Little Andrew: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third ReadingText is subject to correctionLittle Andrew: Policing (Constable’s Oaths Validation) Amendment Bill — Procedure First Reading Second Reading Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14302. Text is subject to correction.]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.