Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19772] 
Courts and Criminal Matters Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to District Courts Act 1947 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. We in Labour support this bill but we do so with some concerns obviously. It has been described by the Government as the most comprehensive set of measures in 12 years to strengthen the recovery of unpaid money. We do not think it goes anywhere near as far as that and I think it is another indication that this Government is out of touch with ordinary Kiwis. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Totally. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is totally out of touch. The reason we in Labour support this bill quite frankly is that it results from the work that was started and went some way whilst Labour was in Government. Figures released earlier this year showed that between July 2008 and June 2009 the courts actually wiped $95 million of the total $806 million in unpaid fines. Those unpaid fines are increasing every year. Of course it not only is a loss of revenue but also does not ensure accountability that fines are paid. That is very much a key focus of this bill. 
We question why this bill took so long to come to the House. It was ready. In fact I have seen many bills—many bills—go through this House that I would have liked to see take a step back rather than this one. This bill goes some way to doing some good as opposed to a number of other bills that this Government has brought in that do nothing but cause harm—immense harm in some cases as we see if we look at employment relations and some of the law and order bills. 
I go back to this bill because I know you would want me to Mr Chair. This bill omits some proposals that were developed by Labour. For instance one proposal that we had was to create a single agency responsible for the collection of those fines. At the moment there are 80-plus issuing authorities. This is very cumbersome and it impedes the speedy collection of fines. It would have been very very helpful if more work had been done. I hesitate to say it but I think it was perhaps a little lazy to not put the effort into ensuring that there was a single agency. That would have certainly been a more effective way of collecting fines. 
The Minister for Courts Georgina te Heuheu wanted to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to allow offenders convicted of a three-strikes offence but not warned of the consequences to further offending to be brought back to the court to be issued that warning at a later date. We did not support that. Perhaps that Supplementary Order Paper could have been avoided if the Ministry of Justice rather than the police had been the lead advisers on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act in the very first place. 
As I said the bill makes amendments to the District Courts Act 1947 in terms of attachment orders. Those orders are used to allow deductions to be made from wages and benefits to pay debt. Certainly when we look at penalties that accrue over time we see that the sooner people can be put in a position—whether or not it is by an attachment order—to make payments on those debts the better it is not only for the country but also for those people. 
There was also some discussion on deputy bailiffs to clarify that a person who is appointed as a deputy bailiff may exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of a bailiff in respect of any District Court and not just in relation to a particular District Court. 
In terms of employees being subject to attachment orders—I go back to attachment orders—it carries over the existing law that it is an offence for an employer to dismiss an employee or alter the position of an employee to the employee’s prejudice because among other things an attachment order in respect of the employee has been served on the employer. However the new provision removes the existing onus on the employer to prove that the employer’s actions were not taken as a result of the employee’s debt or the attached order. 
There are some changes around contempt proceedings and in terms of the driver licence stop orders. There are some amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 regarding liable persons in terms of driver licence stop orders which are obviously a very effective deterrent. The new measure means that liable persons are sent a warning notice. That warning notice is very important. It gives them 14 days to resolve their traffic penalties before their licence is actually suspended. Those driver licence stop orders will suspend all driver licences held by the person in default including limited licences. It will also prevent people from obtaining a licence including a limited licence whilst that order is in place. 
In terms of the process following those orders all driver licences are suspended until the overdue traffic penalties are resolved through payment or a negotiated payment agreement or until the penalty is substituted for an alternative sentence. If that person drives in breach of a driver licence stop order which is a pretty stupid thing to do then that vehicle will be impounded for 28 days. These measures are stern but fair I would say. They go some way in terms of making the system fair but more important more effective— 
Kelvin Davis 
: Stern. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Stern but fair as the former principal would say. I think that in terms of going forward this part certainly makes some positive changes. 
In relation to superior priority of seizing property the District Court can obtain higher priority over secured property of a credit provider if the loan was advanced when the overdue penalties could have been released under the credit reporting proposal. When that property is subsequently seized by the court some or even all of those discoverable penalties are still overdue. 
