Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a new line of questions on this change clause 4 from 10 percent to 14 percent that will be able to be deducted by the Crown from fines imposed by councils in the prosecutions of those. They are straight questions and I hope the Minister can give me answers to my six questions.So the first is: on the average fine imposed by or on behalf of local authorities what percentage of that amount that the Crown deducts represents real costs? And I ask that because even though we've been presented by a cost statement along with the papers we haven't got any numbers in that around what the real costs actually are for the Crown.So my second question which relates to that is: if it is 100 percent is the Crown at the moment subsidising the prosecution of parking fines on behalf of local government? Is it the case that taxpayers are paying for local governments to levy parking fines and then enforce them? Because that's a really useful thing for the House to understand.And my third question is: if it's not 100 percent then what are those real costs? Because we're talking about the cost-recovery element here so I want to understand. These are fines imposed for offences prosecuted by or on behalf of local authorities and other organisations. So that's not the prosecution of those. Prosecution of those actually sits with the local councils already. Most local councils conduct the prosecutions themselves. So is this a back-office cost that the Crown imposes on its regulation-making power to make those prosecutorial powers or is this another cost represented somewhere as a back-office cost? I'd like to understand what those real costs are. That's the third question.The fourth question is: which payment providers collect fines on behalf of local providers now? In the documents presented alongside this bill we heard that some councils have elected to use private providers already. However the Minister in answer to questions to me told me that it was the Ministry of Justice only that collected these fines. There are two points that I'm getting at there. And to assist the Minister the Ministry of Justice uses private providers to levy its payments but then I'm also asking: if the Ministry of Justice is not providing that service to the local councils then who is? And my fifth question is: does the increase from 10 to 14 percent include any money awarded by a court in respect of any loss or damage? And the question there is about what kind of money that's being collected here will be subject to the 4 percent increase given that my other questions have been about whether this is in fact cost recovery or whether it's another kind of fee levy or penalty as I described it in my second reading speech.My last question to the Minister is: is an Order in Council the appropriate way for councils to have their parking fines set? And this is relevant to clause 4 because it goes alongside the regulation-making powers that are done by Order in Council. And this goes to a wider set of considerations here that we have not yet had a chance to debate: what is the appropriate policy for parking fines? Should they be high? That disincentivises people to park their cars in a certain area and that is a policy decision so why is it being made by Order in Council? Should it not be in the primary legislation? is sort of my question there. We haven't gotten into that yet. But on the other hand we've got this power that applies in exactly the same way to the court fees. And you argue the toss pretty differently if you're applying the same sorts of values there. If fees are going up for people to have a conversation about whether they were in fact parked there about whether the fine was levied in the right way or in the situation that my colleague Ingrid Leary described where there's been some kind of administrative error then you're making it harder for people to engage in the system. And ultimately that affects those people who already have high barriers to access to justice. So we need to understand the Minister's justification here for using Orders in Council instead of primary legislation or at least properly understood secondary legislation mechanisms which the primary bill gives effect to.