Pillay Lynne: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19793] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am really happy to stand and speak and I congratulate Rick Barker on a very good speech in terms of Part 3. Part 3 is a very very important part of the bill. I know that Carol Beaumont agrees with me and will probably take a call on this as well. In terms of credit reporting the bill proposes that the penalty balance of eligible people via credit reporters would be able to be disclosed using an automated information-matching system. We all know that with knowledge comes power and the ability to have this scheme for overdue penalties would be very very helpful. 
This scheme will not include overdue penalties subject to court orders relating to name or identity suppression from either the Youth Court or the Family Court. It will also not include people whose penalties are not overdue including those subject to a payment plan so that good behaviour will not be punished. If there is a process in place to pay back those penalties then the people concerned will not be part of the credit reporting scheme. The Ministry of Justice is authorised to use the information to collect those fines. This will lead to efficiency and the amount which I forget—the hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding fines—will go a long way towards getting back so much of the money involved in unpaid fines. 
The bill requires the Minister for Courts to consult with the Privacy Commissioner before recommending any regulations implementing the exchange of information between the Ministry of Justice and the credit reporting industry. I think that is a very sensible move. Although it is important to get to the bottom of the issue of making that information available it is also very important to comply with people’s rights and entitlement to privacy. 
As I have said in an earlier speech this part also authorises prison or home detention sentences to be substituted for repayments that are unaffordable and unenforceable. That move would be very regrettable and I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would see it as a positive move but in situations where the debt cannot be repaid it does come down to accountability as my colleague Stuart Nash said. People in these instances are quite clearly breaking the law and it is very important in our democracy that the law is upheld. Although the ability is there for that substitution to be made I along with everyone else I am sure hope that that will not be a frequent occurrence. 
There is also an amalgamation of all the existing provisions relating to seizures which have been reordered to better align with the more up-to-date seizure process. In what I think is a very progressive move arrangements can now be made to have longer times to pay fines or make payments by instalment. There is no point in insisting that a defendant pay a debt if there is utterly and completely no ability for that person to pay. This measure would give the ability for the court rather than to make the order itself to direct a registrar to determine whether it is appropriate to enter into an arrangement with the defendant to allow a greater time to pay that debt or fine upfront or by instalment. It could be paid by a mixture of both so that there could be an upfront payment and payments as affordable in instalments. That is a very sensible move in the long term or medium term and it will go a long way towards clearing debt. 
We have already identified that 69 percent of people affected are between 20 and 39 years of age and this change means that those people have some hope of making their repayments. It is a win-win situation not only because the debt can be cleared by the person and will not become a black mark against his or her character that is available to be viewed through credit reporting agencies but also because the money can be retrieved. If it takes a longer time to retrieve it so what? At least that money is being retrieved. 
There is a provision in the bill whereby the registrar will also have the power to take action if the fine is not paid or if time payment arrangements are cancelled. This provision sets out actions that a registrar may take if a fine or instalment is not paid or if an arrangement extending the time available to pay the fine or attachment order is cancelled. I ask the Minister in the chair Christopher Finlayson to take a call on that issue. It would be very interesting to hear about it because having not been on the Law and Order Committee and certainly not being the Minister in charge of the bill I would really like to know how that would work. I would like to know whether there is the ability for people in hardship to voluntarily go into that arrangement or to request that arrangement from the registrar. I am uncertain about that but I am sure that Chris Finlayson with his sharp legal expertise and ability to explain things will be able to enlighten the Committee on that issue. He is certainly not backward in coming forward to show off his intellectual abilities in terms of the law. I must say that I have at times heard some quite smart things come from him. He is a little bit remiss and backward in terms of the Sentencing Council; that was always something that saddened me as the former chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. But I can see that the Minister is getting ready to spring to his feet and answer the questions I have asked and I think the Committee will be very appreciative of that. 
There are a number of other aspects to this part but I really would rather focus on the most important aspects. As I said the credit reporting the prioritising of seizing a property and substituted sentences are all important. I did not touch on streamlining but the infringement system under the Summary Proceedings Act has been amended to improve the operation of the system court collection and enforcement processes by looking at the inconsistencies there in order to make the whole operation more effective and efficient thereby delivering a benefit again in receiving and collecting the moneys that are owed. 
Along with my colleagues I am very pleased that Labour is supporting this bill even though we know that it has not gone as far as recommended and despite all the work that was done under the Labour Government prior to this legislation. As I have said earlier I do not want to be too churlish but I feel that it is a pity the bill has taken so long to come to the House especially when I can see all the hard-working officials sitting in the Chamber. I know they will be very relieved because the bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for quite some time. Thank you very much.