Huo Raymond: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 07 July 2011. Volume:673;Page:19913. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora. That is a very nice comment from you. On the third reading of these important bills I acknowledge the great work done by the Hon Rick Barker. I also thank the Ministers Georgina te Heuheu and Simon Power for continuing the great initiatives. Work on this legislation commenced in 2004 through a review of the infringement system undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission. A joint discussion paper entitled  
Review of the Infringement System: Options for Reform 
 was issued in November 2004. Initial reforms were made by Cabinet in March 2008 approving guidelines for new infringement schemes developed by the Ministry of Justice. 
I outlined that background in order to show that there is a gap between then and now and I acknowledge Dr Kennedy Graham who also commented in a similar fashion in his speech. The original bill was practically ready when Labour left Government and I wonder—and this concern was expressed by my colleague Lynne Pillay earlier—why it has taken so long for this legislation to come before the House. This legislation is far more important and urgent than a number of other pieces of legislation that have been rammed through by the National Government in urgency sessions. This is an urgent matter. Figures released earlier this year showed that between July 2008 and June 2009 the courts wiped $95.1 million of the total $806 million owed in unpaid fines. The amount of outstanding fines is increasing each year and it is a problem that needs to be addressed. The amendments in this legislation will address concerns about the amount of overdue fines the dissatisfaction of victims when offenders do not comply with reparation orders and the frustration of creditors and debtors who use the courts’ civil debt enforcement process. 
The original bill was an omnibus bill and it was divided into 20 bills in the Committee of whole House stage. Bills with substantial amendments include the District Courts Amendment Bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3). My colleagues have spoken rather substantially on those bills and I will reiterate only some important points at this stage. The first one is with regard to attachment orders. Attachment orders are used to allow deductions to be made from wages and benefits to pay debts. At present attachment orders can be imposed only after an examination hearing to assess the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the debt. Both parties are required to attend the hearing which can be inconvenient and incur delays and costs. This legislation aims to streamline this enforcement process by enabling judgment creditors to file a financial statement or ask the court to assess the debtor’s financial means in the debtor’s absence. But judgment creditors will still be able to apply for a formal examination hearing of course which both parties have to attend. It is believed that this process will avoid delays costs and inconvenience for all parties concerned. 
At the Law and Order Committee we received 16 submissions from individuals organisations and other parties. Some submitters commented that the removal of the requirement for a hearing personally attended by the creditor and the debtor is a favoured change because of the money and time spent attending those hearings. Other concerns included concern that an individual may be subject to enforcement action without being aware of this as a result of the removal of this requirement. Some submitters also expressed their concerns about relying on the presumption of service and the weakening of the current service provisions. 
I would like to note MoneyShop and its submission. MoneyShop was concerned about the lower priority given to civil debts that are being resolved by an attachment order when Government debts—such as fines for example—are also being collected by attachment orders. It was concerned that priority should be based on the time of action as is the case for all civil debts rather than the priority order being set in legislation. I agreed however with the advice given by the officials. Priority for enforcing deductions from wages and benefits is driven by the interaction of various statutes including the Child Support Act the District Courts Act the Summary Proceedings Act and so on and so forth. It reflects the general principle that public debt takes priority over private debt. Any change to this principle and the interactions between the statutes is beyond the scope of this legislation. 
Regarding the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3) some substantial amendments that are being made include credit reporting super-priority and the registrar’s powers if a fine is unpaid or if time-payment arrangements or attachment orders are cancelled. I note the submission from the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner was particularly concerned about the release of Government-held personal information to private sector credit reporters and the shift in the use of personal information that this signifies. The commissioner recommended that clause 69 which sets out the credit-reporting initiative be removed from the original bill. I also acknowledge a submission by Veda Advantage regarding new section 92D inserted by that clause. It submitted that the legislation should allow for online or telephone communications. I further note recommendations from other officials that new section 92D(d)(i) be amended to provide a technology-neutral method of recording agreement in order to allow consent to be expressed in multiple ways—for example in writing electronically or verbally. We are living in a modern world; there is no doubt about that. 
However I have three further concerns. The first one is there are more than 80 issuing authorities and obviously that impedes the collection of fines. To remedy the situation Labour suggested that a single agency be established to take responsibility for fines. My colleagues and I raised this matter in our previous contributions and in particular in the Committee stage but it appears that no action whatsoever has been taken so the proposal has been omitted and that is very regrettable. 
Secondly with regard to the so-called three-strikes offence I note that Minister te Heuheu intended to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage that would have allowed offenders convicted of a three-strikes offence but who were not warned of the consequences of further offending to be brought back before the court to have the warning issued at a later date. I did not have the opportunity to take a further call in the Committee stage. I would otherwise like to hear from the Minister with regard to the rationale for that and related matters. 
Thirdly and with less trepidation I note that the regulatory impact statement duly pointed out that the credit-reporting component of this legislation is inconsistent with the Privacy Act 1993 and the Credit Reporting Privacy Code 2004. The legislation overrules the Privacy Act but provides that the Ministry of Justice will conduct a review after 2 years of the credit-reporting scheme to determine whether the outcomes justify the impact on privacy. With those notes I commend the legislation to the House.