Cosgrove Clayton: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third ReadingText is subject to correctionCosgrove Clayton: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14287. Text is subject to correction.]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.