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:21725] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to that previous contribution because a lot of very sensible advice was given to the Minister for Courts. I noticed that the Minister was not taking much notice but he should probably be reminded of a few figures because I doubt whether he understands them. My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall mentioned them earlier. Outstanding at the present time are 92 reparation orders that affect 7000 people and total $22 million—but the Hon Richard Prebble has said that he suspects that that figure is not right. 
I say to the Minister that prior to this bill being debated under urgency we had the debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). People from all parties were in the Chamber roaring like lions about what could be done in that regard. Some of them are Government supporters on most occasions but they were opposing what could be done—so they supported the terrorists I guess one could argue. But those who will go out in the next election campaign stand on podiums thump the table and talk about what they will do in terms of law and order catching crims and suchlike have an opportunity actually to do something here today right now in the Committee stage—where the rubber meets the road where the legislation is formed where we have an opportunity to debate and amend the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and where we can actually do something about those crims. And what have we got? We have the ACT party taking calls to make contributions and the National Party making contributions but there is not a peep from anybody else. The only thing we have from Government members is the closure motion. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Where’s United Future the “common-sense” party? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is right. My colleague asks about the “common-sense” party which was roaring up and down the country at last election and was going to fix criminal law in this country. Its members are supporters of the Government and they have the numbers to actually change the law now. They have the opportunity but none of them is making a contribution to this debate at the moment. The Minister is introducing a wet bus-ticket process and nobody is doing a thing about it. 
So I suggest to the Minister that in the Committee stage at the moment he should move an amendment that would actually do something about the matter—as the Hon Richard Prebble said something that would be meaningful with regard to developing an incentive for those who go out and commit crime to take some responsibility for their actions. This is a classic example of members talking tough and voting soft. It is the old Phil Goff approach—talk tough and vote soft. I tell the Minister in the chair Rick Barker that he should make a name for himself establish himself and do something—change the law right here and now and make it a bit tougher for those crims. He should make them front up and pay what they are owing. 
As it stands at the moment something like $22 million worth of outstanding fines is out there on the never-never. They may be processed at some stage but people can pay “in order of preference”. That is another bit of the legislation that is certainly not just and justice does need to be seen to be done. We have people who have a string of criminal offences. One as I said has 92 reparation orders against him. The people towards the bottom of the preference heap may get 10c a week if they are lucky and those even further down the line will get something in 50 years’ time if the crim is still around and still able to pay. 
So I ask the Minister to take a call and explain to us why he will not take the advice given to him by senior members of Parliament. My colleague Tony Ryall made quite a few good suggestions to him about areas where he could do something where it is possible to do something. The Minister will be campaigning in a month or so saying he will do something and here he can do something. I urge United Future members to get up take a call and tell the Minister what they would do in these circumstances and if the Minister will not do it they should withhold their vote so that he will do it. But “Do something!” is what I say to the Minister and to those other parties. I am wondering—and I am sure others are—why Keith Locke has not been down to take a call on this part because clearly he had a great interest in the previous bill.