Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill

We’ll have another go at this, shall we? When we were debating this last, Kieran McAnulty had the floor, and he has four minutes and 56 seconds remaining to speak, should he so desire to do, and it looks like he does.

I do, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much. I felt very aggrieved. Four seconds in, and I was cut short in my prime. I hadn’t even finished mentioning the bill, and I’m very passionate about this bill. I will admit to the House that I was not at the start of this thing, because I was unaware that it was going through the House. In the first reading, I was not in the House when it was discussed, and I was not in the select committee that discussed this bill, and I was not here for the committee stage. But I was here for the second reading, and I was appalled to hear of stories of these rogue wheel clampers going around the country clamping people willy-nilly and charging anything they like. I was struck. I was so compelled that I thought I would speak on this issue.

The fact is that wheel clamping is, in itself, a legitimate mechanism, I suppose, to address illegal parking. But what has not been addressed for many, many years—until the Hon Kris Faafoi came along and thought, “We need to sort this out.”—is that wheel clampers have been going around clamping people and demanding any figure they like, anything they want, be it $500 or $700, sometimes using intimidatory tactics, standing over people and demanding money that often they cannot afford. What we have done as a Government—and, potentially, as a Parliament, if the other side of the House supports this bill—is say that this sort of behaviour is not good enough. We do not tolerate this sort of behaviour.

💬 Jamie Strange: Listening to the people.

That’s right. Listening to the people, as the soon to be MP for Hamilton East says—my colleague Jamie Strange.

But the thing is that we need to take a balanced approach to this issue because, ultimately, this bill looks to ensure that the structure, the mechanism in place for wheel clamping, is regulated but is not going so far as to say that it shouldn’t happen, because often people are parking in areas where they shouldn’t. We know that, and it would be very remiss of us to suggest otherwise. But is it fair that, just because they have parked somewhere where they are not allowed, they should be taken advantage of? I’m sure we’ve all done it. Just the other day, I got a $12 parking fine in Masterton.

💬 Hon Members: Outrageous.

I know. I considered writing my resignation letter.

💬 Jamie Strange: The GDP doubled.

That’s right. But I thought: here we have an opportunity for an injection of funds to the Masterton District Council. So I thought, “I’ll take it.” If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. So I was parked outside my office, 157 Queen Street, Masterton, for those that are interested—come along, come and have a chat—$2 for two hours; $1 an hour. You can’t argue with that. If there’s one thing they say about Masterton, it’s value for money! Two bucks I paid, and I was in there and I was dealing with a very interesting case, a very interesting case.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does this have anything to do with the bill?

Absolutely. Because, at any moment, Madam Speaker—at any moment under the current regime—I could’ve been clamped. This is the point. This is the point: that without regulation—

💬 Brett Hudson: That’s not true. That is not the case. Read the bill. He’s 100 percent wrong.

—I could have been clamped and, instead of paying my $12 fine, which I was happy to do, I could have faced a $700 fine.

This is an unregulated industry that that previous Government did nothing about, but the Hon Kris Faafoi came along, and in this bill, the bill that I have read, the bill that is a marvellous bill, the bill that is on the side of consumers but strikes that balanced approach, we are saying to the nation that this Government—and here’s an opportunity for the Opposition as well; instead of saying this “Government”, we could say this “Parliament”—is on the side of people. We’re saying, “If people park somewhere they shouldn’t”—and I know, Madam Speaker, I shouldn’t use the term “you”, because I know for a fact that you would not do that—“it is OK to clamp them. But it is not OK to charge them amounts that are exorbitant, to charge them amounts that are unfair.”

In this bill, setting a maximum amount of $100—we say that is fair. We say that’s fair, and we invite the Opposition to join us in saying that this sort of behaviour has gone on too long. Once again, this Government is finding a balanced approach—the middle of the road, right down the middle, straight down the pitch. I commend this bill to the House.

