Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill

I think I will try and kick off the debate on this. I was unable to be in the House last night for its second reading, and I understand it was quite a boisterous and riveting debate, and not being one to miss out on that, I thought I’d start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for its deliberations. I understand there were seven submitters, some from the sector that is going to be affected itself, so I thank the members of that select committee for their adjudication over that.

There were three changes to the bill as it was introduced, and for the benefit of the committee, which may pre-empt some questions that may come, I thought I’d just use this time to run through some of those and, again, thank officials and the select committee for making those. At the bill’s introduction, the select committee did take the opportunity to clarify that the bill doesn’t apply to parking places that are controlled by enforcement authorities. As it stood in the bill as introduced, it did not include roads controlled by road-controlling authorities such as a local council or the police. However, the select committee saw fit to make a change to clarify that the requirements would not apply to parking places that are controlled by enforcement authorities who can issue infringement notices for parking offences.

There’s also a change within the bill that the select committee made around provisions relating to the disputes tribunal. This bill caps the limit at which an operator can enforce an infringement for the potential parking offence and the removal of the wheel clamp at $100. It does give the ability for the owner of the vehicle to remove that, and if any damage was done to the clamp in that, the damages may exceed $100. So there is a clarifying amendment made in the bill that if the wheel-clamping operator had damage done to the clamp beyond $100, if they went to the disputes tribunal, the limit wouldn’t be at $100 for any damages done.

Also, there’s a new regulation-making power which the committee has recommended, which would require regulations, if any are made, when considering whether an operator had acted reasonably in terms of being available to remove the clamp. It’s not envisioned that the regulations would be made immediately after the passing of this bill, but only if there’s evidence of a problem.

So they are the three issues that the select committee thought it fair to make amendments to this bill. I believe it’s a good bill. After many years of sitting on that side of the House and reading the front page of the New Zealand Herald about a number of either people who could least afford it or felt that they were hard done by by reckless wheel-clamping operators, predominantly in Auckland, charging excessive amounts, exorbitant amounts, of money to remove wheel clamps from vehicles, I think they will now have a great deal of protection, that those exorbitant fees will no longer be able to be charged.

So, with that, I look forward to any questions that may come from the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure, of sorts, to speak on this bill—not an incredibly long bill, I might say. The point I do want to raise on this rather short bill is it actually would’ve taken officials longer to type up this short bill than the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, and the Government gave them to research the reasons and facts behind the policy in the first place, which is adequately shown in the regulatory impact statement. Thank you.

Noting that short contribution from the member Brett Hudson, as I said towards the end of my initial contribution, there were quite a lot of years that I sat on that side of the House, some of it—and you’ll get used to it—as the consumer affairs spokesperson, where the Government at the time did not see fit to intervene into this space. Now, I’m not going to use the “neglect” word, but in a simple sense, this is one of the issues where the previous Government didn’t necessarily see it as a big enough issue to help elderly ladies who were getting their cars clamped from being preyed upon by people who were acting at the edge of commerce. So I’m quite happy to take criticism from the Opposition. If they don’t think this piece of legislation is worthy of their votes and they’re not willing to back 72-year-old women who can’t afford a $700 fine to get a clamp removed from their car, and back those who put on clamps for people who have lawfully parked in a car park, then fine by me.

Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make a substantial contribution to this piece of legislation here tonight. After nine years of neglect in parking, we have a Government who are taking a stand on one of the important issues. We’ve heard from a number of people, and I know members heard this when the current Government members were in Opposition. They did hear from a lot of people out there about this aspect around fairness in the issue of wheel clamping, and I’m proud to be part of a Government who are addressing this through well-balanced, thoughtful regulation in this area.

My first question to the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, and an aspect I’d just like to explore here and sort of tease out, is around the $100 fee. In the debate last night, we heard from members on both sides of the House that the $100 fee, according to some people, is too low; according to some, too high. Now, I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee who looked at this bill, and I’d just like to highlight one of the submissions from the Automobile Association (AA). The AA mentioned here that they support the intent of the legislation and “welcome the move to impose a maximum penalty fee to be paid by a driver for the removal of an immobilising device.” However, their main recommendation was that the proposed maximum penalty fee be revised down to $50, and there were other submitters who also wanted the fee reduced down to $50. The AA also suggested that the bill impose a 10-minute grace period before any such penalty can be applied.