There are also changes around substituted sentences. The bill actually authorises prison or home detention sentences to be substituted for unaffordable and unenforceable payments. We would not like to see that. We hope that that happens very rarely and that the enforcement and payment of fines is more effective under these bills. I think we would all agree that subjecting somebody for unpaid penalties and fines does not serve any purpose if they are sentenced to home or prison detention and that a far more effective way is to obtain those moneys and those penalties either through payments or through a payment agreement. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 This is my first call in the Committee stage of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. It is my understanding that we are currently going over Part 1 which sets out the provisions on the use of attachment orders to allow deductions to be made from wages and benefits to pay debts. At present attachment orders can be imposed only after an examination hearing to assess the debtor’s ability to pay the debt and that hearing requires both parties to attend. This is an attempt to streamline that provision and the enforcement process by enabling judgment creditors to file a financial statement or ask the court to assess the debtor’s financial means in the debtor’s absence. 
I will add a couple of extra questions that have been considered earlier in this area I understand—or at least considered by the select committee—on the question of attachment orders to enable deductions to be made from wages. I remember at the select committee questioning whether this would unfairly impinge on for instance a small-business owner if they would have to administer the attachment order on behalf of the debtor and whether it would represent a considerable cost. This came to mind after I had seen similar provisions in the UK result in a significant burden on small-business owners in particular. It is just a question that we may wish to discuss during the debate on this part but I imagine that by and large it will probably not be a great issue. 
I am working from memory here and perhaps a current member of the select committee can remind me of the arrangements for someone who is for instance on a benefit. A judgment might be made that an attachment order would be difficult for someone on such an income but I guess there are separate questions that sit around that issue. I would be interested in the difference between administering such arrangements for a Work and Income recipient for instance versus a small-business employee. 
I want to highlight though that this is a bill that Labour supports and we do so because overall it enhances the court’s powers and processes for the collection of fines. We were involved in the development of the bill from the outset. I think Rick Barker was involved in this work and I know this is an area he has always been very passionate about. One of the points I think he would raise is that we would like to see an overarching agency with responsibility for fines and there is no provision for that in the legislation. The reason for calling for such an agency is just the proliferation of groups involved in the collection of fines. I believe that more than 80 issuing authorities are involved in issuing fines and that plays some role in impeding the collection of fines. 
What kind of an amount of money are we talking about? Figures released earlier this year show that between the period of July 2008 and June 2009 just in terms of unpaid fines the courts wiped $95.1 million of a total of $806 million in unpaid fines. That is a huge amount—not only the amount that is being wiped but also in terms of unpaid fines. I know quite a bit of work has been done to try to improve the collection of fines such as using the ability to stop someone at the border before they travel abroad. I do not have the statistics but anecdotally I think there is probably a suggestion that that has been a successful campaign. 
I am really interested in the psychology involved when someone accrues quite a large amount of fines they need to pay. I think the Ministry of Justice has looked into this issue—and rightly so given its consideration of the wiping of debt. That research has shown that when people cross a threshold of money owed—and for young people it sits around I think the $2000 mark—they become unable and even unwilling to even attempt to pay off their fines. So we get to a point where if we start adding anything on it starts to become absolutely meaningless. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. It is a worry that surveys show that about $672 million in fines which includes reparation remains unpaid. I do not think that is a particularly fine figure. Surveys on the public’s perception of the courts have found that over half of respondents believe offenders can avoid paying their reparations or fines. That is not a good situation for those of us who wish to uphold the law so into this Chamber comes the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. 
I have to say that the bill was considered by the Law and Order Committee before I was a member of the committee but on reading this bill I find there are several very good aspects to it. I confine my comments to Part 1 which seeks to amend the District Courts Act 1947. The amendments are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of both attachment orders and examination hearings. Attachment orders require mandatory deduction from wages and benefits in order to pay debts and alongside examination hearings they are the most common and effective civil debt enforcement processes. However to date they have been somewhat cumbersome and have put a bit of a burden on those creditors who are required to attend hearings. 
This bill includes provisions for judgment creditors to file a financial statement which is a much simpler process to undertake than an attachment order or indeed to ask the court to assess the debtor’s financial means in the creditor’s absence. My reading of this clause is that if someone is a creditor they will not necessarily be required to go to a court hearing. I know that at the courthouses in my electorate on court days there are large numbers regrettably of people sitting out in the sunshine or whatever waiting for their turn in court. Arguably it is a waste of time if someone is a creditor to have to take time off work or their normal daily activities. 
Part 1 is commendable and when it is implemented I am pretty sure it will find favour with those creditors who find themselves unwittingly and unwillingly caught up in the court process. This whole bill represents the most comprehensive legislative improvements for the recovery of unpaid fines and civil debt in 12 years. I commend Part 1 to the Committee. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. It was dealt with by the Law and Order Committee prior to my membership of that committee but I know it has general support and certainly Labour supports this bill. As my colleague Jacinda Ardern has mentioned development of this bill was commenced in fact under Labour. Credit goes to Rick Barker I think and I am pleased to see it acknowledged in the commentary that the work was begun under the previous Government. I think that is a good thing to note. 
