Webb Duncan; Hernandez FranciscoHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for your guidance actually just directing us to the fact that given that this is being done clause by clause the title clause is the appropriate place for the more kind of wide-ranging debates because there are some wider policy issues. This bill hasn't been to select committee and we've got this only today in parliamentary time so there are a few questions I would like the Minister to answer. They're quite serious questions. The first is: how much does it cost the Crown to run this recovery framework and how much of it is recovered through the existing system? So basically what's the shortfall because you've talked about there being cost pressures and in an earlier speech I suggested that it was actually just the Government looking for a bit of money because they've got a tight Budget. But you're telling me that that's not the case so I guess I'm calling the Minister on this and saying well show me what the figures are. So what are the actual costs and what is the shortfall and I'd just ask two things first if I may—so either my colleagues can speak or you can respond. The second thing is that I'm a bit perplexed because in the regulatory impact statement—in the cost-recovery impact statement—I understand why the 2024-25 recovery is slow because it's only half a year. But your 2025-26 recoveries of this additional 4 percent are $466000 and across into 2028-29 that rises to $686000 and given that it's a flat rate on parking fines and other fines I can't see where the revenue growth comes from because I can't see that there's more fines being imposed unless the Minister is perhaps anticipating increasing the amounts of the fines in which case that money would be 4 percent of a greater sum. So if he could explain to me how he reaches that increased revenue that would be good. I do think that this is part of a wider framework including increased court costs so I do want to ask some questions about that. But in the spirit of having an exchange I won't go with that; I'll give the Minister an opportunity to respond to those matters. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you Madam Chair for allowing me to take my first call on this bill. I have three questions for the Minister which I'll then follow with some contextual statements and some figures on why I've asked these questions. My first question to the Minister is: how many Ministers and how much time was spent on this bill in total in terms of drafting in terms of meetings and in terms of everything to do with this the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill? My second question is: how many backbenchers and how much time was spent in total in meetings and consultations and whatever other aspects there are of this Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill? My final question is: how many officials and how much time was spent deliberating and drafting and working on this Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill? I ask that question Minister because according to page 9 of the regulatory impact statement the additional anticipated revenue raised is meant to be $285887. Throughout this time while we've been in the House I have counted the number of backbenchers while we've been debating this and I've counted the number of Ministers. Assuming that it takes about five hours to get through this process we will have spent about $10000 just debating this legislation alone. So I'm really curious just to hear your figures because I reckon it'll end up costing $30000 to $50000 of hard-earned taxpayers' money to pass this nothing bill—this bill that has no ambition and no substance. It's an absolutely nothing bill and we're wasting time deliberating on it. So let me hear from you Minister. Thank you.