Beaumont Carol: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Beaumont Carol: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:673;Page:19659] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This is very interesting legislation that we are speaking on tonight not least because of the procedural matters associated with it which of course my colleagues Charles Chauvel and the Hon Rick Barker have outlined to us. It is quite interesting to be in the situation of suspending the Standing Orders so that basically we can adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 242. These amendments are to the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill.  
From listening to previous speakers and looking at the bill I see that this is a very sensible and overdue bill that makes a number of changes that will assist in making sure that our fines system is dealt with appropriately. It will enhance the District Court’s powers and processes for the collection of fines other monetary penalties and civil debt. It arose really from a general concern about the amount of overdue fines which is quite staggering; the dissatisfaction of victims when offenders do not comply with reparation orders; and the frustration of creditors and debtors using the court’s civil debt enforcement processes. Those were the underlying reasons for the bill and those are all very good reasons. Indeed as my colleague Rick Barker said it is a shame that it has taken so long for this legislation to pass. It was well under way when Labour left office. In fact I was quite pleased to see that the commentary on the bill states: “This bill the development of which commenced under the previous Government represents the most comprehensive legislative improvements for the recovery of unpaid fines reparation and civil debt in 12 years.” So it is a substantial piece of work and I give my congratulations to all concerned because I think it is long overdue. I think it is good that the work of the previous Government was acknowledged in the commentary.  
In this bill we also show as Rick Barker said that where there is a matter that is sensible and in the best interests of the public this side of the House will not be oppositional just for the point of being oppositional. Hence we are cooperating and we will be voting in favour of and supporting the incorporation of Supplementary Order Papers 202 and 244. It is important to think about that and to think about the times that this House should cooperate and should do the right thing when there is legislation or opportunities to pass legislation that everybody would see as being in the best interests of the community. I put on the table the example of loan sharks which are an issue that many in the House will be concerned about I know. I brought a bill before the House nearly a year ago; it was initially put into the ballot by Charles Chauvel and was then picked up by me. That was a sensible bill; it was a bill dealing with something that we would all agree is a problem in the community and it continues to be a problem in the community. In the last day or so we have seen a new dimension to that problem in the form of text loan sharks. It is absolutely horrendous; people can get loans of up to $600 in 4 minutes with interest rates going as high as 678 percent. The bill that was before the House a year ago could have put paid to that provision. We would have had the tools to deal with text loan sharks. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that this is a procedural debate and it is wide ranging but it has to be wide ranging in relation to the motion moved by the honourable Minister. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I think the point I was making is that we support this bill and the procedural motion before us because it is common sense it is good legislation and it is in the interests of society and that is why we are going that way.  
I return to the matter before us. Others have talked about the piecemeal approach to reforms in the justice sector. I have recently joined the Justice and Electoral Committee. Submitters to that select committee have made a similar point—that although there are a lot of different pieces of legislation floating about and being undertaken there is a real concern that they are not being looked at as a comprehensive whole. I say that by way of reinforcing the points my colleague Charles Chauvel made earlier.  
In respect of the Supplementary Order Papers we are talking about my colleague Charles Chauvel went through some of the detail. Supplementary Order Paper 202 makes a number of substantial drafting and technical changes to the bill. They include the consolidation of statutory provisions processes and powers relating to the enforcement of fines and reparation through to things like updating and aligning the property forfeiture regimes by amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Supplementary Order Paper 244 also makes some drafting and technical changes to Supplementary Order Paper 202 but in addition it includes changes relating to the power of parking wardens owner liability for stationary vehicle offences issue of infringement notices and discharge of assets forfeiture order by the official assignee.  
The Acts that effectively are being incorporated into the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill by what we are doing here are the Crimes Act 1961 the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They will be incorporated alongside the other Acts that are already in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which are the District Courts Act 1947 the Land Transport Act 1998 the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 the Family Courts Act 1980 the Immigration Act 1987 the Immigration Act 2009 the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 the Privacy Act 1993 the Railways Act 2005 the Sentencing Act 2002 the Social Security Act 1964 the Tax Administration Act 1994 and the Transport Act 1962. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Sue Moroney has just commented that there might be an opportunity here for me to mention railways and the link between Hamilton and Auckland that is much awaited by the fine citizens of Hamilton.  
There are a number of Acts there that were already included in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which as I said is something that we have been awaiting for some time and that we support. With these two Supplementary Order Papers we add in quite a significant number of other bills. Effectively as the Minister said in introducing this to the House tonight this is really about aligning and standardising court enforcement powers. I think the Hon Rick Barker did quite a good job earlier in talking about why that is important and how that will hopefully practically improve the operation of our criminal justice system and give some confidence to victims who are expecting reparation and that we carry through with fines. There is nothing sillier than basically imposing fines for particular offences then those fines being completely ignored. In many cases that has been the case.  
I am sure other colleagues will want to talk a little bit about how this legislation will be used in terms of fines under the Land Transport Act for example. I am sure that we will get to hear how that will work but I will leave that to others to comment on.