Thursday, 30 May 2024 (continued on Friday, 31 May 2024) - Volume 776 Sitting date: 30 May 2024 THURSDAY, 30 MAY 2024 (continued on Friday, 31 May 2024) … ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, we are up to the second reading of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. We're up to call No. 4, which is the ACT Party call. I call Parmjeet Parmar. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the second reading of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. This is a sensible bill, and it shows that this coalition Government—that is, National, ACT, and New Zealand First—really wants to see that our public services are financially sustainable. We know that this is about the amount that is retained by the Crown from the collection services that are delivered by court for local authorities and organisations. This is going to be increased from 10 percent to 14 percent. The last time this price was set, which was at 10 percent, was in 1989; so it's been around 35 years. It's been a long time, and what it does is bring it in line with what private debt collectors charge. It is a very sensible policy, and I think we should all support this bill. The ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Now, it makes a minor but very important to the Public Finance Act 1989. It's common sense, and as I said in the previous reading, anything that is common sense New Zealand First will support. I commend it to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): It's a privilege to take this call and I'm very happy to do so. My call will be short, but I want to make some important points about this ridiculous bill that absolutely is not worth our time in urgency. This Minister has come down to the House and he has asked us to sit here on a Friday when we could otherwise be in our electorate serving our constituents and talking to them about their concerns when it is Budget week, whereas instead we are dealing with parking fine taxes. Hon Simeon Brown: Don't be so workshy. ARENA WILLIAMS: This Minister is in charge of it too. He's not the justice Minister but he is the Minister who cost his finance Minister about $1.5 million from the land transport plan. When did that happen? Was that at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee? Who was on that? Remind me how much that cost. Was it about—I don't know—1.5 over the forecast period? Is this how much this bill saves? Good on that Minister for finding savings, but unfortunately those savings are coming straight out of the pockets of ratepayers, straight out of the pockets of mayors and councils that that Minister got on the stump at election time and said he would be fighting for. He told local councils around this country that he would be on their side, yet here he's on their side reaching into their pockets to pull out another 4 percent of the costs that they are levying on ratepayers. That's the approach of this Government. It's to make sure that the Government is getting more of people's money so that they can announce it on Budget day as a tax cut. Well, good on that Minister! At least he made up for it when I spox'ed him at the select committee. So I am going to be raising some issues at this committee stage. [Interruption] It will be a lively committee stage debate, you can see, because there are a number of Government members who want to contribute just in my call. What I'm going to get to is it's sort of about the reasons why one would charge a levy or a fee. I want to start to unpack why this isn't in fact a fee—it's more like a penalty that's being imposed on people—and why this isn't the appropriate way to do it, in legislation. The cost recovery statement that we've been provided with does go into that and, as some of my colleagues have spoken about, this shouldn't be thought of as pure cost recovery, because it's not. Because we haven't had any policy advice about whether that 10 percent that is levied now does in fact not meet the costs to actually recover the debt. If that's the case, if it was in fact a bright idea from this Minister to make up for some of the costs, then that's not actually cost recovery. It's being levied on councils, who ultimately pass it on to ratepayers, who are exactly the same people who would otherwise benefit from other savings. So it's just passing costs here to people out there to pay, and that's not actually what the cost recovery mechanisms should be used for. I'll also be asking some questions around whether it's reasonable that local government should pay more for the collection of these fines, given that they already have a mechanism to increase the actual dollar amount, which is through the Orders in Council. It is important that local councils are able to levy fines. You create some certain policy outcomes by only allowing very, very small fines, and you create certain policy outcomes by levying larger fines. Celia Wade-Brown made an excellent contribution, which was continuously interrupted by that side of the House, about why, for instance, with parking fines you create a certain policy outcome if they are artificially low. So there are reasons why you might want councils to be able to levy appropriately high fines in that situation, but then there isn't necessarily a policy rationale for why—on those fines, when the cost of recovery will go up in dollar amounts, if that cost also rises because it is a proportional amount—you would then need to increase the proportion as well. I'm sure we'll tease that out in the select committee stage— Hon Rachel Brooking: I'm looking forward to that. ARENA WILLIAMS: —and we are looking forward to that. As my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking says, parking fines are something which actually do change consumer behaviour. They are something which affect the way that our cities feel, so it is useful for us to really get into the detail of what the rationale is for charging those fines, which is very different from why you would charge court fees. Court fees raise all sorts of access to justice issues, and there are also different policy rationales for that. This bill uses a blunt instrument to treat them as if they're both the same, and that is the wrong way to do this. So I cannot commend the bill. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I begin my contribution, I just want to acknowledge my colleague Celia Wade-Brown, who was making some really important contributions—particularly around the work that central and local government are yet to do together. I think it really speaks to the other side of the House, because I was paying attention to the interjections. It really speaks to the approach around this from the other side of the House when they would rather mock style than substance, and when they themselves are making 12-second contributions because they cannot substantiate the bills that they're putting forward, because they just want to go home. For a party that talks about hard-working Kiwis and yet are not able to work hard to back up their shabby bills, I think they owe the public a bit of respect when it comes to, for example, this nonsense of a bill. All it will do is actually deprive local government—it will continue to widen the divide both in relationship but, actually, in resources of central and local government. It says a lot that this bill was introduced under urgency at a time— Carl Bates: Efficiency. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —when actually we should—it's not efficiency. I want to pick up on that comment, because this Government thinks, as we have debated through urgency, that doing poor, non-robust work to produce legislation is efficiency. They think that putting bills that ultimately impact those who have the least resources the most amounts to efficiency. The reality is that they're so desperate to create savings that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, putting legislation in place that touches actually on a subset of criminal offences that, as has been well traversed, impact low-income communities the hardest. This is something that is reflected in the regulatory impact statement, and the members haven't been able to give contributions as to the substance of this. So I think it's really important that we contextualise this bill, as I said before, in the broader Budget, a Budget that is cake for those who have it well, and crumbs for everyone else. I want to go back to the regulatory impact statement. They talked about not just low-income people but Māori, Pasifika, disabled people, and other communities who are most disproportionately impacted—and young people as well. In fact, the criminal offences that we're going to touch on here—or the subset of those—affect young people the most. People with fine debts are also, as stated in the regulatory impact statement, more likely to be under 45. In fact, 73 percent of those are aged under 45. When we look at, for example, the previous bill that we were discussing, it's easy to see why this is not just an attack on the poor but also an attack on young people. Yes, fines can sometimes play a role in changing behaviour, but we have to remember that fines, at the end of the day—because they're basically a flat amount and they're not actually increased by your income—are basically a free pass for those who can afford to pay them. So when it comes to changing behaviour, we have to also remember that, ultimately, it's not just the behaviour that changes; it could actually result in people being put in a position of hardship. Whereas if the members to my left commit anything that results in them having to have these fines, it amounts to nothing. They don't have to make any tough choices to pay these fines. But, for somebody who's on benefit—a disabled person who relies on income support—and receives those fines, actually, it can be the difference between putting food on the table or paying the rent. I'm seeing frowns on the left side of the House, but the reality is this shows their disregard for the communities least benefiting from the tax cuts yet most affected by this unserious piece of legislation, this desperate, desperate attempt at producing savings from a Government that is ruling for the wealthy few but not the many. The Green Party will continue opposing this bill and calling out the absurd behaviour from a Government that is absolutely fiscally irresponsible. Rather than seriously investing in public services that reduce the cost of living, like free healthcare and free education, they're actually cutting back subsidies, putting out this shamble of legislation and actually exacerbating the cost of living crisis. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): We are witnessing the decline of the once great workers' party. Not content, in Government, with reaching into the pockets of New Zealanders and taking their tax, they now, in Opposition, want to reach into the pockets of working New Zealanders and take their tax relief. This is a very simple bill. It takes cost recovery from 10 percent to 14 percent to deal with the rampant inflation made under the previous Government. It's a bill by a great Minister, shepherded by a great Minister. I commend the bill to the House. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just before we— Carl Bates: Read the title! Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No, I won't do that. Just before we start, though, I thought that was an interesting comment made by James Meager across the aisle about it being somehow something to do with inflation, when we've just traversed this topic about it being proportional, which makes absolutely no sense—but that shouldn't be surprising. Thinking about this bill again—and, honestly, I almost had a wee yawn when I stood up, because I thought to myself, "How much attention can we pay to this silly little bill on a Friday night?" But, as it happens, I'm prepared to spend a good nine and a half minutes talking about it. The contributions from the other side, from the Government, have been quite revealing, I think, haven't they? They haven't really been able to justify. When they have made contributions, they've been a little bit erroneous. They keep just saying that it's important. As my colleague Riccardo Menéndez March has just said, we do have to take this in the context of the Budget, and we should be able to do that, because that's what this Government has done—but to put it at number two in their line-up of important things to go through during an urgency period! So we have to think of it in the context of the overall Budget. When I think of the overall Budget, the first thing that comes to mind, again, is the fact that it's all about broken promises. There were heaps and heaps and heaps of families yesterday who were expecting to get a $250 tax cut. That's just simply not going to happen. For most people, for those families, it's around $60 to $70 a fortnight. Then there's the pensioners—a couple; two pensioners—$4.50 a week. But the thing that's galling, the thing that's really, really galling, is the $3 billion taken out of climate funding. When you think of all the damage that that does, the fact that we're sitting here talking about parking ticket tax at this time of night feel like a little bit of a parallel universe, doesn't it? So let's— Carl Bates: Well, sit down, then. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No, I won't sit down. Let's have a deep dive into what this bill does. It kind of feels to me that the Government backbench MPs don't know what this is about, so let's just go through some details. The bill enables the Government to take an extra 4 percent on top of the existing 10 percent when it collects fines on behalf of local bodies. Now, it's anticipated that other costs such as collection fees imposed on citizens will be increased by regulation. That's nothing to sniff at; that's something that I think we should think about a little more deeply. Now, some may say that this is a money grab; it's an effective tax on local bodies. I think so too. Taking money that would go to local authorities to meet the cost of tax cuts, and that's what it is all about, isn't it? As we've heard tonight, it's like they went through line by line and decided what random thing could they squeeze a little bit of money out of, and by little—and I do mean little: it's trivial; it's a ridiculous amount of money in terms of the Government's coffers, but it does mean a lot in terms of local government. [Interruption] And you're right, Kieran McAnulty. Hon Kieran McAnulty: I know. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: I know you know! Look, the increased costs will ultimately be borne by the people that pay these fines. As we've also heard tonight, we know that, disproportionately, it's often the people who have the least that end up in situations, because vulnerability begets more vulnerability, where they incur fines. Once those increases are made, therefore they do that more tough. So in a Budget that's already hit those very same people in the pocket, it's hit those very same people in terms of their high expectations, the promises that they were sold, so to turn around and have the second thing that comes through this House tonight under urgency being an increase to fines feels a bit rich, doesn't it? Now, the cost recovery impact statement, which is an interesting document—it's several pages long and we can probably have a look through that as well; it's got some good tables and some figures. But, briefly, the cost recovery impact statement, which is like a regulatory impact statement—it's like a RIS but it's a CIS—it highlights several things, and if we were to truncate that and to summarise it, so to speak, the main things it highlights is the fact that this is not a problem and somehow we're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing. It's also got no information. It states, through the CIS, that there's almost no evidence to base this on. There's no evidence to show us that the 10 percent fee that currently exists isn't doing its job, that it isn't covering the costs of making those recoveries. This is just a means by which this Government has gone, "I tell you what: here's a bit of something that hasn't been increased for a while. We'll hoik that up 40 percent, and that'll make us a little bit of extra money because we've got to pay for those tax cuts." that Nicola Willis and Chris Luxon bet their reputations on. The other thing is that clearly this is rushed, isn't it? It's rushed and it's unnecessary. As my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb said earlier, it's essentially nickel and dime stuff, isn't it? It feels a bit trivial. It feels quite trivial to even be having these conversations, but yet here we are. The other thing that the CIS makes clear is that, as I said, there's limited information—certainly limited financial information above which we would be making those decisions. So clearly this is kind of a pre-determined thing just to find money, so it certainly doesn't make sense. The other thing that I think was quite notable, when you look through the information, through the CIS, is that I think you have to be really wary, because it's kind of a move to shift the recovery of fines—well, you've got to ask yourself: when the Government is making comparison between what the private sector is doing—and by the private sector we mean debt collectors—and when they're saying, "OK, what are debt collectors doing out there? OK, they're getting away with this much, let's see if we can kind of, you know, meet them.", as my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty said earlier. It's like the State's joining the market—the debt collector market. Arena Williams: Or the mafia! Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Or the mafia. But I think the question is, once you get over that and think to yourself, "Where could this be leading?": is it a move to shift the recovery of fines completely to that private sector? Is the Government, at some point, just going to go, "Let's just quit with this.", and— Hon Rachel Brooking: There's a theme—there's a theme! Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —yeah—just head in that direction altogether? So, you know, if the mandatory charge of Government collection is outrageous, or it's either an unfair levy—or it's kind of like privatisation by stealth, really, isn't it, and that's something we have to keep our eye on. As I said when I first made my contribution, the percentage amount bears absolutely no relationship to the amount of the fine, and I think that's something also worth noting. So regardless of whether the fine is $100 or it's a thousand dollars, the percentage amount bears absolutely no relationship to that amount. Again, when we look at the CIS, it totally avoids whether the increase is needed for efficiency. This Government, for all their flaws—and they certainly rate themselves as economic geniuses, and we've never really seen much proof to be able to highlight the efficacy of those claims. But for all of their flaws, they do at least talk about efficiency and the need to favour efficiency and the need to look towards efficient uses. This thing does absolutely nothing in that direction. It's yet another example of where efficiency is just a buzzword, and when the proof comes to the pudding, it's all just hot air and nothing actually happens. I think that when we think about— Hon Kieran McAnulty: They want to go home. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: They do want to go home. But when we think about the progress of this bill, obviously this is the second reading and we'll be heading into the committee of the whole after this, and my colleague Arena Williams has already intimated that she's got several pressing questions that she wants to ventilate and to prosecute, and she's going to, I think— Hon Kieran McAnulty: And she will. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: And she will. She's looking forward to doing that very much, I can imagine, and it's a meaty thing to have to talk about! But here we are, coming towards the end of the second reading, and, again, let me just highlight: this is about choices. There were always choices in this Budget. We have to think about this stupid little piece of legislation, this stupid little bill, in the context of the wider Budget, which I think most New Zealanders will be sitting there tonight feeling pretty disappointed in what they were sold and what the reality was. So, on that basis, I certainly do not commend this bill to the House. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Here we have the Labour Party suddenly concerned about costs! It's suddenly concerned about costs, but what did they vote against just a couple of moments ago? The tax cuts that 83 percent of workers would benefit from; 93 percent of households would benefit, and they voted against tax cuts for low to middle income workers. As Mr Meager has said, this is a small cost recovery adjustment, making this small amendment to the Public Finance Act 1989. The previous speaker, Dr Tracey McLellan, says they can't justify it. Well, I'll tell you how they justify it: the fee has not increased since 1989. The increase from 10 percent to 14 percent is much, much less than inflation since then—136 percent. This is very, very small. I commend the bill. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just for those who are watching at home, you may not be able to hear the kind of tone in the House or the gibes from the other side, but it's a bit of a shame when they are—it feels like a bit of a classroom or a school assembly, and people are shouting and joking, when actually the legislation we've had in the House today has got real impacts on real people. So I'd like to acknowledge, as the spokesperson for seniors, retired couples, who are the biggest losers. I am going to bring this back to this bill because they are impacted by this. As Dr Tracey McLellan said, they were expecting $13 a week before the Budget. They're now going to be getting $2.15 each a week if they're a superannuitant couple. This bill—even though it's a silly little bill—it's actually tax by stealth. It will impact those people. It's quite desperate, because they haven't been able to fund their tax cuts, despite—it was bizarre when somebody in the House today said that they didn't use borrowing to pay for the tax cuts, because, in fact, they have borrowed $12 billion to pay for $14.7 billion of tax cuts. So they clearly haven't read their legislation. This bill is bad law and it's unfair. The reason it's bad law is because, first of all, I'd say it's a tax, but technically they're calling it a levy. Now, it's not a levy. If you look at it technically, it's a fee, because it is targeted. A levy cuts across users and a fee is targeted. But it's really, at the end of the day, a tax. What irks me is that this applies to strict liability offences. This means that when somebody goes down the road, parks their car too late, they are guilty until proven innocent. It reverses the burden of proof. Now, that's really unusual in our parliamentary system. So that in itself should be a reason why this should be going to select committee. It's a reason why it shouldn't be done under urgency. Any time that we're using urgency and this process to bring into being a change where somebody is guilty till proven innocent on the burden of proof is just bad lawmaking when it comes to jurisprudence. It's also the impact that it will have on marginalised communities, including Māori and Pacific. The costs will be passed on. There is no way that councils are going to sit here and have the Government do their big reach into their pocket and do their money grab and not pass those costs on. They will pass them on to the people who can least afford to pay it. Now, if we look at who's been really impacted by these cuts that the Government has made by these types of bills, it is, as the Hon Kieran McAnulty—[Interruption] ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. It is becoming difficult to hear from up here. There are quite a few separate conversations going on in the Chamber. INGRID LEARY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would you give me another five minutes? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I've stopped the clock. I'll restart it now. INGRID LEARY: I'd be very keen to extrapolate. I'm sure that people couldn't hear any of it, to be honest. But anyway, I'll carry on. The Hon Kieran McAnulty talked about the rates going up and the fact that this is another way of the Government kind of throwing councils under the bus, because it will be councils that will increase their fines, that will pass that on to the people who are fined. When I look at what's happening in my electorate in Clutha, we've got the mayor there saying, basically, the way the rates are going up because of what's happened under three waters and the fact that the water reforms that this Government is requiring councils to now pay, when we had a solution for them—those rates are going up between 14 and 20 percent. Superannuitants in my electorate are paying up to 20 percent of their income into rates. So when I talk about superannuitants being the biggest losers under the Budget, and I talk about the impact that this type of legislation has, it's very, very real for them. The costs that will be passed on because they maybe get a fine or they pay their fine slightly late and costs are added, there is no way that councils will not pass those on. So this is more bad news for superannuitants. It's more bad news for councils, who are going to seem like the bad people here when, in fact, it's the Government throwing them under the bus. Why? Because they didn't cost out their tax cuts, because they're desperately trying to find little pinchy ways to try and get their coffers adding up, and they're doing it in urgency when they haven't thought through how they're going to get a decent amount of money in a proper legislative way. It's bad lawmaking, as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has said. There is no rationale for the 10 percent that's been justified through the private market. In fact, if we look at what the cost recovery impact statement says, it says that a fee is only justifiable when it's fair and appropriate. So is it based on the dollar amount? Is it based on the volume? There's no justification. There's no evidence. It's a silly piece of law and I'm not supporting it. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Madam Speaker, thank you. So many words have been said. It's a simple bill. Ten percent to 14 percent; 4 percent increase in Crown retention. The Opposition say that "This is trivial, it's small money.", but to a fiscally responsible Government every dollar counts. We commend this bill to the House. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now, it is quite bizarre that the day after the Budget, following what was a very long debate on the tax bill, this is the second bill that the Government puts up. This is what they want to put forward for New Zealanders. This is why they're here on a Friday night. It's because they want to charge people more for the cost recovery of their parking fines. I mean, we're really, really focusing on the big issues, aren't we? I mean, they could have put a bill up tonight about how they're going to move forward on funding cancer drugs. That would have been a better option. They could have put a bill forward about how they're going to fund more public houses. That would have been a good bill. But no, none of these things. Instead, they have a parking ticket tax to bring to the House on a Friday night. I hope those people who are listening on a Friday night will be hearing that the Government's major priority after tax is to add a new tax through a parking ticket tax. