Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Can I just say in responding to some of the earlier remarks by the previous speaker Parmjeet Parmar that she is completely wrong when she says that the Opposition does not support the police force. I think if she considered that the Government has underfunded the police force by more than $300 million—Hon Ruth Dyson: How much?Su'a WILLIAM SIO: —$300 million—she would recognise that it is her Government that has failed to continue to support the police force and it is forcing the New Zealand Police to skimp around and find ways of funding itself. The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill because we just believe it is wrong. It is wrong for this Government to set the police on a course where they think it is OK to start charging the public for services that are currently being undertaken by the police force and considered under legislation as core fundamental services—including the maintaining of public safety crime prevention and community support and reassurance.I suspect that the members of the public who would be listening to the debate should see a red flag with this kind of bill because I think most New Zealanders would agree with me when I say that many of us agree with the principle of solidarity. That is that we pay our taxes and give them to the Government to collect in order for the Government to ensure that certain services are available for all—certain services are able to contribute to the general public good for all peoples. The reason that I pay my tax and that I think most of us do so is that we pool those resources together and we ensure that every child in our neighbourhood gets a good education. We pool our resources by taxing ourselves ensuring that if anyone gets sick they are able to see a doctor or if they need medical treatment they are able to go to the hospital without being told that they have to pay. We do so with housing and we do so also with our police force. We pay our taxes and we collectively pool those taxes for the sake of ensuring that a police force is there to provide a public good.The public good is public safety. It is the maintenance of law and order. It is the ability to give confidence and assurance to every citizen of New Zealand that our Government is doing its job. But this bill now introduces the debate about what private good is versus public good. I have always thought—and most New Zealanders will not have a problem with this—that those in the area of business where they are making profits for delivering a service or selling a good to the general public have a right to make a profit. This is the same principle that this Government is now asking the police force to undertake. A service that was delivered as part of the core function of police is now being charged for. I look at what the Law and Order Committee has done and my colleagues tell me that when they asked the officials what other services would be charged for the officials were unable or unwilling to disclose this.So it seems to me that this is the first step on the slippery slope towards a paid police force. That is what we are heading towards. That is not New Zealand. I heard Mr Jonathan Young say earlier that this is what Australia is currently undertaking. I want to say to Mr Jonathan Young: so—so? That might be Australia—but we are not Australia; we are New Zealand. We are an independent sovereign nation. We are different from Australia. This is not the Kiwi way. So I suspect that Mr Jonathan Young might be suggesting that if Australia asks us to jump we might be saying: How high?". I would say that we need to maintain our Kiwi way the way that we do things the way that is in line with the principle of solidarity that most New Zealanders live their lives by.I want to say that the Government is saying that police vetting—as it is currently being done—is to ensure that those who are working with vulnerable people for example children are fit and proper people to do so and that the community's safety is assured. It now seems that under this legislation if an early childhood education centre which is the example given by a colleague earlier is asking for the police to vet someone it is going to have to pay. The report suggests that it is $7 but we also know that Australia charges for this same service about A$50. Where will it stop? Some early childhood centres have more than 10 staff. Others will include volunteers. But there also is a concern from the Salvation Army and organisations that are at the coalface of trying to meet some of the challenges that have been imposed on this country because of a lack of caring and because of the direct consequence of this Government's public policy.I understand that most if not all of the submitters on this particular bill were opposed to this. Let me read out what they say here. Most of the people who made submissions on this said that they believed that it was totally inappropriate to make future major changes—for the police to start charging for these services. The fact that the officials were unable or unwilling to identify what other services will be charged for as part of this new regime is also concerning.I also want to raise the other part of this bill that is concerning. Hopefully when it comes to the Committee of the whole House we will have the opportunity to debate and consider it more. It is the fact that under this legislation changes can be made by regulation—that is without coming to this House which has the supreme authority of our laws. These changes can be made without any knowledge of this House. I dare say that this is the slippery slope that I do not think is appropriate. I said earlier for the public listening to this debate that this should alert them like a red flag as to where things are going under this Government. I say that there has been a pattern that has emerged where in terms of the debate of private good versus public good we are slowly but surely and more deliberately despite the subtleness being moved towards paying—a user-charge society. More of our services are being privatised.I give the example of our prisons. This Government came into power and invited Serco to run some of our prisons. We know that in the case where private business is involved in the delivery of public service for public good there are often bad examples that we note—in America for example where that sort of going-on is rife with corruption. I note also that last night we debated a new bill in terms of education. The Government's own reports say that the charter school system has failed—has failed—and yet the legislation that we debated last night is going to extend the charter school system and extend a failed system at that.Now today we are seeing the first changes in what I believe is a move towards the privatisation of our police force. I do not know what it is but it seems like we are trying to follow the American style of providing services that benefit the public. Is it because Mr Key has suddenly found a new friend in the American President? I would hope that if he does rub shoulders with him from time to time he remembers that New Zealand is a sovereign nation is an independent nation—and that as small as we are we have to maintain those things that make us different from the rest of the world. I want to say that in terms of this bill it is wrong. This is the start of a slippery slope: where first we are charging community organisations that may want individuals to be vetted for the sake of maintaining the safety of our community. What is next? Does that mean that if my house gets burgled I am going to have to pay the police before they come and investigate that burglary? Is that where we are heading to? I hope not but I do not believe that this Government knows where it is going."