Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): The previous gentleman to talk on this bill Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi talked about a balance. I completely agree but I suspect that my definition of balance varies greatly from that member's. For me it is about getting a balance between what the public perception of police is—what the public believes the role of the police is—versus the public good. At the moment I have some concerns that the public's confidence in the ability of the police to solve crime and do their job is eroding. I have great concerns that if the public now see the police charging for their services—charging for their services—it will further erode the confidence that we have in our policemen and women.I want to say that I think our policemen and women do a fantastic job. They are under-resourced. In fact 60 percent of officers in the recent workplace survey said that they are not meeting the promises they make to the public and that is of huge concern. But a way forward is not to start charging for the services of the police. That is not a way to raise money; it is a not a way to gain the confidence of the public. I also think it is not a way to actually reinforce the objective manner of the police. So if we take this a step further where does it go? Is this a slippery slope towards privatisation? Well in essence this is the first step towards privatisation because whenever you require users to pay for a Government service that is privatisation. It is a small step I must admit but where will this lead to? Where does this go? What the departmental disclosure statement in the explanatory note of the bill says is that this leads to greater transparency of the use of public money and agencies consider their use of services more carefully once costs are internalised." What this is saying is that if a person or an organisation who requires vetting cannot afford this then they will not take up the option. But on the flip side of that what we are demanding more and more as a society is to be kept safe from those who are causing mischief. A lot of people require police vetting. This is not a "nice-to-have" voluntary measure; this is now a compulsory measure that we have required through statute from this House. So what we are in fact doing is imposing greater costs on a lot of agencies schools institutions organisations and charities that are picking up a lot of the burden that is left by a Government that has left people behind. Why should schools have to pay for police vetting of their staff? Why should kindergartens have to pay for police vetting when I believe it is a fundamental role of the police to keep our society safe? We are now saying no it is not the police's role; it is the kindergarten's role but it must use the police because they are the only organisation with the ability and resources to undertake the sort of vetting that we as a Parliament require. That is privatisation and that is wrong. But where will this lead to? Will this lead to a point in time when the wealthy suburbs because they can afford to pay police cars to patrol end up being patrolled while the suburbs down the road that are not as wealthy—suburbs where constituents' lives are a challenge—and cannot pay get one police car while these guys in the wealthy suburbs get three police cars?What we are also told is that this is what happens in other jurisdictions. In most other jurisdictions police carry guns but are we saying that because they do it in other jurisdictions we must do it in ours? In a number of policing areas in a number of policing initiatives we have been world leading. We are not followers. We are not a police force that says that we do not really know what is going on here and that we therefore have got to look over the Ditch and see what the Australians are doing what the Americans are doing and what the Brits are doing. Goodness me if we had a look at a lot of these jurisdictions and copied their methods of policing we would be in huge trouble.I believe that at this point in time the police are at a little bit of a crossroads. What we have had is a Minister who only in May of this year signed off on a 4-year strategic plan for police. In that plan it said there were going to be no more police for another 4 years. Since then the police Minister has come out and admitted that that was a mistake; we need more police. We have had the Commissioner of Police say less than 2 weeks ago that we do not need more police and yet we get a resolution rate of less than 10 percent for stolen vehicles and less than 10 percent for burglaries. We are having officers moved from community police stations and brought into head office.Policing in this country is diminishing in its effectiveness to solve crime and to keep our communities safe. Yet here we are with this bill requiring those organisations that actually are in charge of keeping our children safe our elderly safe and our poor safe to pay for police services. Is that right? I do not think it is. It is no coincidence that nearly every submitter during the select committee process said that this was the wrong thing to do. Maybe at a future point in time we can look at it. When the police are adequately resourced when they are solving crimes when burglaries are getting solved and when people are phoning the police with confidence knowing that they are going to turn up maybe we need to look at it then. But I think policing works really really well when our communities have confidence that our police are doing their job in a way that meets the expectations of the public and I do not think that this bill does that.Let us be honest about this. The policing budget is huge—it really is. It is a significant amount of money. This bill is not going to bring in much money—it is not—so what we are debating here is really a philosophical point. We are not debating a fiscal point. So I would argue that at this point in time we need to take the philosophy of user-pays back take it off the table and get back on the table the philosophy of community policing. We need to bring back the belief within our communities that police are there for us and to protect us and not just those who can pay the money. What happens if there is a concert and the concert promoter can afford to pay for police so the whole of Western Springs is ringed by police and then there is another concert to raise money for—I do not know—Oxfam or a disaster or another charity and because it is not about them but about raising money for a charity they cannot afford police? Are the Rolling Stones more deserving of a ring of police than Oxfam? I do not think so and I also do not think that the public believe that. That is why we are voting against this bill and that is why I would like the Government members who are going to speak on this bill and the Minister who has already spoken on this bill and who is responsible for shepherding this bill through the House to perhaps take another look at it to understand that this will begin—well not begin; will continue—the erosion of confidence that we have in our police force.The other thing that concerns me is that in that workplace survey over 80 percent of the police said that they are committed to the force—over 80 percent of police said they are committed to our communities. The men and women on the front line who wear that uniform have an absolute commitment to doing what is right for our communities. But what it also said in that survey in the lowest-ranking answer was that over 60 percent said they do not believe that their voices are being listened to by the police hierarchy. They do not believe that their ideas and their feedback are getting through to those who are making decisions. I can understand the men and women on the front line looking at this and saying amongst their groups around the water coolers: "Goodness me! This is just one more step where people are going to look at us and say: 'What is going on? Why do we have to pay for your services?' instead of saying: 'The police can do this in an efficient manner and that is what we need to have done.' " As mentioned—just to sum up—we are debating a philosophical point here on where we take the police in the next 3 to 4 to 5 to 10 years. I firmly believe that we need to get the focus of the police back to the community—back to serving the community and serving those organisations that are there to serve our community. I do not believe it is a good idea to have the police start charging for services that they have done for free in the past. If we want the police to undertake these services then my plea is we need to resource them in an adequate manner. That is the solution not user-pays. Thank you very much."