Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a tragic little day in Parliament when the Government's getting excited about imposing a tax on parking fines. This document the Cost Recovery Impact Statement is really all you need to read. I mean what it sets out is just a list of shortcomings in this policy. Throughout the debate so far no one's actually touched on the options in the document that have not been considered. It runs through a number of options but it basically says We didn't look at anything else."—it's as if you wanted to run a lesson on how not to do good public policy— "We didn't want to look at anything else because 'This was not possible in the time available. Other alternative options could not be explored due to time constraints.' "So here we've got a Government who talks about doing things right and efficiently and all those kinds of things and yet they won't take the time to make sure that the framework they're putting in place even for something like how we collect fines and how that's paid for—they won't actually just do the work because of course here it is: "To progress this option"—which was removing the initial filing fee to lower the barriers for local councils—"extensive consultation and data collection would be required to determine whether it would be worth progressing". And then it says "We basically couldn't be bothered doing that—couldn't be bothered consulting." That's the Government we've got now. They're imposing costs on local bodies and they couldn't be bothered consulting on whether there was a better way to go about it.Andy Foster: There's much bigger things.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah well funny you say Mr Foster that there's much bigger things to do but here we are 10 o'clock on a Friday night and we're this trivial little parking tax bill. And of course over there they've been saying "Oh this is all about good stewardship and cost recovery." But the document itself makes it very very clear what the motivation behind this bill is: "To support the Government's Budget priority of finding $1.5 billion per annum in savings" to fill their cavernous fiscal hole that this udget has. [Interruption] Hey look on the other side you have got the pride of place of being the largest borrowing Government in New Zealand history. You have just incurred—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not "you".Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No. That Government has just got the pride of place of being the largest borrowing Government in history which over the next four years has to find $9 billion in interest payments. And this is how you're going to do it. That's right; it's you. The Government just borrowed billions of dollars for tax cuts for landlords and they are filling this fiscal hole with $200000 of cost recovery. It is absolutely ridiculous.The other thing is that there are some pretty clear guidelines about how levies and charges should be imposed. In fact the document there sets out quite clearly that the costs recovered should be justifiable. And the Minister in the chair couldn't actually tell us in any coherent way what those costs were—what was the equitable proportion to be borne by the State or the council and what was the equitable proportion to be borne elsewhere by the person who had the parking fine. So that is part of the process to actually go through and think about what is an equitable and just way to do it. And the irony is that in the document there's basically a checklist that's got the principles on one side and the assessment on the other but they bear no relationship to each other because none of those principles of good lawmaking good regulation and good levying and charging exist. So they don't even know for example whether it's efficient. Is this the best way to go about recovering these costs? And then it just gives you a long paragraph about how many there are and gives you a description of how it operates. It does not say that we have thought about how we could recover costs and this is the most efficient way to do it or it's not the most efficient but it is the most simple and that's the trade-off we choose. That's the kind of analysis we need.Of course the one that really sticks in the craw is equity: "The charges should be administratively fair: identify the impacts of cost recovery do not seek to recover costs from one group that could benefit a previous or future group." This is so that it's spread out evenly. Now the irony is that if you have a $1000 fine the cost recovery will be $140. If you have a $100 the cost recovery will be $14. So the costs of recovery are going to be the same but there is a massive cross-subsidisation in there. So a percentage figure on a radically varying amount is actually quite inequitable. That's what this Government—and this is a Government that is spending tens and tens of millions of dollars in setting up a vanity Ministry for Regulation so that these kinds of things are done right. And then straight out of the gate with one hand they throw cash at David Seymour's ministry and at the very same moment the other hand is doing rubbish like this which just cuts across all of the regulatory principles. We don't need a Ministry for Regulation the principles are all there the answers are terrible but the questions are the right questions so we don't need it at all.And of course the other thing in this document which this Government should be ashamed of is the fact that it makes it clear that the burden will fall hardest on those who are struggling most. This is part of a package which is seeking to fill the Government's coffers. And when you look at who's paying it's people who don't have the money to pay their parking fines—people who can't find the money to pay infringement offences. They might have scrabbled around pinned the infringement notice to the noticeboard by the kitchen or on the fridge or whatever and then they've put it away because they know they either have food in the fridge or pay the parking fine. They've made that trade-off they've chosen to feed their kids and all of a sudden they get the notice from the court or from the local body saying "You've got to turn up to court. It's now not only is it a $40 fine it's a $100 court cost and if you choose to argue it it's going to be more costs on top of that." That's who's going to be paying ultimately for these increased charges which are part of this package.So we've got a Government here that's chosen to splash money around particularly offensively for landlords and then they're saying "Oh we've got it all from savings over here." And on the other hand they're borrowing money—billions of dollars; they're borrowing billions of dollars. So you—Hon Andrew Bayly: You borrowed $100 billion.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Now you're not allowed to heckle from there Mr Bayly.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's true Mr Bayly.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The fact of the matter is that we've got a Government that's failed at the first hurdle. They've made all kinds of promises. They're scrabbling around for $200000 in cost recovery and here they are disappointing New Zealanders by breaking their election promises—serious election promises. Not the $250 tax break promise—we all knew that was a joke—but there are people out there who honestly believed that they were going to get their cancer medicines because they were promises seriously made to serious people. And that is a tragedy. That is an affront. And there are people out there who are heartbroken because this Government promised that they would be taking certain steps that they would be funding certain medicines and they're not. And those people are sitting there and this is all the Government can do. A little bill—a terrible little bill—that scrabbles around looking for a few hundred thousand dollars here and there. [Interruption] Yeah no I can see why you're hanging your heads—I would too—because you've made big promises and you've let people down and you come up with a bill like this which actually—the very similar people people who are in hardship and struggling you're bashing them down again.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me Mr Webb.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It's shameful. No you're not. Those Government members are bashing them down again and it's shameful it's a terrible piece of legislation and it's a terrible way to pass it with this kind of urgency as well. What a waste of this House's time."