We are of course speaking on Part 1. Part 1 covers the amendments to the District Courts Act 1947. The bill is an omnibus bill so it covers a number of different Acts and this part solely addresses the District Courts Act. The matters in this part relate to attachment orders which allow for deductions to be made from wages and benefits in order to pay debts. The issue of debt is a significant problem in the current climate. It is not just about a whole lot of individuals who keep racking up fines and do not pay them. There are some people like that I am sure but also there are many people who are struggling very seriously to make ends met and who are incurring debt. Monetary fines as a punishment can in fact be very difficult requirements for some people to meet. One of the particular things about this bill is that it tries to look at alternative ways that people can make amends or meet the requirements of any punishment other than by paying fines. 
This part is about attachment orders which is about paying fines. The bill aims to streamline in this regard as it does in others the enforcement process by enabling judgment creditors to file a financial statement or ask the court to assess the debtor’s financial means in the debtor’s absence. That provision avoids the delays the cost and the inconvenience of bringing all the parties together to do that. 
One of the things I was interested in—and I thought others on the Law and Order Committee at the time this bill was considered might be able to help me with this—was Supplementary Order Paper 202 which deals with attachment orders and proposes the carrying over of the existing law that it is an offence for an employer to dismiss an employee or alter the position of an employee to the employee’s prejudice because amongst other things an attachment order in respect of the employee has been served on the employer. That sounds sensible to me. If a person is complying and doing what they are required to do they should not face the possible loss of their job especially in times of very very high unemployment such as we are facing now. 
As I understand it the new provision removes the existing onus on the employer to prove that the employer’s action was not taken as result of the employee’s debt or the attachment order. In other words it weakens that protection. I wondered why it does that. I thought that perhaps members of the Law and Order Committee could elucidate that matter and explain why the provision has changed and why the onus on the employer has been removed so that employers do not have to prove that their actions in dismissing somebody were not taken as a result of the employee’s debt or the attachment order. 
The new provision consequentially removes the time limit for the protection provided to employees which is currently 6 months. Again I ask those members who were on the select committee to explain the reasoning behind removing that time limit for protection. Those are a couple of questions about attachment orders that I would very much like to know the answers to. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment might be able to help us out on that matter. 
The Supplementary Order Paper also talks about imprisonment for the non-payment of fines. As I understand it it carries forward the provision that the period of imprisonment imposed in respect of the non-payment of any fine or where the sale of any property under the process does not produce sufficient proceeds to pay the fine shall be such a period as in the opinion of the court or District Court judge fixing the period will satisfy the justice of the case. However the period of imprisonment cannot exceed in the case of an offence that was punishable by imprisonment the maximum term of imprisonment to which the defendant was liable on the conviction or a period of 1 year whichever is the lesser and in any other case a period of 3 months. It goes on to talk about that. 
Another area in Part 1 that I thought was interesting—again Supplementary Order Paper 202 relates to this part—was the proposal to amend the provision of the bill as introduced allowing a judgment creditor to apply to the District Court for the judgment debtor to be sentenced to community work as a sanction for non-compliance with the payment orders made by the court. I am assuming this is in a situation where somebody is really unable to pay the debt. The legislation provides another way for the person to actually meet their debt to society if you like so that we do not have a whole lot of people with substantial levels of debt in fines that they will never be able to pay off. It would provide an alternative: community work or other penalty is referred to here. 
There is also a provision in Part 1 for property and goods to be sold by the bailiff. Again Supplementary Order Paper 202 proposes that it be made clear that the purchaser of goods sold by a bailiff charged with the enforcement of a warrant to seize property acquires good title to those goods free of all ownership interests and other proprietary interests held in them before the sale. This particular part of Supplementary Order Paper 202 amends clauses 28 and 29 amending respectively sections 90 and 91 of the Act. 
In closing I would be very interested indeed to hear a little more about this issue of employees subject to an attachment order why there has been a change to the existing law so that the onus of proof has changed and why the time limit for protection has been changed. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on Part 1 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. Part 1 as we heard involves amendments to the District Courts Act 1947. The whole purpose of this omnibus bill which amends a number of statutes is to enhance the courts’ powers and processes for the collection of fines and other monetary penalties and civil debt. We realise of course that most New Zealanders if they err do pay their fines but there are a number who do not and this bill is designed to deal with that rather significant problem. 
