Andersen Ginny; Rurawhe AdrianGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on this most important bill this evening. Look I think it's important that we get the right balance because it's not OK to just park where you want to—you can't do that—but it's also important that people aren't ripped off. So this bill strikes an incredibly good balance between protecting motorists and ensuring businesses have the right tools to prevent people parking where they shouldn't do like on footpaths or for too long or things like that.We've all had a time when you come out of a shop or have been at an event and whether it's clamping or a ticket—the feeling of knowing that you have a substantive fee to pay for something that was not necessarily deliberately one's own fault. That gets to the point where I have had constituents come to me quite upset and quite irate where they are trying to pay bills where people are trying to make ends meet and a substantive fee comes in that's unexpected and needs to be paid within a short period of time and that can cause a lot of strain on individuals and on families. So it is this Government that takes it in hand to say that that's not fair and that that's not OK for businesses to extort large sums of money from people when they can't use their motor vehicle.So for the opportunity to be able to challenge something and appeal when you have a ticket there's a process in place. But if you come out of the gym or a restaurant or taking your kids to school and you find that you've been clamped there's no way of getting out of that situation if you are needing your vehicle immediately. So you are at the mercy of the company that has clamped you. People see themselves in standover situations where they are being made to comply and made to immediately pay out significant amounts of money just in order to access their vehicle and get to the next point in time—which may be picking up children or something really important.In the regulatory impact statement that's been developed by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment it really is quite clear in terms of articulating what this problem is. That leads on to what my question is to the Minister tonight. The clear issues that have been outlined in this problem is that motorists face a multitude of gaps and regulation or are unclear in terms of where the laws stand in terms of this industry. There are four key areas that have been outlined that are the most concerning. The first is unreasonable fees. I've already touched on that the fact that quite large sums of money are particularly gouged in this area because people need to access their vehicle and so they're obliged to pay out on the spot sometimes. The second one is unclear signage. This is a real concern. If you're going to be potentially incurring a fee or a penalty it's only fair that you have forewarning that that may be a possibility. If there's not clear notification to the general public that that is a possibility then that is something that this bill addresses.The third one is intimidating and unfair behaviour by wheel-clamp operators. It is companies who are making significant amounts of money by disabling vehicles and really using those standover tactics to extract money from people in order to access their cars.The last one is the lack of opportunity for appeal or recourse prior to paying the release fee. As I've already mentioned it's quite different to a parking infringement fine where you can write in or challenge it.So my question to the Minister tonight is in relation to the requirements for being reasonably available for the business operator. So in the bill as it is introduced there's new section 98D(3) that states that an operator must reasonably be able to respond to a request for removal of the device. The bill has not given a specified outline to that in legislation but left that to regulation. What I'm really interested to know is how we will reassure the general public that if they are standing beside a vehicle with a clamp on it and there is a requirement for a response in a reasonable amount of time that operator will be able to respond to the request for the removal of the device.Jamie Strange: Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It's getting a bit repetitive. But Jamie Strange you might have something new.