Roy Heather: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Roy Heather: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21674] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to the second reading of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. This bill purports to get tough on the collection of fines and civil debt yet according to the speeches that we have just heard from the National Party member and the New Zealand First member that will not happen; this bill just does not do the job. The ACT party did not have a member on the Law and Order Committee that saw this bill but we feel very strongly about this issue. I want to join the previous speakers in calling on the Government to get tough on the people who commit these crimes so that they pay their fines. 
The basic problem with crime and fines in this country is that we have crimes that people do not really consider to be the result of illegal action. 
 The size of the fines in this country is arbitrary in many cases. Certainly many of the fines do not seem to fit the offence that has been committed. The result of course is that the wealthy just write out a cheque and forget about what they have done while those who do not have such substantial means simply do not pay their fines. In fact in many cases they have absolutely no chance of paying so the fine goes unpaid. We have all heard any number of examples of the traffic offences of young boy racers in particular who clock up one fine after another that they never pay. 
The difficulty when people commit crimes that do not seem to be the result of illegal activity is that the message is all wrong. The fines are in place to try to dissuade people from repeating what they have just done. But we have seen that there is no dissuasion in a situation where people are just able to write out a cheque that means nothing to them. Alternatively for those who do not pay or who have absolutely no means of paying their fines as they mount up there is also no dissuasion from committing that same offence again. So we get repeat activity after repeat activity. The message that that sends to people is that they can just go out there and break the law and keep on doing what they are doing. The only people who pay fines in the country are the law-abiding because we know where they live. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And they’re honest. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Yes they are honest. They admit to the fact that they owe that money. 
I am very grateful to the National Party member Mr Tony Ryall for pointing out some of the facts that I did not know because I did not have the benefit of being on the Law and Order Committee. I think that the people of New Zealand should know those facts. Before we set off through the select committee process the officials’ advice was that 35 people would be affected by the legislation. But after the select committee process and after a few amendments were made—not very many and none that were tough—I am told that a staggering 117 people will be stopped at the airport at a cost according to Mr Ryall of 0.25 percent of the total amount of debt that we have at the moment. There is $1.5 million saved as a result of the bill. What has the bill cost the taxpayer to date? More than $1.5 million I would contend when one considers the cost of the officials the cost of members of Parliament and the associated administrative costs. I would say that we are already in a net loss situation with the bill. We have to ask ourselves why we are proceeding with it. It is of course because there is a message to send to people. 
The bill is in two parts: the first relates specifically to the policy proposal to apprehend fines defaulters at airports; and the second focuses on fines enforcement proposals and amendments. In actual fact there is an argument in respect of stopping people at the borders—which nobody has raised so far—that we might actually be doing the country a favour if we did not stop those 117 people at the borders. We should perhaps pay their fare to Australia or wherever it is that they are going and let them incur further debts in the country they go to. There is no reciprocal arrangement and if we look a bit further through the commentary we come to the point that the bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia. 
That is an extraordinarily disappointing outcome of the select committee process. The committee said that it would like to have seen this. It has not happened. People no matter what fine they have incurred should be liable for it. They should be chased until that fine is paid. Until that sort of action is taken and adhered to rigidly people will be encouraged to keep on committing offences because there is no requirement in practical terms to pay up. The idea of picking up a few people at airports—we are told that 117 is the estimate—is ridiculous in the greater scheme of things. 
It was interesting to look at the comments of my colleague Muriel Newman. In her first reading speech she was quoting 2001 figures. On 1 May 2003 there were $487 million of unpaid fines $314 million of which were overdue. Fortunately the select committee must have been given updated information because we now know that on 30 June 2003 there was a total of $500 million by 31 May 2004 the figure was $572 million and now others tell me that figure has risen to above $600 million. I suspect it is much greater than that because that last figure $572 million was from over a year ago and we have heard this week about Kyoto Protocol underestimations—there are probably underestimations in every department that we are looking at. So the total is $600 million and a large proportion of that is overdue. 
It is always distressing to see fines being wiped. Fines are clocked up with no requirement to pay and when they are absolutely beyond the means of the individual they are suddenly wiped. We have heard this morning that $40 million has been wiped from the over $600 million of debt that now exists. When people break the law they should be punished they should be fined and they should pay up. We need legislation in this country that allows the enforcement of this. I am afraid to say that this legislation just does not do it. I join with my colleagues on this side of the House to say that this legislation is a wasted opportunity to get on top of the growing mountain of debt that has proliferated under this Government. 
The commentary goes on to state that the bill “allows a formal information-sharing regime to be established between the ministry the Customs and the Department of Labour” and quite rightly so. I do not know quite why we had to go to the select committee to allow this to happen. I see that there are amendments to the Privacy Act which I presume are put in place so that this information sharing can happen. It should not be just an informal thing; it must be formal so that each department has the opportunity to share information that they know about individuals particularly if people are going to be picked up at airports—even if there are only 117 of them. I suppose we should all be very grateful that it has increased in size from the 35 that we originally thought. 
Further on the commentary states that the monetary threshold for information sharing has increased. The amended definition of “serious default” was previously $1000 owing. It now seems that any amount owing will be able to be collected. I hope that is the case. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Only of reparation. 
HEATHER ROY 
: But only of reparation I am now told. So those powers need to be much more wide sweeping. 
ACT New Zealand would like to see rigorous debate in the Committee stage. It is not of course too late to see some tough amendments put in place so that the right message is sent to those people who commit offences and who then think that there is no point in paying them back because nobody will make them. We want to see provisions made for the improved collection of fines and very important we would like to see reciprocal information-sharing especially with Australia so that it is not possible just to hop on a plane. A person may not be one of the 117 who are caught but gets through and suddenly is scot-free until he or she comes back to the country. That is perfectly unacceptable. 
We need to take into account the rights of victims. What about the victims in all of this? I have been having a quick read through the bill and I cannot see anything about victims here. It is very important that they are considered and it is certainly not fair that they are left with the consequences for a long time but those who created the offences are not.