So my question for the Minister is if he could just expand a little bit around the $100 mark—how he and the officials settled on that $100 mark. Was it due to some jurisdictions like the UK and Australia, who, as we heard in the select committee, have a figure around that mark? Now, some people wanted the figure higher, and some of those who wanted it higher were those in the business world, who told us on the select committee that the maximum fee they can charge being $100 would put undue strain on the profit that they’re able to accrue in terms of business and around their business models. So I think the crux of this bill is the $100 amount. Most people would agree that we do need regulation in this area. There’s no doubt that people have been charged up to $400, $500, which is obscene in anyone’s language, but the $100 dollar fee—just to elaborate on that.

The second aspect I’d like to highlight is an issue that was raised a little bit, and I wonder if the Minister would at least comment on it briefly, and that was around signage—it was also mentioned in the debate by Tim van de Molen last night—and the aspect around clear and accurate signage within the parking areas. If someone parks somewhere and they can’t see signage which says you must remain here for a period of time, then it is very difficult to put blame on them for parking there, if the signage is not clear—if it’s not clear, if it’s not accurate, and if it’s not visible. So the signage is certainly an important component of this.

The bill—and the Minister mentioned it before—is effective on private property. He said that public areas were excluded, and I’m interested in aspects particularly around council. So, for example, if someone is visiting a local theatre or a local sports event and they are parking in an area there which may be designated for emergency services or some particular services where it’s important that no one else parks because that area needs to be accessible to look after the wellbeing of people. However, this bill does exclude that. So what sort of regulation and what sorts of powers are available to the council and to other agencies if someone does park in those areas, particularly around, like I said, those emergency services, which often can be a case of life and death. We certainly don’t want people feeling like they can park in areas of that nature.

So just to summarise: the $100 fee, the signage, and the aspects around council and government. I’ll end my contribution there and let others contribute. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The previous speaker, Jamie Strange, talked about nine years of a previous Government. Well, I’d contend with his particular point there, but—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Not nine years of neglect?

—none the less, Dr Clark, that is no excuse for this Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs giving his officials about nine minutes to do the research on the policy behind this bill.

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.

Well, I’ve read the regulatory impact statement.

💬 Brett Hudson: They threw you under a bus, Mr 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 b******t clamping fine. … They’re just targeting older women”—

💬 Nicola Willis: She sounds lovely.

—“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!

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.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to thank the “Minister of Fairness”, because that’s what Minister Faafoi is. He’s the “Minister of Fairness” because once again he’s leading a bill that’s about fairness, and I applaud him for that. What a wonderful testimony he’s just given us. I mean, he’d do well at the Mormon church I was at the other day talking about fairness, but can I focus on this because he raises some good points. You only need to look—you know, we’ve been talking about this nine long years of neglect, and, boy, is it real!

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! If I hear that one more time at the beginning of a speech, I’ll give you a second warning and I’ll terminate your speech.

Well, look, let me—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, you get to the point. This debate is about the bill, OK? You can have your political statements, but make sure they’re referenced to the bill.

Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, let’s refocus on the committee stage of this bill. I just want to reflect on a few things, and one of those things is that I wonder if the Minister could reflect on the voluntary code of conduct there and talk about why that was such a success—or not, as the case is—because I know, and there’s a story there and I want to add this to what I’ve just said. That was an article around why unregulated wheel-clamping is still a lucrative hobby. That was a story that talked about $760 for half an hour of illicit car-parking. Not only that but the car-parking company was hiding in plain sight as a second-hand shop—Bashford Antiques, they were called—and maybe the Minister could elaborate on that and why this voluntary code, dare I say it, led by the current Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, who in October 2017 had media questioning behind that. So, Mr Chair, that’s one aspect.

But can I just say that there are many, many more things, and being a member of the select committee and talking through some of the detail around this, I think we all agreed that if we could, we would, in terms of saying that, you know, there’s not an intention to put people out of business, but certainly the $100 fee cap raised some issues. The officials certainly brought back to us several examples from across the globe as to where it had worked, why it had worked, and maybe the Minister there could also just clarify for us a bit further regarding that $100 fee and why it will not drive operators out of business and whether it’s a reasonable reflection of the business cost in terms of the operator.

