Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to support the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill to select committee. I'm sure we've all heard or met with people who tell us stories about people they know or what they've experienced personally themselves with respect to the behaviour of at least some wheel clamp operators across New Zealand: tales of standover tactics tales of clamps being applied within moments of people leaving their vehicles tales of vehicles being clamped while the occupants are still in them and then of course the egregious charges to have one's own vehicle released. I saw in the regulatory impact statement examples from officials of in one instance at least $760 for 30 minutes of parking or $480 for five minutes of parking.The public are absolutely certain—I think it does extend beyond a perception but we can say that the public perceive that this is an unregulated industry that there are many cowboy-type operators and that they the public particularly the more vulnerable among us those least able to afford it are more unfairly targeted or more unfairly subject to this sort of poor behaviour. The Minister Jenny Salesa when she introduced this bill in this reading made the statement that there is a lack of clarity in what charges clampers are able to levy. I'd contend that that's not actually the case that through the combination of the Fair Trading Act the law of contract and the law of trespass it's very clear that a private property owner or the clamper who's been delegated to manage that parking infringement can only charge a charge equivalent to the loss or under trespass the considered damage to that property. So there is not necessarily a lack of clarity on the extent of those charges.What I would contend is that there is an enormous hurdle for the user of the vehicle to be able to contest those charges and to ensure that they are only charged appropriately. It would seem that the only two avenues they really have open to them are the disputes tribunal or the court. Not only is that simply impractical given the circumstances but quite frankly the clampers have an enormous lever. They have immobilised the person's vehicle and they are able to retain that immobilisation until either the charges are paid or the dispute is resolved. Quite frankly in the real world the vehicle owner or user has little choice but to accede to their demand for charges on the spot to get their vehicle released.So we don't have an issue with action being taken to regulate that behaviour. On the face of it the bill which is going to set a maximum charge of $100 looks like it is seeking to apply a level of regulation that is not too heavy-handed but one which will provide clear restrictions on what clampers do and is seeking at least to find a balance that won't create a distortion which would occur if the return or the charge for clamping was so low that clampers wouldn't wish to undertake that enforcement and instead a vehicle owner or operator might be subject to far more expensive enforcement such as towing. So I do acknowledge that the bill is seeking to do that.I also note that there appears to be—and I'm going to get into the process behind the bill which is where the issues are that we certainly have. But before I do that I will just note—because it's quite telling really—that in the RIS in the regulatory impact statement officials were very clear that the charge that was put forward to Cabinet by the Minister was $50 not $100. Now the first point I'd make on that is no one I think would believe that that would be a charge that would do anything other than drive clampers out and the distortion that that would create would mean it'd be more likely that people would be paying large towing expenses instead to collect their vehicle and get their vehicle from wherever it's impounded. But I also note that clearly Cabinet schooled the Minister on the real world and instead had him change that capped fee from $50 to $100. That in itself signals what became apparent in the regulatory impact statement: while the intention of the bill is very well-intentioned the procedure the process behind it is an absolute shambles.Officials noted in their statement that all of the information around the policy thinking and the decision making is anecdotal. There is no hard data and no hard evidence; it is all anecdote and as the saying goes Anecdote is not data." The officials also point out that no formal consultation was undertaken. They go even further. Quite remarkably they note that they were under significant time constraints and that they would have liked to have undertaken a comprehensive consultation process. That amounts to officials throwing their Minister under the bus—and I hope he recovers soon—because what they are clearly saying is that they were forced to bend over backwards to create a piece of legislation without undertaking the proper policy work the sort of work that Government agencies should undertake for any legislation before it is introduced into this House.Instead the Government is asking Parliament to do their work for them in select committee. The reality is that the Government and their officials don't know the extent of the problem. They don't know what the full range or average charges or costs to clampers are; so they can't possibly know what is the most appropriate maximum cap that won't see a distortion and a shift towards an expensive towing enforcement instead of clamping but they're asking instead for this Parliament to accept this legislation and to do the work in select committee that they should have given their officials time to do.Just to make this absolutely clear I am not contesting that the officials sought to do this quickly. It's quite the opposite. They make it very clear that they would've liked more time and it's that the Government didn't give it to them. It's now coming—I wouldn't say quite cap in hand but that's a good enough expression—to Parliament and asking Parliament in its select committee to do the work of its officials with its officials admittedly which they should have done beforehand. We are prepared to do that—we are prepared to do that—but I would note that there is a slightly shortened report-back date that has been signalled when the Minister introduced this bill. It's a little over four months by the looks of it. It is doable of course but I'd actually encourage the Government given they want us to do their work for them to give us sufficient time to do it. I'd also ask that the Minister instruct his officials very clearly that we will look to do the full policy scrutiny in the select committee that we will look into every aspect that they would've liked to have looked into that we will seek the evidence they would've liked to have sought and that we will seek submissions and consultation with people from across interests: obviously the Ministry of Consumer Affairs; obviously other Government agencies; and of course people from within relevant sections of the industry.We will do their work for them but this is not the way legislation should be undertaken in our Parliament. The Government has a duty to bring robust well-thought-out well-researched work in bills into the House. They haven't done so in this case. It is a travesty of the legislative process. It is terrible. Minister Faafoi who is the responsible Minister has cultivated something of a reputation in this term of Government as being a very sound pair of hands and a very competent Minister in this portfolio. Well quite frankly he's let himself and the Government down terribly by bringing this bill to the House; not in its intent—its intent is good—but in the lack of robust proper work done prior to its introduction. We are prepared to stand up and do the Government's work for them. We ask for them to help us to do the work they should have done before today. We will commend this bill to select committee."