Webb Duncan; Brown SimeonHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That's right. Don't worry I can have a third round later. I'd be very happy to do that.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We'll see. Depends how relevant this contribution is.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This is bang on because I want to talk about the amount of this increase here. There are a couple of things that come out of it. In particular this increase in the statement talks about the impact of this particular increase on members of the public. This Government that we've got is very keen to look after the squeezed middle I think they call them and they talk a big talk about low-income New Zealanders but the impact statement says Low-income individuals are likely to be disproportionately impacted by increasing costs."You know I hadn't thought about this but of course they're the ones who are likely to be unable to pay on time in the first place and so they're the ones who are going to get whacked with these increased costs. So I want to know from the Minister whether he actually turned his mind to the question of what impact this would have on New Zealanders who are struggling to get by with costs going up and so on and this in fact is an increased cost.The other thing is this: he's chosen—it's been plucked out of Minister Goldsmith's head this 4 percent figure. He said it's because he uses the Consumers Price Index (CPI). It's actually a 40 percent increase on 10 percent. He said he used CPI but that makes no sense because if we use the CPI every say five years eventually you'll get to 100 percent. That can't possibly be right to take 100 percent of the fine.Look my colleague Ingrid Leary is always the radical on this side of the House. I'm the moderate! So I proposed in my Amendment Paper just a mere reduction to 5 percent to really address the fact that the most struggling New Zealanders are the ones who are going to be most heavily hit with this.Now I do have some other amendments and I'll take guidance from the Chair on where they fit because in fact the other amendment I have is one which talks about giving the court a discretion because in many ways it would be appropriate for the court to have some discretion because it does in respect of many aspects of fines and it would be appropriate for the court to have discretion in respect of whether or not this 14 percent goes left or right. So that's an additional proposition that I have for the Minister.But my real question is this and the reason I want to change that figure is because this impacts those who are struggling the most. It doesn't impact people who pay their fines on time because they've got good life admin and plenty of money to do it. My suggestion is that what's proposed in this bill and what's outlined in the impact statement is in fact really just too tough on working New Zealanders who are struggling to make ends meet—Hon Simon Watts: Who you didn't want to give a tax cut to!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There you go—Mr Watts over there—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So that's the statement. Can we have the question for the Minister?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well the question for the Minister is twofold. I have asked it. The first question is: will he agree to my amendment to reduce that increase down to a gross 5 percent figure? And the second one is: when he set that number of a 40 percent increase what consideration did he give to the impact on members of the public and did he take into account the advice set out in his impact statement that says it will disproportionately impact—and I've got it here somewhere—low-income New Zealanders and also Māori and Pasifika? I'm sure it says that in there as well. Those Madam Chair are my questions.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I listened very carefully. I think there were two questions. The first was: will we support his Amendment Paper? The answer to that one is no. The second is in regards to the impact. Well the point of this clause is that it is about how much the Crown retains of that particular fee and it is not to do with the fee. Those are two separate issues. This is just the percentage retained and ultimately that is very different from what the fee will actually be. And so ultimately this actually impacts how much the local council would be getting from that fine not what individuals would be paying. So therefore they are two very separate issues and the answer to that is no.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm just going to say before I take another call that we are talking about the change here proposed from 10 percent to 14 percent and that's all we're debating right now."