So, there are three questions there that I think the Minister will do well at. As you know, I’ve called him the “Minister of Fairness” because I expect his responses to come up with results that will tell us that this is long overdue, that this piece of work was well thought through. It took a long time through the select committee, and although there may have been some issues, particularly around what that fine limit should be or could be, I think what we came up with, Mr Chair, was a reasonable approach because it put people first in terms of what they could afford to pay. We’ve given some examples around what the impact of the current or the existing law or lack of does to normal people.

I just want to finish by reflecting on some of the early research around this bill, where it was interesting to note that in places where wheel clampers were most prolific were the same people that had red vans going around their communities, where the same, I guess, victimisation of those most vulnerable—were also the same people who were being targeted by these wheel clamp operators. So, actually, this has a bigger picture around the wellbeing of people, particularly those who can’t afford it most. Sure, there may have been some issues around their parking—where, how, whether it was illegal or not, but I certainly think this is going to make things a whole lot more fair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. A couple of colleagues have asked some questions which I think I want to address. First of all, Jamie Strange asked around the issue of signage, which, I believe, was raised during the select committee process, as I hope the officials may have pointed out to him and to those submitters who submitted on the issue of signage. There are already regulation-making powers within the Fair Trading Act which can allow regulations to be made which set a standard for signage to be displayed at car parks, without needing to amend the legislation. So this could be something that could be looked into in the future if we don’t necessarily get the results that we want entirely from this piece of legislation.

Also, my good friend Paul Eagle raised the business model of some of these wheel-clamping operators, which will obviously have to change somewhat if they have been charging exorbitant fees for the removal of wheel clamps off vehicles in some of the car parks that are affected under this bill. Some may be operating in a manner which is fair and offering the removal at a fair price. For some of those who have not operated in that fashion, this bill will somewhat change their business model and, we hope, change the customer outcome.

Now, we tried to strike the right balance in this piece of legislation. There are obviously some in the parking or towing industry who aren’t happy with this piece of legislation. There are also some people on the consumer side who aren’t entirely happy with this legislation because they would have preferred to have seen a complete ban on wheel clamping altogether. There have been representations from small-business owners who are worried about people who genuinely infringed and were either parking incorrectly or parking too long in their car parks, and giving them the ability to continue to wheel clamp legitimately was something that we wanted to make sure and maintain that they could do if there was a legitimate infringement. So that’s why we haven’t gone down the track of removing that property right from the likes of small businesses to do that if people incorrectly park, but also we didn’t want to let continue some of the behaviour that we’ve seen being done by some of these operators who are charging exorbitant prices.

So, hopefully, that will kind of meet the requirements of some of the questions there in terms of why we’re continuing to allow wheel clamping to continue, why we came to the $100 mark, and also around the signage concerns that may have been raised during the select committee stage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, they are all great contributions to this bill to add some clarity for our constituents out there. For those who think that our constituents aren’t following this debate, I received a message from a constituent who raises a case about a particular parking situation they found themselves in in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

What it was, they had a trailer and, as that trailer took up two car parks, they paid for a car park. However, it was the trailer that was clamped. The constituent of course put up a fight and said, “The trailer is part of this vehicle. We have actually paid for the ability to park here.” And it was their understanding because there was no median barrier that separated what wasn’t, according to them, clearly two identified car parks. They parked across two and paid for the parking for their car. However, it was the trailer that was clamped, and because of the ensuing argument and debate with, what I’ve heard, at least in the debate this evening, a cowboy or a rogue operator who wouldn’t enter into a communication with the person, with the constituent, the trailer ended up being towed. In the end, it cost the constituent a significant amount of money because of the towing costs for the trailer, because of the retrieval for the trailer, and, of course, the fee that goes with it.

Like I say, most of the contributions have been good. This might be one of those unique, one-off situations but isn’t uncommon in my electorate given the demand for parking in a place like Tāmaki-makau-rau. I dare say Wellington City is similar, and other places around the country with strong urban growth. When a constituent who raises this case ended up—and I quote from their message to me—“It cost thousands to get the trailer back.” Now, I don’t think that that’s fair, but I wonder if, in my question to the Minister, in this bill we are happy that for instances like that, and I dare say this isn’t an isolated incident—some vehicles in particular in places of high urban density. And I’ve mentioned Tāmaki-makau-rau. I don’t have the biggest vehicle, but it still looks like I park across two because of the tight spaces that are afforded to users of said car park.

