Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I am very happy and I am very proud to get this piece of legislation to its third reading and not too far away from becoming law.

I think most New Zealanders have an inherent idea of what a fair go is, what is fair, what is reasonable, and also an inherent idea of what is unreasonable. The practice that we are regulating this evening is an area which, I think, for some time has been an area where most New Zealanders have seen uncontrolled, exorbitant, and, sometimes, intimidating behaviour from those who immobilise cars in the legislative sense and language, or who clamp vehicles in private car parks, sometimes without those cars actually breaching any time limit or rules for that car park, and then charging what, in many cases, were unreasonable and, in a few extremely unreasonable cases, exorbitant amounts of money for those clamps or immobilisers to be removed.

This is a piece of legislation that, when I took over the Commerce and Consumer Affairs portfolio, was something that I inquired into, and, to be perfectly frank, was quite stunned that nothing could be done to deal with this issue unless there was a legislative change. The fact that we’ve had to take this through the legislative process has meant that it’s taken some time, but we’re very happy to get it to this point. The point of this bill is to end the practice of the cowboy clampers who have been preying on people who can least afford to pay exorbitant amounts of money to have their cars unclamped, and to cap the fee to remove that clamp, in the situations contained in this bill, to $100.

Now, there was some debate that I was witness to during the committee stage about whether or not enough work had been done to build a case for this piece of legislation. And I also note that the Opposition is voting in favour of this bill. So to the second point, can I thank them for their support of this piece of legislation, but to the first point, can I just say that you can’t have it both ways. The Opposition has criticised this side of the House for setting up reviews or working groups, but this simply was a problem, when I became a Minister, that I wanted to deal with.

There wasn’t too much research to be done, other than a regular reading of, potentially, the New Zealand Herald. An endless flow of consumer pain around stories around, again, the likes of $700 being charged to remove a clamp, I think, goes against that inherent feeling of New Zealanders of what a fair go is. Getting charged $700 to remove a clamp from a car, in this Government’s idea, is not a fair go. So we didn’t have to muck around to determine that. We didn’t wait the complete term of a Government to say, “This is an issue.” We arrived, saw the problem, and did something about it. It’s something that might be a little bit foreign to the members on the other side of the House, but I thank them for their judgment to actually support this piece of legislation.

What I am looking forward to is, predominantly, my Auckland colleagues using this piece of legislation as one of the things that they can talk about in terms of delivery for their constituents. Again, it’s predominantly Auckland-based stories where those motorists have been preyed upon and nothing was done. Again, endless flows of stories and nothing was done—certainly by the previous Government. So I’m proud to have got this piece of legislation through to the point where we’re at the third reading.

Some thanks, again, do need to go to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work on this piece of legislation. It’s not a long bill. It’s quite a simple bill. But I think it will give a lot of people who park on a regular basis—and I think that’s most New Zealanders who’ve got a car—quite a lot of peace of mind.

There was some robust debate, as I mentioned, again, around the committee stage, and I just wanted to go through some points and some questions that were raised. My colleague Jamie Strange did note that during the select committee process there were some questions raised about whether or not we should do more around signage, and I just wanted to reiterate the message that I gave to the House during the select committee stage that the Fair Trading Act already has the ability to create, under regulations, some standards when it comes to parking signage. So if there is the necessity to go beyond what we’ve got in this piece of legislation, the Fair Trading Act can be brought into play and increased signage standards can be brought in via regulation. So this could be a moveable feast, but I do think this will make a big difference in terms of consumer protection and also, hopefully, preventing a lot of the practices that some of these cowboy clampers have been up to for some time.

I do want to notice in the legislation the penalties that will come in if those who have clamped cars transgress against the legislation. For an individual, it will be a fine of up to $3,000, and, for a company, a fine of $15,000. So I hope that not only will the business model for some of those clamping companies change but those potential penalties, if they continue to offend, will act as a rather large financial deterrent for them to continue their ways.

I do want to apologise also to my colleague Kieran McAnulty, because, during the committee stage, I did say to him that I believed there was an incident where there was some clamping in the town of Masterton. I have rethought that, and it wasn’t Masterton; it was a town in the South Island that I visited, which I won’t mention, because of the cost of the clamping there.

