Editorial: Vetting charge unfair

Former Police Minister Anne Tolley

The Government needs to scrap a proposal to charge charities for police checks.

Charities and volunteer groups are warning they will have to cut back on their services if the charge on criminal checks goes ahead.

Non-profit organisations such as the Cancer Society, Age Concern, the Blind Foundation and others have asked to be exempted from a proposed $5 to $7 charge for police vetting.

They say organisations that provide a public good, depend solely on donations and have a large proportion of volunteer staff should not have to cough up for the service.

A parliamentary select committee began hearing submissions last week on the law change, which would allow the Government to charge for police services. Some cash-strapped groups estimated new costs of $5000 to $10,000 a year if they needed to pay for criminal checks.

It defies belief that the Government is even considering this revenue-generating proposal.

These groups are set up to help people in need.

They spend endless hours raising funds in order to do their good work. And what does the Government plan to do? Make their job even harder.

Such a move shows little appreciation for the work these groups do.

Yes, nothing is free in this world but the good work these groups do more than compensates for the cost of a police check.

The Blind Foundation said it looked after a large number of children and, under a law change last year, it was required to vet all its staff. It estimated a new bill of at least $2500 a year.

It seems unfair then to demand they carry out police checks and then charge them for it.

The Police Association has agreed with the groups. Its members supported moves to reduce the strain on the frozen police budget but believed cost recovery should be limited to private commercial interests.

Former Police Minister Anne Tolley emphasised the proposed charge was much lower than the $50 to $60 paid for criminal checks in parts of Australia.

She misses the point: Any charge is too much for these groups.