So my question is pretty simple: with respect to trailers and perhaps any other thing that might be towed by a car in situations like—

💬 Jenny Marcroft: Horse floats?

Horse floats—whatever it might be. What do these changes in this bill mean for those particular trailers or whatever it is that’s hitched to a vehicle, and how does that apply if it’s covering two car parks? Is this a case for those operators to charge two $100 fees? I’m not too sure. So I’ve just got, like I say, a direct instance where a constituent has raised a concern on a bill that, to them, is very relevant. So I just wanted, in my short contribution, to leave that on the table for the Minister to consider, and I hope that we can provide to my good constituent of Tāmaki-makau-rau some answers.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. You know, I came into the Chamber tonight to do my whip’s duty; I had no intention of speaking on this bill. But I have been absolutely motivated by the contributions tonight, because I didn’t realise, coming from Masterton, a town that doesn’t tend to have an issue with clamping, how much of an issue this was. I am appalled and outraged—not quite to Tim Macindoe - level outrage but I’m still outraged. No one does outrage like Tim Macindoe! But, nevertheless—nevertheless—I am shocked to hear of the stories that my colleagues have shared tonight of people that have been clamped and have faced exorbitant fines. I am shocked that it has taken this long, in 2019, to regulate this industry.

We had nine long years of overcharging, and finally we have a Minister in the Hon Kris Faafoi who is doing something about it. And I believe that the $100 that is proposed in this bill is fair, because, let’s not forget, often in the cases that we’re talking about, people are parking in places where they shouldn’t; we shouldn’t dismiss that. But we also shouldn’t take the line that the National Party appeared to take: that they are on the side of big business and they are on the side of scammers. Because they have had two contributions tonight; both of them were trivial. They don’t seem to care, but this side of the House does care.

The question that I have for the Minister tonight is: why are we stopping here? Why are we not looking to impose a system that licenses these operators? That’s what I want to know. Are we satisfied—not quite as satisfied as the other side of the House, who just want to have these cowboys running around clamping things left, right, and centre and charging any price that they can think of; some arbitrary rate, 300 bucks, 700 bucks—$2,000 for my friend and his constituent’s trailer. We have a lot of trailers in Masterton. I’d be absolutely appalled to see that, if someone who had a trailer, perhaps with a couple of sheep, perhaps they’ve been doing a bit of DIY, they’ve gone into Masterton to grab a pie and then they’ve come out, they’ve taken a couple of spaces there. Now, we’ve got big parking spaces in Masterton, but they’ve taken a couple of spaces and they come out and they’ve been clamped.

We tolerate that sort of behaviour, but I’m thinking about comrades in Auckland and Wellington and Christchurch and Dunedin where they have smaller car parks. It’s hard to fit a ute in a car park in Dunedin, I’ve tried—I studied there for four years, and it was difficult to park my ute. I would be horrified, after coming out of a cafe and getting a pie, to find that I’ve got a clamp on my wheel and that I’m facing an $800 fine. Now, if I had parked my ute in an area which I shouldn’t have—perhaps in front of the new hospital that this Government is funding—then, fair enough. But I would like to know that the Government has done something to regulate the fining system—and that is what this does here with $100.

What I want to know, though, is why we are not looking to make sure that the operators that do this clamping are licensed. I’m sure there’s a good reason for it, but for the spirit of this debate, the people listening at home—who are grateful for this side of the House actually contributing to this debate—want to know why and they want to have confidence that what’s proposed in this bill has been thought through, and I’m sure it has. I would be grateful to the Minister for taking this opportunity to actually give people that are listening at home some confidence that what’s in this bill is in their interest and has been well thought through.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this most important bill, this evening. Look, I think it’s important that we get the right balance, because it’s not OK to just park where you want to—you can’t do that—but it’s also important that people aren’t ripped off. So this bill strikes an incredibly good balance between protecting motorists and ensuring businesses have the right tools to prevent people parking where they shouldn’t do, like on footpaths or for too long or things like that.

