Mark Ron: Third Readings 
Mark Ron: Third Readings 
[Volume:630;Page:2390] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to indicate to the House that New Zealand First will be supporting the passage of this legislation but I have to say that New Zealand First has also expressed to the Minister personally that this is only the start. The fact is that in 2002 it was New Zealand First that first exposed to this nation through written and oral questions the unacceptably high level of outstanding fines and payments that existed. The first thing that occurred to us in New Zealand First when we looked at this problem and started investigating further—long before the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill appeared at the Law and Order Committee on which I was sitting—was that for the $550 million we exposed as being outstanding at that point in time— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
RON MARK 
: —$550 million outstanding—we could have had free health-care for children under 12—not under 6 but under 12. That was based on the premise that funding free health-care for children under 6 was costing $254 million so $500 million-odd would have allowed us to fund free health-care for children under 12. That cannot be ignored. 
The mere thought that a bunch of law-breaking New Zealanders refuse to pay their fines refuse to front up and accept responsibility and refuse to put money across the counter—money that could easily have been targeted to assist the vulnerable the children of our nation—is totally unacceptable. So we were adamant that given the opportunity we would shut down some loops that allowed those people to escape their responsibilities. 
The presentation of the original bill before the Law and Order Committee on which I sat gave us that perfect opportunity. What a wonderful piece of legislation it was—sort of. It did look at such things as interdicting people who did not have the money to pay their $1000 fine but certainly had the money to go to Fiji for 2 weeks. Those people do not have the money to pay for their $5000 worth of outstanding fines but they certainly have the money to pay for the BMW they were driving when they accrued those fines. They did not have the money the care or the time to consider that they should pay the reparation owed to victims yet they were gaily jollying around the world globetrotting and enjoying their lifestyles. New Zealand First says that is not acceptable. 
Although we applauded the Government’s attempt to look at that situation we could not accept the limitations to the interdiction process which said that there has to be an outstanding warrant to arrest and that the level of fines has to be $10000. Ten thousand dollars! Who in the heck in this country among law-abiding citizens would allow themselves to accrue $10000 worth of fines? It is clear there is a criminal fraternity that rack up that amount of fines but even worse is the fact that we found out there are people out there in the criminal fraternity who do not have $10000 worth of fines—that is a joke—but who have up to $90000 and $100000 worth of fines and we now know of one person who resides in Australia and has over a million dollars worth of fines and reparation outstanding. That person sits in Australia right now happily enjoying a quality of life that he has no entitlement to. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Above the law. 
RON MARK 
: He is totally above the law. We are saying that this legislation does not go far enough and if we go to page 7 of the report on the original bill the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and look under the heading “Targeting New Zealand fines defaulters in Australia” we see that that fact is stated clearly: “The bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia.” 
If we read on we find out that the bill does not provide for extradition. Why not? Mr Connell the member for Rakaia is not wrong. I grilled the officials who came before us at the select committee. I have subsequently in private discussions said to the Minister that the fact that we are not sharing information not allowing the Inland Revenue Department to front up with information at the requests of the court and not giving courts statutory powers to go into the files of the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income to find these people is absolute nonsense. It is nonsense because time and time again we heard from officials that the reason the courts cannot collect this money this $500 million or $600 million that is outstanding is that they cannot find the people. What a load of poppycock! Of course they could find them. If the Inland Revenue Department can find them then why can the courts not find them? If Work and Income is paying them a benefit why can it not tell the courts which bank accounts it is paying the money into? 
Then we find out a more ridiculous situation which is that these people having been found and dragged before the courts with the threat that they will be locked up if they do not turn up then sit down and negotiate how much they will pay. They tell their bleeding-heart story to the court’s officials and negotiate to pay $20 a month $20 a week $100 a month or whatever. They present information on their income to the courts and the courts have to accept that at face value. I am sorry but that is not good enough because I know that some of these people can have one two or three employers. If they are shonky enough they can also be registered for and be collecting the benefit. It is not good enough that the courts cannot go straight into their Work and Income file or their Inland Revenue file and say: “You’re telling me you can afford to pay only $100 a month. Well let me tell you that I know you have two jobs. I know you are also quietly and illegally collecting a benefit that you should not be getting. My estimations are firstly that you should be charged for that fraudulent offence and secondly that you can afford to pay $200 a month—end of story.” The courts should be able to tell the offender: “Sign up and pay this amount of money or we will see you locked up.” That is what should be happening. 
Members may ask why I am so passionate about this issue and why New Zealand First is so passionate about having another bill back before the House before 2008. We will be talking to the Minister until he listens and until his officials get the work done to bring this issue back to the fore and tighten it up further. Why? Because to not enforce the payment of fines is to totally undermine the justice system of this country to totally undermine law and order and to totally undermine the work of the men and women in blue who are protecting us in the streets day and night from these very thieves and robbers. If we continue to do that then we might as well not have the police. We might as well not have judges. We might as well just let these crims take over and run riot in this country and let this land revert back to the law of the jungle and the law of the gun. I do not want to see that. I want to see criminals who are fined meet their obligations. The only way we can do that is by strengthening this legislation even further. I pledge to ensure we do that.