Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well such passion over parking fines; it's so good to see. Look the fact of the matter is the irony of this is that the premise that the Minister of Local Government brings this to the House with that there's been cost inflation in collection makes no sense on a number of grounds. The most obvious one is that if you're charging a percentage of something then there is no cost inflation. As the fines go up the amounts recovered go up. The documents make it absolutely clear that there's no research been done on this. The Government doesn't even know how much it costs to collect these fines. The documents are there on the Table in the cost recovery impact statement.So yeah the bill adds another 4 percent levy so 14 percent when a local body goes to court to get a parking fine or a noise breach fine or something like that. They're now going to not get all of the money. They were previously getting 90; they're now going to get 86. It's interesting that the Government's now competing with debt collectors because in the documentation they say this is comparable with what a debt collector would charge if they were to collect this debt as if they're in the market for debt collection services which is a very strange way to approach what size you impose on some charge or levy. In fact it's not just strange; it's outright wrong. The idea that there's a market for it and therefore you should pitch it at that market when you're the Government just makes no sense.Now when the Government delivers a service the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee principles which are really quite useful are very clear on this matter. The task of the Government when imposing costs of this nature is to determine what the cost delivery is. Now there's latitude for when there's overs and unders in multi-year ebbs and flows but at the end of the day you should never be charging someone an amount which has an extra bit of added fat. But that's exactly what we've heard from Simeon Brown. This is all part of you know running a not-too-massive deficit right? He's going to impose this extra 4 percent and he's going to reduce his Government's deficit by around $200000.Now when we get to the committee—of course we could've had a much closer look at this if we'd gone to a select committee but the time for that kind of examination will come next and I'm actually going to be asking him some questions so he might want to get the work done in advance about how he thinks he is going to make this money because I frankly can't see it. But at the end of the day this is just hurting ordinary New Zealanders.The devil of course is actually in the regulations which are paired with this piece of legislation where you know it talks about increasing the court cost and filing fee from $30 to $55. Now that's actually going to raise more money than the levy itself. Also adding to essentially the enforcement fee—currently $102; going to $133. Now as is common with this Government all of the documentation says We haven't actually had enough time to work out where the money's coming from or exactly how much it will bring in but this is our best guess." It's really just not good enough. It's essentially another little tax because if it's not shown to be cost recovery it's a tax. So here we go a nice little tax snuck in through urgency. Well you know local bodies aren't going to love you for this.Ultimately particularly around those court costs people are going to go and say "You know I didn't park there. It wasn't a double yellow line." They've got their right to go to court and have their say and now when they lose they're going to be paying more for their right to go to court and ask the question. So that's actually an access to justice question. What we're doing is we're saying you know "If you want to have an argument about whether or not you should pay this $60 fine or this $40 fine then if you lose it's going to cost you a hell of a lot more." The actual likelihood of people asking the question—legitimate questions—is going to fall and so that's really really unfortunate.So the cost recovery impact statement is on the Table and I would implore members to read it because it's actually a useful document and I actually do commend the Government for making sure it was generated before they came to the House but what is abundantly clear is it's littered with references to the fact that they haven't had the time to actually work through whether this is appropriate whether it is actually cost recovery or—Arena Williams: Hot reckons.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —a hot reckon; thank you Arena Williams. I believe it is a hot reckon. Actually it's just a guess. It's just a finger in the air or it's more of a "What do you reckon we could get away with?" That's really what it is.It's rushed and the other thing is look it's absolutely unnecessary for it to be here today. The lion's share of the increases in revenue are actually outside of the control of Parliament other than the Regulations Review Committee because the biggest gains are being made by the increases in the court costs and so on which is done by Order in Council. But no for some reason and I am perplexed—and I will ask the Minister when he is obliged to answer or sort of obliged why he's come here when he really didn't need to. It's the most trivial of all of the things he could've done. So it's nickel-and-dime stuff and there's not really been the work done.In fact I'll quote from the information statement which says there's limited financial information which provides a reasonable basis for decision making. So it's just classic bad regulatory practice. It's making law in the dark and it's unnecessary and it's rushed and not only that but it's such a small matter that it would've been no problem at all to have it done on another occasion in the normal way. So why it's been crammed into this urgency I really don't know.Of course the fact of the matter is even at the 10 percent levy we already have as the impact statement says some councils choosing to use debt collectors because it's more effective. So the irony is that by increasing this amount there's a—well the economists amongst us would say as night follows day more councils will use debt collectors because the Crown has become less competitive. That's actually not a good thing. I'm not sure we want to be creating an industry of debt collectors who are making money off collecting money for local bodies. You know I think we should really avoid that.Maybe that's what this Government wants. Maybe they you know want to privatise parking fine recovery. That's the kind of Government we've got. Basically this is an unfair levy. It doesn't bear a relationship to the actual costs; it can't be shown and that's something that a Government which has come in with a hiss and a roar saying "We're going to examine regulation. We're going to make sure we do things by the book. We're not going to run fast and loose. We're not going to"—and of course this is exactly right down the middle what they rail against: random taxes which aren't thought through. Here we have it: it's not shown to be justifiable it's not shown to be cost recovery it hasn't gone through a good process and yet boom there we have it—in urgency rammed through.Of course the percentage amount—you know the Public Finance Act has been there for a while and it imposed this 10 percent amount on the basis that across all of the fines it was roughly enough. Of course as fines have gone up so has the amount recovered.I am curious—and the Minister will no doubt ask—why he thinks that this will get $400000-odd in 2025-26 but go to $600000 in 2028-29. Unless he's going to get the councils to issue more parking tickets I just can't see what his basis is—unless of course he's intending to further increase that percentage amount.Of course the comparison with private sector fees is entirely inappropriate. The idea that what the Government should charge for a levy is based on what the competition does in the private sector actually cuts fundamentally across what imposing a levy is. Imagine if that's how Zespri levy or some other thing. It would—Ingrid Leary: Judicial review—judicial review it.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Unfortunately Parliament isn't subject to judicial review but maybe it should be. That's a whole 'nother constitutional conversation. But silly little bill poorly proofed and I cannot commend it to the House."