We’ve all had a time when you come out of a shop or have been at an event, and whether it’s clamping or a ticket—the feeling of knowing that you have a substantive fee to pay for something that was not necessarily deliberately one’s own fault. That gets to the point where I have had constituents come to me, quite upset and quite irate, where they are trying to pay bills, where people are trying to make ends meet, and a substantive fee comes in that’s unexpected and needs to be paid within a short period of time, and that can cause a lot of strain on individuals and on families. So it is this Government that takes it in hand to say that that’s not fair and that that’s not OK for businesses to extort large sums of money from people when they can’t use their motor vehicle.

So for the opportunity to be able to challenge something and appeal when you have a ticket, there’s a process in place. But if you come out of the gym or a restaurant or taking your kids to school and you find that you’ve been clamped, there’s no way of getting out of that situation if you are needing your vehicle immediately. So you are at the mercy of the company that has clamped you. People see themselves in standover situations where they are being made to comply and made to immediately pay out significant amounts of money just in order to access their vehicle and get to the next point in time—which may be picking up children, or something really important.

In the regulatory impact statement that’s been developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, it really is quite clear in terms of articulating what this problem is. That leads on to what my question is to the Minister tonight.

The clear issues that have been outlined in this problem is that motorists face a multitude of gaps and regulation or are unclear in terms of where the laws stand in terms of this industry. There are four key areas that have been outlined that are the most concerning.

The first is unreasonable fees. I’ve already touched on that, the fact that quite large sums of money are particularly gouged in this area because people need to access their vehicle, and so they’re obliged to pay out on the spot sometimes.

The second one is unclear signage. This is a real concern. If you’re going to be potentially incurring a fee or a penalty, it’s only fair that you have forewarning that that may be a possibility. If there’s not clear notification to the general public that that is a possibility, then that is something that this bill addresses.

The third one is intimidating and unfair behaviour by wheel-clamp operators. It is companies who are making significant amounts of money by disabling vehicles and, really, using those standover tactics to extract money from people in order to access their cars.

The last one is the lack of opportunity for appeal or recourse prior to paying the release fee. As I’ve already mentioned, it’s quite different to a parking infringement fine where you can write in or challenge it.

So my question to the Minister, tonight, is in relation to the requirements for being reasonably available for the business operator. So in the bill, as it is introduced, there’s new section 98D(3) that states that an operator must reasonably be able to respond to a request for removal of the device. The bill has not given a specified outline to that in legislation, but left that to regulation. What I’m really interested to know is how we will reassure the general public that if they are standing beside a vehicle with a clamp on it, and there is a requirement for a response in a reasonable amount of time, that operator will be able to respond to the request for the removal of the device.

💬 Jamie Strange: Mr Chair?

It’s getting a bit repetitive. But, Jamie Strange, you might have something new.

Mr Chair, I certainly do have something new. I am a bit concerned as well that the Opposition aren’t taking calls on this bill; I thought that this was an issue that they would have heard about from their constituents. But I will focus on the bill, and we’ll leave the Opposition, hopefully, to take a call in terms of their side of it.

Now, the point I’d like to focus on—and it is a point that I haven’t heard debated tonight—is new section 98D(5)(b), which is around where the bill would protect a person in charge of a motor vehicle from civil or criminal liability for the removal of an immobilising device, provided the removal has caused as little damage to the device as reasonably possible. The intent of this is that the operator who claimed an amount for unnecessary or wilful damage to an immobilising device should not be limited by subsection (5). So, basically, what the bill is saying here is that if you park your car and an immobilising device is placed on your car and you feel that it’s unfair—and at times, I’ve heard stories of people actually being in the car while the device is being put on the car—you’re able to remove that device yourself, as I understand it, and if you remove it with little damage to the device, then you will be exempt from civil or criminal liability. Now, I’m not sure how you remove a device like this from a car, whether you need a screwdriver or a tool box—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Come on, we’re from Hamilton—of course you know!

—or some sort of system—I wouldn’t know; others may have more experience in these matters.

