Government looking at making wheel clamping illegal

Transport Minister Phil Twyford says wheel clamping needs to be illegal - and he is working on legislation to make that happen.

Twyford said on Monday he was working with Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi on legislation that would ban the controversial practice.

"It is time to change the law and either ban wheel clamping or regulate it."

"I regard the wheel clamping industry as predators and bottom feeders," he said.

Regine Du Villier, 86, was confronted by a wheel clamper demanding $200 cash after she parked her car for 15 minutes because she was too ill to drive.

"I don't believe National's voluntary code of conduct has made a blind bit of difference. This latest case shows it's just not on."

Twyford's comments followed the story of an ill 86-year-old woman who was clamped in Henderson while she sought help for her medical condition.

The $200 fine was eventually voided by the clamping company, but only after police were involved.

Gordon Ward, a spokesperson for the Elite Parking Services, said that the clamper only saw a car illegally parked and not the person.

He rejected calls for a ban.

"Banning would be foolish because you are taking a tool for enforcement on private property," Ward said.

He said the Government should not be involved in regulating behaviour on private property.

In response to Twyford's description of clampers as "bottom feeders", Ward said Twyford was just a politician and "we know how everyone feels about them".

Elite Parking Services would not sign up to the current code of practice as it was currently written, Ward said.

The code was written by groups who advocated for drivers without substantial consultation with property owners, he said.

Automobile Association (AA) principle advisor Mark Stockdale said the organisation was against the practice of clamping and advocated for it to be made illegal.

"The AA's position is still that we want to see wheel clamping banned."

Alternatively, AA would like to see the private parking sector legally regulated, with greater public education around the rules.

"You can't enforce the rules if people don't know what the rules are."

Stockdale said many people who were clamped accepted that they were wrong, however complained the fine was "extortionate".

"Anyone in the parking business, if they are serious and want to improve compliance, then they should be looking seriously at adopting the code," he said.

Twyford did not know when a proposed law banning clamping would make it to Parliament.

While in opposition, Twyford spoke out against clamping and called for it to be banned.

Stuff

They will not give us charity because we say nice things about them. We know that. Likewise they won't act against their interests because we point out they commit crimes against peace. I can't understand why you think they will.

Pretty much my take. Not sure how this shows she is out of her depth though.

The green are predictably up in arms. They’re starting to annoy me a bit (context, they got my vote).

Not sure what you're getting at. Diplomacy isn't about charity, it's about explicit and implicit deals where each party gets something they want in exchange for doing something they'd otherwise rather not do. We'll support your FTA ambitions if you don't publicly object to us killing Syrians to distract our voting public from our disastrous domestic performance. For instance.

Ah, so it's your fault then.

*adds Wilderbeast to list*

Ok. I'm going to stop now.

Ah, so it's your fault then.

*adds Wilderbeast to list*

So Ardern is in France and the UK to try to get a free trade deal to up our emmissions in shipped exports after banning oil exploration because of emmissions.

Sweet

Bro, trying too hard.

So Ardern is in France and the UK to try to get a free trade deal to up our emmissions in shipped exports after banning oil exploration because of emmissions.

Sweet

That was one of the more stupid examples of supply-side thinking. The only thing that'll reduce emissions is reducing demand, and if we kill local supply we need to import, which puts emissions up not down.

Still, the signal is virtuous.

Just watching The Nation - the Minister for Construction telling us that even if their apprentice numbers pan out they need about 30,000 skilled migrants in the short to medium term. anyone care for a side wager on how much immigration numbers are going to actually come down vs. Labour's and NZ First's promises?

[EDIT - haha, Dark beat me to it.]

Is it?

Unless the actual not getting oil is symbolic they cancel each other out

The shipping of extra exports is probably higher in emmissions than doing the exploration

One 'm' bro. Give up with the hummer.