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Those people should write to their MP. RACHEL BOYACK: They should write to their MP. I mean, one person has actually written to me tonight calling the tax cuts a complete laugh. I won't go into the full email because it's actually quite depressing for that person. That is the kind of person who could well and truly be hit by this increase in the cost recovery of a parking ticket. So the Government's priorities are all over the shop. Then they're trying to blame cost pressures for this. Now, what's caused the biggest issue around cost pressures? Just looking here at the cost recovery impact statement, the biggest issue actually is cuts—cuts from that Government side where they've said, "What we're going to do is we're going to borrow and we're going to cut so that we can give out unaffordable tax cuts to landlords." Then what they're going to do is introduce a nice sneaky little bill straight after the income tax debate called the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. What this bill will do—it will create this nice little parking ticket tax and it will enable the Government to take an extra 4 percent where it collects fines on behalf of local bodies. Now, this is a Government that has, as other speakers have said, gone around the country and said, "Local government, we love you. We're going to do some things for Auckland's water. We're not quite sure how it'll work for the rest of the country, but we'll probably figure that out later. Let's see what happens. We're going to help you out here, but oh, by the way, here's another little cost. Here's another little cost for you to have to gather more revenue for us." Now, actually, when I talk to local councils, one of the things I hear is the frustration from councils when costs are imposed unnecessarily by central government. This is actually an unnecessary addition to costs that councils have to collect on behalf of central government. I actually don't think it's OK. When you look further at the cost recovery impact statement—you know, we've heard from people. I've had emails from people who are literally only getting $2 a week in their tax cut. It is those people who will be disproportionately affected, if you read through. [Interruption] It's interesting that the other side love to have a bit of a chat when we're chatting, but they don't actually—I mean, when they do their own calls, they could stand up and say all these things in a call, right? I mean, it's like you've probably done a 10-minute call of interjections. Why don't you just do the 10-minute call? I mean, it's just a suggestion. One of the things that the cost recovery impact statement has made really clear is that this bill will disproportionately impact low-income New Zealanders. Actually, that's really serious, because a lot of the changes that have been made through this Budget will disproportionately impact low-income New Zealanders—things like removing free prescriptions; things like another transport matter, things like removing free public transport for young people. All of these things are placing the burden on to people who actually have lower incomes disproportionately while they've given $2.9 billion worth of tax cuts for landlords. So it just shows the Government's priorities. I think the Government priorities are massively, massively out of whack. What it also made clear, when you read through—I mean, you could, instead of talking amongst yourselves, you could actually have a read of this cost recovery impact statement. It's quite interesting. One of the things is that the increase has been rushed. There has been limited financial information for this process. So it's like the Government has thought to itself, "Heck, we've promised these tax cuts. We've staked our claim on it. We've said we'll resign if we don't do it." Hon Members: And we delivered. RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, you did? Yes, you did. Seeing as you've mentioned the delivery of the tax cuts, I might just mention this person who said to me, "A complete laugh. As a single person living alone in hardship, I will get little to no benefit. With the reinstatement of prescription charges I am losing even more money. I have eight to 10 drugs each time, at a charge of $5 each item—more nails in my coffin. I'm struggling and just hate life at the moment. I've worked hard for many years. Everything I have had is nearly all gone." So maybe the members opposite actually should listen to the response from the New Zealand public to the changes that they have introduced. Again, I say, after making changes that actually proportionately impact on the wealthiest, those who own multiple investment properties, they then said, "The next thing that we're going to do is introduce this nasty little parking ticket tax." I also remind members opposite that this Government promised no new taxes, and yet transport seems to be the one where they're thinking, "Hey, we could find a few little curly ones here." For some reason, it's transport that's getting hit with these. We're going to pay more to register our car. We're going to have some massive increases in the future into some of the levies that are taken, and then we're going to do this nasty little thing for people who get a parking fine. Now, I've had parking fines—[Interruption] Absolutely. I know; very outrageous. I mean, come on; who in this House hasn't had a parking fine? Hon Member: Celia. RACHEL BOYACK: Who hasn't? Who hasn't? Hon Member: Celia only rides bikes. RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, Celia Wade-Brown hasn't had a parking fine. Well done, Celia Wade-Brown. That's impressive. I mean, I've had parking fines. Recently, my husband got a got a phone call from the Ministry of Justice to say that he hadn't paid a parking fine from around 20 years ago, which he'd never actually seen. Hon Member: Oh, shame. RACHEL BOYACK: Oh no, he's a very honest man, my husband. Actually, it ended up that he had paid it, but it hadn't made its way through the system. But the reality is that many, many, many of us—many, many, many of us—have had parking fines. We know what happens when we overstay in our car park. As MPs, our meetings often go over. Then when those situations occur, if you don't pay your fine on time, that's when the cost recovery costs come along. We know that it's people on low incomes. We know that it's those people who live week to week. We know it's those people who think, "Actually, it's going to be tough to fill the car this week. It's going to be tough to pay the rent or the mortgage this week."—those are the people who will often make the decision that they're actually going to delay paying the parking fine. Unlike us, if I get a parking fine, I'll pay it within a day or two, because I'm diligent—very, very diligent. But it's also acknowledging that I have the ability to pay for that parking fine as soon as I get it. That email from my constituent tonight was really sobering, because it just showed that this Government has its priorities all wrong. It's basically blaming cost pressures on departments that they have cut the budgets for and they're moving to more of a user-pays model with this lovely, lovely little parking ticket tax where they had promised no new taxes. Instead, what we're seeing is a priority from this Government. As soon as they passed the income tax Act tonight, they said, "Right, we're going to get into this really, really, really important bill." This is the most important thing for this Government to be working on on a Friday night. It's those most vulnerable people who will be disproportionately affected, who don't pay their fines on time, who will end up having to pay significantly more at a greater cost to them and to councils. It's a terrible little bill from a terrible Government that's not standing up for working people. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this bill, the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill, has been referred to by people across the floor as a pathetic little bill—trivial, nickel-and-dime stuff, a silly piece of law. Why? Because it's generating about $400,000 only, they say. I mean, that may be less than what they spent on a slippery slide once upon a time, but $400,000 will go a long way to community organisations. $300,000 went a long way recently for the Takanini Gurdwara in my electorate of Takanini. It refurbished their kitchen, which feeds thousands of people per week. It's not trivial. It's not pathetic. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. In Committee Clause 1 Title CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1, the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is named the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill because that is exactly what it does. Ultimately, that is the bill, which seeks to increase the amount which recoverable from the collection of fines from 10 percent to 14 percent and is very clear: what's in the tin is what's on the tin. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I'm afraid I can't agree with the Minister on that front: it doesn't really tell you anything that it does. The Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill sort of points loosely towards collection costs, but it certainly doesn't actually say what the bill does, which is to increase costs. You will no doubt have seen, and I'm imagining you'll agree with, my Amendment Paper on that matter. My suggestion is that we actually do call it what it is, which is the "Public Finance (Increase of Charges for Local Body Debt Collection) Amendment Act 2024", because that's exactly what's going on. We are increasing charges being imposed on local bodies, and I think it's important to recognise that this isn't the case that the Crown, other than the provision of a court service, which is what every citizen is entitled to have at their disposal—this isn't the provision of any particular service. It's actually a bit fatuous to say that this is a charge for services delivered, because the court framework is just a critical part of Government infrastructure. We'll be starting charging people for parliamentary services next—it's that kind of constitutional significance. So really, I think if we're going to debate the title—and we are—then the appropriate title is to actually refer to the fact that this is a charge for the use of the judicial system as a means of debt enforcement, and we're increasing it. You could, of course, just say that it's a tax on local bodies—and we've said before, it's essentially a parking fine tax. The parking fines are bad enough, but I know that certainly in my electorate Wilson Parking has a lot to answer for. But, in fact, this is of the same ilk in the sense that it's adding an extra layer on top of the additional charges. So we really should call it what it is and not hide behind some weasel word "Public Finance (Collection Costs)"; it's the "Public Finance (Increase in Collection Costs)" and that's absolutely what we should be calling it. Of course, we could call it, as I've said, a parking fine tax or a money grab, but I think I have heard come from the Chair from time to time that titles of that nature, whilst I think it was deadly serious, sometimes the Chair sets them aside as being perhaps ironic or something like that. But I know the wise Chair that we have now surely wouldn't be doing anything like that. But certainly, an increase of charges for local body debt collection is absolutely straight down the line, and I hope that the Minister will, in fact, agree to that change. Of course, I have a number of other Amendment Papers. I don't think they're on this clause at the moment, so—but you never know, I might have one there and I know some of my colleagues want to speak on this matter as well. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I don't want to disagree with my very learned colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, but I do have a little bit of an issue with the word "collection" and also "costs", actually, and I wonder if the Minister can explain in the title why the word "collection" would be appropriate, because when I think of the word "collection", it involves an active activity; it's about collecting; it is about doing something, whereas my understanding of this bill is that the Crown is really a passive recipient of money that is being gained through other means—I mean, certainly through the judicial process, as Dr Webb has alluded to. So I just am not sure that the word "collection" is correct. It's possibly a little bit misleading, because it implies that there is some kind of active activity happening that is going to justify a change in the Public Finance Act. And we must remember that the Public Finance Act is one of the key foundations of our financial system. It's not something we do lightly. So if we're going to have bills that change that principle Act, I do think they need to be accurate. The other word that I actually have issues with as well is "costs", because "costs" implies that there is a measurable evidence base for the retaining, rather than collecting, of the money that is being accrued. And when I look at the cost recovery impact statement, it definitely says that there is no evidence for that. And so trying to find what to call that would be something I'd like to ask the Minister. Is there a better word that basically describes what is happening? I don't think "cost" captures it. Perhaps the word "levy" has been used. "Levy" isn't accurate either, because it is a fee and that was discussed in the speech, and I'm sure we'll come to that in the relevant parts, but I'm wondering actually if we just replace the word "costs" with "tax", because that's actually what is happening here. So, although I haven't tabled an amendment, I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title to Public Finance (Fines Tax—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. So we would take out the word "collection", because, as I said, there's no active collection going on, and take out the word "costs". There isn't anything that can be evidenced numerically; it is a retention of some money, and, therefore, in my mind, the appropriate nomenclature for that would be "tax". So I do wonder if the Minister would please consider mine, even though I am very sorry that I didn't manage to get time to table the amendment. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Look, I thought the member's question was very good in terms of why not use the word "tax" rather than "costs", and I'd like to explain to the House why the word "costs" is more appropriate. It costs the Government money to do activities, and the activity that it is doing here is collecting fines on behalf of local authorities and other entities, and that cost has increased over time. And so, as part of good Government, it's appropriate that we have a cost recovery model which ensures that the costs that it costs to run the service are recovered. And this bill is doing that—exactly that. And so I just sort of feel like in that last 30 seconds or a minute, I've explained why the last six years have been such an appalling waste of money by that last Government. This Government is bringing back appropriate expenditure, appropriate governance, and appropriate cost recovery models. That is exactly what this bill is doing. And this small but important bill is another measure in terms of doing that so that we have better governance in New Zealand. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take my first call on this bill, the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill, in the committee stage. I appreciate what this bill is trying to do in order to recuperate some of the costs generated by the court and by local authorities. Based on what we see here, in terms of the cost recovery impact statement, it is projected here that revenue through court fines is budgeted at $111 million a year by the Ministry of Justice, and the revenue from the filing fees—these are two separate fees we're looking at. One is the fines recovered or the fines imposed, and the other one is the filing fee. Now, I would like to know from the Minister what sort of modelling he has done when it comes to the collection of the fee itself. Now, the reason I mention this—and this is a little bit outdated; I can only imagine it has increased—is that the previous report said that Kiwis, and also, in this case, tourists—I would like to know how this bill would affect tourists. But Kiwis and tourists have evaded $156 million in unpaid fines over the past decade, and this is from 2009 to 2019. Across Aotearoa, district and regional councils have referred, at that stage in 2019, $471 million of fines to the Ministry of Justice since 2008, and 33 percent of those fines were never recovered. So, based on the recovery impact statement and the estimated additional revenue from the proposed changes, I would like to ask the Minister: does this, first of all, factor in too the amount of fines that were never recovered in the first place? Auckland, of course, dwarfs other councils. In this report, $66.5 million of fines were left unpaid since 2008-09—so within a decade. So that's a really important question. The second branch of that question is what I mentioned before: a lot of the time, these fines are incurred by tourists who will come to Aotearoa, and when they leave—and this goes to that—has that also been considered as part of the estimated additional revenue that has been proposed? So those are the first two questions. When we are looking at this bill, it also talks about collection by not only local authorities but also other organisations, and I would like to know from the Minister what conversations have been had with other organisations who are also currently collecting some of these fees, and whether they have agreed—if they are either a State-owned enterprise or if they are indeed other agencies or private enterprises, etc.—whether any other organisations have OK'd the increase from 10 percent to 14 percent of the fee that is going to be retained. So those are my initial questions. There are other questions on specific areas as well. But thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity. But the question here is— Hon Members: Madam Chair! Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry, I still do have a minute and 26 seconds. Just to recap, the first question is around whether— Arena Williams: It could have gone to select committee. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It could have gone to select committee. The first question is around whether the estimated amount of revenue that is proposed here has factored in too the amount that is going to be lost from fines left unpaid, both by locals but also by tourists. And also, the second question is around whether other organisations agreed to this. One of the things that I would also like to point out, which the Minister just mentioned before—I appreciate and understand that you're trying to be fiscally responsible and trying to recuperate some of these costs—but may I also point people to the Vote Courts document that says, for support of the District Court, there is also an $8.5 million increase in the response to harm, as well as a $3 million increase to District Court funding and a tougher approach to sentencing. So when we are looking at something like this, if you're trying to balance the costs of the court and the estimate you're using, they're not actually recuperating it, because you have now just gone and spent it on all of these other things. I am also kind of interested to know from the Minister what his thoughts are on some of these rebalancing of the costs. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take another call, I'd just like to remind members that this is a clause-by-clause consideration. It is not part by part, as you were probably expecting. So clause 1 is a more fulsome debate. I refer to Speaker's 127/1. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As I've just said, it's a more fulsome debate than a clause by clause debate. So we have got a bit more material, I think. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have an Amendment Paper on clause 1, so I would have felt quite aggrieved if I wasn't able to speak to that. But old "Eager" Meager has attempted to— Hon Members: "Eager" Meager—"Eager" Meager! Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: My apologies, it's James Meager, and I should use your full name. But that's all right. Cameron Brewer: James "Eager" Meager. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: James "Eager" Meager. But in all seriousness— Hon Rachel Brooking: Is that going to be the name of the bill? Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: I have got a suggestion for a retitle of this bill, but no, that is not the name of the bill. I suspect he would like that a little bit too much. But with all due respect to my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who has also got an Amendment Paper—I know he made a suggestion and I know at the time when I heard it, I thought that was perfectly reasonable. To be perfectly fair, it's gone in one ear and out the other, because I think I've got a better title. Now also with respect to my colleague Ingrid Leary, I thought she made a couple of good points which I hadn't quite thought of. I've made a couple of notes here, because I particularly underlined the word "collection". I have tabled an amendment, but if I had heard your comment beforehand I may have thought about that twice because I do believe that "collection" is an active word, it is a doing word, and I'm not entirely sure that I necessarily would have chosen that, but it's still a much better option than what the name is before us now. So the other part that I think I'd like to make mention of is this concept of making money. So the amendment that I have before me is to replace clause 1 with "This Act is the Public Finance Making Money Off Debt Collection Amendment Act." And when I say, "making money", I think, as has been mentioned in previous contributions during the various stages—which I know always feel like they're lumped in together when we go through urgency because they are all lumped in together, and we don't get a chance to let that settle a bit and to have a little bit more thought as we go through this process. But such is the nature of urgency, and it's always a bit of a conundrum, isn't it, when we talk about "urgency", because it makes it seem like it's something that's actually quite urgent and important, but this bill obviously isn't in line with that. But making money is in line with this because this is what it's about. So I think that I disagree with the Minister when he says that what's written on the tin is what it does. I think this "making money" part that I'm suggesting needs to have a more prominent position in the title of this bill. Now, when we talk about making money, obviously, if we look through the various documents that were imparted to support this bill, there was a table that said, I think, that it was $446,000 in its first year, which, you know—$446,000 is a little bit of money in terms of the Government's Budgets. It's not a huge amount of money in the scheme of things. It's certainly not up there with the $2.9 billion in tax cuts for landlords, for instance. But nevertheless, it is some money and I think because of that, in the title it should say something along the lines of, as I've suggested, "This Act is the Public Finance Making Money Off Debt Collection". Now, the other thing that I would like us to think about when we think of what would be an appropriate title when we think of clause 1, is the fact that the existing 10 percent, along with the filing fee of $30, from memory—and remembering some of the things that are being raised are being raised by as much as, like, 83 percent. So the "making money" part here shouldn't be understated. But that already makes the Government's position as a debt collector, so to speak—or the Government's position as using the judicial system as a means by which to collect debt—a little bit uncompetitive as it is. So I think the addition of "making money off debt collection" just specifies that a little bit more correctly that the Government is still in that business. So I wonder if the Minister would consider that. I think it suits the bill a lot more and I'd be interested in hearing any other contributions from colleagues who may have other, similar ideas. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to the member, the list MP from Banks Peninsula. The tabled amendment was that the Act is the "Public Finance Making Money Off Debt Collection Amendment Act", which could not be anything but what this bill is doing. It's simply about cost recovery and about making sure that the system is able to actually pay the bills. And, actually, that means ensuring that there's enough funding. As it says in the general policy statement on the bill, which I assume the member hasn't read yet, the increase is to ensure that fines "from amounts of fines recovered for offences" can be actually just covering the cost. I mean, that is ultimately what this bill is doing. So I'm not sure what the last Government did for the last six years, but clearly they borrowed, spent, taxed, but actually this is simply about making sure that the service— Chlöe Swarbrick: What about localism, guys? Hon SIMEON BROWN: I'm not sure who that is screaming across the House, but I did hear the question— Chlöe Swarbrick: Oh, big boy Simeon. Hon SIMEON BROWN: —and the answer to the interjection— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Order! Refrain from getting personal with the remarks, please. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Madam Chair. The answer to that question is that the Crown is providing a service for local government. It costs more money to run that service than it used to because of the inflation left behind by the last Government and so we're ensuring cost recovery. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do appreciate that you had a lot of choices there and you chose me, and I appreciate that. Thank you. James Meager: This sounds like leadership-thinking. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Keep it up. We've got all night. It's all good; we're in no rush. [Interruption] We're in no rush—keep it coming. But it's interesting that it does appear the Minister also wishes to keep this debate going, Madam Chair, because as you know, and as many others know in this Chamber, if a Minister chooses to respond to a genuine query, like that as was proposed by Dr Duncan Webb, with a political comment, it only extends the debate. So if that's how the Minister wants to play it, that's absolutely fine. But I also have a genuine query. As much as I support the proposal made by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who always plays with a straight bat—he's talking about an increase in charges for local body debt collection. It's a fair cop. But what I've heard a lot from the Minister tonight is "cost recovery". What I haven't heard from the Minister tonight is the term "collection costs", and I find that interesting. So I guess my query to the Minister is: if he really wants the title of this bill to, as he says, reflect what's in the tin, would he consider changing the title of this bill to the "Public Finance (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill"? I'll explain why I don't believe that what is currently there is appropriate, but why I think, in the spirit of trying to work together, that would be an appropriate title. Well, the first and most obvious point is that this is the justification that the Minister himself has used on a number of occasions. So, surely, if that is the justification behind this bill, then he may as well have the title reflecting that. The issue that I have with the current title is that it's got the inclusion of "Budget Measures" in there. Now, throughout the debate, in the first reading and up to now, this side of the House has made the point that this is a proposal from the Government to try and fill the gap that has been created by their tax cuts in the Budget. Pretty much every contribution from the Government has said "No, this has got nothing to do with that.", and, yet, in the title, it's got "Budget Measures". So if they really do think that and it isn't actually to do with the Budget, then let's take that out and just say "cost recovery", and then it will say what the Minister says that the bill says. We might still dispute it, but the whole point of the committee of the whole House stage is that in the absence of a select committee, the committee has got to try and find ways to improve it. And at the moment I don't believe the Minister's argument that the title reflects the intention. In fact, I actually don't think that if it were called the "Public Finance (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill" it would either, but it would certainly reflect what the Minister's saying about why this bill is needed. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon Member: How many parking fines have you had? CELIA WADE-BROWN: I do feel that I should correct the situation in the committee and admit to parking too long in Masterton once. So I'm not suggesting that the title be amended to "Sympathy for Overstayers", but there are some ways that we could improve the title. I wonder if the title should be "Keeping Councils in the Dark about Increasing the Costs to Councils." It's been clear that local government—and presumably none of the mayors, learnt of it till they read about it. I wonder if the Minister of Local Government or the Minister of Transport or somebody could have actually talked to them. On the other hand, maybe it should be called the "Discouragement of Enforcement Bill", because if we make it more expensive for councils to enforce—and it's not only about turnover of parking; it's also about safety. Let me have a look at the list, because we could put them all in the title, but we probably won't. If it's harder for a council to enforce parking on or near a pedestrian crossing, if it's harder to enforce parking on a bus-only lane, if it's harder to enforce inconsiderate parking, who's going to suffer? Well, it will be the people that are most disadvantaged, that are generally ignored by this Government—people in wheelchairs and children walking to school—having to walk out on to the road. This bill could be called "Keep Local Government and Transport in the 20th Century", because that's the last time that some of those fees were increased. And while I have immense sympathy for my colleagues on the right—maybe that wasn't the best phrase—if they've ever received a parking fine, they can avoid it with better vigilance to time keeping and by looking not to block people, but the people most disadvantaged by a lack of enforcement would still suffer. So I've offered some alternative bill titles. I look forward to the Minister's response. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your guidance actually just directing us to the fact that given that this is being done clause by clause, the title clause is the appropriate place for the more kind of wide-ranging debates, because there are some wider policy issues. This bill hasn't been to select committee and we've got this only today, in parliamentary time, so there are a few questions I would like the Minister to answer. They're quite serious questions. The first is: how much does it cost the Crown to run this recovery framework, and how much of it is recovered through the existing system? So, basically, what's the shortfall, because you've talked about there being cost pressures, and in an earlier speech I suggested that it was actually just the Government looking for a bit of money because they've got a tight Budget. But you're telling me that that's not the case, so I guess I'm calling the Minister on this and saying, well, show me what the figures are. So what are the actual costs and what is the shortfall, and I'd just ask two things first, if I may—so either my colleagues can speak, or you can respond. The second thing is that I'm a bit perplexed, because in the regulatory impact statement—in the cost-recovery impact statement—I understand why the 2024-25 recovery is slow, because it's only half a year. But your 2025-26 recoveries of this additional 4 percent are $466,000 and across into 2028-29, that rises to $686,000, and, given that it's a flat rate on parking fines and other fines, I can't see where the revenue growth comes from because I can't see that there's more fines being imposed, unless the Minister is perhaps anticipating increasing the amounts of the fines, in which case that money would be 4 percent of a greater sum. So if he could explain to me how he reaches that increased revenue, that would be good. I do think that this is part of a wider framework, including increased court costs, so I do want to ask some questions about that. But in the spirit of having an exchange, I won't go with that; I'll give the Minister an opportunity to respond to those matters. