Sabin Mike: Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 04 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:524. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I agree with the Hon Phil Goff on the last points that he made. It is certainly very explicit from what I can see that the cost recovery that is under discussion and relates specifically to this bill deals with a direct benefit to a particular individual or organisation. If Mr Goff is seriously suggesting that $7 per police vetting for the narrow field of people who would fit the definition of the private individual getting a greater benefit than the public good—the $7 for clipping that ticket—is somehow the police’s only way to recover this massive hole in the budget that he seems to think there is then I think that is slightly delusional.The reality is that this is about cost recovery; it is not about profit making. It is about recovering costs where the police are providing a service to an individual or organisation that goes above and beyond the interests of the wider public. I am sure that a very important part of the focus of the select committee process and the submissions will be to see exactly where it is that various stakeholders see that that line sits.I think it is very clear certainly from this National Government’s perspective. It is very important that the police provide the services they do. Once upon a time it was called a police force was it not? Now it is a police service or what have you. The world moves on; it is a different place.This is not about changing the way the police go about doing business; it is about saying that where there are individuals who will accrue a personal benefit or where there is an individual who will essentially benefit without the public enjoying that wider benefit in terms of police time and police resources then possibly there should be some recovery of that cost—at a very very minimal cost. It is important to note that we are one of the very few—I have not dug far enough to find out whether there are any other jurisdictions that do not actually have any form of cost recovery but it is actually very commonplace. It goes a lot further than what has just been suggested here in terms of cost recovery for police vetting.So it is important I think to understand that there is a greater use of police resources and a greater use of police time and that there are constraints therefore on other services that the police can provide to the wider public as a result of doing police vetting. It is about getting a balance that ensures that if there are costs associated with that and the individual or the organisation gets a private benefit that is over and above or usurps the greater public good then there is an opportunity for the police to recover some of those costs and arguably to put those funds back into more effective public services and into the better delivery of better public services.As the Minister mentioned the Policing Act currently does not specifically enable this to happen. Obviously it has been looked at some time before. It is very much about recovering costs. I would suggest that it is about only just recovering costs. You will get no complaints from me about the fact that it has been a very very tough time for public sector organisations such as the New Zealand Police to work through a global financial crisis and the problems that we have had financially as a nation with the Canterbury earthquakes. Everyone has had to cut their cloth to fit and it has been a very challenging time. One thing I will say is that we can dish out a huge bouquet to the police in the sense that what they have done is entirely change their focus far more so to a prevention focus. They have been far better resourced in terms of their equipment and tools of the job if you like to be able to get out there and actually put more effective man hours on the street.The way we are policing today is not the same way we were doing it 10 15 or 20 years ago. I anticipate that that will continue to evolve for a number of reasons. It is not a case that there is just a blank cheque that can be written out. The balance of course is always ensuring that the public are protected and that we have a sinking lid on the amount of crime. The reality is that we are in a position where we have a 35-year low in crime rates. We can get a little bit cynical about statistics from time to time but the reality is that if you look at the morale of the police and you look at the public satisfaction they are both good. They are both saying that the police in very very tough times are doing a very very good job. Sure in a perfect world we would have resourced them with more we would do more and be able to achieve more and there would not be any crime but the reality is that that is not the world we live in and it is important that we are always looking to strike the appropriate balance that does not compromise the greater good for the public. I believe that this bill provides an opportunity for us to ask that question and get that balance right when it comes to police vetting. I commend the bill to the House.