Part 1 as I said involves amendment to the District Courts Act 1947. The principal amendments are to Part 6 of the Act involving enforcement of judgments and these amendments are designed to improve civil debt enforcement processes. The civil enforcement system can be complex cumbersome and costly for all parties. It generates high levels of tension and frustration among users and attachment orders which entail mandatory deductions from wages and benefits in order to pay debts are the most effective civil debt enforcement option. 
Currently an attachment order can be imposed only after an examination hearing has been held to assess the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the debt and both parties have to attend the hearing. Part 1 amends the District Courts Act to provide greater flexibility in enforcement processes particularly in the establishment of the said attachment order gathering information on a judgment debtor’s means to pay the debt removing geographic restrictions and modernising service provisions. 
I would like to mention briefly the concept of attachment orders and what we are attempting to do here. Clauses 13 to 18 amend a number of provisions in the District Courts Act that deal with attachment orders. These orders will be able to be issued following application for an attachment order and the filing of a financial statement or a financial assessment being undertaken. Unlike other enforcement options attachment orders will be able to be issued immediately after a court judgment or order has been made and this will expedite the process and reduce costs to the parties. 
Another important aspect of this amendment bill is the removal of geographic restrictions. The amendment removes geographic restrictions to allow court processes to be undertaken at any District Court rather than at the specific local court. Clause 10 inserts new section 79A to enable a judgment to be enforced in any District Court and clause 8 repeals section 69 which regulated the removal of a judgment from one court to another. Clauses 5 to 7 make the necessary consequential adjustments to the powers of registrars deputy registrars and bailiffs respectively. This is done once again for the convenience of the parties involved. 
I commend this part to the Committee. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Chairman Robertson. Before I start I acknowledge the great work done by the Hon Rick Barker. I also thank the National Government for carrying on the great work initiated by Labour while in Government. I agree with my colleagues Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern who in their earlier speeches in this Chamber both said that Labour would like to see one overarching agency with the responsibility for fines. But there is no provision for that in the legislation and that is regrettable. 
Part 1 amends the District Courts Act 1947. Under this Act attachment orders are used to allow deductions to be made from wages and benefits in order to pay debts. At present attachment orders can be imposed only after an examination hearing to assess the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the debt. Both parties are required to attend the hearing which can be inconvenient and incur delays and costs. This bill aims to streamline this enforcement process by enabling judgment creditors to file a financial statement or to ask the court to assess the debtor’s financial means in the creditor’s absence. 
The Law and Order Committee received 15 submissions and I acknowledge the great work done by the officials. They have done a tremendously good job. Some of the submitters commented on the changes to attachment orders. Those in favour of the changes commented that the changes would create better outcomes for creditors. The opposing view was that those changes had the potential to create a situation where attachment orders were imposed at a level that was unsustainable and that could be potentially imposed without a debtor’s knowledge. One concern in particular was that an individual could be subject to enforcement action without being aware of that as a result of the removal of these requirements. 
Another issue was the change to the service provision and some submitters commented that the extension of the service provisions to enable creditors to complete a service more efficiently would result in a more expedient enforcement process. Others were concerned about relying on the presumption of service and about the weakening of the current service provisions. Thank you. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni. I understand that Part 1 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill amends the District Courts Act 1947. The substantial provisions in this part basically change the way that attachment orders for the collection of fines from salaries and benefits can be processed by the courts. My understanding of the current situation is that it needs both the creditor and the debtor to have an assessment as to whether the debtor can pay the fine but the substantial provision in this part changes that so that the creditor can ask for an assessment to be done by the court as to whether the debtor is able to pay that fine. As many speakers on this side have said before we support Part 1 because it will streamline the process for those who are expecting some money especially those in the civil debt arena to know whether they can be paid. 
Part 1 will also address the huge problem that we have with unpaid fines. It is a big problem. I believe that in the year July 2008 to June 2009 there was around $800 million of unpaid fines and the Ministry of Justice had to write off around $90 million of that. So Part 1 will hopefully go some way to addressing that problem by streamlining the process and by making sure that those who have transgressed and have been asked to pay a fine will fulfil their obligations as asked by the court as soon as they possibly can. If they are not able to pay their fine then that will be assessed and we will know soon enough so there is not the level of frustration for those who are owed money. I guess that would be a very frustrating position to be in if one was expecting some money from an individual or organisation that had been fined for a transgression but then had to go through this process which could be strung out because previously both parties had to be present at a hearing to get an attachment order. Part 1 will now streamline that process to make sure that a proper assessment is done of a fined person’s ability to pay that fine. 
