Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. Otirā e ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I'm happy to take a call on the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill in the second reading. I'm no longer a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee but I was there to hear some of the initial submissions. But what I did do was I listened to the National lead-off spokesperson tonight Mr Brett Hudson and his assertions that the select committee was left to do a lot of work of the Government. I also intently listened to him perhaps drawing us to the areas in which the select committee had to do all that work but I resorted back to his first reading speech on the bill again in trying to look for clues as to the extra work he implied the select committee had to do for this particular bill. Apart from the note that he mentioned around the clamping levy originally being recommended to be $50 and up to $100 there's actually nothing in his first reading speech that indicates the extra work that the committee had to put in. So it is a response that when we come to this House and say that in select committee we have had to do the work of the Government then I expect that a reasonable request is that we come to the House and put those particular areas on the table so that as a whole House we can debate that. Needless to say I didn't hear that in the speech. I didn't see that in his first reading speech. It is a really sensible piece of legislation. We've all seen people clamped around the country. We feel that we need some clarity in this industry both for consumers but also for the operators. I want to acknowledge the select committee in their wisdom for inviting more targeted submissions in the development of this bill. I understand that 17 submissions were received on 30 May but obviously the committee felt that they needed more submissions to ensure that we've got a rounded perspective particularly from groups like the clampers themselves and consumer groups. So I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee in extending and targeting some submitters that came forward like Local Government New Zealand like Retail New Zealand and like Consumer New Zealand and I understand we also had a number of clampers themselves that appeared before the select committee. So I'm really clear that the work of the select committee to examine this bill was available to those that perhaps didn't submit in the earlier part of the submissions and as previous speakers have indicated it is around that clarity. It is around giving some certainty to consumers to avoid the cowboy clampers that we see operating in this space but it also gives some safeguards around really clarifying this is on private property—the issue that the select committee reported back to the House in their report around really clarifying the enforcement authority that this bill applies to. So it doesn't apply to people who have contracts in private parking administering the use of those car-parks. It's not intended to cover those particular operators. It also makes clarity around the claims to the disputes tribunal saying not only that if you have a concern you can only go up to the $100 fee for removing clamps but also if there's damage done by the removal of clamps from vehicles there is obviously an avenue for consumers to seek claims in the disputes tribunal. But also the report of the select committee around requirements for being reasonably available—again many contributors in this debate have talked about what is reasonable in terms of making sure that once people return to their car the clamper is reasonably available and of course the signage was canvassed by the previous speaker. It is a common-sense bill. We want clarity. I commend the bill to the House.