Cancelling new exploration is very much a long term aspiration. We already hashed this over but some of you guys just can't let it go in the depths of your depravity and obsession. You make a reasonable point about emissions caused in shipping... that's actually not all that hard to fix and coincidentally, pressure is being put on the body that controls shipping world wide to do just that. Alternative power generation for heavy haulage that generates lower emissions is doable... whereas to play your game here about the comparative benefits of stopping exploration cancels out s a f**king shipload more emissions. Hands down,. Easy.

No new oil?; No emissions.

Ruby red smacked arse cheeks easy.

Pointless virtue signalling.

https://www.westpac.co.nz/rednews/busin ... ge-action/

You don't want to go talking about the cost of not facing up to climate change. That's not part of the steady as she goes profit picture.

Ecologist Dr Roger Young, of Cawthron Institute Freshwater Group, said the overall picture was encouraging.
"Looking back from 2016 at a decade of data, for every monitored parameter, more sites showed evidence of improving water quality than degrading.
"My hope is this could represent a turning point in New Zealand's river health story,'' he said.
The national picture showed that in water clarity, ammoniacal nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations indicated 11, 8 and 16 times more sites with improving trends than degrading trends, respectively.
The report said: "Compared to a previous national water quality trend summary based on data from 2004-2013), the latest results were generally consistent but provide more positive signs relating to water quality improvements.
"Both found more improving trends than degrading trends for total phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, E.coli, ammonia al nitrogen and water clarity.''

My bad.

You don't want to go talking about the cost of not facing up to climate change. That's not part of the steady as she goes profit picture.

This is the bit that slightly irritates me.

It doesn't have to be all out or all in.

I agree with climate change, but you have to be realistic of the impact we can make as a country.

By all means prepare to transition, but to try to be some sort of world guardian given the zero impact whatever we do males is dumb

This is the bit that slightly irritates me.

It doesn't have to be all out or all in.

I agree with climate change, but you have to be realistic of the impact we can make as a country.

By all means prepare to transition, but to try to be some sort of world guardian given the zero impact whatever we do makes is dumb

Don't torture yourself over the size of the contribution. Be thankful you can give something.

Seriously, that is such a specious argument. As I said pages back, it's essentially the argument used by the likes of Tony Abbott. It may be just symbolic to you... but it's quite a potent symbol and considering it won't realistically cost anything, it's well worth doing. Great selling point to that theme we all know is sort of bullshit about NZ's appeal being the clean and green thing, too. I mean, tourism and agriculture are our biggest earners, right? Based on... clean and green, right? SO shouldn't we all be standing here, hats off and pants down in appreciation of this marketing master stroke?

John Key could dream of a rockstar move like that.

Ungranted exploration licenses can't lose you money, only lost potential earnings. Consider the prospect of any sort of carbon pricing structure coming into play on world markets and your potential earnings are taking a large hit. Consider the market led shift to clean energy underway around the world right now (and it's bigger than is really being widely reported) and oil starts to look like a dodgier proposition long term.

It won't cost anything. What you might earn from them won't be worth worrying about past 2030.

This I would love you to qualify

So the 6000-10000 direct jobs and the indirect jobs in the small regions aren't a cost?

Or the loss of currently about 800 million in revenue

You reckon you 'agree with climate change'. I don't think you believe that.




Meanwhile, tell me about these direct jobs related to oil exploration. Step me through this because I don't currently live in NZ and I may be highly sceptical of those numbers.

No... I was suggesting that if you 'agree with climate change' then you wouldn't be recommending any investment in fossil fuel industries.

No... I was suggesting that if you 'agree with climate change' then you wouldn't be recommending any investment in fossil fuel industries.

So your argument is no other oecd oil countries in the world apart from France and now us believe in climate change

actually, I am just going to laugh.

Look man, I'm not really into playing that silly game where we get drawn into going round and round various stray ideas and end up light years away from wherever we started.

I don't care what anyone else says now - do this and you are the best Government ever