Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): We have not been supportive of this bill for some very good reasons. Public safety and public protection are the core functions of the police and the police need to be resourced to do this. Our argument is that in this case we believe that the police should be resourced to support those groups that seek to have information provided to them about potential candidates who are coming to work in their workplace particularly if those organisations are ones that work with vulnerable populations. The core arguments that we have against this particular piece of legislation are around the issues of what is a core service for the police what is a demand service and what is actually for private benefit. In the case of vetting for NGOs that may work with children with the elderly or with other vulnerable populations such as the disabled we see that it is a core service of the police to be that initial screen that initial safety barrier when we are looking at those people who are going to work in these particular areas. The discussion around private benefit versus public interest is one that we should not disregard. The argument that was presented at the Law and Order Committee was thus: the public interest of ensuring a safe and credible workforce to work with children and to work with the elderly actually far outweighed what might be determined as private benefit—that is the ability to secure work by having a police check completed clearing you to work in that workplace. So we feel very strongly that the public interest in this—in ensuring that we have a workforce that is safe to work with children with the elderly and with the disabled—far outweighs the arguments that National was giving us in regard to private benefit. When the bill was first introduced it was thought that those groups that would first have costs recovered from them would be groups such as concert promoters—those that are providing concerts or music and are actually going to make a profit from those particular ventures. When you think of the amount of manpower that goes into supporting the safety of people attending those kinds of concerts we thought that that actually had some merit and we were supportive of the bill when it first came to the House for those reasons. It took us by complete surprise as it did many members of the NGO sector and the community and voluntary sector that what actually transpired was that they would be the ones that would be impacted on by this particular piece of legislation. With the user-pays system the officials did not disclose what other services might be charged for. So we might be starting with police checks and police vetting but could this extend perhaps to the recovery of one's stolen property? We have not actually been given any assurances of how far the user-pays system will go. With regard to the community and voluntary sector representatives were very vocal in their opposition to this particular legislation and I want to commend them for their efforts to lobby those members such as the Hon Peter Dunne and the members of the Māori Party to demonstrate that what is occurring here is that the NGO sector which receives its money through donations through philanthropic trusts and through Government contracts is actually going to be moving that money directly into supporting the resources of the police. That is not a good use of its resources. So those organisations are taking resources that they would normally be using for supporting the people and the causes that they care about and putting them directly into the bottom line of the police budget when what should actually happen is that the police should be resourced to do their work properly. The heart of our argument is really around what the police are resourced to do.When the discussion about what charge would be imposed upon individuals wanting to get their police checks completed came to the select committee the discussion was at a level of about $7. But during the examination of what occurs in other jurisdictions particularly in Australia individuals could be looking at a charge of about $50 each. There are high numbers of requests for police to undertake these checks and we know that eventually the nominal sum of $7 will increase—there is no doubt about that. We do not see the value in charging individuals who are going to work in a relatively low-paid NGO environment supporting children the elderly and the disabled—why they should be the ones to bear the brunt of these charges?The other groups that are potentially involved in this—and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been put up by David Clendon and by Chris Hipkins speak to this specifically—are teachers in schools and early childhood education. Here again we are looking at a group of people who are at the heart of keeping our children safe and educated having to bear the brunt of under-resourcing of the police. I would be hopeful that the Government members would support the SOP in my name which would look to exempt registered charities and I am heartened to hear that the Minister is considering that that may be part of regulation. But I say to the Minister actually what you should do is you should put that in the piece of legislation—that should appear in the legislation. The Minister has indicated that there might be some determination about waivers and exemptions but that should actually be up front rather than allowing the Commissioner of Police to make those determinations on an individual basis. It would be far better to actually make the statement that registered charities are exempt registered teachers are exempt and early childhood education centres are also exempt from the charges. It does come down to the fact that the police need to be resourced to do what they do; that a demand service in this case should not be impacting on people who actually want to do a good job in keeping our children and the elderly safe; and that at the end of the day private benefit does not in this case outweigh what is in the best interests of the public. It is for these reasons that we do not support this legislation. We do not believe it has been well-thought-through and we think it is unclear and unfair in its impact. It represents an extremely dangerous new direction in charging for basic police services and we oppose this bill.