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on this bill. I have three questions for the Minister, which I'll then follow with some contextual statements and some figures on why I've asked these questions. My first question to the Minister is: how many Ministers and how much time was spent on this bill in total in terms of drafting, in terms of meetings, and in terms of everything to do with this, the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill? My second question is: how many backbenchers and how much time was spent in total in meetings and consultations, and whatever other aspects there are of this Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill? My final question is: how many officials and how much time was spent deliberating and drafting and working on this Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill? I ask that question, Minister, because according to page 9 of the regulatory impact statement, the additional anticipated revenue raised is meant to be $285,887. Throughout this time while we've been in the House, I have counted the number of backbenchers while we've been debating this, and I've counted the number of Ministers. Assuming that it takes about five hours to get through this process, we will have spent about $10,000 just debating this legislation alone. So I'm really curious just to hear your figures, because I reckon it'll end up costing $30,000 to $50,000 of hard-earned taxpayers' money to pass this nothing bill—this bill that has no ambition and no substance. It's an absolutely nothing bill, and we're wasting time deliberating on it. So let me hear from you, Minister. Thank you. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Oh, look, I thank the members for their questions. As they may be able to—oh, sorry, I'll bring the microphone down. Is that better? Thank you. Hon Member: Stand up. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, I've got to stand up—sorry, I'll stand up. I'll stand up straight—is that better? I should stop slouching, I'm sorry. Good questions there from the members. Obviously, this bill does one part of the changes that the Minister of Justice is proposing. The bill deals with the additional anticipated revenue from increasing the retainings based on increase to 14 percent from 10 percent on 1 July 2024. As can be seen in the Cost Recovery Impact Statement, there's also additional revenue from increasing the court costs and filing fees, additional revenue collected through increase to enforcement fees, and, as members will be able to read, there is a total on the bottom which outlines the total increased fees that this measure is increasing. Ultimately, the reason for increasing the anticipated revenue from the retainings is because there is increased costs in recovering fines. As outlined in the general policy statement, the increase is to ensure that this can cover the costs, which have increased over time, and it will help recover Crown costs. That is good public policy, to ensure that good cost recovery is implemented across the activities that Government does. That is what this bill does. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate that a lot. I didn't think I had a chance because I'm not sure if you've noticed, Madam Chair, but I'm not the tallest bloke and Duncan Webb was standing right in front of me but you picked me, so thank you. While I'm still waiting for a response to what was a genuine and sincere proposal for an alternative title from the Minister, I do have a question. A question that, actually, I think touches at the heart of this and certainly at the heart of our concerns that we've raised, and that is what level of consultation was made with the local government sector. Now, the reason I ask this question and that I'm so interested in this is it's actually the exact same question that I asked the Minister during the committee stage of the water reforms repeal bill. I asked the question of the Minister, by my count, six times. You know what's funny? He didn't answer once. That was interesting because I had a suspicion throughout that the Minister actually hadn't widely consulted the sector leading up to that on that specific proposal within the bill. As it turns out, it appears that that is the case. So I think it's important that the committee gets a response from the Minister around this, because ultimately it is the local government sector that is affected by this. We understand the rationale—whilst we do not agree with it, we get that the Minister wants to do cost recovery, hence my suggested alternative title. But at the end of the day, it is the local government sector that loses out from this. They lose where the Government gains, regardless of the justification or the reasons. Now, if it is indeed the case that the Minister hasn't consulted with the local government sector, that would be a shame indeed. In fact, it would be an outrage to propose a bill under urgency as part of the Budget measure whilst they swear in their contributions that it isn't part of the Budget or anything to do with tax cuts, even though it's in the title—although I propose it shouldn't be for that reason, but never mind; we've made that point. What I'm saying here is the committee actually deserves to know the level of consultation with the local government sector. It may be, actually, that there has been considerable consultation—and that's fine. It might be, as part of that consultation, that the local government sector has said, "Yep, fair enough. You gotta recover costs. We've also incurred costs, as everyone has in the current moment, but sure. Take 4 percent of what we would have got to cover your costs." If that is the case, who knows, that might actually change our mind. But it's important that the committee knows. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I refer the member who's just sat down to page 10 of the cost recovery impact statement. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm not quite sure we've exhausted all of the questions on this particular clause. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just pick up on something that the Minister himself brought into the debate around good public policy and cost recovery, and to question him about the evidence base. But, before I do that, this is a genuine point that I raise and a question to the Minister, and I bring this point because I note that, in a previous committee stage in the House today when a Minister in the chair was texting or was on the phone, the presiding officer felt that that wasn't really engaging in the debate. So I'm very grateful that the Minister has answered the subsequent questions. We haven't heard answers on the original one. So I do have a question to the Minister. It's not my primary question; it's a little bit of a supp, but I would like to know if the Minister will continue to debate with us without going on to his phone so that we know he is engaging, because I think it's really important. If we're spending the money that my colleague from Dunedin in the Green Party, Francisco, has said is being spent, it's really important that all sides of the House are engaged, including particularly the Minister in the chair. But my real question is around his statement that good policy making requires the costs to be recovered and that's what he's doing. And there just doesn't seem to be an evidence base. So I'm wondering what is the evidence base that is leading to this title of "Fines Collection Costs [Recovery]" of the policy before us. And when I look at the cost recovery impact statement, it actually says that other options were "not proceeded with due to significant uncertainty around whether actual benefits would outweigh the loss of fees revenue. To progress this option extensive consultation and data collection would be required to determine whether it would be worth progressing and, if so, additional policy work would … be required." Now my point is that it feels like we've got this the wrong way around. Surely, if this was something that the Government wanted to do, the first thing to do in a policy process is to collect the data in order to be able to get a baseline to be able to understand where the deficit is. And this goes very much to the heart, I think, of what Dr Duncan Webb was asking. He was saying, "What are the numbers?" I'm saying, well, isn't this in the wrong order? There has been a decision made, we can't see an evidence base, and we have a cost recovery impact statement that actually says the information is not there. So my question to the Minister is: how can this be good public policy—which is what he said and what he brought into the debate—and how can he say that there is an evidence base? Because what is disturbing to me is that viewers hear these words being thrown around a little about good lawmaking or good public policy, and they're accepted on face value. But it's our job, particularly in urgency and when there is no select committee process, to interrogate what the basis of the decision making is. And I'm no closer to understanding the basis of that decision, because I haven't heard from the Minister what the evidence is. He certainly hasn't illuminated the numbers in the questions of Duncan Webb. But I want to know, given that it's actually in black and white here on the statement that there is no evidence, how could he make an evidence-informed decision, and, therefore, how can he say this is good public policy? Now, there may be an element that I haven't seen. Maybe there was some kind of statement made by officials at some point. Maybe there were some text messages between Ministers from different coalition parties. Was that the evidence base? I don't know. Was it a conversation? Was it a coalition agreement? Because sometimes, in this House, we've been told that the evidence base is a coalition agreement. Certainly, I've heard in relation to, perhaps, say, Gumboot Friday, that the evidence base for that decision was a coalition agreement, and that seems to have been accepted. So if it's a coalition agreement, I'd like to hear it, but I would then also like the Minister to say, if that's the case, how does that make it good public policy? So there's a logical framework here. There's a logical train of thought. And at each point in that logic, there seems to be missing elements. I think if we can get to that point, we may ultimately be able to find the answer to Dr Duncan Webb's question, which is around what the actual numbers are. Without the evidence base underneath, I just don't understand how we can do that. So if the Minister can clarify that and put those more sinister thoughts to bed, because, you know, I don't know if it was based on text messaging or whatever, but I'd like to understand the public policy basis. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that that was a really good question that's just been raised for the Minister to consider. And, hopefully, whilst he's looking through some information or taking some advice and we hear an answer about that—particularly about the evidence base and what constitutes good evidence—I would like to ask a question along the same sort of vein, I suppose. But if we go back to the title itself and think about "Fines Collection Costs", it's implicit within that that there are cost pressures. So I've got two questions. So if we accept that it's implicit that, therefore, there are cost pressures, given that there's a need to address fine collection costs, as my colleague Ingrid Leary has just said, we still don't know what the evidence of that is. In fact, in the—what's it called?—the cost recovery impact statement (CRIS), it specifically says that that information is absent. You know, it doesn't exist. So we don't know what the basis of that is. So I really do think it's going to be difficult for us to move on from this clause, which is important. It serves the purpose of being able to—as the Minister said, it should be about what's written on the tin. So it's incumbent upon us here, as members of this House, to be able to do what we can do to make sure that that turns out that way. So when we think about that, the second part of that—and I don't think we've really got to the bottom of this part either. So I'd also like to acknowledge, whilst we're waiting for this answer, that I agree from the question that Ingrid Leary has posed and the Hon Kieran McAnulty has also suggested. Why is the "Budget Measures" part still there? On the one hand—we're hearing all this contradictory information. I think that's why it's making it so sketchy. We're hearing that this has got nothing to do with the Government having to make its tax cuts add up or having to fill in gaps in its budgetary hole, so to speak. But, on the other hand, it's explicit in the title. So, on one hand, we've got this implicit implication that it's to do with cost pressures that we don't know anything about, but, on the other hand, it's explicitly stated in the title. So I think, before we can move on, we really do need to get to the bottom of what that is, because when we look at the cost recovery impact statement, on page one, just past the executive summary, it literally says, under "Constraints - Time and Budget Sensitivity", "To support the Government's Budget priority of finding $1.5 billion". That is the purpose. Which one is it? We're getting told one thing by the Minister in the House tonight, because he's trying to minimise its association with the Budget or, you know, the impetus for the need to find some money to prop up the Budget, but, on the other hand, all the way through the information, including in the title, we're told otherwise. So I think that the Minister really needs to explain that before we can move on, and I'm sure other people have other questions along those lines as well. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'll just let the members know that that's the third time we've had a speech about costs and cost recovery. Just warning the members that we are looking for new material. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this is the first time I've been able to take a call on this Amendment Paper. I really appreciate the opportunity because it has got a really interesting title, the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. That's a bit of a mouthful. And we do understand that in the House there has to be a title for a piece of legislation. What I've been thinking about, having had a look through this bill, coming to it a little bit late because we're trying to rush this through urgency, as is usual with the crappy—excuse me, the poor legislation that we've become accustomed to. We have here something that we are used to from this Government, which is a piece of nonsense. But let's think about the title. We have seen—there's some really interesting amendments I see that we'll get to later. I see that the Hon Duncan Webb has proposed that the title be changed. Replace clause 1 with "This Act is the Public Finance (Increase in Charges for Local Body Debt Collection) Amendment Act." Now, that seems like a very sensible amendment, and I hope the Minister will consider that. But I think we've got options as well. I mean, there are more possibilities for a title that accurately represents this less than quality piece of legislation. I note that Tracey McLellan in committee has also proposed an amendment. And this amendment suggests replacing clause 1 with "This Act is the Public Finance (Making Money off Debt Collection) Amendment Act." which, again, seems much more appropriate to what this bill is actually proposing to do. I personally have come up with another title, I think, that could be helpful. I think I'd like us to consider the importance of the title, actually, because we do need to make sure that a title represents what is in the Act, what is in the amendment, because it has to mean something to ordinary people. So the title that I think—I think we should replace clause 1 with "This Act is the Public Finance (Further Impoverish Local Government) Amendment Act 2024". I think that would be really helpful because we know what local government's gone through. We know that killing three waters has put an incredible burden on ratepayers. We know that local government is not going to be bailed out by this Government. But perhaps if we're considering the title, why should we get to choose the title. I'm also really interested, and I'd like the Minister to tell us what type of discussion he's had with local government about the title for this bill, which will take away money from local government. What discussions has he had and what suggestions has local government given for an accurate title for this bill? Because I think what we'd see would be something much more interesting than we've been able to come up with, and certainly with the title that the Minister has given us for a bill that is actually a piece of nonsense. And it is, unfortunately, the work that we expect from this Government. But let us at least have an accurate title for this bill that tells us what it is. This is taking money away from local government. It is simply to fund tax cuts and tax cuts for landlords. It's not about ensuring a fairer system for anyone. Thank you. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you members for your questions. The earlier question around cost recovery, page 3 of the Cost Recovery Impact Statement outlines how the expenditure in the appropriation for collection and enforcement of fines and civil debt services has increased from $43 million in 1998-1999 to $58.3 million in 2022-23. During that same period of time there has been no increase in the filing fee. There has been a small increase in the enforcement fee. And the percentage of fines retained by the Crown has remained unchanged since it was in 1989. And during that time there's been this thing called inflation, and particularly in the last three years there's been a lot of inflation. And so ultimately the point of cost recovery is to ensure that the public services that are delivering this service are able to raise the funds to be able to pay for it. That is what this bill is doing. And I just want to answer the question from the member who just sat down, which was the question of has the Government consulted on the title of the bill? It is not normal Government practice to consult on titles of bills. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 47. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Tracey McLellan's tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace "(Collection Costs—Budget Measures)" with "(Making Money on Debt Collection)" is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill. The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace "(Collection Costs—Budget Measures)" with "(Increase of Charges for Local Body Debt Collection)" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2, "Commencement". The question is that clause 2 stand part. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the commencement clause. The commencement clause says: "This Act comes into force on 1 July 2024."; that is, the start of the next financial year. That is the reason why that is the start of this Act. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. You'll see, I'm sure, that I do have an Amendment Paper here, because it does seem to be a little precipitous to rush this through. I was reading the document that the Minister in the chair, Simeon Brown, referred to, the Cost Recovery Impact Statement, and just noticing that some of the constraints—this is right on the front page; it talks about constraints. For example, it mentions about halfway down the page there that Consumers Price Index data has been used as a proxy for the limited financial information, which provides a reasonable basis for decision making. That's the problem, limited financial information, because it's been done in a rush— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Link this to commencement, please. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, no, this is the point, right? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just link it to commencement. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Absolutely, but my point is this has been done in a rush, and we need to just take a breath. So let's just not rush into putting this into force. Of course, the fact of the matter is that we've rushed from one thing; we're rushing into the next. All of a sudden, this change is going to come into force within one month, and that's an extremely short period of time—a short period of time for systems to change but also a short period of time for local bodies, so that local bodies can make choices. The Cost Recovery Impact Statement itself says that, on some occasions, local bodies choose different providers, and they may well, when they look at this and they say, "Oh, our costs are going up by 4 percent.", they may want to change providers. Now, to do that within one month simply isn't enough, because this is a lot of admin to do. You've got a lot of parking fines out there, a lot of enforcement notices; you might even have court cases in train, so you'll have issued summons to people to appear, and the price that you have to pay to the Government has gone up and you've got no way out. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please use the word "council" instead of the word "you". Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Can I apologise, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, Dr Duncan Webb. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Sometimes, I do get excited about matters of such high importance— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Like commencement. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and the commencement date is what we're talking about. My point is simply that councils ought to be entitled to make their own arrangements, and that ability has, effectively, been taken away from them. My Amendment Paper is very modest, actually. It was not some silly amendment that says, "push it out to the never-never." It simply says let's push it down the road to 1 January 2025, because what would happen then is all of the court proceedings which are currently in the system will be cleared out—because they don't take too long, these traffic infringements and the like, usually—and the councils can then make a choice as to whether they want to continue using this enforcement mechanism or whether they want to go down a different road which might be more effective for them. So it's a very simple point, but the overall global point is this is just another bit of the rushed flavour of this legislation, because the Government wants to push it through and wants this money as quickly as possible. I'm saying, well, no, let's just have a bit of reasonableness, a bit of fairness, a bit of justice and just stretch it out by six months, and one will be able to get one's money in due course. I honestly can't see what the rush is. And there's a relationship thing going on here, right? The councils are going to have this thrust upon them. They probably didn't hear—well, we didn't hear about it until today; they didn't hear about it, by all reports, until today. So it only seems reasonable, decent, and fair to give them an easing-in period which is a lot more than four weeks or a month. So it's a very reasonable suggestion, and I actually would like to hear from the Minister why he has this commencement, which, whilst it's not tomorrow—that would probably be impossible—is so quick. Is he confident that the relevant systems can be put in place to make this system work and for councils to make the appropriate decisions as to whether they opt in or choose to opt out of this, or whether this was simply plucked out of the air—either out of his own head, or did he receive advice on this date? Thank you. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Oh, I thank the member for the question. I didn't pluck it out of my own head, because I'm doing this on behalf of my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, of course, but I would just make the point, in terms of the time frame: no, we don't agree with the member's amendment to delay the date for another six months. This is a Government of action, and we're making decisions and we're implementing a change. Ultimately, as we'll get to when we get to the debate on the Schedule, the member, if he hasn't read that part of the bill yet, will realise that the percentage increase only applies to fines which are issued after 1 July, and so all of those fines that he was incredibly concerned about which may already be in the system, the percentage continues over under the current law for those ones. The percentage of revenue, ultimately, is collected progressively over time as those fines post that date are fined and then the decisions are made. So, actually, we think there's plenty of time for this change to be bedded in, due to the progressive way in which this legislation—in which I think the decisions made by my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith were very sound, very evidence-based, and very good for supporting that cost recovery model. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Before I take the next call, I'm going to say this is a very, very narrow clause, and the purpose of committee stage is questions for the Minister. We've just had a full one around whether things would be in place on time, and we've heard the answer to that, so these questions must be apart from that and very clearly crafted to the Minister, because that's the purpose. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister whether he considers that increasing the costs to council after they have done all the work on consultation on the long-term plans and annual plans, when they've been looking at their budgets, they're trying to keep rates down, they're working very hard in their costs, and—bingo!—on 1 July, they start having an increase— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm not hearing about commencement; I'm hearing about cost at the moment. Has the member got a question about the commencement date? CELIA WADE-BROWN: Yes, the commencement date of 1 July 2024 is in the coming long-term plan or annual plan period that councils have already consulted on. And, actually, my colleague Duncan Webb's amendment doesn't go far enough. It's a minor improvement but it should be from 1 July 2025, because otherwise there's no opportunity for councils to make more precise their budget, as I think they are being asked to. So, again, I see you embodying the spirit of Minister Goldsmith, but in your role as Minister of Local Government, I assume you can give us some answers as to why you think you can impose this when the long-term plans are all but agreed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I want to make it very clear that the Minister is here in his role—I was going to say replacing or substituting Minister Goldsmith, so it's not about the Minister's other portfolios, unless he wishes to expand on that, but he doesn't need to. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): No one, Madam Chair, can replace the Hon Paul Goldsmith, but what I would say is in terms of the member's question, in terms of 1 July 2025 versus 1 July 2024, as outlined in the Cost Recovery Impact Statement, the anticipated revenue from increasing the percentage in the next financial year is only $285,000, and, of course, that will be spread across, you know, all of the different organisations—councils, entities which are applicable for that particular percentage. So the Government considers that to be very minor. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair, for my first opportunity to ask a question of the Minister. I have a new line of questions for the Minister about the commencement date, which relates to some information that this Parliament has learnt today about payment providers. Now, members who have been following along closely with the post-Budget debates will know that three months is the time required for most payment providers, both on a private provider basis and when acting for the Government, to implement changes into their system. That was widely canvassed and is now on public record from the Hon Simon Watts. We also know from that Minister that he was able to consult with the payment providers for one month before today's date—about one month—because that is the time period that he presented to the House as a three-month period which was required for consultation. But there are only two months before this legislation was introduced into this House and the date on which it would commence. So we can assume that there was a month there for the Minister to consult. So my questions to the Minister are: which payment providers are providing the parking fines for councils and which ones for the courts? Are they the same ones that deliver those services, like payments to employees, that would need to take into account changes to the income tax rates? About the providers, have those providers been consulted with for about the same period—for about one month prior to the introduction of this bill? Is that sort of the standard for this suite of bills which are about Budget measures? My last question before I move on is: do the payment providers need to take into account different measures on the fines side to those that are on the courts side, given that the courts side are regulated in a different way and are a collection of a different kind of public levy? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The fees are, and the percentage is ultimately collected by the Ministry of Justice—and they will simply adjust how much they charge and how much they retain based on what the law and the regulations allow. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Look, I'd like to start my contribution just by saying that I know this is a very short clause and it's to do with the date, but the issues raised by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb are real issues when it comes to the timing. The question I have is—and I'll say it now and then I'll give some context to it—did the Minister consider last week, when it came out in the media about the situation with parking fines in Invercargill, moving the date to ensure that there was enough risk and liability consideration to what would happen if the Invercargill situation happened? Now, what happened in Invercargill—and the reason I'm interested in this is because I am the Labour buddy MP—is that that council is in the position of having to refund $500,000 worth of parking fines. It is something that the council can't really afford to do. It's got a small ratepayer base. It's got a population of around 60,000 people. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Does this have something to do with commencement of the bill? INGRID LEARY: Yes, it certainly does. It certainly does, Madam Chair, because— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you explain to us quickly how it relates to commencement? INGRID LEARY: Absolutely. Thank you for indulging me, Madam Chair. So my question is, given what happened in Invercargill and given the very, very short commencement date, and given the questions that come up from the Invercargill situation about who bears the liability of the lost revenue from those fines, did the Minister consider moving the date to seek further advice about what would happen in a situation like this? Now, this is not hypothetical. This happened. The situation was that parking fines between 1 July 2022 and 29 February 2022—it's been revealed that they were incorrectly issued under a council by-law. The fines were for $40, and then $490,880 and 12,272 parking fines were issued. This is what I believe, if the Minister was prudent, and this came up in the media, which it did last week—did he say, "OK, have we given enough time to consider what would happen in that situation?" Because the council has decided to return that money to people who got those parking fines. Now, the council may in turn, I guess, try to seek recovery of those fines from the Crown. I don't know if it's going to do that, but if I was a Crown Minister, I would be asking myself: what risk management strategy do we need in place to make sure we're protected from that? I don't see anything in the commencement date or in the regulatory impact statement or in any of the other documentation that would suggest that there has been some attention brought to the question about liability. I raise this in the context that $500,000 is a lot of money for a small council, and so they may seek just—I don't know how they would do it, whether they would just ask the Minister, in the spirit of cooperation. Given that the Crown has recovered a certain amount of that money through this type of legislation, through the Public Finance Act, they may say, "Can you please give us back the amount that we have paid to you?", or they might try and wear it. So the question is very much about commencement, because everything might have looked in order, although I doubt it with the speed at which we're going through this—but when something like that comes up and it exposes the Crown, through the exposure of the local council, I do think it's prudent for the Minister to turn his attention to whether the date is simply too quick. And maybe, like Dr Duncan Webb saying to leave it for—I'm not sure how long he said; I won't ask him, but perhaps a month, to seek some further advice and say, "What would happen in the case of an Invercargill-type situation?" My final comments are that it's really unfortunate because with the end of free public transport in Invercargill, the young people from the south cannot catch buses to the north to get to their sports games— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now we're a long way away from the commencement. INGRID LEARY: Yes. I just wanted to make that point because $500,000 is a lot of money and a lot of exposure, and so I'd love the Minister to answer my question, please. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace "1 July 2024" with "1 July 2025" be agreed to. Ayes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 stand part. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Clause 2 agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the vote on the closure to clause 1 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 68, Noes 47. The result of the vote was actually Ayes 68, Noes 49. The record will be corrected accordingly. Clause 3 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 3 and this is the debate on clause 3, "Principal Act". The question is that clause stand part. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask the Minister a number of questions about this Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. The questions that I would ask the Minister—and am hoping here for a bit of a back and forth—are whether he considered in the introduction of this legislation, and, in fact, in the consideration leading up to the introduction of this legislation, the fact that—the last time that I checked—back in 2016 the average amount of spending that occurred at a local government level in the OECD was approximately 11 percent per the local and central government proportions. Sorry, the average was 30 percent in the OECD. But here in Aotearoa New Zealand we have less than half of that, at approximately 11 percent. This is something that I've heard the Minister talk about quite a lot—the fact that we need to see more resourcing for local government in this country to be able to meet the challenges of the crises that it is facing in the infrastructural deficit. So when it comes to the fact that this bill will increase the proportion that central government can take back from local government, when it comes to the collection of these fines, I want to know whether the Minister had any consideration for the fact that local government is currently starved of resourcing and funding and whether he looked at any other potential avenues to support them with revenue generation. Those are questions for the Minister, and I would hope that we can open up a bit of a back and forth here. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could we please hold that question to clause 4, because the "Principal Act" is basically all around increasing the percentage the Crown retains from the amount of fines recovered. When we get into clause 4, we talk about the local authorities there, so if we could just hold that question. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that clause 3 stand part. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 Section 73 amended (Payment of fines to local authorities and other organisations that conduct prosecutions) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4, "Section 73 amended (Payment of fines to local authorities and other organisations that conduct prosecutions)". The question is that clause 4 stand part. Chlöe Swarbick. Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Madam Chair— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry—can I just let the Minister go first? Chlöe Swarbrick: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, this is a very narrow clause. It simply replaces "10%" with "14%" in relation to the payment of fines to local authorities, in relation to how much the Crown retains from those fines to, effectively, cover the costs of running the administration of it. The Government chose that figure of 14 percent based on advice to align this with, basically, the fees charged by private debt collectors when collecting infringement fees for local authorities in order to ensure that they were recovering their costs appropriately. The ministry's advice to increase the proportion of fines retained to 14 percent was based on its understanding of the nature of fees charged by private providers, but it was also taking into account that the proportion of the fine retained by the ministry is a contribution towards the costs of collection, whilst private debt collectors are profit-driven. In that instance there, the alternative for councils would be to use an external, private debt collector, and, of course, they would—based on this advice—charge a higher percentage because, of course, they would also be taking a percentage of that as profit. So 14 percent is looking at what the underlying costs are, which is, ultimately, why we're making that change—to ensure that it's a cost-recovery model. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Third time lucky—Chlöe Swarbrick. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, as I was alluding to—unfortunately in the wrong clause, as you so dutifully pointed out—what we are talking about here is a context and a backdrop whereby we have had, over the past 15 or so years, a successive number of inquiries commissioned by successive Governments which have told us that local government is massively underfunded and under-resourced to do the work that it does. Now, this is particularly pertinent here because what we're looking at with this clause is, as the Minister himself has just said, that increase from 10 to 14 percent in terms of what the Crown can recover. So my questions for the Minister are particularly related to any consideration that he, as Minister for Local Government, or indeed Minister for Auckland, may have given to that broader context of the resourcing which is available to local government in this country, given that he is looking to take more of that funding through this increase in the proportion of cost recovery to the Crown. So just to run through some of those reports for those who are following along at home and may like to have those citations, we're talking here about the likes of the Shand inquiry, we're talking about the Productivity Commission review of the Shand inquiry—which, actually, New Zealand First asked us to do back in the 2017 to 2020 term; I'm dedicating this to the Hon Mark Patterson—and then, of course, we had, most recently, I believe tabled at the end of last year, the Future for Local Government Review. All of these reviews and inquiries have told us precisely the same thing: local government is not resourced to do what it needs to do to meet the challenges of our time, let alone the increased responsibilities and mandate that are placed on it by successive amendments to the Local Government Act 2002. It does not have the ability to generate the revenue necessary to meet those challenges and those tasks. As, actually, former Mayor of Wellington Celia Wade-Brown was just alluding to, the fact that we have had—and consistently are seeing through the rate-setting processes with the long-term plans having gone out to consultation with communities over the last few months—that councils are under immense pressure when it comes to setting their rates. I know that the Minister has had a lot of engagement with this in Auckland when it comes to his water plans. So my specific question to the Minister is: what consideration, if any, in the development of this legislation—and particularly in this clause when it comes to the Crown's ability to recover the cost—did he have for the ability for local government to generate alternative revenue streams? And that unfairness in the context of the OECD, will we see far higher proportions allocated to the use of local government in relation to central government? INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is about the 10 and 14 percent—the relationship of that—and my question to the Minister, which has been asked but not answered, is about whether the costing is about individual fines or the quantum; the volume of fines, and how that relates to the so-called cost recovery. Because if we look at the volume of fines, actually there's been a bigger volume and therefore the cost recovery would have got smaller. In fact, to the point, probably, the evidence would show that there would be a negative cost recovery element required. So we haven't had that specific question answered. On the back of that, I would like to speak to my tabled amendment, which is to say that rather than saying from "10 percent" to "14 percent" for the cost recovery, I think that a better amendment would be just to make it 0 percent. We don't seem to have, from the discussion in the House, an evidence base by which to measure the costs that need to be recovered. We haven't had answered whether it's by individual fine or by quantum. The most prudent thing to do in the absence of evidence, which I have asked about, is to basically make the effect of this bill neutral. That way, we would probably be able to pass it; we could all go home, we wouldn't have to stay here all weekend. But it is contentious when we've got this 4 percent increase and we still haven't got to the point of how that was achieved. If I look at the numbers, we've got evidence that the spend by the courts in collecting fines was $43 million and $99 million in 2023. So there's been quite a leap there, and that's why I'm suggesting that if we're looking at the volume of fines, the cost recovery would seem to go on—if you thought of a graph, instead of the numbers going up and the graph going up, the graph would go down. So that is why I think my tabled amendment would help to get us out of a spot of bother. We could actually just make it sort of fiscally neutral impact, but we could still go ahead and pass the bill. So my amendment just simply says, "In clause 4, replace '14 percent' with '0 percent'." Now, I'd be happy to not have that happen if I could understand from the Minister what the mathematics is underlying the suggestion of the 4 percent. We've heard it's cost recovery of debt collectors, but there are no numbers around that and I'm really curious to know: what debt collectors were consulted with? What numbers did he look at? Were there a range of debt collectors across a range of councils across New Zealand? Just a little bit more sunlight on that would help us to get a better handle on what the problem is that we're trying to fix. In the absence of that—and I'm an optimist, so I do hope that the Minister will answer it—I'd suggest that my amendment is an easy way out of a tricky situation that would help us to progress this bill, fiscally neutral, just replace "14 percent" with "0 percent". That way, even if there's no evidence of whether the costs are going up or down in terms of recovery and whether actually a profit is already being made, at least we could be seen as being responsible because we have something that is not purporting to say that it's based on evidence when, so far in this debate, we haven't heard any evidence. So I'm really keen to get the Minister to respond to that, please. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Oh, sorry—the honourable Minister. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You called me, Madam Chair! CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You'll get a turn. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the member's question. We will not be supporting her tabled amendment because, of course, what that tabled amendment does is it would, effectively, mean that we would not be achieving cost recovery and instead we'd be having to take money from other parts of government to, effectively, fund this particular function of ensuring that people pay their fines. So whilst that member might seem that putting it down to 0 percent is a good idea, that would mean we wouldn't be getting cost recovery, which means we'd have to be getting general taxation to pay the cost of this—which is not good policy and we are avoiding that. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and it's only second time lucky for you. Hon 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. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a new line of questions on this change, clause 4, from 10 percent to 14 percent that will be able to be deducted by the Crown from fines imposed by councils in the prosecutions of those. They are straight questions, and I hope the Minister can give me answers to my six questions. So the first is: on the average fine imposed by, or on behalf of, local authorities, what percentage of that amount that the Crown deducts represents real costs? And I ask that because, even though we've been presented by a cost statement along with the papers, we haven't got any numbers in that around what the real costs actually are for the Crown. So my second question, which relates to that, is: if it is 100 percent, is the Crown at the moment subsidising the prosecution of parking fines on behalf of local government? Is it the case that taxpayers are paying for local governments to levy parking fines and then enforce them? Because that's a really useful thing for the House to understand. And my third question is: if it's not 100 percent, then what are those real costs? Because we're talking about the cost-recovery element here, so I want to understand. These are fines imposed for offences prosecuted by, or on behalf of, local authorities and other organisations. So that's not the prosecution of those. Prosecution of those actually sits with the local councils already. Most local councils conduct the prosecutions themselves. So is this a back-office cost that the Crown imposes on its regulation-making power to make those prosecutorial powers, or is this another cost represented somewhere as a back-office cost? I'd like to understand what those real costs are. That's the third question. The fourth question is: which payment providers collect fines on behalf of local providers now? In the documents presented alongside this bill, we heard that some councils have elected to use private providers already. However, the Minister, in answer to questions to me, told me that it was the Ministry of Justice only that collected these fines. There are two points that I'm getting at there. And, to assist the Minister, the Ministry of Justice uses private providers to levy its payments, but then I'm also asking: if the Ministry of Justice is not providing that service to the local councils, then who is? And my fifth question is: does the increase from 10 to 14 percent include any money awarded by a court in respect of any loss or damage? And the question there is about what kind of money that's being collected here will be subject to the 4 percent increase, given that my other questions have been about whether this is in fact cost recovery or whether it's another kind of fee, levy, or penalty, as I described it in my second reading speech. My last question to the Minister is: is an Order in Council the appropriate way for councils to have their parking fines set? And this is relevant to clause 4 because it goes alongside the regulation-making powers that are done by Order in Council. And this goes to a wider set of considerations, here, that we have not yet had a chance to debate: what is the appropriate policy for parking fines? Should they be high? That disincentivises people to park their cars in a certain area, and that is a policy decision, so why is it being made by Order in Council? Should it not be in the primary legislation? is, sort of, my question there. We haven't gotten into that yet. But, on the other hand, we've got this power that applies in exactly the same way to the court fees. And you argue the toss pretty differently if you're applying the same sorts of values there. If fees are going up for people to have a conversation about whether they were in fact parked there, about whether the fine was levied in the right way or in the situation that my colleague Ingrid Leary described where there's been some kind of administrative error, then you're making it harder for people to engage in the system. And, ultimately, that affects those people who already have high barriers to access to justice. So we need to understand the Minister's justification here for using Orders in Council instead of primary legislation or, at least, properly understood secondary legislation mechanisms which the primary bill gives effect to. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to return to the line of questioning that I put to the Minister earlier, which unfortunately we're yet to elicit a response to, and that is particularly around the considerations that may have been given to the impact on local government revenue. In fact, we have heard a lot from this Minister, including throughout the election campaign when it comes to the money that local government has to play with to meet the challenges of our time and that infrastructural deficit. We heard just before in responses to other questions, particularly from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, that the Minister was saying that if we did not make this increase from 10 percent to 14 percent, then we would end up with basically the shortfall being paid for out of general taxation. Now, this is a really important point and a question that I want to get a response from the Minister on. Because, actually, not all too recently, we had a bill in front of this House in the form of the Housing Infrastructure (GST Sharing) Bill from the ACT Party. And we had a really interesting contribution from the member which called this "a sensible piece of pragmatism which is sorely missing in this House." Going to the point that this was about GST or Government revenue sharing, which the Minister has just said that he is opposed to with local government, that contribution calling this "a sensible piece of pragmatism which is sorely missing in this House" was from none other than the Hon Simon Watts, now our Minister of Revenue. To that effect, my question for the Minister is whether those statements that he offered in response to the questioning from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb about how he does not intend to use general taxation in order to help support local government is to be seen as a movement away from the kind of support that we've seen not only from the ACT Party historically but also actually from New Zealand First, who's campaigned on policies such as GST sharing. So my question— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We're a bit out of scope, so I want to see the question in scope, please. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: My question for the Minister is did he have any meaningful consideration for other revenue raising measures that local government may have in the consideration of this legislation? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Well, I just want to remind members that this is a very narrow section in this bill. It is simply about replacing 10 percent with 14 percent. And as I answered that member when she asked her question earlier about the total cost impact, all of the entities which are affected, the total amount that this will cost for all entities, including local government, is $285,000 in the next financial year. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace "14%" with "5%" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary's tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace "14%" with "0%" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to insert new clause 4A to provide compensation for victims and complainants is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to insert new clause 4A to provide discretion to the court in the percentage of fines retained is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Clause 5 Schedule 1 amended CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come to clause 5. This is the debate on clause 5, "Schedule 1 amended", and the Schedule. The question is that clause 5 stand part. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): This is a schedule which just makes it very, very, very clear that the change from 10 percent to 14 percent only applies to fines which are recovered and imposed "on or after 1 July 2024". The 10 percent figure "continues to apply to an amount of a fine recovered— (a) on or after 1 July … (b) [but] in respect of a fine imposed before 1 July". So, effectively, if a council is fining someone today, but, of course, it may take some time for that fine to go through the system, because that fine was based on a date before 1 July, it'll be based at 10 percent. If that fine is issued on or after 1 July, then it will be 14 percent. So this is, effectively, a subsequent amendment to ensure that there is no retrospectivity based on the date of the fine—a very sensible and sound change. I commend it to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you to the Minister for pointing that out, because he actually informed me of some of the mechanics there that I wasn't fully aware of. That was very useful. So thank you. Always happy to cooperate if the Government knows what it's doing. But one of the questions I do have is about the tail here, because, as the Minister says, the new regime applies only to fines imposed on or after 1 July, and the old section continues to apply in respect of a fine imposed before or recovered after 1 July 2024. But I guess the question I have is this: there's going to be a whole lot of fines out there—you know, hundreds of thousands of these things—and some of them grind their way through the courts slowly. Is he confident that there's a system in place where you're going to be able to silo off these ones that might be six months, 18 months old and have to be dealt with quite differently, because this is going to be, presumably, two entirely separate systems, and what's the process for separately tagging—well, the language of the Act is the fines under the old section, and making sure they're distinct from the fines under the new section, which is the amended section. So it's really a pretty simple question, because what we don't want to see is a whole lot of confusion and the Invercargill situation cropping up, where we had to go back and get the IT experts in, unwind the whole thing, and start doing additional payments. So it's really about that shrinking tranche of fines which were imposed prior to 1 July, but where they go to court after 1 July and are therefore subject to the old section—what's the system for making sure that that all works. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The answer to that question is called the calendar. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is indeed related to the provisions relating to the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 2024 Part 4 and I'm— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We're on Part 5. SCOTT WILLIS: Part 5. Part 4 is scheduled into it. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member's missed Part 4. Does the member have—is it Part 4 of the Schedule— SCOTT WILLIS: Part 5. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is it Part 5—Part 4 of the Schedule, is that what your— SCOTT WILLIS: Yes. My apologies, Madam Chair. My question, really, is: has he considered the cost of administrating? So it sort of follows on from my colleague Duncan Webb's question: has he considered the cost of administrating the 10 percent of fines and the 14 percent of fines with that differential in timing? Because we've heard from the Minister that this is a Government of action. But, actually, what we're seeing is a bit of chaos here. I've got several questions. I'm interested: has the Minister actually considered simply stopping the process here, allowing us to consider it more properly through a select committee process— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we're—[Interruption] Stop just a moment. I'd really like this to be at the point—because it really is about fines imposed before the start of this as opposed to fines after, and I think the Minister's clarified that very well. So I need questions to be related to specifically that. SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and that is exactly my point because I would like to know—[Interruption] If I may without the distractions, please. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ignore the distractions, just ask the question. SCOTT WILLIS: I would like to know what the costs are associated with those fines. Let's see, the old section continues to apply for fines imposed before 1 July, so how are we going to manage the administration of that and what will the costs be associated with those costs that accrue a 10 percent fine as opposed to the different 14 percent fine after that? How much has that been calculated? How has that been calculated? And is there any work under way to make sure we understand the true cost of this? Because, really, this may seem like a very inconsequential and silly piece of legislation, to be frank, but there's a true cost associated with it and it relates to that differential in time. So if we could have some clarity about how the Minister has been able to judge the value of this legislation and breaking it down with that old section to apply for fines imposed before 1 July, I think that would be very helpful for us to understand because, really, we're here—we're not in a select committee; we're doing this through urgency. We have to get as much information out as we can in a very, very pressed environment. We really don't want to drag this on. We want the Speaker to be able to get his 2 o'clock flight tomorrow but we also want to know what the answer is, and this is an important question. I know the members opposite are really keen to get on the road but we need to do this properly given that we don't have the luxury of select committee. So, please, if the Minister could come back to giving us that breakdown of what the difference in the date is going to make for the cost of implementing this piece of legislation. And there's perhaps another question there— Hon Members: Oh no! SCOTT WILLIS: Oh yes—oh yes! CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Make it quick and make it relevant. SCOTT WILLIS: Well, I'm attempting to. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, the relevance is, really, did the Minister also talk to local government about that difference? That is really key here, because local government is going to need to know this as well. So there's two questions there and I'd appreciate an answer please. Thank you. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): There were two very simple questions in there. The first was in relation to cost recovery and I was pleased to hear the member actually ask about cost recovery. Page 9 of the cost recovery impact statement is quite useful in outlining that this will raise $285,000 in year one. So that answers the first question. The second question which eventually the member got to was in relation to consultation, and page 10 actually has a section on consultation in relation to this issue. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take another question now, from Arena Williams, but I feel like right now we're dancing on the head of a pin, because it's a very small piece of legislation and this needs to really hone in on this schedule. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister three questions about the difference between the provisions which will apply before July and the provisions which will apply after July. The first question is about, given that there are a number of councils that will be referring parking fines into the court systems, what procedural unfairness exists between those councils that progress them quickly and those councils that progress them slowly? We might assume, because we haven't been provided this in the documents, that smaller councils progress these matters with greater periods of time involved, because the administration between levying the fine and then progressing it to enforcement might perhaps be longer. I'm asking about that procedural unfairness because different rates will apply at different times, but essentially committing exactly the same offence in one town might result in a different result for claiming an offence in another town, and I want to understand what that difference is. The second question is: how many court sessions are in train now? Because my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has been asking questions about how the delay in timing will affect prosecutions that are on foot now. We haven't got any information to understand the size of that problem. The Minister simply answered that the answer was the calendar, but what we're trying to get to here is how many people are impacted by what is essentially a procedural unfairness here, given that there is a change of law and a change of timing for exactly the same offences being prosecuted in exactly the same way. The third question is: have the courts taken these changes into account in their systems? And the fourth question is: has an appropriation been made for the Minister of courts for any flow-on costs expected from this? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): To answer the member's question, there is no procedural unfairness because the point of this whole part is to ensure that for fines collected before that date there is a lower amount; after that date, there's a higher amount, and the imposition is on the council, not on the individual. Then the question there is around the cost of actually implementing it. I would just like to remind members that it is well worth reading the cost recovery impact statement which actually even states the estimated cost to implement. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Clause 5 agreed to. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order! I'm sorry if I anticipated you, but were we going to get to the Amendment Paper on that schedule? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There's an Amendment Paper, still, on my sheet here. Thank you. Schedule CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come to the Schedule now, and the Schedule has no debate. But the question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to the Schedule to replace "1 July 2024" with "1 January 2025" throughout be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Schedule agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker—[Interruption] can we have quiet while we're reporting, please—the committee has considered the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately. Third Reading Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of this bill is in line— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you. The purpose of this bill is in line with the coalition Government's commitment to reduce debt, reduce Government spending, and get back to surplus. The bill will increase from 10 percent to 14 percent the amount that the Crown can retain from fines, including infringement fines such as parking fines, collected by the Ministry of Justice on behalf of local authorities and other organisations. That increase will come into effect on 1 July 2024. The bill has been developed as part of the response to the Budget priority to deliver effective and fiscally sustainable public services—listen up, Labour!—and identify enduring savings across Government departments and agencies. The increase in the percentage the Crown can retain from fines collected by the Ministry of Justice is expected to increase net revenue by $2.697 million across 2024/25 to 2028/29. The increase in the percentage retained by the Crown from fines collected on behalf of local authorities and other organisations better reflects the increased costs of operating court services over time. It is fair that users of courts' collection and enforcement services, who receive most of the fines collected, pay an appropriate fee for those services. The bill is a part of a package of proposals which will increase revenue from changes to the collection of court fines and increases to fees in courts and tribunals. This bill, along with other changes, will ensure the more effective collection and enforcement of fines. The overarching goals of the Government are to build a stronger, more productive economy, deliver more efficient, effective, and responsible public services, and get the Government's books back in balance. This bill will support that goal. I commend the bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a tragic little day in Parliament when the Government's getting excited about imposing a tax on parking fines. This document, the Cost Recovery Impact Statement, is really all you need to read. I mean, what it sets out is just a list of shortcomings in this policy. Throughout the debate so far, no one's actually touched on the options in the document that have not been considered. It runs through a number of options, but it, basically, says, "We didn't look at anything else."—it's as if you wanted to run a lesson on how not to do good public policy— "We didn't want to look at anything else, because 'This was not possible in the time available. Other alternative options could not be explored due to time constraints.' " So here we've got a Government who talks about doing things right and efficiently and all those kinds of things, and yet they won't take the time to make sure that the framework they're putting in place, even for something like how we collect fines and how that's paid for—they won't actually just do the work, because, of course, here it is: "To progress this option"—which was removing the initial filing fee to lower the barriers for local councils—"extensive consultation and data collection would be required to determine whether it would be worth progressing". And then it says, "We basically couldn't be bothered doing that—couldn't be bothered consulting." That's the Government we've got now. They're imposing costs on local bodies, and they couldn't be bothered consulting on whether there was a better way to go about it. Andy Foster: There's much bigger things. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, well, funny you say, Mr Foster, that there's much bigger things to do, but here we are 10 o'clock on a Friday night, and we're this trivial little parking tax bill. And, of course, over there they've been saying, "Oh, this is all about good stewardship and cost recovery." But the document itself makes it very, very clear what the motivation behind this bill is: "To support the Government's Budget priority of finding $1.5 billion per annum in savings" to fill their cavernous fiscal hole that this udget has. [Interruption] Hey, look, on the other side, you have got the pride of place of being the largest borrowing Government in New Zealand history. You have just incurred— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not "you". Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No. That Government has just got the pride of place of being the largest borrowing Government in history, which, over the next four years, has to find $9 billion in interest payments. And this is how you're going to do it. That's right; it's you. The Government just borrowed billions of dollars for tax cuts for landlords, and they are filling this fiscal hole with $200,000 of cost recovery. It is absolutely ridiculous. The other thing is that there are some pretty clear guidelines about how levies and charges should be imposed. In fact, the document there sets out quite clearly that the costs recovered should be justifiable. And the Minister in the chair couldn't actually tell us in any coherent way what those costs were—what was the equitable proportion to be borne by the State or the council, and what was the equitable proportion to be borne elsewhere by the person who had the parking fine. So that is part of the process to actually go through and think about what is an equitable and just way to do it. And the irony is that in the document there's basically a checklist that's got the principles on one side and the assessment on the other, but they bear no relationship to each other, because none of those principles of good lawmaking, good regulation, and good levying and charging exist. So they don't even know, for example, whether it's efficient. Is this the best way to go about recovering these costs? And then it just gives you a long paragraph about how many there are and gives you a description of how it operates. It does not say that we have thought about how we could recover costs and this is the most efficient way to do it, or it's not the most efficient but it is the most simple and that's the trade-off we choose. That's the kind of analysis we need. Of course, the one that really sticks in the craw is equity: "The charges should be administratively fair: identify the impacts of cost recovery, do not seek to recover costs from one group that could benefit a previous or future group." This is so that it's spread out evenly. Now, the irony is that if you have a $1,000 fine, the cost recovery will be $140. If you have a $100, the cost recovery will be $14. So the costs of recovery are going to be the same, but there is a massive cross-subsidisation in there. So a percentage figure on a radically varying amount is actually quite inequitable. That's what this Government—and this is a Government that is spending tens and tens of millions of dollars in setting up a vanity Ministry for Regulation so that these kinds of things are done right. And then, straight out of the gate, with one hand they throw cash at David Seymour's ministry, and at the very same moment, the other hand is doing rubbish like this which just cuts across all of the regulatory principles. We don't need a Ministry for Regulation, the principles are all there, the answers are terrible, but the questions are the right questions, so we don't need it at all. And, of course, the other thing in this document which this Government should be ashamed of is the fact that it makes it clear that the burden will fall hardest on those who are struggling most. This is part of a package which is seeking to fill the Government's coffers. And when you look at who's paying, it's people who don't have the money to pay their parking fines—people who can't find the money to pay infringement offences. They might have scrabbled around, pinned the infringement notice to the noticeboard by the kitchen or on the fridge or whatever, and then they've put it away because they know they either have food in the fridge or pay the parking fine. They've made that trade-off, they've chosen to feed their kids, and all of a sudden they get the notice from the court or from the local body saying "You've got to turn up to court. It's now not only is it a $40 fine, it's a $100 court cost, and if you choose to argue it, it's going to be more costs on top of that." That's who's going to be paying, ultimately, for these increased charges, which are part of this package. So we've got a Government here that's chosen to splash money around, particularly offensively, for landlords, and then they're saying, "Oh, we've got it all from savings over here." And, on the other hand, they're borrowing money—billions of dollars; they're borrowing billions of dollars. So you— Hon Andrew Bayly: You borrowed $100 billion. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Now, you're not allowed to heckle from there, Mr Bayly. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's true, Mr Bayly. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The fact of the matter is that we've got a Government that's failed at the first hurdle. They've made all kinds of promises. They're scrabbling around for $200,000 in cost recovery, and here they are disappointing New Zealanders by breaking their election promises—serious election promises. Not the $250 tax break promise—we all knew that was a joke—but there are people out there who honestly believed that they were going to get their cancer medicines because they were promises seriously made to serious people. And that is a tragedy. That is an affront. And there are people out there who are heartbroken because this Government promised that they would be taking certain steps, that they would be funding certain medicines, and they're not. And those people are sitting there and this is all the Government can do. A little bill—a terrible little bill—that scrabbles around, looking for a few hundred thousand dollars here and there. [Interruption] Yeah, no, I can see why you're hanging your heads—I would too—because you've made big promises and you've let people down, and you come up with a bill like this which actually—the very similar people, people who are in hardship and struggling, you're bashing them down again. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me, Mr Webb. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It's shameful. No, you're not. Those Government members are bashing them down again and it's shameful, it's a terrible piece of legislation, and it's a terrible way to pass it with this kind of urgency as well. What a waste of this House's time. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is quite the "Inequality and War on Poor Budget", and this legislation makes it incredibly, incredibly clear. This is shambles legislation and fiscal irresponsibility from this Government, because they're just looking after those who are already doing it well, rather than looking after those struggling to make ends meet. They will cut costs at any expense, even if it means throwing people in poverty down a cliff who are criminalised as a result of not being able to afford fines. And for all their complaining on the other side—don't trust me; trust the advice; trust the legislation and the pieces of paper they've put in front of us. They've written it themselves. The Government worked on this legislation, and now they're shaking their heads and, effectively, telling the public that they're delivering for everyone, when they're leaving behind those doing it the toughest. This legislation was a result of a desperate attempt at finding ways to put the burden on the poor to pay for tax cuts for those doing it well. So, throughout the debate, it's been clear that the Minister in the chair, for all his talk about localism and his commitment to actually put in place solutions that would work for local communities, doesn't take his own words seriously. If we look at the pieces of paper in front of us, there was no consultation with key stakeholders impacted by this legislation, and this includes local authorities, Local Government New Zealand, the judiciary—this is absolutely irresponsible and a betrayal by the Minister himself, who's supposedly committed to localism. It reeks of desperation for a Government that talks about things like localism to put forward legislation that directly impacts local government without even bothering to consult with them, because they don't care. They tell us that they care about localism, but they don't care. They simply care about holding true to their promise that they hate people in poverty. And let's make something clear too: this is a Government that does not care about criminalising people who are struggling to make ends meet. At the end of the day, those who cannot afford to pay fines will end up being criminalised and will end up with higher costs due to the enforcement fee increases. I've seen this myself, as somebody who worked at the front line with people who are being criminalised as a result of unpaid fines. I've seen people facing benefit sanctions like the warrant to arrest sanction, which Minister Louise Upston multiple times talked about in the media. She talked about how she thought that those people who had unpaid fines, who then faced sanctions, were a threat to the public. Then she had to face the truth in the media and was embarrassed by having to admit that actually that wasn't the case and that she was factually incorrect. [Interruption] And the members yelling on this side fail to connect the dots. While this may be a small bill, it's connected to so many parts of the system. The impact of the criminalisation of people in poverty who cannot afford to pay fines is clear and has ramifications in other parts of the system. This is a bill that will lead, I tell you, to higher warrant to arrest benefit sanctions. [Interruption] And the members on the other side would do well to turn their faces from this echo chamber back to the streets and the communities who this bill affects. But they've shown us, time and time again, they don't care about the people who are out in the communities doing it the toughest. They will talk rhetoric and make no action, and clearly the pieces of paper in front of us show that this bill was produced hastily with no evidence. [Interruption] They just want to go home and not do the work. It's their fault. It is absolutely their fault that we're here in the House debating this piece of trash legislation, because it was them who put us in this position to begin with. We didn't want this. If it was up to me, we would be debating a bill that would be ending poverty and tackling the climate crisis, not a bill that criminalises people in poverty—come on—and not a bill that betrays the Government's own supposed commitment to localism. Let's be real here. Look, they may be complaining about what I am saying, but, ultimately, it's all in the regulatory impact statement. Do they not believe the advice that they themselves put in front of us? Come on; let's get real. Those members, like I said, need to turn their faces back to the street. The advice itself made it incredibly clear that it will be young people, particularly those under 45, who will face the burden of the negative impacts of this legislation. And this is a Government that—let's be real—when they talk about the advice around fines changing behaviour, it actually doesn't change the behaviour of people who are on our salaries and the wealthy few. It doesn't, because the fines that people often face are a free pass for those who are doing it well. A parking fine doesn't mean much for someone who owns multiple properties and is on a six-figure salary. It doesn't have good enough consequences. But, for someone who's actually on the bread line, it has a massive impact. As I've said before, it's the difference between them paying their rent and putting food on the table. It doesn't actually change behaviours in the end— Hon Member: That's why we gave them a tax cut. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —if you're someone who's struggling to make ends meet. This is a Government that is frankly—yeah, tax cuts. They spoke about tax cuts. Want to talk about tax cuts in the context of this legislation, Mr Speaker? Well, let me tell you, Mr Speaker. They talk about tax cuts, but the people who will be criminalised for not being able to pay fines also happen to be the ones benefiting the least from the tax cuts. Let's get real. There's nothing in this Budget or this legislation for the disabled people on income support or for people who have been living homeless—it's breadcrumbs. They've told their communities that they deserve breadcrumbs and they, effectively, deserve higher fees, higher punishments, for unpaid fines as a result of this bill, at the same time depriving local government of key resources at a time where actually the Government should be putting in far more resources to local government to address our infrastructure challenges of today. We should actually be supporting and passing resources. Hon Member: Three minutes—three more minutes. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: They're saying "three minutes". They're complaining about the fact that we are actually holding them to account. You know, I challenge them to make a substantive contribution beyond their 12-second calls that make a mockery of this piece of legislation. But you know what? The circus is run by people who themselves admit that this whole thing is just a show; it's a theatre for them. It's a performance for the people on the other side. This is not about serving our communities. This is about the theatre of Parliament. It takes a lot for people to come here and claim that they're here to serve our communities, when they clearly make a whole circus out of serious issues. Once again, when I call this Government fiscally irresponsible and illiterate, it's because trickle-down economics has not been shown to work. It is not based on evidence. In fact, we have decades of research and facts—and younger people such as myself grew up in times affected by the impacts of failed policies such as these ones that claim to deliver for the many but all they end up doing is increasing inequality. So this bill, while it may not have the name explicitly in and of itself around increasing inequality, it will do exactly that. I challenge the members to talk to people in poverty who, because of poverty level benefits, haven't been able to pay their fines where they find themselves in court, potentially transient through multiple addresses, unable to present themselves to the criminal justice system. I think Parmjeet Parmar, to my left, who is shaking her head and looking confused—but if I look at her contribution throughout multiple debates, she has constantly failed to actually speak to the heart of the bill that she speaks to. Again, this goes back to a Government that is deeply unserious, that will go to such dramatic lengths to orchestrate and fabricate tax cuts— Hon Member: One minute! RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —for the wealthy few—and they'll continue yelling at me and saying, "One minute" and "I hear the bell", but the truth is they've landed us in this fiscal mess. At the end of the day, the cuts to public services and the inability to address poverty will have costs beyond what they can imagine in the long term, costs in our healthcare system, costs in our public housing system and emergency housing and, then, people getting more into debt just to make ends meet. Their short-term thinking will land us into long-term problems. This is a Government that has its head in the sand and refuses to see the truth, which is actually in front of us. This is a bill that will punish the poor. All it requires is the members to read their own advice they've received to see the truth. The Green Party will continue opposing this and fighting for a system that works for all of us, not this Government's wealthy mates. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the third reading of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. That was a very interesting contribution from the Green member, Ricardo Menéndez March, and he did say that, yes, I looked confused and I was shaking my head. Definitely I was doing that, because I couldn't see which bill the member was speaking to. The bill that is in front of us doesn't bring any new sanctions; it just increases the percentage of the amount that is retained by the Crown for the fines that are collected by the Ministry of Justice. So that's why I was confused and I was shaking my head. I wish he had spent some time reading the bill. Very quickly to respond to the Labour member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Dr Duncan Webb said that this bill is a waste of the House's time. No, I wish he had read the bill and understood the bill as well. It's a very sensible bill, and that is why the ACT Party is supporting this bill. I challenge those members to go out and buy that item they bought in 1989, now, at the same price. This 10 percent that is retained by the Crown has not been reviewed or changed since 1989, and that's why it's a sensible bill, and that's why the ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I just wanted to remind the House of Speaker's ruling 65/3, which tells us to not do the countdown when we're looking at the clock. Do it inside your mind, if you must, but not aloud. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sometimes less is more, and on behalf of New Zealand First, I am going to commend this bill to the House because it's a really good bill. That's all I'd like to say. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call, and I think it's split between Labour and the Greens. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've just got a lolly in my mouth, so I'm just going to try and finish that up seamlessly so no one notices, and everything will be good. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I don't know if there's a Speaker's ruling on that. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Ha, ha! Well, I mean, this is the third time I've got the opportunity to speak on the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs— Hon Rachel Brooking: In just one evening. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —Budget Measures) Amendment Bill in just one evening, as my colleague Rachel Brooking points out. That's because, obviously, we're in urgency and it always makes the bills feel a bit funny when there's not that break in between to just let things settle, to think about things, to think about the information—sometimes new information, sometimes explanations from the Minister; all those things that might help create a better picture. But we're not afforded the opportunity to do that tonight, because we are here in urgency. In fact, this is the second bill that the Government has chosen to put up as part of the suite of bills that it will be taking through the urgency process, which we can see now is obviously, clearly, going to take several days. It's the second bill that they've chosen to put up as part of the suite of bills that need to be passed in urgency as part of the Budget 2024. And what a wee ripper it is, isn't it? The crown jewel in the Government's suite of policies that they're introducing. I can understand that it's been a little bit vocal from the other side of the House tonight, as the Government backbenches have got quite animated about this bill. Sometimes, opposite things happen and the less substantive something is, the more you sort of overcompensate, so there has been an awful lot—awful lot—of overcompensation tonight. But this bill, specifically, is a means by which to collect money to make the Budget add up. We know that for two different reasons. We know that because— Carl Bates: At least you're acknowledging it adds up. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —it says "Budget"—I said to try and add it up— Carl Bates: No, you didn't; you said, "so that it adds up". Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Make a contribution—make a contribution. He's animated. Oh, Mr Bates, Mr Bates, Mr Bates—it's like you're just gagging to be in Hansard. We know that that's what it's for, because it occurs on two occasions—firstly, in the title it literally says "Budget Measures", and when you look at the cost recovery impact statement, as has been mentioned several times tonight, to support the Government's priority of finding $1.5 billion. And yet, on the other hand, here we are rushing through a process of urgency. We've heard things tonight about the commencement date—1 July—kind of thrust upon councils with almost certainly not the requisite amount of time needed to lead in to make sure that this is seamless. We've talked tonight about the difference between good public policy and bad public policy and the fact that the Minister claimed that this was an example of good public policy, despite the fact that (a) there's almost no evidence that this needs to be done in the first place—i.e., other costs not being met at the moment—and that (b) we keep hearing the same argument about some sort of inflationary effect with a proportion, a percentage of an amount, of course, which adjusts. So I think, finally, as has been mentioned on several occasions, we do need to consider this bill, and we're allowed to, because it says so in the title that it's about Budget measures. So we are allowed to, and it's incumbent upon us to consider it within the context of the Budget. As I said, the title affords us the opportunity to do that. And when I think about the context of the Budget, this is another means by which the Government has desperately been trying to find money to account for reckless tax cuts, and they've found money in various places. This is certainly not a headline Act. This is a small amount of money in comparison—certainly a small amount of money in comparison to the $3.3 billion worth of money that was hauled out of climate funding, and certainly a small amount of money compared to the 13 new cancer drugs that were promised as part of this Budget and were not delivered on. The Government were really, really specific about that, and I think it does bear mentioning. The Government were really, really specific, when they removed the exemption for the $5 prescription charge, that they were doing that to fund these drugs, and they haven't done that, which I think is deplorable. It's upsetting. And yet, as several people have said tonight, we could be debating those things, we could be talking about those things, but no, we're not doing any of that; we are literally talking about parking ticket tax. I do not commend this bill to the House. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): On behalf of the Greens, we do not support the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I support my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who spoke about the disproportionate impact on Māori and Pacific that is listed by the Ministry of Justice. But I want to focus on the lack of good faith—the lack of good faith—with local government. No one who voted in the election—that seems a very long time ago now—expected that this cost would be rather randomly transferred from central government to local government. Nobody campaigned on that transfer, so I don't see why there is a justification for the urgency, for the complete lack of consultation, and for the complete lack of evidence. And how much revenue? Let's just take that little part that is coming from increasing the retained percentage: $285,000. Well, I can understand central government trying to scramble to pay for the $2.9 billion in tax cuts. This really isn't going to get there. This amount of money is not collected in the rural councils. Many rural councils don't have parking enforcement at all, because they don't have those issues. It's going to be, fundamentally, the large urban councils that this will affect the most. And I would make a somewhat educated guess that probably about $100,000 of that will be directly to Auckland. They've just gone out and they've done their consultation on the long-term plan. I'm horrified that $100,000 in a council's budget is landed on them from 1 July when they have already set their budget and planning. It isn't the hugest quantum that councils have to deal with, but it's symptomatic of not respecting local government's consultation processes. It shows a disdain. Even if this had to be confidential because it's so urgent, such an important part of the Budget—which I am sceptical about—at least somebody could have let local government know yesterday when the Budget came out. But, no, they found out for themselves this morning. I don't think that shows due respect. Grant McCallum: Is that it? Are you sitting down? CELIA WADE-BROWN: Wait and see—wait and see. Glen Bennett: Pause for effect—I love it; it's powerful. CELIA WADE-BROWN: I'm just not sure what the effect might be, so we'll see! There is such limited financial information. There is no reasonable basis for decision making. Yes, it may be in the scheme of $2.9 million—billion, sorry. Actually, it's small even compared to $2.9 million, but I don't think that the amount is an excuse for bad process. It's a studied arrogance rather than a partnership. There is nothing else in this whole Budget that helps local government. There is nothing for city and regional deals. There is no GST back on rates, whether it's new developments or whether it's actually the whole of the rates system. Where is the money in the Budget for central government to pay rates on the buildings it owns. It's just an unfair system that could have been worked better in partnership. Maybe we'll look forward to the next Budget actually having some lines where that money is returned, and, instead of having one of the lowest percentages of spending for local government compared to central government in the OECD, maybe we can balance things and give back more to the local community. The other thing that has not been mentioned here is the suggestion that councils will be 45 percent—I'm not quite sure— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member's time has expired. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we've heard a lot tonight from members opposite about the length of contributions on both sides of the House—especially this side of the House—so, bearing that in mind, I just want to quote the full speech of Rachel Boyack from the third reading of the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill, where Rachel Boyack said, and I quote, "I commend this bill to the House." INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Point of order, Mr Speaker! This is the third reading, and the member's comments should be confined to this bill. I think that the contribution was out of order. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Point taken. Please focus on the bill. You may continue. James Meager: I finished. I finished the call. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Next call. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, here we are, at the third reading of this bill, which is quite a use of the House's time. In Budget urgency, we are discussing savings of about $400,000 that this bill enables. It's a penny-pinching bill to implement a parking fine tax, and the poor old Minister of Local Government had to shepherd it through. I mean, come on! Here we go with the Minister of Local Government, who has stood on the stump and told mayors and councils around the country that he will be on their side, that he will sort out their infrastructure woes, that he will sort out Local Water Done Well, and that he will localise policy and not have central government telling them what to do. But we've caught him out. We've caught him with his hand in their pockets, using Budget urgency and telling them on the day that he will change a 10 percent charge that is genuine cost recovery of the Crown to 14 percent, but with no justification of that actually being a cost recovery. He's not out there telling mayors and councils that the actual costs have gone up and that the Crown needs to levy this for a good reason and that the rationale for this is that the Crown's cost is increasing. No—no, no, no. In fact, his actual documents that he introduced alongside this bill paint this as a tax grab. So if we're calling it a tax grab, let's call it the parking fine tax. Let's see it for what it is. This is a tax on local government that is designed to remove the funding that local ratepayers put towards their locally elected councils and put it back in the Government's coffers. This kind of legislation is poor legislation. It's poor legislation at the best of times, but this is a situation where we have not had a select committee stage, we have not had local councils consulted, and we do not understand the regulatory impact of this on local ratepayers. This is the very worst kind of legislation. It's taxation with very little cause, and it's suspiciously exactly the same amount in the forecast period as that Minister cost with a muck-up at select committee. He has cost his finance Minister $1.5 million in the forecast period, and he's gone away and penny-pinched that out of his other budgets, his Minister of Local Government budgets, which he is responsible for, and he did not take the opportunity to challenge any of that in the committee of the whole House. I put those questions to him twice, and he has not told this House that that is wrong, so we can only assume that this is a very clear message to the mayors and the councils of New Zealand that this Minister will do anything to move money around the budgets which he is responsible for. He will take from mayors, he will take from councils, he will take from local boards, and he will take from parks, from playgrounds, from libraries. He will take from the services that people rely on in their local communities to pay for a muck-up in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Former mayor Andy Foster is sitting here loving this contribution, because he knows exactly what happened in that select committee. It was a muck-up that cost the Minister, suspiciously, exactly what this bill saves him. So here we are—here we are—using the House's time, not only using central government resources that cost probably more than $400,000, which is saved in this financial year, but not only that, we're asking every council around the country to tell their legal departments, "Quickly work out whether we can comply with this. It's a very short time frame; we have to comply with it by 1 July. Please, quickly go and give me some advice." Shout-out to all those lawyers around the country who are watching this because they need their governing bodies to be able to make decisions which are required under this change. I hope you know that this is to save $400,000 for the central government. That's not $400,000 of money that we're taking from some big corporate entity, and that's not $400,000 we're taking from another pot of money that we are levying to change behaviour; that is $400,000 that is coming directly from local ratepayers straight into the central government coffers. Thanks to everyone who has made an effort today to understand this bill that has cost far more than the amount it has saved. This is the worst kind of legislation. Now I can get to my actual points. I've got five minutes left, and I intend to use them all, because the opposite members are so keen on this speech, so I will start that. The first point that I have to make is that given that there were no answers at the committee stage, I think it's still important for not only this House but for local government to understand what the real cost of the Crown administrating these fines is, because if it was a full proportion, 100 percent of the 10 percent levied by the Crown on top of these fines, then we'd be in a situation in New Zealand where the taxpayer was subsidising local government to do this. We haven't had an answer to that, but that is a situation that we should properly understand, because it's not appropriate for central government to subsidise local government to levy fines in that way. It creates a perverse incentive for local governments to set fines in a way which doesn't result in the kind of policy outcomes we want. So we then need to understand that. Is the fines regime working for local government, if that has been the case for a long time? What kind of perverse incentives has it created to levy or not levy parking fines, and do we have a situation in our cities where parking fines are not being administrated in the way they should? Ingrid Leary: Invercargill. ARENA WILLIAMS: Well, exactly—exactly. My colleague the honourable—not the honourable; I've given you a promotion. My colleague Ingrid Leary— Ingrid Leary: Dishonourable. ARENA WILLIAMS: —who is an excellent local MP—she's not dishonourable as she says—gave us a really good example about how, when parking fines are levied ultra vires to the law because the law hasn't been used in the correct way, we then have a real problem that affects real consumers in their everyday lives. These regulations need to be applied accurately, and everyone needs to understand how they work. So we may need to better understand this, and I'm sure members from around the House, especially those Green members who have made contributions tonight, would be interested in a select committee inquiry at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee about whether parking fines are being levied appropriately in our cities and whether they are creating the kinds of policy responses and the kinds of incentives and disincentives for people that we would want. But the Minister wasn't able to provide us with that information. We don't know. A useful conversation starter would be at the select committee stage. The next point I have is about the secondary legislation which sets these fines, because at no point in the committee stage were we able to actually engage with the values of that. Is secondary legislation the appropriate way to set parking fines? Should councils have their parking fines set in primary legislation so that ordinary people like you and me can have our say, because as they are currently set, it's simply a technocratic exercise of being able to set them, and, really, the reality there is that people don't review these things often. They're not something which is regularly kept up with, and so the appropriateness of parking fines is not something which is subject to the democratically elected process. Perhaps they should be in the primary legislation. Perhaps, you know—imagine that we had a local government Minister who was committed to localisation and actually was allowing councils to set their own fines. We have one very large council, Auckland Council, that is now the size of some Australian states, that would be able to set its own fines and has the internal capacity to do that. Why hasn't the Minister come to this House and suggested an amendment like that, which would actually make a difference and would actually be worth this House's time, because we would be able to set the kinds of incentives that were useful for cities to decide where parking was appropriate and where it was not. This is a bill—and I've said it before: it's a penny-pinching bill that sets a parking fine tax, but it was introduced in the context of a Budget which did nothing for local government. The Budget has no commitment for additional funding and financing tools for local government—nothing—and with only $40 million committed to the water reforms, that money sits at central government. We have a Prime Minister who comes to this House almost every week telling us that he has succeeded in delivering local water with Auckland Council, where Auckland Council set the agenda and came up with the solution themselves. Great work, but how does that commitment allow local councils to lead that work around the country when it's sitting with central government? There is nothing for local government to actually empower local decision making here. There is no commitment from the local government Minister to actually resource the work that needs to be done, and that is a missed opportunity. There is no national resilience plan in this Budget—it has been scrapped. There is no climate resilience funding—that has been scrapped. Those are initiatives which resulted in local programmes which otherwise funded local councils' work. That is the kind of Budget investment we need, not $400k taken out of local councils and put straight back into the Government coffers because of an administrative error. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I want to talk specifically to this bill, and I want to also make a public service announcement. This bill is part of a package of proposals that support the Government's Budget goal to deliver efficient, effective, and fiscally sustainable public services. The public service announcement is this—one word: . I commend the bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call. I call Glen Bennett. GLEN BENNETT (Labour): That previous contribution was outrageous, and it was shameful in this House—absolutely outrageous. I think it is appalling and it is shameful that this is democracy—this is evidently democracy, and I find that a sham and I find it shameful. Democracy, so we say, is a wonderful thing, but democracy is a strange thing. Democracy also is a slow burn, and as I watch and as I listen, and I hear the meerkats on the other side going on and jumping up and down, I feel like democracy is being ridden roughshod over today, because this piece of legislation, this Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs-Budget Measures) Amendment Bill, is nothing more than slamming things through in urgency which do not need to be slammed through. They need to be parked. People need to put their money in the meter, they need to wait, and they need to relax and chill out for a bit and then to wait the time to get this legislation right, to allow local government to have their say, and to allow local government to engage and be part of democracy. But, no, we've got to run fast; we've got to run loose—that is what this Government does. As we know, the "c" word—that's right, I'm going to use the "c" word, Mr Speaker. I'm not sure if it's the Standing Orders, but I am going to use the "c" word. It's all about choices. And this Government is making some serious choices which are offensive—some serious choices which are rude and are disgusting. The "c" word; they are making some really bad choices. And it is grotesque, and teenaged children and little kids who are watching tonight should close their ears right now, because that "c" word, the choices, are horrific as we watch what is going on here. Now, we look and we watch what this Budget is about. And nature, it's been parked—did they have to put their money in the meter? Did they have to wait and ensure that they clipped their ticket on the way down for the National Party? We look at our just transitions trying to move us forward. It's been parked. But, that's OK, we'll throw some money in the meter, and, of course, they'll clip the ticket, and they'll move on, and we'll ignore our just transitions. Oranga Tamariki, our most vulnerable children—they're being parked, and no money can be put in the meter to justify that, because that is outrageous and that is wrong, but that is what this Government is doing with this Budget. When it comes to funding cancer drugs, when it comes to climate change, when it comes to universal free prescriptions, they are parking it all, and they are hoping, and maybe some of them are praying and hoping—I don't know what their beliefs are—that, somehow, when they leave this House, maybe Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday next week, when we get through this debate, they can justify to their constituents, they can justify to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, that the Budget that they have presented and championed and that they've said so many wonderful things about—about how they're actually going to be able to look people in the eye and say, "I'm sorry.", because we use the "c" word in this legislation. We use the "c" word in so many pieces of legislation. We made choices that are taking New Zealand backwards, choices that are offensive and are wrong. This legislation is only adding that extra 4 percent on top of that, obviously, in terms of the ticket that they can clip, and that is wrong. I just think, as we sit here in this place and as we look at what is going on in New Zealand, that they are looking and finding every way they can to find a bit of extra money behind the couch—you know, a bit more money behind the sofa to see how they can find a way to fund their tax cuts—because, of course, there's the "b" word. And I'm going to be outrageous: I'm going to use two offensive words tonight: the "c" word and the "b" word. That's right. They're going to be borrowing, borrowing—the "b" word. They've been borrowing for these tax cuts and doing everything they can with this legislation to ensure that they can find every little cent and every little penny they can to ensure that they can give their tax cuts to their mates and to their friends. So, as we look at this legislation, as we look at urgency, it is unnecessary. It should have gone to select committee. This legislation should have at least talked to our local democracy and our people. This is wrong. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Behind all of the emotion and the words and the rhetoric and the forgetfulness of the past six years and where we are now, this bill is an opportunity—a tool—to get the Government books back in balance. I commend this bill to the House. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): This is just really bad law, and it's really unfair. If I think of my own family, I have the blessing of being from a mixed Dutch and Pasifika family, and the reality is that members from both sides of my 'aiga—my extended whānau, and sometimes in our own little unit—will do things like forget their registration on their car or maybe park for five minutes longer or whatever. And they get a fine, and then it becomes difficult, because in my family, most of us don't have accountants, we don't have very organised ways of doing things, and we work organically. The fine comes in, and then we hang it on the fridge, just as Dr Duncan Webb said, and then for many of my family, it comes down to, "Am I going to bring something to the church service on Sunday to contribute— Hon Member: Or going back to the Waiheke vineyard! INGRID LEARY: —or am I going to feed the extended family who are coming around? Oh, maybe I'll just keep that on the fridge and leave it alone." And somebody mentioned something quite sarcastic over there, and I'm speaking really seriously here. The things that the Government members find funny and trivial are realities for many people. So when we look at the impact of this law, what happens in that situation? Somebody doesn't pay their fine, maybe they even stick it in the bottom drawer, they get reminder letters, it becomes overwhelming, and then the Ministry of Justice rings up and says, "How about you do a payment plan?" And you say, "Oh, yep."—and everything else that you have to say to make them go away—and you agree to have a direct debit out of the bank account. The direct debit comes around, and, again, the cost of living takes over, and, next minute, there's a $25 bank charge and maybe another one when it bounces and maybe another one. And these bills line up and pile up and pile up and become quite unmanageable. And this is the situation that is really unfair for families that are going to be impacted, and it's come out in the costs recovery impact statement, in the report that talked about the unfair impact. Now, that is bad enough. But, then, if we look at the jurisprudence of this—and the lawyers in the Government benches should know what I'm talking about, about the strict-liability nature of fines—and the fact that people who are in this situation in the first place, it might be a small fine, but it starts as a guilty-until-proven-innocent. So to contest, perhaps, that that little registration ticket that was supposed to be shown on the window wasn't visible, because it fell on the floor, somebody needs to be able to contest that. They have to pay the fine unless they can prove that they weren't liable. So that means, under the laws of natural justice and normal jurisprudence, we should take even more care when we are imposing additional cost or additional liability to those groups of people. But what are we doing here? We're sitting in urgency and without a select committee process—and I'll come to that in a minute, because there's some really sloppy drafting in the bill that we didn't even get to in the committee stage, because the debate was closed down before we got to ask questions about some of the words in Schedule 4. But the evidence base—the Minister was sitting in the committee stage trying to say that this is good public policy and that there was an evidence base for saying that it was about cost recovery. There was no evidence base to prove that. We asked numerous questions, from this side of the House, about what the numbers were and what the baseline was and also, actually, what type of fee was this even going to be. It appears that it's a tax when I look at it, because we know that a levy looks across a situation and requires payment across a class of expenditure. A fee is much more about a sort of vertical digging down. So this would appear to be a fee. But also what was deeply concerning was the purpose, because if it is a fee or a levy—and it's being dressed up as a levy; I actually think it's a tax, but it could be a fee—it has to be justified really carefully, and there has to be a good reason to do it. Now, under the legislation, it is saying in the purpose that this is about cost recovery, but in the title, it is talking about "Budget Measures". What we've heard in the contributions from the Government tonight is that this is a way of trying to fill a fiscal hole, because we know that the Government had to borrow $12 billion to pay for the fiscal hole created by the $2.9 billion handout to landlords. And now they're scrambling around. But a good law would be very clear about whether the purpose is cost recovery or whether it is a tax, and what we have had is mixed messages. We asked that in the select committee—no, we didn't have a select committee process, of course; in committee—and we didn't get a satisfactory answer. In fact, we put amendments forward to say, "Let's take the words 'Collection Costs' and just keep 'Budget Measures.'", because this is clearly about trying to fill the Budget hole that's been left. Who's it impacting? It's impacting people who are the least likely to be able to afford it. And I think that's really unfair. When I look at the bad drafting—and there's lots of things around the drafting, including the date. I mean, July coming up—that is extremely fast and doesn't allow for the systems to be able to cope correctly. And I'll come to that in a minute with the Invercargill example that I've mentioned. But if I look at the Schedule, in new Part 4, clause 11(3), in this clause it talks about "amount of a fine includes", and then it's got the words "without limitation, an instalment—(a) of the fine; and (b) paid under a court order," and so on. Now, what really concerns me is bandying around the legal words "without limitation". If we had a select committee process for this, that would have been tested. We would have tried to understand. If it is a fine without limitation, a strict liability offence where the mens rea is already assumed unless somebody can prove that it's not, what do we mean by "without limitation"? I don't even get to ask that. What does what do those words mean? They could mean anything. Is that going to be something about interest, is it going to be some other thing that is added on to the final—I'm not sure, and perhaps it's just irrelevant. I suspect the answer, if we had got to this in the committee stage, would have been to cross those words out. But that is sloppy drafting, and the members opposite know that, in this House, it is about precision of language. That is what creates fairness and that is what avoids unintended consequences. And so it's really disappointing to see that kind of drafting. And it's no surprise, given that we're doing this in urgency and that we're doing it without a select committee, where we would have had people like the Law Commission, where we would have had interested groups and others say, "Actually, Minister, or actually, select committee, what do those words mean? Do we need to strike them out, or do we need to define them further?" I turn finally to the example of Invercargill. And I did mention this in the committee stage, because the Government treated the questions that we asked with a lot of disdain and acted as if this was some kind of ridiculous situation in which we were posing hypotheticals. Just last week in the newspaper, the Invercargill council have done the right thing, actually. They have decided to repay $500,000 worth of parking fines to local people. I commend them for doing that. It was a difficult decision, and the reason is because they had made a mistake under the administration. And we know with strict-liability offences that the legal requirement is for the law and the evidence burden to be very strictly applied, given that the burden of proof has changed from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt unless innocence has been proven. So I do commend them for doing it. But what really concerns me is that the Invercargill City Council is also trying to consider whether to pay $90,000 to subsidise public transport for the kids who won't get that now that the subsidy's gone. And they need to catch buses to go from the south of the city to the north of the city to play their sports games. And that is something that is around social inclusion. It's keeping kids out of trouble and keeping them active. You may ask, "What has this got to do with the bill?" Well, everything. This is a direct result of administration and carelessness where it had profound results that had a fiscal cost which meant that, now, our most underprivileged and our most needing people who really want to get out there, play sport, and participate cannot do so, because of the type of administrative shonkiness that this bill presents. It's lawmaking that's done from the Wild West. It's done far too fast. It's done for the wrong reasons—it's done for the intention of filling a tax hole rather than a genuine cost recovery reason. We know that because we haven't seen the evidence base. And it breaks my heart, because I know, from the communities that I live with, that the people who will bear the cost of this, because it will be passed on from councils, will be people like my 'aiga and my Dutch extended family, who just can't afford to pay the fines and get hit time and time again. It's bad lawmaking. