Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party along with my colleagues to oppose the provisions of this bill. If we look at section 79APurpose of this Part"—this is in new Part 4A inserted by clause 4—I find it ironic that the focus of this bill is to recover costs in respect of the provision of certain policing services. The Government is focused on doing this at a time when we need our police out on the streets on a regular basis—at a time when there is high demand for our police services to be investigating cases of shoplifting and to be turning up to ensure that people are safe. But the whole focus of this bill is about cost recovery. I also find it ironic that this Government came into power promising tax cuts and did in fact restructure our tax system and now we are seeing what the end result is. There has been a pattern and this pattern has been repeated in this particular bill. In section 79B we are not given a whole range of what it is that the police are going to be charging the public for. The only thing that we see is in section 79B(3) where they give an example of vetting services by the police. We do not have any other idea of what other services will be charged to the public. I have to say I am glad that my colleagues are opposing this. I understand that those who have sat through the select committee process heard that the majority of submitters are also opposed to this bill and I am glad that we are opposing it. I pay my taxes for the sole purpose of this Government providing these kinds of services for the public good. I do not expect to pay my taxes for our police service and then be asked to pay additional money when I need the services of the police. If you look through Part 1 and Part 2 there is nothing in the bill that makes any reference to safety or community safety. This is all about cost cutting. It is about cost cutting at a time when we should be fully resourcing our police services. I understand that this Government has underfunded the police service by about $300 million. Vetting is a service that has been done by the police because we require the police to do so. I make reference to table 2 of the regulatory impact statement which Kris Faafoi spoke to: "we currently have "over 12000 agencies" it says "(with about 6000 active users) … registered to use the service and up to 500000 vets are processed each year." Why are those vettings required? It is for community safety. It is for the purpose of ensuring that our community is safe. I want to reiterate with regard to the $7 that the Minister of Police has said is nothing that $7 may be nothing to somebody earning $250000 a year but it is something significant for a community organisation. It is significant to an early childhood centre for example that is having to work on the smell of an oily rag to ensure that our young people get a good education and we give it the responsibility of ensuring that the people who are working with our young people are of a good nature and are safe to be around our children. We have had an example where the community of Māngere recently raised the fact that we had a child sex offender placed next to the school. That was not safe—that was not safe at all. The Minister and others might say that it was but it was not. Although the Minister says that $7 does not mean anything table 2 of the regulatory impact statement also says that "The total cost of providing the vetting service is likely to increase". We know of the example in Australia where this similar service is being charged at A$50—not NZ$7; A$50. I suspect that the equivalent of that if it continues to rise would be somewhere around NZ$80. I do not know what the foreign currency exchange is but it could be anywhere between NZ$50 and NZ$80."