But, hopefully, the passage of this legislation will mean the end of the pain for those consumers, who, for far too long, have been scared to park in a local car park because of some of the practices of these cowboy clamping companies. We’re quite happy that this legislation sends a message to them that the golden days are over and that charging whatever you like to people who least suspect it has come to an end, and that there’s a limit to what you can charge, because we have tried to strike the balance with property rights too. There are some people who will park incorrectly, and this legislation still allows clamping to occur, but that exorbitant amount of money that some companies charge is to come to an end. And it will be set at $100.

So, again, can I thank—I think—all members in the House, who are going to vote for this legislation, for giving those motorists the peace of mind that the maximum they will pay, if they do transgress, won’t be $700 or $800 but that it will be $100, and I think that will give a whole lot of New Zealanders peace of mind and that they won’t be scared that when they go down to the local shops, they’re going to end up with a $700 bill instead of a $2.50 loaf of bread. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill, after that great 10 minutes from the Minister—a fine, stellar performance. Now, this is not—and I’ll make an allusion shortly to a previous speaker, just in passing—some pot-belly thriller. We’re not going to keep you in suspense to the end. We are going to support this bill in this its third reading.

But I just want to note in passing, having heard that speech from the Minister, that I’ve sat here listening to another member talk a whole list of fiction crime writers, in a speech that I couldn’t make head or tail of, but I do think the House has found its very own Inspector Clouseau.

But on to this bill—on to this particular matter. I have a bouquet and brickbat for the Government. The first bouquet, to the Minister: unlike his colleagues, this Minister decided to do something and then just went ahead and did it. If some of his colleagues were of a similar mind, we might have actually passed some legislation in this House that wasn’t the work of the previous Government.

But that comes, on the other side of that coin, with the other side of this—the brickbat. See, what would normally happen—what would normally happen—in the passage of legislation: first, the Government would have an idea—unless it’s this Government, in which case they’ll either outsource the idea to a working group or take the idea from the Opposition. But a Government would have an idea. They would then set officials to do a bit of work to get some facts and some evidence to support some policy that they’d then turn into legislation and bring to the House. Well, we had a gut feel from Mr Faafoi. Minister Faafoi said, “I need to do this. I want to do this. Don’t worry about facts and evidence. We’re not an evidence-led Government; we’re just going to take some action.”

Well, at least they’ve taken some action.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Well, vote against it, then.

In actual fact—we’re going to return to the bouquet, Mr Faafoi—we’re actually going to support this action. The fact that they didn’t bother with the evidence is material, but we’ll let it fly this time.

We have all heard stories in our electorates—all of us—of people that have been treated terribly by people who have the authority to clamp a vehicle—whether it’s clamping moments after a car is parked illegally or improperly or charging enormous amounts of money to get that car unclamped. The desire to do something was clearly there across both sides of the House. Regrettably, because the Government didn’t do it, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had to do the work of actually working through the policy—and I commend them; they did a very, very good job.

I’m not going to take a long time, but I just want to mention one other thing in passing, because—looking across at Ms Russell—we are working on another bill in the select committee, where, although it places enormous burden on other people, the ones that are exempt are Government entities. And this is the same case in this bill.

So while we are limiting the ability to charge for clamping to $100 in this bill, the ones that get away with it are either central enforcement agencies or, more likely, territorial authorities. So if you’re the Government or city hall, you can charge what you like, but the rest of you are limited to $100.

But none the less, aside from that, let us not forget the fact that there are too many instances of people being treated appallingly in terms of wheel-clamping activities. It is right to take action and, notwithstanding any criticism that could be levelled about that policy work, it is still a good thing that for New Zealanders and those who can least afford it, who tend to be the ones that are caught most often with these practices, it is a good thing that we are taking some practical action to change that—and for that I will extend some small credit to the Minister. Congratulations, and we will also commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on this. Can I commend the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for taking action on a problem that hasn’t just evaporised, it hasn’t just occurred in the last two years; it’s been around for a long, long, long time: wheel clamping, and the impact it’s had on people who legitimately go about their daily lives. So for the consumers, for the business owners, and for the clamping operators themselves, this bill simply clarifies and ensures that those that are resorting to clamping have a $100 limit—that’s both for the operators as well as those who are subjected to clamping.

