Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I just want to deal with some of Minister Judith Collins' comments before I get on to a specific part of the bill. She did make the comment that when she became the Minister of Police in 2008 police vetting was one of the most acute pressure points in terms of the workload for police. I can understand that. But it has taken 8 years for her Government to get a bill to the Committee stage to be able deal with that issue. There have been three Ministers of Police since National has come into power and one of the most acute—apparently acute—issues of demand for the police is still at the Committee stage here in this Parliament. I do also want to ask some questions of the Minister around the level of the cost for the police vetting. I do not want anyone out in the public to be mistaken: police vetting is a good thing. We want to make sure that anyone who deals with the public whether it be in a public or private sense is safe and is not a risk to anyone that they are dealing with. But what we need is some up-to-date information from the Government about the pressure points and the cost. We have heard about some of the demand—I think the Minister said there are half a million police-vettings that the police are currently considering. I ask for some more information because I want to know how up to date the figure of $7 per police vetting is now. The range of $5 to $7 was first proffered up in a regulatory impact statement that came along with this bill which was provided by New Zealand Police on 4 October 2013—some 3 years ago. It is interesting to read further into the regulatory impact statement. I think I am channelling the Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel at the moment who heavily relied on the regulatory impact statements because New Zealand Police said in table 2 in part 1 of its regulatory impact that The total cost of providing the vetting service is likely to increase over time due to demand for the service and the operational costs of the service provision." The situation is that we have got a range of $5 to $7 back in 2013 approximately 3 years ago when the level of demand was X. We are now told by the Minister that demand has increased to about a half a million police-vetting checks per year. The police have said in this 3-year-old regulatory impact statement that yes prices will increase for vetting because demand will increase. My question—and I think the question of those people who submitted to the select committee—is: what is the price? Is $5 to $7 now an obsolete range? Do we now have because of demand increases a different price that we should be looking at? That would be of major concern to the people who submitted on this bill. When this bill was first introduced we thought that it would be looking at the likes of event operators. If you were to be holding the likes of the Wellington Sevens or the Auckland Nines where there may be a demand for increased policing because of the numbers of people and because of the potential behaviour at those events extra police resources would be required. But it is interesting to see who is being focused on here for the first charge that the police are looking at because it is the likes of charities. It is the likes of the Cancer Society of New Zealand. It is the likes of the Salvation Army. They are the types of community organisations that have come under the microscope that have asked to be heard at the select committee and that really want to know what the financial impact of a potential cost around police vetting is going to mean for them. I think that if we are going to seriously consider this piece of legislation which will affect their bottom lines they deserve the most up-to-date estimation of what this bill means to them. If there are half a million police-vetting checks and the upper range is $7 then my maths says that that is about a $3.5 million cost for all those people who are going to be affected by this bill. And if as the police said 3 years ago costs will increase what is that cost now? I think that is a fair enough question to ask. I will ask the Minister to answer that because I think those entities deserve to know."