Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I want to join with the other members who've spoken in congratulating Claire Dale on the petition and I also want to congratulate the members of the committee that considered this. What is good to see is the House working collegially on this issue which is actually really important to many members of our community.I think this is really really important because it's about helping facilitate the ability to—as we've just heard—live people's best lives to some of the people who are most struggling with doing that: people who are suffering from disabilities. Mobility parking is a really really important part of disabled people being able to access the facilities and the services that are needed to be a full participant in our community and to live our best lives.It's interesting when I look at the documentation we've got here in front of us and the considerations to see that there is a juxtaposition sometimes between the objectives that we try to achieve and certainly those ones around saying Look we want to have more people using public transport and cycling and those sort of things." and then say "Well we'll take all these parks out." and suddenly you find—whoops-a-daisy—the disability community and the aged community are sort of pushing back and saying "Hang on a moment we need you to leave some car parks there because we cannot all use public transport we cannot all get on a bike and we need to get that balance right." So that's an important thing to consider.But it is good to see the careful and thoughtful consideration that the committee has given to this and now I think it behoves us to make some progress on this. The wheels sometimes grind slowly—this has come from 2022—and I think we should be trying to make sure that we get some progress now.So I want to turn to the six recommendations that we've got in front of us there. The first one of them is to significantly increase and index to inflation the fine for illegal parking in mobility parking spaces. I was really encouraged to see that the Ministry of Transport had been doing some work on exactly this issue across all parking fines. I think that's the key bit there: they'd stopped that work for other work and it's really good to hear that the Minister is now going to say "Hey look I want you to get back on to doing that work to get back on track to doing that work." [National members cheer] I'm sorry what did I say there?But I think what we should take there is it's actually important not to take the fine for parking in disability space in isolation. We've got to actually take the rest of those fines. So you've got the fines for overstaying a park that's one lot. But you've also got the fines there and I looked up the numbers there for parking in a way which is unsafe for pedestrians and other vehicles—i.e. parking on a broken yellow line for example. That is deemed to be unsafe. The fine for that is $60. So you can say "Well OK we're really inconveniencing and we're annoying the disability community; we're upsetting people."—it's $150; "We're being unsafe."—it's $60. What's the fine for example?Then you look at other infringements that there are. In the mobile area it's $150 if you go through a red light. Now when somebody goes through a red light you know there's an amber light that's there first. They have every ability to stop and yet going through that is really unsafe behaviour. So I think the message I would say is yes we want to have a look at the mobility fine; yes that may well need to rise; but hey let's look at all these things and let's make sure that we look at them together so they are coherent. Otherwise you're going to end up with an infringement regime across both parking and mobile offences which is completely incoherent and that would not be particularly helpful or in anybody's best interests at all.The other point that's made there is about indexing in line for inflation. From my local government experience one of the things I can say is that Parliament is really really bad at setting fines and infringements and all those sorts of penalties because what it does is it sets them—in this case in 2008—and then puts them away and says "Look one day we'll consider them again." That is not very helpful. Indexing to inflation would be a much better approach right across the board for so many of those areas.In the last minute I've got available what I would like to say is that I think all the recommendations there are very sensible ones. I think some flexibility built into the way in which those are dealt with and have some guidelines rather than exact definite requirements in public and private land because every circumstance will be slightly different. But the one thing I did want to say: education—really really important. But I did note that there's a thought there about actually going and doing enforcement on private land. The Crown advice there is that's a big big step which may not go down too well. I was disturbed a little bit to then say that maybe local government should go and do that which I think will be just as big a step and probably just as unwise.So I commend this work and suggest that we do really need to get on with doing it and respond to the needs of our disability community."