I just want to share a wee story in supporting this particular bill as a business lease owner of one of my electoral offices—I have four throughout my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. In one particular part of my electorate, Hastings, I am constantly having the back door of my property filled up with our neighbours parking in it. So from a business lease owner, it is hugely disruptive, when you are trying to deal with constituents on a daily basis, that that’s the only parking slot, and, yet, we have people constantly parking where they shouldn’t be despite the signs saying it’s private. Do I want them clamped? No—no, I don’t. But if they were clamped, I’d like to ensure that the bill that protects both those that are clamped and those that apply the clamps is really, really clear. So this is what the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill is doing.

So I want to commend the Minister for taking action as quickly as he has. I’m no longer on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee; I was there when this bill first came to us, and, yes, there was very heated debate as members on that select committee—

💬 Chris Bishop: We want you back.

Thank you very much; I’d love to come back. But we had some very, I felt, constructive debates around ensuring that this bill was fit for purpose. We had several submitters that came in, but what I do want to commend the chair of that select committee, Mr Darroch Ball, for is inviting more of the clampers to appear in front of the select committee, to ensure, before we reported back to the House, that we had canvassed their views. So I want to commend the actions of the select committee, as I left, that they took those particular actions so that we were making a piece of legislation that also took into perspective those clamping operators. And I want to commend those that appeared before the select committee and put their views forward.

It is a simple bill. It does set clear regulations around it. I believe both consumers—like I said, business operators and clamping operators themselves will welcome this clear, simple piece of legislation. On that note, I commend it to the House.

Well, I think that’s a heroic bit of optimism by the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri. I’m not sure that wheel-clamping operators are going to welcome this piece of legislation, because what it does is allow the maximum wheel-clamping fee to be $100. I do not think that those people who currently, essentially, extort money out of people on the basis that they’ve parked for five seconds too long in a private parking spot are going to welcome it, and, frankly, I think that’s a good thing.

Another speaker made mention of the fact that everyone in their electorates has examples of cowboy clampers—the alliteration is a happy coincidence, isn’t it, for this one—cowboy clampers who, essentially, charge extremely high fees. I think every electorate MP would have an example of that; I certainly do in Hutt South. It’s an issue that, when we were last in Government, I actually looked at myself, introducing a bill similar to what we have here. That didn’t happen, but I do welcome the legislation that’s been brought forward, which National is supporting.

I suppose, on the one hand, you could say, you know, good on people for taking advantage of a business opportunity. You know, if you park on someone’s private land, it’s not your land; people who own private property are entitled to set the conditions upon the terms that you come on to that property, and if you stay too long, a minute too long, you’ve given up your licence to be on that property and the person whose property you’re on is entitled to ask you to leave and, if you don’t leave, then charge you money. That would be the sort of arch-libertarian view of the world, and I suppose that has some plausibility to it.

But I suppose the real point, the simple reality, is that these parking spaces are, for most people, not anywhere different to parking on the street. They’re not any different to parking in a public car park provided by the local council, for example. Typically what they are are three or four parks, sometimes next to public car parks operated by the council. People can’t distinguish because the signage is often totally deficient, and people come back to their car—they think they’ve probably parked in a public car park and they’ve got away with it—and they find that, actually, they’ve parked on Mr Smith’s private car park, and Mr Smith has decided to charge $700 for being over the limit. If you don’t pay, you’re stuffed, basically. So I think this is an attempt to deal with what is clearly a practical, real problem for people, and I think it’s a good step forward.

Some countries actually ban private wheel clamping. The bill doesn’t go that far. I think that’s something worth thinking about. Some countries do it—I think in various parts of Australia. I think in some states of Australia, it is just banned outright; you can’t do it. I think that’s something that’s worth discussing. But I think, generally, this is a good step forward. I think every electorate MP is going to welcome it. Good on Minister Faafoi for getting on with the job. He’s a man who’s developed a well-deserved reputation as a doer in a Government that is, generally, incompetent at delivering.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: He’s a lone soldier!

