Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to thank the Minister of Fairness" because that's what Minister Faafoi is. He's the "Minister of Fairness" because once again he's leading a bill that's about fairness and I applaud him for that. What a wonderful testimony he's just given us. I mean he'd do well at the Mormon church I was at the other day talking about fairness but can I focus on this because he raises some good points. You only need to look—you know we've been talking about this nine long years of neglect and boy is it real!CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! If I hear that one more time at the beginning of a speech I'll give you a second warning and I'll terminate your speech.PAUL EAGLE: Well look let me—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No you get to the point. This debate is about the bill OK? You can have your political statements but make sure they're referenced to the bill.PAUL EAGLE: Gotcha gotcha gotcha. Thank you Mr Chair. Well let's refocus on the committee stage of this bill. I just want to reflect on a few things and one of those things is that I wonder if the Minister could reflect on the voluntary code of conduct there and talk about why that was such a success—or not as the case is—because I know and there's a story there and I want to add this to what I've just said. That was an article around why unregulated wheel-clamping is still a lucrative hobby. That was a story that talked about $760 for half an hour of illicit car-parking. Not only that but the car-parking company was hiding in plain sight as a second-hand shop—Bashford Antiques they were called—and maybe the Minister could elaborate on that and why this voluntary code dare I say it led by the current Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges who in October 2017 had media questioning behind that. So Mr Chair that's one aspect.But can I just say that there are many many more things and being a member of the select committee and talking through some of the detail around this I think we all agreed that if we could we would in terms of saying that you know there's not an intention to put people out of business but certainly the $100 fee cap raised some issues. The officials certainly brought back to us several examples from across the globe as to where it had worked why it had worked and maybe the Minister there could also just clarify for us a bit further regarding that $100 fee and why it will not drive operators out of business and whether it's a reasonable reflection of the business cost in terms of the operator.So there are three questions there that I think the Minister will do well at. As you know I've called him the "Minister of Fairness" because I expect his responses to come up with results that will tell us that this is long overdue that this piece of work was well thought through. It took a long time through the select committee and although there may have been some issues particularly around what that fine limit should be or could be I think what we came up with Mr Chair was a reasonable approach because it put people first in terms of what they could afford to pay. We've given some examples around what the impact of the current or the existing law or lack of does to normal people.I just want to finish by reflecting on some of the early research around this bill where it was interesting to note that in places where wheel clampers were most prolific were the same people that had red vans going around their communities where the same I guess victimisation of those most vulnerable—were also the same people who were being targeted by these wheel clamp operators. So actually this has a bigger picture around the wellbeing of people particularly those who can't afford it most. Sure there may have been some issues around their parking—where how whether it was illegal or not but I certainly think this is going to make things a whole lot more fair."