Oh, Madam Speaker, I’ve waited all seven days to hear the member’s speech on this bill! It’s a pleasure to speak at the third reading. We’ve been here twice before. Last Thursday, we were here and it was five minutes to six. I was about to follow the member there, Kieran McAnulty, and we got five seconds into his speech and he had to end—so really good to hear him and his entertaining speech.

💬 Brett Hudson: Which wasn’t correct.

Which wasn’t correct. I do want to just clarify things, even though it’s going to be a very brief contribution from me.

Look, National, as we have heard in this third reading, is supportive of this bill, but unlike the member over there, I did sit in on some of the oral submissions for this bill. There was a discussion about the level at which the fines should be set, and there was discussion on the National side that $100 wasn’t too low. We heard submitters who actually said that they’re not going to be able to operate on a $100 maximum fee that could be charged.

I just want to correct the member over there, Kieran McAnulty, who loves to get up and say he’s read the bill, or not, but there was one thing that he said that I want to clarify, and that is who this applies to. Now, this bill applies only to private parking, and that means that, if you’re in a council or territorial-related parking, then they can still charge whatever they like. So it’s another big promise that this Government’s not delivering on.

💬 Matt Doocey: No, he’s proposed the bill to change. We should vote on that.

Yes, exactly. He’s read the bill, and apparently he was misinformed on this matter.

💬 Brett Hudson: He misinformed himself.

He misinformed himself—oh, this is great. But, look, on a serious note, you know, we want to enforce the law, and the laws are pretty simple with respect to parking. This is really about enforcement of the law, and we want to encourage a private market in this place. As we heard on the select committee, $100, I think, was a bit too low. In a free market, we want that to be a little bit more balanced, but nevertheless, it’s a fair and reasonable bill and on this side of the House, we’re supportive of this in the third and final reading. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the bill’s third reading, I say this is great for our motor vehicle users; this is great for our consumers. Motor vehicle users and consumers in general are the winners.

I must congratulate Minister Kris Faafoi and thank him for prioritising this bill, because, as my colleagues who spoke before me have correctly acknowledged, this issue has been ignored for too long. And, of course, there were reasons behind the neglect. Probably someone on that side believed that parking was no more than a trivial matter—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: They don’t care.

—they don’t care—or it may be the case that they believed wheel clamping was nothing more than business as usual. But, as those submitters such as the New Zealand Automobile Association (AA), Wilson Parking, Consumer New Zealand, and other submitters raised during the select committee process, this is not a trivial matter at all; this is an important matter that has affected a large number of Kiwis. As the AA’s quarterly rolling survey showed, 7.9 percent of its members have received a parking ticket in the last six months, and wheel clamping is particularly unpopular among its members—and, I reckon, among the general public as well. The AA has 1.7 million members nationwide, and I would say this issue affects a significant number of Kiwi consumers around the country. And the sector is unregulated. So this bill will not only be good for our consumers in general but will also provide certainty, clarity, and regulatory standards for the sector.

At the committee of the whole House stage, members raised and addressed a number of interesting and valid points. For instance, the Hon Peeni Henare used his experience from his constituency and raised a question in terms of the definition of “motor vehicle”. He asked whether it’s a better idea to include a trailer, and my colleague Kieran McAnulty, who spoke earlier, in his usual witty contribution, also reflected on his own experience from his own electorate and raised the question as to whether it is a better idea to license the sector.

In a similar vein, AA New Zealand, in its submission, stated that this bill should go a little bit further by imposing minimum signage standards for the operators of privately owned public car-parks. A common cause of so-called unauthorised parking is nothing more than inadequate signage, and it is not fair to penalise motor vehicle users in that situation. Another problem is that for motor vehicles in that situation, there is no way for them to challenge the penalty other than going through the usual tribunal and other formal processes, which are costly and time-consuming. So I’m very glad to report that this bill will protect motor vehicle users from unreasonable fees and protect consumers in general from overzealous operators.

The Government is committed to protecting consumers from predatory, unreasonable behaviour, and the Government is strengthening consumer protections across a range of different areas and issues. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.