Ha! He’s a lone soldier! He’s a lone ranger—Faafoi the Lone Ranger! He’s a man who should have been promoted a lot earlier, but good on him for taking action. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. I also would like to congratulate the Minister Kris Faafoi for bringing in this bill and getting it through the House and also seeing it through the entire process, including the select committee. All those who are on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee can understand that, when we first got it to the select committee, it seemed, on the face of it, quite a simple bill and we thought it would go through quite easily, but it seemed that, when we opened one door and closed that, another three opened and we had to go through them. It was a can of worms, really, solving this issue, and I think that it was because it was so unregulated that, when we started, sort of, to pick up sticks, if you like, it started affecting a whole lot of other different things.

I think that Mr Bishop actually brought up a good point, which was that I think the complicated nature of this issue has caused other jurisdictions to actually ban clamping outright.

I agree that this could be a conversation in the future, and this would be an interesting one to have, but I think that what we’ve got in front of us, which is a piece of legislation that is quite balanced, and throughout the whole process—not just the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but that was the main backbone of it, coming up with this legislation, but also all of the stages and including the previous stage, which was coming up with a balanced but focused piece of legislation and getting that balance between the retailers, the companies that do the clamping, and also the people who have fallen victim to the cowboy clampers in unacceptable situations which we all agree we can’t let carry on. There are examples where we’ve had $600, $700, $800 for a fee for getting rid of an immobiliser or a clamp for being two minutes over, or even clamping when there’s children still in the car. So something needed to be done, and I congratulate the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for bringing this legislation to the House and coming up with what is a good step forward in dealing with those issues.

One of the issues that was brought up also, because it was a big one in the select committee, was the issue of the signage, but also the big one was the $100 cap. That was debated quite—not heatedly but in-depth and—

💬 Chris Bishop: Collegially.

Yeah, collegially in-depth, and we believe that we’ve come up with a solution, a balanced one and a focused one but also one that can be addressed through regulations in the future, which I also think is quite an important part of this legislation.

So New Zealand First supports this bill and congratulates the House on supporting it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a real privilege to stand up at 9.57 on a Tuesday night to discuss the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill. I’ve got some experience with companies that tow cars, as does Denise Lee, as of just Saturday night. Denise Lee had a fantastic concert at U2, and, unfortunately, afterwards, after having a few good hours at U2, she came back and, what do you know, the car’s up on the tow truck. So that was a good lesson for Denise, but she covered her tracks very well, as you would have seen in the media. She’s very quick on her feet. She said “It wasn’t my fault, because I parked the car and I went to the concert but, unfortunately, I parked my car a bit too quick, as the barriers”—apparently they changed the barriers. They used to put the barriers closer to Mt Smart Stadium, and then she got caught out. So, Denise Lee—it’s a shame she’s not speaking on this good bill. She would have a few good things to say.

This is a good bill. There’s often a power imbalance with some of these towing companies. Often, they turn up to your car—predatory behaviour—they’ll charge, in one case from a submitter, $740 dollars. Seven hundred and forty dollars for a person that was in a car park for 90 minutes. You may ask: how is that fair? I don’t believe it is, but if you need your car back and your car’s worth more than about a thousand dollars, of course you’re going to pay them the money to get the car back. If you want to take action, often action can take weeks, if not months, in the local courts or through mediation. So it’s good that this bill’s sorting out that power imbalance with some of these companies.

There’s no parking wardens in parts of Clutha-Southland. There’s none in Milton, Balclutha, Gore—there’s part-time ones in Gore. In Queenstown, there are part-time parking meters as well. So, just for Denise Lee: if you’re watching this, Denise, it may pay for you to move down to Clutha-Southland, and your car won’t be towed. National supports this bill.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill at probably 9.59-odd. The Green Party, of course, supports this very common-sense piece of legislation, that being the Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill. It’s been well canvassed by a number of speakers before myself about the predatory behaviour that a number of these cowboy clampers—in the words of my colleague Chris Bishop—behave in, charging exorbitant amounts of money to folks who, oftentimes, don’t think that they have been privy to adequate signage.

However, it also has to be canvassed the issue of that kind of balance that is required, that balance being that when somebody does park on somebody else’s property, when that property is used as a place of business or, in the instance of my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri, as her electorate office, it is indeed the case that that parking spot—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.