Ryall Tony: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21728] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I am glad to see that the Minister has taken notice of the point I raised with him an hour ago when I said that I was not prepared to accept that amendment and would make it absolutely clear to Ministry of Justice officials that after the change of Government the provision was never to be used. The clause is a shameful sneaky means by which this Government was proposing to reduce the level of outstanding debts in this country. I know that was the plan. The Government is embarrassed about the unrelenting increase in the mountain of debt in this country. If that was not the plan—if it was such a good idea—why was it sneaked in by way of a Supplementary Order Paper and not brought to the Law and Order Committee and why was it never explained to United Future? Why were the consequences of new clause 30AA never explained to United Future? The reason is the one I have given. I raised the issue of this clause with the Minister. I told him it was outrageous and I am pleased he has given it away. 
Does the Minister actually read these proposals? Does he actually read what is brought before him by his officials? The proposal was that even if the registrar of the court knew the name of the person and that person’s location then the registrar could if he or she considered the fine uncollectable wipe the fine after 3 years. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The registrar would be able to do that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes the registrar could do it. We already know that judges have wiped $40 million worth of fines but here the Government’s proposal was to allow court registrars to wipe the fines of people whose names and addresses are known but whose fines are considered uncollectable. 
What amounts would that have meant? In the middle of last year the total amount owed in overdue fines that were over 3 years old—which one could say were uncollectable—was $140 million. If the Minister wants to make a name for himself as the Minister who wiped the ever-growing debt mountain this is not the way to do it. I am pleased he is removing that clause. We may now find ourselves in a position of being able to support the progress of Part 8 but we were very concerned about what was proposed. 
I wonder whether the Minister would take a call and say also whether he will allow support for my amendment to the amendment to section 88(3) of the principal Act in respect of the amount of $5000. We have provided for the Government to be able to decide that the threshold for stopping people at the airport should drop—and we have put a limit on that stating it cannot be higher than $5000. So surely we should be allowing for some flexibility in respect of clause 30(1). I think that that should be done. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes and that it is the charging order change. I think that that is sensible but I wonder about whether the $5000 needs to be affected there as well. 
It really worries me with this Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is prepared to yield about the sneakiness of new clause 30AA only at this late hour. What else is on this Supplementary Order Paper that he has not read and does not fully understand? What else has he read in here? Now that he has accepted what the consequences of new clause 30AA could have been has he read the rest of the Supplementary Order Paper? Will he give an assurance that there are no other sneaky little things like that on it where one changes a word here or there and completely changes the outcome of the bill? Will there be any of that? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: There are no sneaky things on it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What was being proposed was simply outrageous—that we could know the name and location of a debtor and wipe the fine as being uncollectable. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No you couldn’t do that. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That was outrageous! That is what was being proposed. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No it is not what was being proposed. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The proposal was that an effort was to be made to locate information on the identity of the informant so that the name of the fines defaulter could be known. It was going to be left there and the debt was going to be written off. That is wrong. That debt should stay with those people. They should pay it back. 
Where are the Minister’s ideas about actually paying the debt off? This bill is supposed to be about reducing the debt mountain. We know that when Labour came into office that the debt was less than $300 million. Today it is estimated to be $640 million. We know that the overdue amount itself is close to $340 million. The debt is going up so what is the Government proposing to do about it? Is it asking the Customs Service to tell it everything it knows about debtors? No it is not. Is it asking the Immigration Service to tell it everything it knows about the debtors? No it is not. Is it asking the Inland Revenue Department to give it every piece of information that could help locate those debtors? No it is not. 
What is the Government proposing to do in this bill? It is proposing that if a person owes more than $5000 is subject to an arrest warrant—which means the person has to be really bad—and turns up at the airport then he or she will be taken aside and asked to make an arrangement to pay back the loan. That person can then catch the flight to London. Twenty-five thousand people owe more than $5000 in fines and this Government says it will pass this legislation—legislation that will affect 117 people—under urgency on a Friday afternoon. When this bill was introduced with great fanfare from the Government as part of a great campaign to collect money the officials revealed that it would affect only 35 people a year. Only 35 people would be stopped at the airport and asked to make an arrangement to pay back their loan at $20 a week and then they would be allowed to go off. But the Opposition put the pressure on and we are now up to 117 people a year who can be stopped. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Two a week. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is two a week or one every 3 days. It is just outrageous—one every 3 days. That figure would not be so bad if we thought we would collect many millions of dollars from them but do people want to know what the officials said? They said that this bill will collect an extra $1.5 million a year. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A week! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No—a year. We have a debt mountain of $640 million and this bill will collect $1.5 million a year. That is outrageous. We should get serious about this. I will tell people what the first few steps the next National Government Minister for Courts will take. He or she will bring in amendments to provide that the Inland Revenue Department can make all the identifying information it can available to the collections service. In this bill the department can provide only the name and address of the current employer. What if we were to have the name and address of the former employer because the former employer may actually know where the person is living? But the Inland Revenue Department will not be asked to provide that information although it would be asked to do so in my amendment to Part 9. 
I suspect that the reason we are not taking every opportunity to get information to deal to those people is that the Government is very worried about their privacy. Why are we asking only the current employer? If a fines defaulter changes a job the Inland Revenue Department will tell the collections agency who the current employer is. Well what about the past employer? What about the people paying interest on the bank accounts of those people? They could provide information. Further information could be provided about those people. None of that is included in this bill. That is why National says that this is a wasted opportunity on a Friday afternoon and that this Minister could have done a lot more. 
The fact that at this late opportunity and at this late time the Minister is removing what would have been one of his centrepiece changes in Part 8 is very very concerning. I am not sure that he is on top of his game because we identified that issue very early on. We raised it with him and his officials and now an hour later we find that the Government is backing away from its proposal completely. What it was proposing was outrageous. It was saying that a public servant should be able to wipe out tens of millions of dollars of fines even though he or she knows the name of the fines defaulter and in many cases might know where he or she is and has not taken the steps to actually get that payment. That was outrageous. 
Other members on this side of the Chamber want to take the opportunity to talk about Part 8 and explain why we were concerned about new clause 30AA. They also want to talk about what better options the Government could have had to deal with the situation and why the Government is planning a multimillion dollar advertising campaign for these changes when all it will collect possibly is $1.5 million from 117 people—one every 3 days.