McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Just before we—Carl Bates: Read the title!Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No I won't do that. Just before we start though I thought that was an interesting comment made by James Meager across the aisle about it being somehow something to do with inflation when we've just traversed this topic about it being proportional which makes absolutely no sense—but that shouldn't be surprising.Thinking about this bill again—and honestly I almost had a wee yawn when I stood up because I thought to myself How much attention can we pay to this silly little bill on a Friday night?" But as it happens I'm prepared to spend a good nine and a half minutes talking about it. The contributions from the other side from the Government have been quite revealing I think haven't they? They haven't really been able to justify. When they have made contributions they've been a little bit erroneous. They keep just saying that it's important. As my colleague Riccardo Menéndez March has just said we do have to take this in the context of the Budget and we should be able to do that because that's what this Government has done—but to put it at number two in their line-up of important things to go through during an urgency period! So we have to think of it in the context of the overall Budget.When I think of the overall Budget the first thing that comes to mind again is the fact that it's all about broken promises. There were heaps and heaps and heaps of families yesterday who were expecting to get a $250 tax cut. That's just simply not going to happen. For most people for those families it's around $60 to $70 a fortnight. Then there's the pensioners—a couple; two pensioners—$4.50 a week. But the thing that's galling the thing that's really really galling is the $3 billion taken out of climate funding. When you think of all the damage that that does the fact that we're sitting here talking about parking ticket tax at this time of night feel like a little bit of a parallel universe doesn't it? So let's—Carl Bates: Well sit down then.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No I won't sit down. Let's have a deep dive into what this bill does. It kind of feels to me that the Government backbench MPs don't know what this is about so let's just go through some details. The bill enables the Government to take an extra 4 percent on top of the existing 10 percent when it collects fines on behalf of local bodies. Now it's anticipated that other costs such as collection fees imposed on citizens will be increased by regulation. That's nothing to sniff at; that's something that I think we should think about a little more deeply. Now some may say that this is a money grab; it's an effective tax on local bodies. I think so too. Taking money that would go to local authorities to meet the cost of tax cuts and that's what it is all about isn't it? As we've heard tonight it's like they went through line by line and decided what random thing could they squeeze a little bit of money out of and by little—and I do mean little: it's trivial; it's a ridiculous amount of money in terms of the Government's coffers but it does mean a lot in terms of local government. [Interruption] And you're right Kieran McAnulty.Hon Kieran McAnulty: I know.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: I know you know! Look the increased costs will ultimately be borne by the people that pay these fines. As we've also heard tonight we know that disproportionately it's often the people who have the least that end up in situations because vulnerability begets more vulnerability where they incur fines. Once those increases are made therefore they do that more tough. So in a Budget that's already hit those very same people in the pocket it's hit those very same people in terms of their high expectations the promises that they were sold so to turn around and have the second thing that comes through this House tonight under urgency being an increase to fines feels a bit rich doesn't it?Now the cost recovery impact statement which is an interesting document—it's several pages long and we can probably have a look through that as well; it's got some good tables and some figures. But briefly the cost recovery impact statement which is like a regulatory impact statement—it's like a RIS but it's a CIS—it highlights several things and if we were to truncate that and to summarise it so to speak the main things it highlights is the fact that this is not a problem and somehow we're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing. It's also got no information. It states through the CIS that there's almost no evidence to base this on. There's no evidence to show us that the 10 percent fee that currently exists isn't doing its job that it isn't covering the costs of making those recoveries. This is just a means by which this Government has gone "I tell you what: here's a bit of something that hasn't been increased for a while. We'll hoik that up 40 percent and that'll make us a little bit of extra money because we've got to pay for those tax cuts." that Nicola Willis and Chris Luxon bet their reputations on.The other thing is that clearly this is rushed isn't it? It's rushed and it's unnecessary. As my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb said earlier it's essentially nickel and dime stuff isn't it? It feels a bit trivial. It feels quite trivial to even be having these conversations but yet here we are.The other thing that the CIS makes clear is that as I said there's limited information—certainly limited financial information above which we would be making those decisions. So clearly this is kind of a pre-determined thing just to find money so it certainly doesn't make sense. The other thing that I think was quite notable when you look through the information through the CIS is that I think you have to be really wary because it's kind of a move to shift the recovery of fines—well you've got to ask yourself: when the Government is making comparison between what the private sector is doing—and by the private sector we mean debt collectors—and when they're saying "OK what are debt collectors doing out there? OK they're getting away with this much let's see if we can kind of you know meet them." as my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty said earlier. It's like the State's joining the market—the debt collector market.Arena Williams: Or the mafia!Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Or the mafia. But I think the question is once you get over that and think to yourself "Where could this be leading?": is it a move to shift the recovery of fines completely to that private sector? Is the Government at some point just going to go "Let's just quit with this." and—Hon Rachel Brooking: There's a theme—there's a theme!Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —yeah—just head in that direction altogether? So you know if the mandatory charge of Government collection is outrageous or it's either an unfair levy—or it's kind of like privatisation by stealth really isn't it and that's something we have to keep our eye on.As I said when I first made my contribution the percentage amount bears absolutely no relationship to the amount of the fine and I think that's something also worth noting. So regardless of whether the fine is $100 or it's a thousand dollars the percentage amount bears absolutely no relationship to that amount. Again when we look at the CIS it totally avoids whether the increase is needed for efficiency. This Government for all their flaws—and they certainly rate themselves as economic geniuses and we've never really seen much proof to be able to highlight the efficacy of those claims. But for all of their flaws they do at least talk about efficiency and the need to favour efficiency and the need to look towards efficient uses. This thing does absolutely nothing in that direction. It's yet another example of where efficiency is just a buzzword and when the proof comes to the pudding it's all just hot air and nothing actually happens.I think that when we think about—Hon Kieran McAnulty: They want to go home.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: They do want to go home. But when we think about the progress of this bill obviously this is the second reading and we'll be heading into the committee of the whole after this and my colleague Arena Williams has already intimated that she's got several pressing questions that she wants to ventilate and to prosecute and she's going to I think—Hon Kieran McAnulty: And she will.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: And she will. She's looking forward to doing that very much I can imagine and it's a meaty thing to have to talk about!But here we are coming towards the end of the second reading and again let me just highlight: this is about choices. There were always choices in this Budget. We have to think about this stupid little piece of legislation this stupid little bill in the context of the wider Budget which I think most New Zealanders will be sitting there tonight feeling pretty disappointed in what they were sold and what the reality was. So on that basis I certainly do not commend this bill to the House."