Prebble Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21692] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 which enables information to be given to the Customs Service. When we look at the commentary on the bill and the statements made by the Minister as I understand it the situation is that about $650 million is now owed in fines. Of course everyone agrees that that is an outrage. As Mr Connell said if people have enough money to be able to afford to go on a trip to Aussie they should have enough money to be able to pay their fines. The logical thing is to swap the information. 
But there is another rule that people when passing laws think of. It is called the law of unintended consequences. I ask members whether we really want to do what we are doing. I would also like to know from the Minister whether this proposal is being put to us by the Australians. What is the effect of this measure? The effect is that ratbags people who owe large sums of money will quickly learn that if they leave the country they will get arrested. Some will decide to go but most will decide to stay. I understand that every week 700 New Zealanders go to Australia and the number will probably drop to about 670 as a result of this measure. Thirty ratbags who would otherwise have left New Zealand and been a problem to Australia will stay here. 
I want to know whether any cost-benefit analysis has been done on this. Although we will collect a few fines—not many—those people will be arrested and we will have to put them in jail and all the rest of it. The real problem is that amongst the ratbags will be the people who commit crime. As bad as crime is about 90 percent of all crime in New Zealand is committed by fewer than 5 percent of the population. We are passing a bill to guarantee that that 5 percent stay in this country. I am not sure that this bill withstands any cost-benefit analysis at all. I just raise this issue and say to the Committee that I am not sure this was the smartest measure—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The Minister of Finance is shaking his head. But if he thinks about it the Australian Government must be very pleased indeed to hear about this measure. It guarantees the quality of the people we are exporting to Australia who already have better qualifications than the average population and they can now guarantee that they have a crime-free record. The reason I raise this is that I do not think the logic of the Government’s crime policies stands up at all. We ought to be asking ourselves questions such as how did the amount of fines owing ever get to $650 million? Just having this measure the effect of which is to make sure that ratbags criminals and the like who owe more than $5000 in fines and it is now down to $1000— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: 117 a year. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is 117 a year. If it is 117 why is the whole Parliament so keen to keep them here? When we look at them they are bad repeat offenders. In fact they have to be to have that number of fines. I would like to hear from the next member: where is the great advantage to New Zealand in keeping these people here? I would not mind if we just switched this information to customs and when those people come back to New Zealand we can then charge them. That would encourage them to stay after having left New Zealand. But that is not how it will be done. I understand that the penalties are on the people who are leaving New Zealand. 
I do not know whether anyone in the Government thought about that before this bill was introduced. [ 
Interruption 
] Members are suggesting that they did not. Well now that they have perhaps they might like to rethink it and ask why we do not do some sort of proper cost-benefit analysis before we bring up a measure of this sort. I understand that the Government thinks it is going to raise very little money. In fact all it will do is discourage people from leaving the country. If people are going to leave the country surely we should select who we want to go. This measure seems to me to guarantee that we will continue to lose the best people and the worst will stay. I would like to know whether any Government members have thought about that. If they have where is the logic? Where is the compelling national interest in keeping fine defaulters in New Zealand so that they can continue breaking the law and continue not paying their fines because everyone accepts that they will do that?