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you very much. Look, I'd just like to respond to a couple of thoughts that were thrown around throughout this whole debate. The words "sneaky little bill"—this bill was referred to as a "sneaky little bill". Well, what about the sneaky fuel tax and the sneaky ute tax that were thrust upon our people in the last six years? And the "broken promises" they spoke about—well, what about the promise to extend free breast cancer screening for people up to the age of 74 years old? Broken promises, 2017, 2020— Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the bill and I'd just like to point to the fact in the third reading, the member must speak to this particular bill rather than referring to other bills. So just hope you can make a ruling on that, sir. Hon Andrew Bayly: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wondered when we got our fourth Speaker. RIMA NAKHLE: This bill was being referred to as a broken promise— Ingrid Leary: Speaking to the point of order, sir. Speaking to this point of order raised by the Hon Andrew Bayly. Mr Speaker, I hope you will make a determination on it. I'm having some difficulty understanding what the member was asking, so if he could indulge the House and re-ask his question, perhaps we could then get you to rule on it. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Could you repeat that, Mr Bayly? Hon Andrew Bayly: I'm just asking when was the fourth Speaker appointed to assist you in your Chair role? I didn't think a fourth Speaker had been appointed to a new role. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well, thank you for thinking about my benefit. Just so I must make a ruling on that, if the member can confine her comments to this bill. RIMA NAKHLE: To the bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I understand you all want to stay here tonight, but let's get a move on. RIMA NAKHLE: This bill is a great bill, and I commend it to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. WASTE MINIMISATION (WASTE DISPOSAL LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on Parliament's website. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. One of the Government's priorities is to improve and protect the environment from harm, particularly focusing on the most harmful waste. The Government also wants to prevent the impact of, and support recovery from, extreme weather events. The Government wants to do this while achieving financial stability and sustainability across the public sector. This bill is a step towards this. The Government is changing the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to allow the waste disposal levy to be spent on a wider range of activities, and to increase the levy incrementally over three years from July 2025. Broadening the scope of the waste levy will help fund a more comprehensive set of Government waste and environmental priorities. These changes mean that as well as waste minimisation activities, the levy can also support projects to improve fresh water quality, remediate contaminated sites, and restore the health of important New Zealand ecosystems. We will be able to fund waste reduction, ways to reduce harm from waste, resource recovery, and reducing organic and construction and demolition wastes. Mr Speaker, I wonder if you would indulge me moving away little from the bill at the moment, because I feel as the MP from Invercargill I can't stand here talking about demolition waste without noting that this week in Invercargill, as the pyramid museum was being demolished—the museum held a tuatara enclosure. That enclosure was closed, and the tuatara were taken out of there in February 2023. But this week, as the demolition was occurring, four live baby tuataras were found in the enclosure. So what resilient little critters they are. However, thank you for indulging me in that and I will return to the bill. The bill will mean that the levy funds can support local authorities with the costs of managing waste from emergencies. This includes supporting councils to repair or replace waste infrastructure damaged during emergencies. The levy will also fund the Ministry for the Environment's waste and hazardous substance responsibilities. This adjustment will achieve cost savings while contributing to improving and protecting the environment from harm. This is a pragmatic solution to the current fiscal situation to ensure that the Ministry's important work programme and environmental funding initiatives can continue. As well as broadening the scope of the levy, the levy will continue to increase incrementally over the next three years from July 2025. For municipal landfills, it will rise in $5 increments from $60 per tonne at 1 July 2024 to reach $75 per tonne on 1 July 2027. For construction and demolition landfills, it will rise in $5 increments from $30 per tonne at 1 July 2024 to $45 per tonne on 1 July 2027. For managed or controlled landfills, it will rise from $10 per tonne at 1 July 2024 to $15 per tonne from 1 July 2025, followed by a further increase to $20 per tonne on 1 July 2027. These levy increases will provide further incentives to reduce waste going to landfill, as well as providing additional revenue towards Government waste and environmental priorities. This means central and local government can make a bigger impact on reducing waste and improving the environment. It means there's a stronger financial incentive for people and organisations to seek alternatives to landfill like reusing, recycling, and composting. The Government will focus on investing the levy in the most effective way and to fill gaps in New Zealand's waste infrastructure without crowding out the private sector. I will be particularly focused on measures to decrease construction and demolition waste so the levy changes support the building sector. Importantly, the local government proportion of the levy will remain at 50 percent even with the increased revenue. Local government will continue to fund waste minimisation in line with their waste management and minimisation plans. This means councils can continue to invest in local solutions to reduce waste like education, kerbside collections, food waste redistribution schemes, and supporting local business to reduce their waste. These changes will also support councils and communities to deal with the legacy of contaminated sites, including historic landfills and other sites that are vulnerable to the effects of severe weather events. The changes will enable levy funds to support the remediation of these sites. The changes will mean that the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund appropriation is replaced with levy funds. I also intend to substantially increase the amount of funding available for these remediation projects. It is estimated that there are hundreds of historic landfills and other contaminated sites vulnerable to the effects of severe weather, so we need to tackle this proactively wherever possible. I know councils have been asking for more support. No one wants to see another Fox River landfill event, where a 2019 severe storm spread waste along 21 kilometres metres of riverbed and 51 kilometres of coastline. The changes mean we can fix these sites before they cause a problem, and support communities after severe weather events. The bill will also enable the Secretary for the Environment to approve the levy waiver for waste disposal from the remediation of contaminated sites and historic landfills, meaning we will be able to further support local government and communities to get these sites cleaned up. The frequency and magnitude of emergency events is increasing, partly due to the rise in severe weather events. To date, the cost of managing waste caused by these events have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis. No standing funds were available to respond to community and council needs to deal with emergency waste. The changes will enable the Government to help fund the management of emergency waste, including repairing or replacing waste infrastructure damaged during emergencies. This will reduce the financial burden of these events on both central and local government. The bill will enable levy funds to be used to support activities and responsibilities that address waste reduction, reduced harm from waste, and support other environmental outcomes. The bill will allow the waste disposal levy to be spent on a wider range of activities and to increase the levy incrementally over three years from 2025. The levy will also fund the Ministry for the Environment's waste and hazardous substances responsibilities, allowing this important work to continue. This will contribute towards meeting the government's priorities while achieving fiscal savings. The bill will enable an increase in the funds available for contaminated site remediation, which will benefit many communities. It will also enable the Government to help fund the management of emergency waste, including repairing or replacing waste infrastructure damaged during emergencies. In addition, territorial authorities will receive an increase in revenue from their levy allocation over the three-year period. I commend the bill to the House. The bill will be progressed under urgency through the House. The progression under urgency, if the House agrees, will allow the fiscal savings to be realised for the 2024-25 financial year. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it's interesting to be here at just on 11 o'clock on a Friday night talking about the waste levy, but luckily for me, the waste levy is something that I'm very happy to be talking about at any time of the day or week. Of course, the waste levy is something that was increased around 2020 and in a hypothecated fund, the idea being that money gained from waste being disposed of would go to initiatives to decrease waste. That's how hypothecated schemes work. As the Minister, the Hon Penny Simmonds, has said, this levy was split in half; half of it goes to the local council where the waste is taken and half goes to central government. Under the Waste Minimisation Act, different councils have to have waste minimisation plans, and we all know that our local council, our city council, our district council, or our unitary council, depending where you live around the country, does a lot with waste. So it makes good sense that half of that money goes to those local governments. The other half stays with the Government, and the Government has funds—the Waste Minimisation Fund and the Plastics Innovation Fund—that then are contestable and can go to projects around the country. We heard the Minister say about the importance of waste infrastructure around the country, and I'm sure she'll talk some more about that sort of waste infrastructure, but some of it is for the often quite complicated kit that is used for recycling, or it might be for largescale composting and a range of issues. So the waste levy is a good thing. The criteria are very tight at the moment in the legislation, and Labour's position is not in opposition to the loosening of the criteria in part. However, this bill goes far too far in the widening of those criteria, and I'll talk more about that in both the second reading speech and, of course, in the committee stage, as we're under urgency and this isn't going before a select committee. The question is: why does it go too far? I'll talk more about this as well. The supplementary analysis doesn't talk about how far this bill goes. The idea that the criteria should be extended to remediation of contaminated sites—so the landfill issue that the Minister referred to at Fox River—no problem with that. The idea that when there are emergency situations such as we had in the Hawke's Bay and other areas of the North Island last year—no problem with that extension. The problem is that the bill says any other environmental thing whatever, and there's no nexus to waste. And this is a levy, it's not a tax, so there does have to be some nexus, and it's the absence of that nexus that we are opposed to. I have Amendment Papers on the Table that will fix that problem, will still allow the extension to remediation and emergency, but not go to just anything that's not related to waste at all. So why do we have a bill in front of us that seems to change the process to now extend to wider environmental issues? The reason is, of course, that this Budget is terrible for the environment. Everything is cut. We knew, of course, that there were those cuts in the mini-Budget to environmental programmes and to the Ministry for the Environment, and now we have that 7.5 percent cut. We know, of course—and we've had this throughout the past six months—that every single climate mitigation initiative has been cut, and we've got rid of, of course, with this Budget, the climate emergency fund. We know that the Department of Conservation is being cut. That's all on-the-ground conservation work. We know that the Climate Commission has been cut. Programmes for installation have been cut. Half-price public transport—cut. So all of these reasons, all of these cuts—we do need to do some things for the environment. What we see here, and what we see with this bill, with this widening of the criteria, is that it's for the waste levy to pay for all of these things. And, of course, it doesn't pay for all of those cuts—not at all—and it is needed to continue with what the Minister spoke about. We do need funding for the remediation of landfills. We do need funding for the increase of waste infrastructure. But this bill goes too far, so we will be opposing it. We do have Amendment Papers for the Minister. If she is of a mind to change her mind, that position can change. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I am pretty excited to be speaking about waste minimisation. It is one of my favourite topics and I have dedicated my career to waste minimisation. Simon Court: Same! We're going to get on. KAHURANGI CARTER: Amazing—let's do this. Let's do it for our future generations and because environmental action is cool. That's right—it's cool. And I know you all want to be cool. So what does this bill actually do? Well, I was brought up with the mantra "waste not, want not" and I've taken that with me into my life. That is why I have been dedicated to waste minimisation since before it was cool—just like my learned colleagues here and the Green Party and our members. So what is this bill actually doing? Well, like everyone here, I think that raising waste levies is an excellent idea. It is an excellent idea because what it means is that when industries have to pay more to send their rubbish to landfill than they do to reduce rubbish, then we're going to be reducing that waste. It's a great thing. Unfortunately, $5 a year won't even keep up with inflation, and if we look at similar countries to ours—so in New South Wales, $160 per tonne— Dr Hamish Campbell: It's a state, not a country. KAHURANGI CARTER: A state, thank you. In Victoria, $130.00 for a tonne, but in New Zealand only $60.00—less than half than countries who are similar to us. So you really need to look at why that is, and we need to actually understand that we don't need a bill to increase the waste levy; we actually don't. We can just do that through our normal regulation process. So when I look at this bill and really dig into it, it's like: what is this bill really doing? And my colleague here, on the right, actually got the nail on the head. What is happening is that the Government knows that New Zealanders care about climate action and they care about waste minimisation. That is why in 2018 the Colmar Brunton poll showed that the thing that New Zealanders most cared about was they were worried about the build-up in plastic in our environment. They care about the 1.76 billion plastic containers and bottles every year that we use here in New Zealand. And I see those hard-working Kiwis out there taking waste minimisation action, taking climate action. They're using reusable nappies instead of disposable diapers. They're doing composting. We've got teenagers who care about mindful fashion and— Hon Member: Wearing wool. KAHURANGI CARTER: Wearing wool, absolutely—that we can compost and we can take it and put it into our compost. What this bill is doing is it is taking money away from waste minimisation. We have a $2.3 billion infrastructure deficit in waste minimisation. Where is that going to come from when you're slashing and burning environmental protections, when you're slashing and burning climate action? We need to put out that fire that you are creating by taking money from the waste minimisation levy. Let me say that again. We are $2.3 billion in deficit in infrastructure for waste minimisation. It is so important that we are keeping that waste levy in waste minimisation. Cutting $10 million from the Ministry for the Environment—with my former colleagues who work so hard on innovation and vision for this country. We need to take responsibility for our waste and clean up after ourselves, because our children and their children in every generation after deserve an ambitious Government—one who cares about Papatuanuku, one who cares about a liveable planet for their mokos. We must look at waste as an opportunity to live in harmony with nature, because our children deserve it. When we continue down this exploitive extractive system which we have right now, which is a straight line from extracting precious metals and finite resources from the environment and sending them on a straight line all the way to the dump, where our future generations are going to be mining those finite resources—we have to do better for our children, we can do better for our children, and I believe we can. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party's proud to support this bill, the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. I just want to give a bit of background and context for why I personally share the kaupapa of this bill. For six years I worked on a solid - waste landfill. I qualified as an operator. Wheels, tracks, and rollers on a big beast like this [holds up picture]. It was crushing thousands of tonnes of waste a day. I worked at a landfill out of a Portacom for six years, watching thousands and thousands of trucks a year bringing waste and dispose of it in landfills. Hon Scott Simpson: Then you've come here. SIMON COURT: Shortly after—Scott Simpson asked why would I come here. Why would I come here? Well, I've got to say, sometimes you can't engineer a way out of a problem that the Government has caused—and successive Governments are the reason why we're here today having to try to solve the problem of waste disposal that previous Governments failed to solve. I want to give you an example. In 2005, I went to a waste industry conference when a former Labour environment Minister announced there'll be zero waste to landfill by 2040. I thought, "That person has no idea how to achieve that." In 2005, there were 2½ million tonnes being disposed of in landfills in New Zealand; by 2018, there was around 3½ million tonnes a year. So under a whole succession of well-intentioned but unfortunately people who had no idea how to actually deliver on good policy and outcomes, here we are today. The reason I'm proud to support this bill—and I think it's the right thing to do now—is because the original purpose of the original Waste Minimisation Act was to decrease waste disposal. I mean, that's laudable, right? To "protect the environment from harm;"—well, of course, every day we get up in New Zealand, most people want to protect the environment from harm—"to provide environmental, social, economic, and cultural benefits." Well, how on earth do you put all those things together on one plan so you actually know what to do? This bill changes the purpose statement to actually promote and achieve waste minimisation. There will be tests, there will be cost-benefit analysis for the investments made with funds recovered from levying waste at the landfill gate and then applied to waste infrastructure and waste minimisation. Achievement will be— Steve Abel: But also other things. SIMON COURT: —a test, Mr Abel. Steve Abel: But it's going to pay for decontamination of— SIMON COURT: We'll get to that—we'll get to that, Mr Abel. This is not lip service, what we're doing here. These are not slogans; these are not good intentions. The changes to this bill state "achieve" waste minimisation. Now, local government has the responsibility to minimise waste; manage waste. What we saw after Cyclone Gabrielle were some real challenges in separating out the silt, the twisted piles of fencing, the plastic debris, the geotextile cloth. This bill will allow funds recovered from the waste levy levied at landfill gates to be used to fund waste infrastructure following cyclone disaster recovery. One of the other good things this levy will be able to fund in future is more contaminated site and landfill remediation. One of the other tasks that I've carried out as a civil engineer is designing and carrying out remediation on some of New Zealand's most hazardous sites and landfills. Some of those sites that are falling into the sea, where the rock protection, the sea walls aren't sufficient; and where it would be fair to say that as a legacy of the past which remains unfunded by local government and by central government, there has not been one place— Steve Abel: Where are the climate adaptation funds? Scott Willis: That's right. This Budget has no climate adaptation. SIMON COURT: —that's right, that's right. There has not been one place that local government and its partners in the private sector who actually have the machines that actually do the work can go to get funds to remediate landfills and deliver waste infrastructure to minimise waste to landfill. So there is a role for a waste levy. Now, it would be fair to say that ACT is not a party that supports increasing charges and taxes and levies on the productive sector. But there is a role for a waste levy as long as it is applied to the right projects and the right programmes that achieve environmental outcomes and that meet a strict cost-benefit test. That is why the ACT Party supports this bill; commend it to the House. The Minister for the Environment, Penny Simmonds, has done a great job and we look forward to getting a little bit more out and aerate a few more issues as we get into committee stage. Looking forward to it. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Mr Speaker, it's great to see such enthusiasm right across the House for waste minimisation, for looking after our waste properly and minimising waste. I'm passionate about recycling, passionate about waste minimisation myself. Look, I just want to talk about this, the waste levy. The waste levy has been around for about 15 years—it's hypothecated to waste—and what we've seen is it's been steadily increasing over a period of time so that there is a stronger and stronger incentive to minimise waste, and the charge is also gone not only for class 1 landfills but now also across class 2, 3, and 4 landfills. What this bill is all about is flexibility, because I've seen quite a number—in local government—of proposals which have got funding. Some of them are absolutely brilliant, but some of them are not. I think there is the danger, sometimes, of having this free money sitting there that has got to be spent somewhere, and sometimes it's not actually particularly brilliantly spent. And I can see some mystification on the other side there, but I can point to you, Mr Abel—some of the projects which have been funded, you look at that and go, "That is not a good spend of money." As a country we need to make sure that the money we spend anywhere is really well spent. Look, this bill does two things. One, it continues to increase the amount of cost that is imposed on people who are creating waste and disposing of waste—that is a good thing; it keeps that incentive becoming greater and greater to minimise waste. But the second thing it does, which is really important, is it gives more flexibility around how that waste levy is used: it's about allowing us to do more clean-ups of contaminated sites; it's about allowing us to respond to emergencies, and we heard the example of the Franz Josef one; and also about wider environmental programmes. So it's useful flexibility. I think it does two other things. One, is it means that some costs which are currently paid by the Crown will then come from this levy, so it's saving money. Secondly, it means that there is going to be greater competition for that waste levy, and that means, I think, that we will end up with higher-quality spending because some of the lower-quality things will drop off there. So I think this is a very sensible approach, and I commend the bill to the House. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow those two previous speakers. I was looking forward to hearing Mr Foster's contribution, someone who has been involved in local government for many years prior to coming to this place, so for him to make a two-minute-and-30-second contribution— Andy Foster: It was two minutes longer than they wanted me to. TANGI UTIKERE: —in the context—yes, Mr Foster; I'm pretty sure it was two minutes longer than they may have suggested to you. But look, don't be confined to the party whips over there. If you've got something to say, then I suggest that, given we're in urgency, you say it. Joseph Mooney: Wasted almost a minute on that. TANGI UTIKERE: It was also very—what's that, Mr Mooney? Joseph Mooney: Wasted almost a minute so far talking about that. TANGI UTIKERE: Well, look, we're here because we want to be here. The other thing is I want to just follow up on the issues that were raised by Mr Court. Now, Mr Court and I spent some time on the Environment Committee last term. It's fair to say that we've had our disagreements on policy from time to time, but, again, I commend him on taking a full call, which seems to be a rarity for Government members in this current phase of urgency. Actually, I have to say that he did get me thinking about some of the things that he was mentioning, particularly around funding, but he hasn't tended to sway me—something that seems to be a common feature between the relationship that he and I might have. But it is interesting that we are talking about waste at 11.20 on a Friday night and that there is a particular focus around where this split might be. Prior to coming to this House, like Mr Foster, I spent a decade in local government, so I know the importance that this particular levy does actually place on decision-making processes and opportunities for local councils all around the world—all around the country and all around the world, actually, when it comes to global waste. But what's really interesting is that as the House is progressing this through urgency at this late hour of the evening, there actually won't be an opportunity for councils in my region or in other regions to actually have their say on this, because the Parliament is going to, with the Government's support, basically ram this through under urgency. I think that's a shame, because already in some of the smaller contributions that we've had this evening, we've heard of some of the very creative initiatives that councils all around Aotearoa New Zealand— Joseph Mooney: Two and a half minutes; still nothing on the bill. TANGI UTIKERE: —are embarking—well, Mr Mooney, it might be two and a half minutes. It would be longer than any contribution you'll give under urgency, I'd suggest. But I do think that the 50:50 split with local government is really important. But hearing what Palmerston North City Council might have to say on these measures would have been quite helpful. Hearing what the Tararua District Council would want to have to say about this would be quite helpful. Hearing what Manawatū District Council would want to say would be quite helpful. And I'm sure the member for Rangitīkei would also agree that those councils have an opportunity to say and feed into this process. My colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking makes a very good point in her contribution, and that is that there is a real distinction between a levy and a tax. Katie Nimon: Repetition. TANGI UTIKERE: A tax—well, it's not repetition, because I'm going to go on to the distinction. The Hon Rachel Brooking touched on the need for a nexus, and I think that's really important, because where a tax might be effectively garnered which can be spent on pretty much anything, a levy is much more specific. This is the context within which this bill comes to this House. It's around a waste minimisation levy, and so there needs to be a particular distinction between—even though it is hypothecated—where the levy is drawn from and where the levy will then be spent or where it will go. So I think it's unfortunate, again, that local communities, as we work through this process, will not actually have an opportunity to share whether they think the 50:50 split is right, whether they think the widening of this criteria that the Minister for the Environment is actually suggesting is wide enough or too wide. Here on this side of the House, we think that the widening exercise is far too broad and needs to be curtailed. And so as the House progresses to consider some of those amendments that my colleagues on this side of the House will have in their name, I do hope that the Government, albeit in urgency, will be open to the suggestions in light of the fact that communities have not had an opportunity to have their say. So my invitation to the Government is, as we move through the various stages this evening and, indeed, tomorrow, and perhaps beyond, that they do turn their mind to be open to the fact that communities have not had an opportunity to participate in this process and that there is a question of fairness. On that basis, at this stage, without any changes, we're not supporting this bill. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I listened carefully to the contribution of the Minister, who I thought put forward a very cogent argument for a prudent, practical approach to the waste minimisation levy and how it could be more flexibly spent in a way that advances the National Party's blue-green principles that we've held dear for nearly 30 years. So on that basis, I can support this bill wholeheartedly and I do so with enthusiasm. GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I know it probably is difficult at this time of the hour, and it is, of course—it's not easy listening to some of the contributions coming from the other side of the House, but I feel like we're sitting on 30 May 2024 and it's a long, long day. It feels like 30 May is going to go down in the history of New Zealand politics as a dumping ground, as a dumping ground of waste, of toxic legislation that is causing an impact on our country that we haven't seen before. When I say it's a dumping ground, it feels like it's a dumping ground for legislation that they want to ram through and they want to dump in here, whether it's the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill, dumped here into urgency on 30 May; whether it's the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill dumped here; whether it's this legislation, the waste minimisation legislation, it's been dumped; or the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill, dumped here on 30 May; the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill dumped here. Just like this legislation here around waste minimisation, it feels like a dumping ground where they can just cover over, where they can just come in and they can just run things loose, quick, and fast. Now, this legislation, as the Hon Rachel Brooking, an exceptional member of Parliament, spoke about, is something that we support in principle, but—and there is a but—it seems to widen the criteria. It widens to a place that goes too far. It widens it to a place where it's not actually about waste minimisation; it's around clawing money from here, from the environmental space, which they cut during this week's Budget, to put over here in terms of waste minimisation. Now, when we look at this legislation and we look at the way it expands how and where the levy can be spent, I realise that it's something that actually runs roughshod over what the legislation, what the purpose of it, was about. When we look at why they're doing it, it's because they need the money. It's because they need to find the finance, because the finance Minister took away from the environment. Hon Member: Robbed it. GLEN BENNETT: She robbed the environment. When we look at what happened in this week's Budget, we look at cuts— Laura Trask: Stick to the bill. GLEN BENNETT: —to supposed back-office expenses—and this is all about the bill, and I'm sticking closely to the bill—because they are having to make cuts, and so therefore they're looking for ways to recuperate a pittance, a small amount. So whether it's the $22.3 million cuts to the Ministry for the Environment, whether it's the cuts to waste minimisation—$52.97 million cut to waste minimisation. That's why they have to take this legislation, they have to dump it here on 30 May 2024, because they need to find money and they need to find it fast, because—because— Miles Anderson: We're waiting. GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, please wait, because it's important, and sometimes pregnant pauses are moments to reflect and think about our environment. Hon Andrew Bayly: Get back on track. GLEN BENNETT: The Hon Andrew Bayly talks about getting back on track. Well, to me, it's going backwards and it's tracking into the ditch and the dump of wrecking our environment. This was a good Act. This was something that was working hard with local government, working hard with Government, to ensure that waste minimisation was realised, that that 2040 ambition that the honourable Simon Court talked about is something that actually could be reached. But this is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and, of course, who suffers the most? It's the New Zealand environment. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): This is a great bill that aligns with our aspirations to get great environmental outcomes. I commend it to the House. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just saying talofa—it's still Samoan Language Week. You've heard our colleagues on this side who have provided a range of views with regards to the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. We won't be supporting this bill, because whilst we agree on some principles, it does broaden the criteria too far. And I was quite lucky, just with my colleague, Tangi Utikere, who also spent some time—over a decade—in local government. And we worked really hard on the ground at that time to look with our communities on these matters of waste minimisation. In my local area, for those who are not aware, Māngere is one of the communities where we have a number of young people in our community who were very concerned at recent weather events. I have read right through the supplementary analysis report which provides the context of which the Cabinet and the Government have made a number of decisions. One of my concerns, and it outlined here, is that I've read on page 3 that the analysis and the modelling of this paper that has presented of this legislation was done at pace. That communities have not been consulted. And what it tells me is that the modelling and the impacts have been quite rushed. So I'm very, very happy that we get the opportunity to speak right through this process and question at the committee stage. But this bill really affects our lower socio-economic communities, and there are some really good initiatives that the previous Government supported, not just with the operational side but education. Why do many Kiwis or New Zealanders not utilise this programme under the waste minimisation? And so you've heard the Hon Rachel Brooking in that we do agree on some of the principles but the broadening of the criteria, it just goes way too far—too far. One of the things for this community in my local community is that our young rangatahi, they want to be involved in waste minimisation programmes. Well, the cuts have been too severe, that we've heard yesterday. And programmes like Jobs for Nature, which were working really well in our local rohe in terms of young rangitahi that were not entering the workforce, those young people were entering programmes that were offered by the waste minimisation levy. So it is of real concern that when you are broadening criteria, what the Government is proposing for this waste disposal levy, that just goes too far. So we bring it back to the context of when you are consulting with communities—those who are responsible for the supplementary analysis report—there is a critical voice that you don't hear from, and it's important that communities across Aotearoa, when the cutting of some of these programmes have happened, and they've happened at pace. How do you know that the problem definition has been identified? How do you know that the solutions that have been put forward under this current bill—those are the right choices that have been made by this Government? So it is important the waste minimisation—the whole programme is really, really important, because as we've seen, climate change is really affecting our communities across Aotearoa. And some communities are well-resourced and others are not. And education, under this programme, is really, really important. So just as I complete my contribution this evening, what I want to stress is that there has to be a focus on what suits communities. And the only way you're going to know for these types of programmes is you have to speak to the community, whatever they look like. And in local government, they need to be supported with the autonomy that as we speak to our young people right across Aotearoa, that their voices are involved in some of the opportunities in these programmes they offer, because they are the ones that will be standing here in 20 years' time making different decisions because today's Government did not take that opportunity. So I just wanted to point this out, and I'm very pleased that I get another opportunity, and another opportunity just to raise some questions. So thank you for the opportunity. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. It's great to talk about waste minimisation, because this is a Budget which is cleaning up the mess of the previous Government, so it's very apt that we're talking about waste management. One of the previous contributions talked about the "C" word, but they didn't use the "C" word which is "common sense". I think it's only common sense that we spend some of this levy and allow the ministry to undertake its functions and duties and exercise its powers in relation to waste management and to minimisation of hazardous substances. That's just common sense. And some of the other measures that the money can be spent on, including repairing damage caused by emergency—it is why I think this is a great bill and I commend it to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 49 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately—sorry, for second reading immediately. Sorry, just helping the House; it's a long weekend. I also note that we're doing a waste minimisation bill, which might have made a good reason to move on. This bill is set down for second reading immediately. Second Reading Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Wishful thinking from you! I want to thank members whose contributions have shown such a passion for waster minimisation, and this bill will help fund a more comprehensive set of Government— SPEAKER: Just a minute. There's a line here that I think you might have skipped. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move— Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just seeking your guidance: there was a very strict interpretation in terms of process that members of the executive, specifically Ministers—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Sorry, can we just have no conversations going on while we've got a point of order. Tangi Utikere: Thank you. Just seeking your guidance: there is a very strict interpretation and expectation for members of the executive, particularly Ministers, when they are progressing a piece of legislation through the House. Those words were not used. So I seek your guidance about what the next steps would be in light of that. SPEAKER: Well, if you had noticed, I had actually stopped the Minister's speech and suggested that there was a line that needed to be stated at the start of that contribution. So you were following up on something that I'd already seen to, as it were. Thank you. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill will help fund a more comprehensive set of Government waste and environmental priorities. These changes mean that, as well as waste minimisation activities, the levy revenue can also support projects to improve freshwater quality, remediate contaminated sites, and restore the health of important New Zealand ecosystems. Just a couple of examples of the types of projects that would benefit under the changes include the Kaipara Moana Remediation Programme, which supports landowners and communities to improve and restore the catchment; the Freshwater Improvement Fund, which will result in improvements to the health of waterways and catchments. Increases to the waste disposal levy will better reflect the true costs of using resources and disposing of waste, incentivise more reuse of materials, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from organic waste to landfill, and improve the onshore processing of materials. We're mindful of the cost of living, and the implications for households and businesses across New Zealand. However, we expect this to be relatively minor on them. The levy rate change from $60 per tonne—the levy rate that will be in effect from 1 July this year; up to $75 per tonne from 1 July 2027 for class 1 municipal landfills—will equate to an average increase in levy costs of around $5.07 per annum per household. Central government will be able to provide more funding for the remediation of contaminated sites vulnerable to the effects of severe weather events, including closed landfills, before they come become an issue. This will improve the resilience of communities. It will also help with the recovery and clean up where it is needed. It is estimated there are hundreds of such historic landfill sites and other contaminated sites that are vulnerable around the country. The changes will significantly increase the amount of money available to support the remediation of vulnerable landfills each year. Councils will be able to request a levy waiver for any waste from the remediation of the contaminated site, ensuring this cost does not become a barrier to the cleaning up of such sites. Government funding will also assist councils with the costs of cleaning up waste and repairing or replacing damaged waste infrastructure after an emergency event. This will ease the financial burden on councils and communities at a time they most need it. The Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes, our recent cyclones, and the Auckland Anniversary floods, and many other large-scale events have underscored the importance of resilient waste management and minimisation facilities and services across the region. To date, costs arising from managing waste caused by emergency events have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Waste management is a critical service to get up and running quickly to reduce public health risks and support communities to get back on their feet. With these outcomes in mind, I therefore commend the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill to the House. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, of course, I'm reminding people that we are in urgency. They've just seen me not that long ago speaking on the first reading, and now here we are with the second reading. So I'm going to go through in some more detail about that issue of the nexus and the criteria—I think it's critical that we are all understand exactly what's happening here. Also, I want to respond to Dr Hamish Campbell's comments, which were something about the previous Government making a mess. Now, I would contend and I do contend very strongly that the previous Government was doing excellent work in waste, though I would say that, I acknowledge. But there was a lot of work on the responsibility for reducing the waste Act to come, so that was to have a whole lot of new tools to regulate in this space, particularly around product stewardship. It was to have some new tools and more waste-tracking national standards and national licensing, and to help with moving and transitioning to a circular economy. Now, I am very hopeful that the Minister for the Environment will progress with that legislation because it was very useful. In the lead-up to the different papers involved in the development of that responsibility for reducing waste, there was a lot of consultation about the waste levy and waste issues in general.It was already raised to the attention of the Ministry for the Environment officials, of course, that the waste minimisation levy was too constrained what it could be spent on. So that is why we're agreeing that—yes—it should be extended out to some other issues that are related to waste, like old landfills. But it should not go to be the primary fund almost, or a total fund for anything that has to do with the environment that should be funded elsewhere in the Budget, for example. So this is, of course, an amendment Act to the Waste Minimisation Act, and that has these narrow criteria that Simon Court talked about earlier—that it's got to be related to waste. So there's an amendment here to "raise revenue to fund … (iii) activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits;". That is the width that we're talking about, that is the expansion, and that is the phrase causing concern. There are other additions, including the promotion and achievement of waste minimisation—that's good. Local authorities are to manage emergency waste and to repair or replace waste management and minimisation infrastructure damaged by an emergency—that also seems fairly sensible. Of course, it would be good to know what the industry thought about this, if there was a select committee process. Also, the ministry is "to undertake its functions and duties and exercise its powers in relation to waste management and minimisation and hazardous substances." There's some discussion in the documents about what that means, but, in general, the extension to hazardous sites—that's not an undue extension, either. Then, finally, "(v) projects that provide for the remediation of contaminated sites;"—again, we've been talking about the Fox River. So a lot of the expansions are sensible ones and there has, in part, been some consultation on those in the past—not explicitly, though, However, this general "activities that reduce environmental harm"—without any reference to waste, that just gets rid of the nexus completely. I want to focus a little bit on the supplementary analysis report. It's dated 15 May 2024. There is a bullet point right on the second page that does allude to activities that reduce environmental harm and/or increase environmental benefits. So that—to remind the House—is the wide clause that we have an issue with. It could be amended to refer to waste, and we'll be talking about that in the committee stage. So that wide bullet point right at the top of page two is in the executive summary. But then, when you go further into the analysis, you look at paragraphs 93 to 110 and you see there that there are little underlined sections, that there's quite a lot of detail, some analysis, about these changes. So one of them is supporting remediation of contaminated sites, including closed landfills, and there's a useful discussion. Another one is supporting emergency waste management activities. Again, there's a useful discussion there. Then, underlined, there's also one supporting more of the ministry's waste and hazardous substances work programme. So those three underlined sections align with the changes that I just referred to in the purpose that seem OK. There might be some little fish-hooks in there that it would be good to have a select committee process about, but, in general, they seem OK. There is no underlined discussion of this very wide "all environmental outcomes"—that is not included in this report, apart from in the executive summary and a little bit of scattering. The detailed analysis is not there. I presume there was some policy change that happened during the Cabinet process, but I'm worried that it's a very cynical one. That was what my first reading speech was about, and my colleagues' as well—that this is just a grab for some cash, and it's a totally unwise extension of this hypothecated fund that should be addressing waste issues. Those waste issues do include the many old landfills that we have around our coastlines and near both our electorates—the Minister's and mine. There are old landfills, as there are around the country, and we know that with climate change we will have more storm events, and we know that there will be changes to how our rivers flow, and, potentially, sea-level rise as well. This will have impacts clearly related to waste—there is the nexus that I was talking about. Some other issues with the bill are that these criteria that I've been talking about in the purpose—the ones that I like that relate to the that contaminated land, the emergency situations, and increased compliance monitoring and enforcement-type work—only apply, with the way that the bill is written, to the money that central government is spending. That is that half of the pot of money is central government's, and so this expansion of criteria only applies to that Government spending. It doesn't extend to the local government spending, and that seems inconsistent. Local governments, we know, are the entities that have the old landfills in their districts, and they're trying to deal with that contamination and remediation or capping of it or other various solutions to a problem. So I think it's important that we understand from the Minister why it is that that local government criteria is not expanded, and I have Amendment Papers around that. I would go back to this point, though. The idea of the bill not doing what we would like it to do, which is to extend it to other matters which have a nexus with waste, but to go further than that and rely on this fund for propping up various different environmental programmes, is very short-sighted. The idea that we can just cut all the money in terms of the environment and cut all the money in terms of what we're doing in conservation is going to lead to long-term costs. We heard the Minister say that there's different issues, and I heard climate mitigation mentioned. Well, climate mitigation can be done by instruments like the Climate Emergency Response Fund, which has been taken away by this Government, and we need to reduce our emissions. Purely for economic reasons, we need to reduce our emissions. We've signed up to a whole lot of agreements and we will end up having to pay a lot of money if we don't actually reduce emissions. So that's very short-sighted. It is totally head in this sand to not be doing work on the environment. This Budget is good for ferrets, and nothing else. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it looks like I am the last speaker for the night, so I thought that I could talk a little bit about circular economies, and I know that you all love to learn things. So let's talk about some of these finite resources that we're talking about with this extractive, exploitive system that we currently have and why we need to be serious about waste minimisation in New Zealand. We need to be serious about investing in waste minimisation because the waste problem in this country is horrific. There is a major waste problem, and we need this Government to be serious about waste minimisation. So, like I said in my first reading, the infrastructure for waste minimisation has a deficit of $2.4 billion over the next 10 years. That is outrageous when you're thinking of taking money from the Waste Minimisation Fund, from this waste levy, and putting it into places that you've decided weren't good enough to fund. These are things like clean rivers, because we know Kiwis care about clean rivers. We want our kids to be able to swim in those rivers and learn from the river. We care about community solutions and about people who have been doing this work for generations—the people who are on the ground, who are best placed to come up with these solutions and to deliver these solutions. A few days ago, Minister Simmonds spoke at the waste minimisation conference and repeated the words "industry-led". Now, this is what waste levies are about. The other side of the House wants to leave it up to industry, up to the biggest polluters, to do the right thing. Well, it's actually our job, as the Government, to make sure that our biggest polluters are actually paying the price, because otherwise the people that are going to be paying the price are our future generations. This is absolute greenwashing at its finest. You are slashing funding for clean rivers, you are slashing funding for the Community Environment Fund, you are slashing funding for environmental action and climate action, and then you're coming over and taking money from these waste levies. These waste levies are also—can I remind the other side of the House—less than half of what they are in New South Wales and in Victoria and in the UK. So there's a lot of things going on here. Firstly, we need to increase the waste levy more because we have got a massive waste problem in this country. We need to be moving that towards about $20 a year increase. Hon Penny Simmonds: Cost of living crisis. KAHURANGI CARTER: Well, industries actually aren't feeling that cost of living crisis. So if we if we actually look at industry paying that extra and leaving households who are doing what they can with what they have—and our households are doing a good job because they do care about the future generations. They do care about waste minimisation. That's why we saw the uptake in recycling. That's why we see people repairing things. That's why we see people wanting to know how to repair their things so that they're not just having to send them to landfill, which is the current system we've got. Do you know the amazing thing about having a waste levy that actually—actually—invests in waste solutions like the Plastics Innovation Fund? But, oh no—that's gone too. When we actually invest in our communities, the ones who are doing the work on the ground—now I know that we didn't get a chance to talk to community, but that's OK because I did it for you. Today, I went and spoke to Para Kore. Para Kore are the only national, Māori-led organisation who work on waste minimisation in New Zealand. They work with over 800 organisations around New Zealand at the flaxroots to implement systems to reconnect and to deepen connection with Papatūānuku and Ranginui and to ensure that our future generations can breathe fresh air from our mountains, and they can swim in the moana and not be swimming in pollution. So, with the help of Para Kore, at the school in Māhia, they were growing their own food, working on food sovereignty, and then using that food for the Food in Schools project, and then, at the end of that, there was zero waste going to landfill. So that is how effective Para Kore is. But, unfortunately, because of decisions from the other side of the House, you've decided to actually slash and burn their funding. So those 800 organisations across Aotearoa who are learning about a te ao Māori world view of waste minimisation and living in harmony with nature—that is gone. Now, we're talking about environment centres. So for Environment Hubs Aotearoa, their funding has been slashed as well—environment hubs who became these amazing resources and sanctuaries in our climate emergencies. We saw them stepping up. We saw civil defence using those hubs as distribution centres because those hubs are known to the community. But what's happening? We're cutting—well, not "we're". You're cutting that funding, as well. So I want to see local solutions. We want to see local solutions— Andy Foster: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is that in the last debate that we were having, this side was instructed very clearly to stick exactly to the bill. We are not hearing about the bill. We're hearing quite a wide discussion there, but it's not about the bill itself, and we were instructed to stick specifically to the bill. I don't think the member there is doing that. SPEAKER: Well, it is a second reading and I'm sure there are aspects of this—in fact, I know there are aspects of this—that were covered in that first reading. I've watched all the proceedings for the day, and then we'll carry on. But keep it as tight to the bill as you possibly can in the next minute and a half. KAHURANGI CARTER: Sure thing—thank you. So Para Kore literally translates to "para" which is "waste" and "kore" which is "nothing"—to zero waste. Para Kore is about solutions for zero waste, but their funding is being cut, and this comes from the waste— Simon Court: Because it doesn't work. KAHURANGI CARTER: Well, the 800 organisations that they work with who are growing food in schools and feeding the tamariki and having zero waste going to landfill—it's incredible and inspiring, and I'm sorry that the other side isn't ambitious and that they can't see that vision for a better future for our tamariki. But we, over here, can. We can see a world where we live in harmony with nature. Now, EHA is the Environment Hubs Aotearoa. Like I said, they were havens in these climate emergencies, and their funding is being slashed as well. Then what's happening is the biggest greenwashing that there is, which is that because you're not funding the environmental initiatives and funding environmental and climate action, what you're doing is you are not taking waste minimisation seriously. So let's talk about those finite resources. Basically, pretty much everything in here is comes from five main resources. Those are bauxite, which makes our aluminium; it is iron, which is making our steel; it is the silica sand, which makes our glass; and it is our oil, which is making our plastic. The fifth one is trees—now, that is the only renewable resource out of all of those that we have. I don't think you're quite grasping that these resources are finite. We don't have millions of years for them to come back into being. So once we use those resources up, they are gone, and it's going to be up to our children and the future generations to be cleaning up our mess. I want us to live by that mantra of "Waste not, want not.", because that's what our kids deserve. I want to make sure that those people who are on the ground—well, this Government talks about being about localism. Well, you are slashing funding for the communities who are on the ground doing this work and taking funding away from the people who are the most well placed to actually do this mahi because they understand their communities, like that school in Māhia, and like Roma Marae in the Far North, who have a food forest that will feed generations to come. That reduces our waste, because if you understand waste, you understand that there is so much embodied energy in anything we do. So when you are— Simon Court: Kahurangi, come back tomorrow. KAHURANGI CARTER: Oh, we've got 30 seconds to go. Well, let's talk about some things that I want for my children and for my future generations. I want my children to live in a world where we treasure the precious finite resources that have been gifted to us by nature, instead of slashing and burning—slashing and burning—them. Then they can live with a legacy of abundance that they deserve, because that is what they deserve. Kia ora. SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.03 a.m. to 9 a.m. (Saturday)