Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Under instruction from the National Party member Jacqui Dean to be nice I will do what I can. I rise to add the Green Party's opposition to this the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I really want to just speak to the context of this bill first up. I have at least growing concern about the state of our core social infrastructure in New Zealand—a concern that it is not keeping up with population growth or changing social mores or need. We are seeing this very clearly in the health sector we are seeing it at the breaking point in our social sector and we are hearing this from the police. I take a word of caution from one editorial in the paper today saying that the Opposition always talks about problems in policing coming up to an election and how the police never have enough resource. That being said I do think it is important to note that there has been a $90 million cut in real terms to the Police budget at a time when we are expecting more from it in terms of police vetting for vulnerable children in terms of response to sexual violence and in terms of response to domestic violence. It has been suffering a real-term funding cut. So it goes to the core of this Government's approach which is that it seems to be prioritising reducing Government over ensuring that our society works—ensuring that the vision that it bandies around all over the place is actually able to be delivered by us. I think this is another example of that because we have had the Vulnerable Children's Act bring in this increased need for vetting. We have heard that mentioned again and again from National members across the way which to me shows a gaping flaw in the logic behind this bill. Government members are saying they are bringing in this cost recovery for vetting because it is a private benefit not a social good. The entire argument of the Vulnerable Children's Act was that that vetting provides a public good. You cannot have it both ways. It does not make sense. So this bill goes right to the heart of that. Also I think this whole area exposes this Government's lack of planning and how it does not seem to see things in a joined up way. We had the Vulnerable Children's Act and increased requirements for vetting. There was going to be a consequent pressure on the police to be able to respond to that. I understand that there has been—and we have heard it from the Government—an increased demand for vetting. A no-brainer: it was going to happen. That has meant that the waiting time to get vettings through the police has gone up from an average of 6.3 days in 2013 to 21.7 days in 2015 because of that increased demand created by legislation because this House said that there was a public good in that. The Government should have seen that coming; everyone else saw that coming. Yet it did not put in the resources to be able to deliver the intent of the legislation. So are the Government members now soon after and on the back of that putting in legislation and scrambling around to be able to address the damage that has been caused by them not thinking that through in the first place. The Government is putting the cost on to the rest of society while it has been actually collecting our taxes to be able to deliver our social services and our social intent and yet it is not doing it. So it really does need to be called out on that. I think it is worth saying that I heard at a Social Services Committee meeting this week from somebody in a tertiary institution who was saying that the vetting has in the way that it has not been resourced had a real impact on them. They are having backlogs of over 3 weeks to be able to get staff members vetted and on top of that our tertiary institutions are now going to be charged costs when they should be using that money for education.