Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Policing Act 2008 to enable cost recovery for certain police services that fall within the definition of a demand service. I would like to thank the members of the Law and Order Committee, in particular the chair of the committee, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, for his and his committee’s work on this bill. I would also like to thank all members of the public who took the time to submit. The committee members commented on the high quality and the number of the written oral submissions that were received.

The New Zealand Police is one of the few police services worldwide that does not have legislation that explicitly allows for some degree of cost recovery, particularly for those services that predominantly deliver direct benefits to private individuals. Currently, most police services in New Zealand are funded out of the police’s baseline funding. Providing for cost recovery will enable police to meet the cost associated with increases in demand for certain services. This will avoid placing additional strain on taxpayer funds or shifting resources towards those services at the expense of front-line police activities. It will also safeguard the delivery of these services by ensuring that funding is specifically ring-fenced for them.

Cost recovery is common for many Public Service agencies in New Zealand, both at local government and central government level—for example, the Ministry for Primary Industries has a system in place to recover the cost of providing for food safety, fisheries, and biosecurity services, and the Department of Internal Affairs charges fees for the provision of New Zealand passports.

Under this amendment bill the Minister of Police can recommend regulations to prescribe a fee for services that meet certain criteria. These criteria are as follows: the service is a demand service, the fees or charges are consistent with the specified criteria, and the commissioner has done everything reasonable to consult the persons or organisations affected.

A “demand service” is defined as a service that constitutes policing, is provided only on the request of an individual organisation, is provided to the individual organisation requesting it, and is of direct benefit to that individual or organisation. A “demand service” does not include policing services such as 111 calls, conducting criminal investigations, or the prosecution of criminal offences.

The bill does not list the specific policing services that costs can be recovered for, other than police vetting services. The bill provides that other services could be subject to cost recovery by regulation, providing they meet the principles and criteria set out in the bill. The only policing service currently being considered for cost recovery is the police vetting service. Future examples of services that may be subject to these regulations could include keeping peace at repossessions, responding to insurance company inquiries, and supervising lottery draws.

The Law and Order Committee recommended a number of amendments that will clarify the intentions of the bill. First is to incorporate into the primary definition of “demand service” those services to be excluded—for example, police response to calls for service relating to potential offending. This amendment means that the services that cannot be subject to cost recovery have been incorporated into the primary definition of a “demand service”. This tightens the definition of a “demand service”, serves as a stronger limitation, and provides more clarity and certainty as to the scope of regulation. Secondly, to replace the words “a Crown bank account” with “a departmental bank account”. This amendment ensures that the police receive the fees needed to meet the costs of providing the service being charged for. Thirdly, to clarify that regulations made under the Act may include exemptions, waivers, or refunds of fees or charges payable under the regulations. This amendment means that exemptions, waivers, and refunds will be specifically set out in regulations or granted by the Commissioner of Police in accordance with the regulations.

Following the passage of this bill, it is intended to introduce regulations to enable cost recovery for the police vetting service. This bill includes the police vetting service as an example of a demand service because it is a service that is provided on request from agencies registered with the police such as schools, district health boards, non-governmental organisations, and private sector organisations—for example, retirement homes. I acknowledge that there is a degree of indirect benefit involved with the police vetting service. However, the direct benefit is to the users of the service. Agencies requesting a police vetting check on an individual may do so because of due diligence or legal requirements. These agencies are, therefore, the ones to capture the benefit. This is because the information supplied allows them to make informed decisions about the suitability of that individual for employment in an agency, to act as a volunteer, to conduct business, or to gain citizenship.

The regulations will set a fixed fee for users of the police vetting service. The costs will be calculated based on the full costs of the service, including both direct and indirect costs, averaged by the number of vetting applications. Emphasis has been placed on ensuring the cost is the minimum possible, to enable the provision of the police vetting service. The regulations will include a waiver regime. Decisions on the criteria for waivers have yet to be finalised by Cabinet, but I am keen to ensure that waivers are provided for registered charities. I would like to thank the Hon Peter Dunne for his advice on this matter. The regulations may provide for other exemptions, waivers, or refunds of any fee or charge prescribed under this bill. They will also give the Commissioner of Police the discretion to waive fees, as he or she thinks fit, in certain circumstances.

