Pugh Maureen; Brown Simeon; Webb DuncanIn CommitteeClause 1 Title CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee on the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1 the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Oh thank you Madam Chair. This bill is named the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill because that is exactly what it does. Ultimately that is the bill which seeks to increase the amount which recoverable from the collection of fines from 10 percent to 14 percent and is very clear: what's in the tin is what's on the tin.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Well I'm afraid I can't agree with the Minister on that front: it doesn't really tell you anything that it does. The Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill sort of points loosely towards collection costs but it certainly doesn't actually say what the bill does which is to increase costs.You will no doubt have seen and I'm imagining you'll agree with my Amendment Paper on that matter. My suggestion is that we actually do call it what it is which is the Public Finance (Increase of Charges for Local Body Debt Collection) Amendment Act 2024" because that's exactly what's going on. We are increasing charges being imposed on local bodies and I think it's important to recognise that this isn't the case that the Crown other than the provision of a court service which is what every citizen is entitled to have at their disposal—this isn't the provision of any particular service. It's actually a bit fatuous to say that this is a charge for services delivered because the court framework is just a critical part of Government infrastructure. We'll be starting charging people for parliamentary services next—it's that kind of constitutional significance.So really I think if we're going to debate the title—and we are—then the appropriate title is to actually refer to the fact that this is a charge for the use of the judicial system as a means of debt enforcement and we're increasing it.You could of course just say that it's a tax on local bodies—and we've said before it's essentially a parking fine tax. The parking fines are bad enough but I know that certainly in my electorate Wilson Parking has a lot to answer for. But in fact this is of the same ilk in the sense that it's adding an extra layer on top of the additional charges. So we really should call it what it is and not hide behind some weasel word "Public Finance (Collection Costs)"; it's the "Public Finance (Increase in Collection Costs)" and that's absolutely what we should be calling it.Of course we could call it as I've said a parking fine tax or a money grab but I think I have heard come from the Chair from time to time that titles of that nature whilst I think it was deadly serious sometimes the Chair sets them aside as being perhaps ironic or something like that. But I know the wise Chair that we have now surely wouldn't be doing anything like that. But certainly an increase of charges for local body debt collection is absolutely straight down the line and I hope that the Minister will in fact agree to that change.Of course I have a number of other Amendment Papers. I don't think they're on this clause at the moment so—but you never know I might have one there and I know some of my colleagues want to speak on this matter as well."