Finlayson Christopher: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2234] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The National Opposition will support this bill as other speakers said at other times during the various stages of the debate. But I do want to make a couple of comments about the passage of the bill and say that this is yet another example of a missed opportunity. There are a lot of words in this bill but I wonder whether at the end of the day it is going to achieve a great deal. 
Let us look at the legislative history of this bill. Maybe I am a new naive MP but I have to say that from my point of view the legislative history and I am sure the member for Wellington Central would agree is simply atrocious. Let me remind my friend Ms Hobbs what the legislative history was. This bill was introduced on 14 May 2003. It had probably been in gestation for a couple of years before that. The first reading was on 19 June 2003. Does the member remember it? Then it went to the Law and Order Committee where it was stuck not for months but apparently for years. Then the second reading was in May and June 2005 and we had the earlier part of the Committee stage in June 2005. Is that good lawmaking? Is it something that the very competent and able member for Wellington Central as a parliamentarian not as a partisan politician can be proud of? I doubt it very much indeed. It is atrocious. 
So much for the legislative progress if that be the term—let us look at the issues that the legislation confronts. Total debt for fines in 2003 was $500 million. In 2005 it was $650 million. I would be grateful if the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Sutton could give us a 2006 update. This figure is escalating at a rate that I find simply unbelievable. This bill is not just about criminal fines enforcement it also tries to deal with civil enforcement against judgment debtors because that is also an incredibly important matter. Just last week I had someone say to me: “I’ve got a relatively small judgment which I have obtained against someone. How do I enforce that judgment in a manner that is expeditious and is reasonably cheap so that lawyers’ fees won’t eat up the costs of execution?”. It is these relatively small sums that really do upset the small traders the small-business people in this country. We have to have a system that enables people to obtain the fruits of their judgments as quickly and cheaply as possible. 
So these are major issues and in my opinion this bill deals with some of the issues but it does not really deal with them all that effectively. 
When one reads the bill a large amount of effort seems to have been spent on stopping debtors at the airport before they skip to Australia or other parts. Yet when the officials at the Law and Order Committee were asked how many debtors actually came into that category I think they initially said there would have been about 35 then subsequently it grew to the leviathan sum of 117. So this huge amount of effort is not to deal with 350 or 3500 debtors who would be stopped once the legislation comes into force it is to deal with only about 35. I am sure the member for Wellington Central will not mind if I tell her that it reminds me of that great poem by Horace the ancient Roman poet—and the member would know the quote—“The mountains will be in labour and an absurd mouse will be born.” I would yield the call to the member so that she could translate it into Latin but I bet she could not. 
Part 3 deals with the District Courts Act 1947. This part does not adequately deal with the inefficient District Court procedures. It fiddles with the existing procedures most of which were introduced in 1992 when the District Court Rules were updated. For example clauses 9 and 12 make provision for bail for judgment debtors. Well big deal. Quite frankly litigants are entitled to proper access to justice as the National Party in conjunction with the Maori Party has been saying in relation to the other bill and not to be left with unenforceable judgments which must reduce confidence in the entire civil justice system. It does not inspire confidence in the civil justice system when one simply plays around the edges. 
The provisions relating to fines enforcement are an improvement but are still rather cumbersome. I personally think and I would be interested in the Minister’s views that defendants who are fined rather than being able to partake of this lackadaisical procedure where they get 28 days to pay their fine then if they do not pay the fine they can be called before the court or before a registrar to be examined should immediately after judgment be required to speak to either an enforcement registrar or even a District Court judge about how they propose to pay their fines. That examination should take place immediately not days or weeks later and certainly the opportunity should not be given to people to abscond. I cannot see—and again I would be interested in the Minister’s views on this—why at the time judgment is given against them or at the time they are fined their passports are not taken away. Then the issue of them shooting off to Australia and having an army of people at the airport to try to stop them vanishes because they simply have to surrender their passports and deal with the issue upfront immediately. 
Then there is the final issue that the select committee referred to in its report of targeting fines defaulters in Australia. Of course if what I proposed just a minute ago came into force it would no longer be an issue because they would not leave the country before they had paid their fines. The select committee report states that the bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia and that it needs to continue to be looked at. That is all fair enough. There are sometimes some difficult conflict of laws issues that can arise but I cannot see why there cannot be reciprocal cooperation between Australia and New Zealand on this issue. I do not see why there could not be legislation introduced here to deal with Australian debtors and legislation introduced into the Federal Parliament to deal with New Zealand debtors who may be present in Australia for the purpose of enforcement of New Zealand fines and that for the purposes of that federal legislation New Zealand would be in the same position as any state of Australia. 
So at the end of the day it is a bill that National will support because it does effect some improvements but like the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) it could have been so much better. These are important issues and the particular concern I have is not with the huge judgment that is obtained because normally commercial people or insurers pay up reasonably quickly; it is the judgment creditors for example who have a relatively small sum that they wish to enforce. The procedures for enforcing civil judgments under the District Courts Act of 1947 are cumbersome. We really do need to have provisions that cut to the chase. 
On the issue of the enforcement of fines there is a lot of talk in this legislation—there are a lot of words—but at the end of the day it could be simplified so much more easily by simply saying to a person when he or she is found guilty of an offence and a fine is imposed: “You don’t leave the country until it’s paid. Front up immediately and say how you propose to pay it and if not what your worth is.” In other words we need an upfront tough solution to this problem because $550 million to $650 million as an amount for just the criminal fines that are outstanding is simply unacceptable. 
I conclude by referring to what was said in the select committee on constitutional affairs in England which has been dealing with the enforcement of judgments recently when one person said: “Ineffective enforcement procedures”—and he was speaking in relation to the civil courts—“undermine the credibility and integrity of the civil courts and the credibility and integrity of small claims more than any other factor.” Plenty of people in this country knowing what the cumbersome District Court Rules enforcement procedures are simply abandon any hope of recovering moneys that may be outstanding. In any civilised country that is a totally unsatisfactory situation. 
That is all I want to say about this legislation. It is a poor effort.