Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's obviously not going to be the double today but I am very appreciative for the support I had on my first bill. This bill unfortunately we haven't been able to work collaboratively on which has been unfortunate. Because I've tried to work with the Minister of Police on this a couple of times but just literally haven't been able to get to a stage where—some of the comments that have been said today are just patently wrong. Not because I suggest the members are saying things that are incorrect for malicious reasons just simply because they are wrong because they don't have a great enough understanding of what's in this bill.What the bill seeks to do is to require second-hand dealers to provide the data they already capture in a machine-readable form to the police. That's all it requires. The issues around penalties and this stuff we could have beaten out in select committee but that is simply all it requires. That was at the request of the police; it is not me dreaming it up.The reason why they requested as I said before and I'm just talking in reference to the MP for Northland Willow-Jean Prime who just spoke previously. The very issue that she talked about—the wide-ranging number of second-hand dealers around Northland—is the issue why the police want this in place. Because simply to travel across Northland going into each one of those and having a policeman not only driving there but sitting down and taking all the notes and spending an hour or half an hour whatever it is and then going back to the office and putting it into the Serial Number Automated Checker as a system is incredibly time-consuming.So the first thing is you talked about cost—cost to the business person. The cost to the business person is absolutely minor because all it requires is a machine-readable form—they are already collecting the information. But the second cost that I find staggering that no one seems to take into account is the cost to the police because they have to do this. Because if you want to get rid of stolen goods one of the best ways to do it is to put it through a second-hand dealer. The second-hand dealer might be totally unsuspecting because in many cases what we heard and there have been hundreds of prosecutions now is that they are very smart. They'll go into a whole range of them across all of Northland and sell a small amount in each one of them but it is only when you see the totality of what they are doing that police start to work out what's going on.But also it helps in the recovery of those stolen goods. All it comes back to is getting data regularly quickly easily so that we have front-line officers catching the crims not spending time driving around in the car and writing bits of information on a piece of paper and then going back to the office and entering it. So why on earth even with all the money the Government talks about putting into police—this is one of the easiest ways to make sure there are more front-line services.The third thing is you talk about the cost to the business owner but what about the cost not only to the police but to the people who have had their goods stolen who have suffered the crime? They're the people who have lost their mementos their housing stuff that in many cases is precious to them. These are the bits that are taken to these second-hand dealers and sold. It's not the only way they get rid of it but it's an important avenue for crime. So what about the cost to them and to society in general for not allowing the police the right to be able to get data that's already collected in a machine-readable form? I just don't accept the proposition about compliance costs. There is a cost to the police. There is a cost to the individuals who have lost those items. There is a cost to society in general. This is an easy way of dealing with that.The other thing I heard about the legislation—as I said before the police helped me draft the legislation. When we were in Government I had police people working alongside me to prepare this bill so the claim that I heard from the former police policy adviser Ginny Andersen I think was totally incorrect and I'm surprised that she said that.The issue of penalties could have been easily dealt with in the select committee and the roll-out time—again it's an easy stroke of the pen—could have been delayed in terms of commencement date. Those are simple issues but the simple fact is Labour is choosing not to support the police to do their job more easily.