She never offered any of those explanations because in truth I suspect that she never bothered to ask. She never had it on the weekly monthly or 3-monthly brief. She just let it all happen.But to be fair to her she inherited a regime administered by the previous Minister of Police Judith Collins who has not taken a call either of course. Judith Collins is known in this place for demanding the highest possible standards from everybody else as are various Ministers on that side apart from when it comes to themselves or some of their ministerial colleagues—Mr Banks and Mr Dunne and others of course—but they demand accountability from everybody else. They demand accountability from beneficiaries. Fair enough. OK that is cool. But they do not demand accountability—they crow about it in this House—when it comes to themselves.I say to Ministers opposite that there is an old-fashioned but still valid Westminster tradition that means that as a Minister on a quarter of a million bucks a year with the big car the warrant the flash office and a myriad of expert staff when a department messes up you do not sit there in a—I cannot use the word—less than professional fashion shall we say and blame the department. You stand up and say: “I am the Minister. I take the hit and by the way if the bullet hits me when I get back to the department it is going to bounce off me and ricochet round the department.” You ensure that people who have made these mistakes are held accountable and that it is fixed. It is not about vengeance; it is about fixing the problem.These folks across here can dance around it all they like and commend Ministers for bringing these things to the House. What I would like to say to members on the backbench is that when they have a coffee or a beverage with the Minister after the House rises it would be really interesting especially the two former professional police officers who have served our community well if they call her aside and say: “Minister Tolley how are you going to ensure that we do not have three strikes? What are you going to do?”. Is there any advice that Mr Mitchell or Mr Sabin having been police officers themselves could give Minister Tolley on ensuring that processes are put in place and that this issue is fixed? Those members will not respond but I will make this observation. I suspect that for the 63 sworn staff who have had this hanging over their heads it would not be pleasant. Because you always lie awake at night and go “Hang on a minute. If I have done something and it is unlawful technically am I going to end up in the cart?”. That is a natural human reaction. You always sit there and just wonder “Well it will not be the bosses who get it in the neck because I was the person who”—for instance—“effected the arrest.” If that arrest as effected is now deemed to be unlawful it is not the commissioner or certainly the Minister or any of the people on that side who would end up in the dock; it is the sworn policeperson who has acted with the best intentions.So the question is where the buck stops. I say to Miss Tolley and Miss Collins that the buck stops with them. All we seek in this House—Hon Anne Tolley: Yeah it stops with me. I’m the Minister.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: And Miss Tolley says that yes the buck stops with her. Well if that is the case Miss Tolley it would have been helpful during the debate to give us some reassurance to tell us what monitoring procedures you put in place and to tell us what questions you did ask of the commissioner. How this—Hon Anne Tolley: You should’ve listened to me.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well there was not much to listen to I have got to tell you. That is all that this Parliament and the 63 police require. So although we support this bill we do hope that we are not here in another year or two or in 3 months helping this Government fix up its mistakes and that this is yet another one that piles on to a steamy pile of political mistakes that fester away and ferment away in this place as this Government sort of withers and lurches to the next crisis and the next inward-looking internal problem.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I mentioned in my second reading contribution on this Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill that the passing under urgency of retrospective validating legislation is absolutely a clearly less than perfect situation. I think that all members in the House would acknowledge and accept that. But from time to time for a variety of very good reasons such a measure is required. We do not do it lightly. This is one of those occasions.Notwithstanding the small element of political ping-pong that has occurred this afternoon I want to thank members from across the House for their solid contributions and their understanding of the situation because none of us are pleased to be doing this in this way on this afternoon. On this side of the House we support the police and we do so with enthusiasm notwithstanding the occasional mistake. I support this bill and commend it to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to make a further contribution on this very important piece of legislation the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. I noticed my parliamentary colleague Mr McKelvie in his contribution talked about the police the police numbers and the police record but of course this is not about that. This is about serving police officers who have been let down by their hierarchy which includes in this case the Minister of Police.I think that what underscores all of this is that the fault lies primarily in the political arena. The Minister at the time the present Minister’s predecessor had known that there had been a previous issue with the swearing-in of new police officers because in spite of the changed legislation the practices of the police had not changed. The police commissioner was required to delegate the authority to administer the oaths and that had not happened. The then Minister Judith Collins knew that and validating legislation had to be passed.It beggars belief if indeed it is true that if that Minister having been through that experience and taken the time of this House to validate a whole heap of incorrectly sworn oaths then did not require the Commissioner of Police in her regular meetings—because she meets with the commissioner—to assure her that the issue of his delegations had been sorted out and that the oaths that were being taken were being taken correctly and lawfully. That ought to have happened in the regular meetings between the Minister and the commissioner and it is quite apparent that it has not happened. That is what beggars belief. That is why responsibility for this failure sits firmly at the feet at the ministerial level and I venture to say as I said in my second reading contribution at the feet of the Minister of Police at the time that these go back to—that is Judith Collins. It was her job to ensure that the oaths were being taken correctly given the mistakes that had happened previously and given that she wasmeeting with the commissioner. This is not an operational matter; this is a constitutional one.On the cusp of Labour weekend I want to draw this comparison. One hundred years ago the streets of Wellington were caught up and fraught with one of the most tense difficult industrial disputes in our history. In fact it was described at the time that Wellington was on the verge of civil war. That was the Waterfront Dispute of 1913. What lay at the heart of that dispute? It was a whole bunch of special constables who had been sworn in and were allowed to ride mounted on horses carry batons and exercise charges on protesting and striking workers which is what they did. If they could get it right 100 years ago in one of the more disgraceful displays of coercive State power it just beggars belief that in this day and age this executive—this Government—cannot get it right.So here is the warning. For the second time the time of this Parliament has been taken up with making sure that police oaths are done correctly. Let the word go out and say to this Minister of Police: “It must not happen again.” This Minister must make sure that the present commissioner—and his replacement when he is on board—must guarantee that the oaths are taken properly lawfully and in accordance with the present police statute because it would be wrong for the time of this Parliament to be taken up a third time to correct an avoidable mistake.As my colleagues have said of course we will support this bill because the consequences of not supporting it—and the constitutional consequences—are too grave to contemplate. But we do so with heavy hearts not because we are critical of the police—it is not their fault apart perhaps from the police commissioner—but because the executive has let down public servants in the form of the police. That is not good and we should not allow that. We will support it but let us not do it again.Let us remember that—particularly when it comes to the police that very special force that occupies a very important place in our constitution—we and the public demand that they get the exercise of their powers right. That is why when there is a question about the exercise of their powers it generates so much attention and so much press. We set a very high standard for our police. They are entitled to look to their political masters and demand the same high standard and they have been let down. Let us pass this bill and let them get on with their job.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I stand to take the final call from this side of the House on the Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill. Those before me have spoken at length about the requirement for this bill and the fact that we would rather not have had to take this step to validate it but I do want to recognise the cooperation of all parties in the House in getting this bill passed.I did feel a little sad that some took the opportunity to be critical of our police. When I stood here nearly 5 years ago and gave my maiden speech I was very proud to be a member of a party that backed the police over criminals every time. This is another day for that. Thank you.Bill read a third time.