But I guess the questions I have around this piece of information here are: first of all, how do we define “little damage”, and is that a little bit subjective, possibly? And if someone is in a situation where they’re absolutely desperate to get this immobilising device off their car—and it may be a very serious situation, like somebody is suffering from an illness, they need to get them to a hospital; or there might be some fairly dramatic issue—are they able to actually remove it quite forcefully? And if there is more damage than a little damage, then the bill says that they may be liable for criminal liability; however, what sort of leniency is there around this and the aspect around that term “little damage”?

I think that it’s important that this is in here, because if we do have a situation where someone’s absolutely desperate to use their car and they need it—it might be a case of life or death, it might be a case of illness—that they actually have to remove this thing; now, the question is: can they remove it? Now, I don’t know how difficult it is to remove one of these devices—

💬 Hon Member: It’s pretty easy.

—and I suppose it depends on—maybe people in Masterton might have more experience with that, but certainly up in Hamilton we don’t have as much. I don’t mean to make light of it, because the fact is, like I said, it could be quite a serious situation; it could be a situation that requires urgency. So I believe it is in the bill.

It’s good that it’s in here. It’s common sense. But we would not want to encourage vigilante behaviour where anybody feels that they could have it removed, they carry a little tool box with them, and have it removed at any sort of moment. So I am just a little bit concerned about that aspect of it, but I believe it is good in here. So the Minister might just want to clarify that aspect, particularly around that little damage. It just seems a little bit subjective to me around how much damage can be caused there.

And then the second point in my final minute here is around the bullying and standover tactics. Now, we have heard this reference but my question to the Minister is how does the bill stop the bullying and standover tactics? I mean the bill puts a maximum fine at $100 but there is still a possibility for the bullying and standover tactics, so how does the bill deal with that around intimidation, as my colleague has said.

So I just leave those two questions there for the Minister to respond, around removing the device with little damage and the bullying and standover tactics. Thank you, Mr Chair.

My colleagues have raised some excellent questions and issues during their contributions. So for the benefit of the Opposition—they may still be making up their mind as to whether they support this bill—I will try and address some of them.

Again, my friend Peeni Henare pointed out a real situation that a constituent of his in Tāmaki Makaurau had in regards to a trailer that was clamped, I understand. In that situation, Mr Henare, the best advice I can give to you and your constituent is that in no way, shape, or form when this bill becomes law will the clamper be able to charge more than $100 for the fine, as you know. But they would—for the fact that the trailer may have been clamped—if they wanted to dispute that, go to the disputes tribunal, which is an option open to them.

Kieran McAnulty also, in his very entertaining contribution, spoke of the dearth of clamping in the Wairarapa. But to my knowledge, actually, Mr McAnulty, I think I have seen some signage in your town where the clamping removal fee was $50. Now, obviously there is an issue there that under this piece of legislation they could actually increase the fees, but we don’t expect that to happen given the feedback that we heard during some of the select committee process and feedback we had from those who are interested.

Now, you also raised the issue of licensing. I would like to tell you that while the towing industry is licensed and while some clamping operators are licensed as security guards or private guards there is no legislation or licensing, obviously, around wheel clamping or immobilising at this stage. We wanted to deal directly with the issue, which is the exorbitant prices being charged, which is why this piece of legislation has been introduced.

There’s been a lot of focus on the $100 removal cap, but we hope that the deterrent of this bill doesn’t lie necessarily completely within the removal costs, but in the fines for those operators who, if they are individuals, will be fined $3,000, or companies $15,000, if they are found to be breaking this piece of legislation. So instead of an outbreak of clamping and people still being charged $100 I would hope that those operators would see that the deterrent of the $3,000 or $15,000 fine would act to change not just their business model but their mode of business.

Now, Ginny Andersen and Jamie Strange also wanted me to address some of that intimidating behaviour that some of the operators have been up to in this kind of business. Again, I would hope that they would self-regulate, but in the cases that have come before us at this stage it is the police that are usually called in to assist in matters when there is a dispute between a clamping operator and a motorist. That’s why the police are the authority within this piece of legislation to monitor this law. So not only will they have the ability to deal with some of the behaviour, but they will be able to tell some of the operators that $100 is the maximum that they are able to charge for the removal of the wheel clamp. So, hopefully, that has addressed most of the issues that some of my colleagues have raised. Thank you for your very interesting contributions.

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.