Ardern Shane: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21706] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I thought for a moment that I would be struck out of having the opportunity to speak to this part of the bill. I will just say to my colleague who is about to leave the Chamber— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: No he’s not. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —oh he has come back in—that listening to his contribution has I believe headed off the 4 a.m. contribution I made in the Chamber some years ago when I made reference to those who might be listening on the cowshed radio. Thank goodness the cows are dry because if farmers were listening on their cowshed radio to the previous contribution I am sure they would be as confused as I am. But I have learnt a lot about bailiffs and about where they came from through that process. I will go back to discussing the bill for a moment if I can. I look at the members on the Government benches and I see that the Minister of Finance is back on deck and will be the No. 51 vote which those members will maintain until the wee small hours of tomorrow morning— 
Simon Power 
: Sunday. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —or at least until Sunday morning to make sure that this bill gets a proper hearing. 
I say to the member that when we listened to the Budget with some interest clearly we were looking at a number of areas the Minister had included in his statement on how the State would fund the various activities it would be involved in. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: We never thought they would do this. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is right—my colleague is on to it. We never for a moment considered that the Government would introduce legislation straight after the Budget to catch 117 crooks at the border who are trying— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: These are alleged ones. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: No they are the convicted ones. They are not alleged crooks; they are the ones who have been convicted. They are convicted crooks who are trying to escape New Zealand at the border. Now I understand how the Government will overcome the huge problem that it has with regard to the shortage of prison cells in this country. It will get the Customs Service to protect the borders in such a way that anybody with unpaid fines and a criminal conviction who tries to get out of New Zealand will be turned back at the border and that person will not be able to escape to Australia or anywhere else until he or she has cleared those fines. 
There are quite serious issues that probably need to be touched on in this legislation as well particularly in this part because it refers to this matter. One issue is why the Government which is trying through this legislation to enhance the information flow between the Immigration Service the Customs Service and the police is not allowing that to happen so that all three departments in unison—along with the Inland Revenue Department if that is necessary—can identify the people who have as I am led to believe $600 million - plus worth of unpaid fines? Why does the Government not allow information to flow between those departments so that they can find those people and go out and make them pay their fines? The Minister may want to answer that question; I do not know the answer to it. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: We’re doing it now. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well why is there a need for this legislation if the Government is doing it now? Why are we doing this? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This is about civil debt enforcement. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Oh well we will let the Minister take a call and explain that in a moment because that would be a good idea. 
The next point the Minister may like to touch on when he takes the call is why if that is so we have a $5000 threshold. Why do we not just reduce the threshold to zero and then anybody with an unpaid fine who presents himself or herself to one or another of those departments is then clobbered? Why does the Government not do that? How come we have put a $5000 threshold in place? Is it because the Government believes that the cost of retrieving fines of less than that might be greater than the benefit to the State? That would be a reasonable explanation. Most members in the Committee would accept that explanation if that is so. Why is there a $5000 threshold?