Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This committee stage may take a little longer than we first thought if the Opposition is going to continue in that fashion but look obviously Mr Hudson has made the point twice now and maybe—Brett Hudson: Read the RIS.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well I've read the regulatory impact statement.Brett Hudson: They threw you under a bus Mr Faafoi.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No no. Well maybe we should remove the clamp from that bus. If Mr Hudson would like to know some of the nexus of the policy decision made by this Government—because I believe this is something that the previous Government probably wished it had done in its nine years where it didn't actually do much—I could point him to the internet for example again as I said in my initial contribution about the endless number of stories from the media where people who are least able to pay a fine were being charged exorbitant amounts of money to remove a clamp.Now I've just found one example in the nine minutes that Mr Hudson has been bobbing up and down in this Chamber trying to make the point while still supporting this piece of legislation. There was one instance covered by the New Zealand Herald on 28 May last year where it followed a particular clamper in a west Auckland mall. It was an elderly lady who was charged $200 for parking for 20 minutes in a 120-minute car park. Now there was also another lady who didn't get clamped but I'd like to use the quote that she made to the New Zealand Herald: I started freaking out. I'm a young mum I don't have $200 to pay for a bt clamping fine. … They're just targeting older women"—Nicola Willis: She sounds lovely.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —"and people they can intimidate."—well these are the people you didn't help Nicola Willis—"This warden just clamped people after half an hour. I feel really bad for the elderly widow who had to wrongly fork out $200 on the spot." Now if that side of the House doesn't want to address that issue that's fine by me. I'm looking forward to that on the election campaign trail. But when asked by the reporter as to why he was clamping it he said "It's not illegal (what we're doing)." Well we're going to make sure that that is dealt with in this bill because charging $200 or $500 or $700 for clamping someone's car and then demanding on the spot $700 we think on this side of the House is not a really good idea.So if someone over there disagrees with it or if Nicola Willis disagrees with it as she just said before—Nicola Willis: I don't disagree with it—I did not!Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Oh—"I did not!" Oh yes you did—oh yes you did. You had plenty to say about two minutes ago.So take a call. If you disagree with it then vote against it but we don't on this side of the House back rogues who charge people who can least afford it $700. So that's why we're here with this legislation. It may not have taken very long for us to get to the policy decision because we think it was the right thing to do and it shouldn't take so long to protect consumers from that kind of behaviour. So if on that side of the House they don't agree with it vote against it; it's going to pass anyway because we think it's the right thing to do and the voters will thank us for it."