Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Oh thank you very much Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on the justice—I don't want to say Estimates. It's not the Estimates; it's the annual review. Look we had a very interesting conversation with the Commissioner of Police at the Justice Committee and I do just want to canvass for the House the conversations we had and the discussions we had in that select committee. One of the issues this Government is going to confront is the issue of the cost of the extra 1800 police and I see the Minister of Police in the chair there.It's fair to say the cost estimates of this grand promise of an extra 1800 police—you know almost a thousand extra police on top of what the previous National Government promised in Budget 2017—are going to be expensive. It's particularly apposite I think in light of the scaremongering we've heard from Government members in the last few days and in the last few hours about how there is no money and the cost to social services and to the State sector is so vast.Well we had the Prime Minister in October last year talking about the cost of an extra 1800 police being about $100 million. The same day interestingly she also said it would be $80 million and of course we've also had an estimate from the Prime Minister of $40 million. Now that's all down at the bottom end of the scale. You could make I think legitimate criticism about how it's a bit strange to have three different estimates all for the same number of police officers but it's certainly down at the bottom end of the scale. But what we heard in the select committee was that the actual cost is going to be far higher than that—at least $250 million; possibly I would venture to suggest probably nearer the $300 million over the next three years. So let's wait and see where we come. The police Minister has been noticeable by his reticence to give any numbers whatsoever. We'll wait and see. We'll have to wait till the Budget.The second issue I want to canvass is the very important issue of standards because we had an interesting conversation with the police commissioner where he assured the Justice Committee that standards in the police will be maintained. That's what he said. He said to us that standards will remain high—they will remain high—and they will be maintained.But what we see is standards already changing. The physical appraisal test—it's easier to pass. They don't have to have a swimming certificate any more. My fear is that the Government's desire to meet their very very ambitious goal of 1800 extra police sworn officers over the next three years—my worry is that that will lead to a diminution in standards and that will be to the detriment of the public of New Zealand.So I'm not saying it's going to happen but I am very concerned it will happen just because of that political pressure they're going to come under. I mean this is a promise—it's a commitment—in the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement. It's a very very significant commitment and my worry is that those standards will be lowered to the detriment of the safety of the New Zealand public. And we canvassed that in the annual review hearing with the police commissioner.The other issue I want to cover is of course the issue of Better Public Services because we haven't heard a lot about Better Public Services from the new Government in recent weeks and months and I think there's a very good reason for that. It is that they are embarrassed by their popgun decision basically to abolish the Better Public Services targets that the previous Government had set in place. If I was a Minister in the Government I would be embarrassed by that as well because it was actually just simple spite. It was very churlish of the Prime Minister to say We're getting rid of these Better Public Services targets—we'll have our own ones but we're just going to get rid of the previous Government's ones."Hon Maggie Barry: That's not very positive.CHRIS BISHOP: And I just want to quote to the House—exactly; not very positive my colleague Maggie Barry says—what I asked the police commissioner and what he said. I said to him "Why are targets important?" and this is what he said: "Because they drive performance. The right targets drive the right performance." He's exactly right and that's why the police have their own nine targets that the Government to their credit is keeping in place—so far.So my question really for the Government and for the Minister and for the House is: if the police commissioner himself says that the right targets drive the right performance why would you want to get rid of a target like having 10000 fewer serious crimes by 2021? Who could possibly object to having that as a target? This wasn't just whipped up willy-nilly; this was a target set by the Government in consultation with the police—one that is achievable and realistic and of course once you set that target in place the police and the officials driving it put in place the systems and the plans and the mechanisms to get to that target. So why if the police themselves back these targets and back setting performance targets in place for their own organisation would you want to have a Prime Minister who stands up and on a whim in response to a question gets rid of Better Public Services targets? I think it's disgraceful Mr Chair."