I am proposing that the bill be enacted as soon as possible. In conclusion, the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill enables the police to recover the costs of certain police services and will help the police to ensure that resources are not diverted from front-line services, will help to provide greater transparency about where costs lie, and will lead to a better allocation of taxpayer resources overall. Cost recovery by Government agencies from other Government agencies already occurs, and leads to a better allocation of taxpayer resources. I believe there is a strong case for cost recovery for services where the benefit accrues directly to individuals and private organisations, rather than the public as a whole.

I acknowledge that Poto Williams, David Clendon, and Chris Hipkins have proposed three Supplementary Order Papers. These will be debated in the Committee of the whole House. The bill has emerged from the Law and Order Committee with a number of changes as a result of the committee’s careful consideration. This has strengthened the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

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.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. This bill allows the Policing Act 2008 to enable cost recovery for certain police services. The New Zealand Police force does a fantastic job to support New Zealanders.

We need to understand why the Act is being amended, what the reason behind it is, and what the background is. There was extensive consultation, which took place in December 2012, and 147 submissions were received. Discussion went on and some recommendations were made, and that is why this bill was introduced. We have examples over in the Australian jurisdiction, where a cost-recovery regime is already available.

It is important that we understand why we are trying to do this. We expect the Police to perform within the budget we have set, like all other Government departments. Here I would like to emphasise one thing: the New Zealand Police is doing a fantastic job, which is not only recognised by New Zealanders but also well recognised worldwide. For example, the police in New Zealand were asked to go and assist the Australian police during the G20 summit, which was a few years ago. That is a reason we are well recognised and well appreciated all over the world. We also know that the Police deliver many services like investigations, prosecutions, and responding to calls as well, and we expect them to work within their budget. We have to understand that the Police, as we expect them to work within their budget, have to recover some costs. When there are personal benefits, then the Police can recover the cost, and that is why the definition of “demand services” is being clarified in this bill.

As the bill was introduced, the Minister of Police was empowered to introduce any fees or give any exemption or waiver to NGOs or charitable organisations. But as the submissions were heard from time to time by the select committee, concern was raised, and then it was recommended in the select committee process that we should ask the Commissioner of Police to have that regulatory power to exempt NGOs and charitable organisations if he or she feels that they should be exempted from these fees. It is again in the hands of the Commissioner of Police as to what to charge and as to fixing what the vetting price should be. It is about ensuring that there is a greater and better use of public money and police resources and time.

As with all things in life, we need to create a balance between our demands, and for the police force also we have to keep that balance. The bill seeks to create a balance between public service and commercial activity. When a business seeks to make a profit from its activities but wants the general public to foot the bill for some of these activities, it is unfair, I think, to use public money, therefore I believe the balance should be sensible. It is a sensible piece of legislation and I hope that it will go through this House. I commend this bill to the House.

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.

The first speaker on the other side of the House, Poto Williams, reflected the views of a large number of submitters as they came to the select committee process on this bill—which I would have to say was probably one of the most complicated or interesting, I guess, select committee processes I have been through in my time in this House—as I think there was a lot of nervousness around how this bill would play out in due course, and some of the factors that she raised, I guess, were of concern to the Law and Order Committee. However, as the bill progressed, a lot of things have been cleared up, and I would like to remind Stuart Nash, the previous speaker, that it is actually the Government’s role to keep people safe. The agencies it uses to do that all play their part in it. If the Government decides one agency needs to charge another agency for services, it is purely the Government’s decision, and I do not think it has got anything to do with the efficiency of the police or anyone else, for that matter.

I have got to declare a vested interest in this, as I am chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand, an organisation that uses police vetting processes for an awful lot of police checks. We have 7,000-odd athletes whom we need to keep safe on an annual basis, many of whom are vulnerable, and we use the police vetting service an awful lot. There was some nervousness in that organisation about where this bill would get to, and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Police on her strong signal that there will be a waiver progressed for registered charities through regulation. I think that has alleviated a lot of the concerns that many of us had in the course of this select committee process.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government’s role is to keep people safe, and if the Government needs to pay bills to other Government departments, then that is the Government’s choice. So I think this bill has played out pretty well in the end, despite some nervousness on the select committee’s behalf—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.