Although Labour supports this part of the bill there are some omissions that my colleague Jacinda Ardern alluded to earlier that we thought could have been included in Part 1. One of those omissions was a single agency to be responsible for the collection of fines. We understand that at the moment there are 80-plus issuing authorities for fines. With unpaid fines being in the region of $800 million over the 1-year period I mentioned if we had one unitary body that was responsible for fines then we might do a better job of collecting most of those unpaid fines. As I said 80-plus issuing authorities have responsibility for fines. Although Labour supports Part 1 we believe that it could have gone a little bit further in terms of making sure there was a much more streamlined process for the collection of those fines. 
As Jacinda Ardern also alluded to earlier in this debate there is a problem with young people in terms of the level of fines that they are starting to receive where it becomes impossible for them to begin addressing it. That level is around $2000 and we can imagine how difficult it is at the moment for these young people to do the basics like pay their rent pay the bills or even get a job. We can imagine how difficult it would be to be stung with fines in the region of $2000. It would be a mountain to climb to pay off that debt. I am pretty sure that any of those young people who face that kind of debt from the courts would like a much more streamlined process or at least to have some way of their being assessed as to whether they could pay it. If we are talking about a level of $2000 for young ones at the moment I think most of them would struggle to pay off that debt. 
I think this bill goes a long way to making sure that there is a process there for them. If they owe money to the courts there is now a much more streamlined process so that that process is not strung out for them. It is not a burden that has to be carried by them for a long period of time. Thank you. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 In rising to take a call on Part 1 I acknowledge Rick Barker who did so much work on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill whilst Labour was in Government. I know that his commitment to justice and to the court system is certainly second to none. It is a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge all the good work that he does. The fact that he is the chief whip has nothing to do with that and I look forward to seeing Rick Barker taking the call in the very near future. 
I want to talk about contempt proceedings. Just to recap very quickly when I last spoke I talked about how unfortunate it was that the Government did not bring all of the collections under one agency. That was Labour’s intention and I think that would have been much more efficient and effective. Having said that Labour still supports this bill. 
I also spoke about deputy bailiffs. I clarified that a person who is appointed as a deputy bailiff can exercise the powers and the functions of a deputy bailiff in any District Court not just in relation to the particular District Court. 
I now move to the contempt proceedings in Part 1. A debtor can be sentenced to community work or another penalty for non-payment of debts. The proposal is to amend the bill as introduced allowing a judgment creditor to apply to a District Court judge for the debtor to be sentenced to community work as a sanction for non-compliance with payment orders that have been made by the court—that is when the court has gone through that process. That allows the court to impose any of orders including ordering the judgment debtor to do community work. 
It also authorises judges to decline an application from a creditor for contempt proceedings on the papers if that judge is not satisfied that the debtor can afford to pay the debt and is refusing to do so. If there is a case where the debtor does not have the means to pay then that can be taken into account. 
Removing the requirement for an application for contempt proceedings to be supported by an affidavit setting out details of the debtor’s alleged disobedience and also authorising registrars to issue warrants to arrest judgment debtors who fail to appear at the hearing of the application or who cannot be served with the application will go some way to effectively ensuring that debts get paid. The bill makes provision for the sanctions that we spoke about before the ability of the orders to pay and also the driver licence stop orders which I will not speak about at length here because they are in Part 2. 
The purpose of the bill is to improve the process and address a general concern about the amount of overdue fines the satisfaction of victims when offenders do not comply with orders and make payments to those victims and the sheer frustration of creditors and debtors using the court’s civil debt enforcement process. Although this bill does not go as far as we would have liked it does go some way to improving the collection of fines in our court system. For that reason Labour is supporting this bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in her name to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk about Part 2 and in particular about driver licence stop orders for the non-payment of fines. We have a longstanding problem in this country of drivers who continue to drive seemingly with impunity while having a large number of outstanding fines. Previously there was no means of reconciling that; no means of connecting the privilege of driving to the number of fines that people had. 
This issue came to a head when I received a letter from someone I knew whose mother had been badly injured in an accident. He had gone to court and the young driver was charged with careless driving. During the court hearing it somehow came out that this person owed $42000 in outstanding fines and had a very long list of other issues. The letter writer said to me: “Surely someone must have known that this young man was a menace on the road. This young man’s driving was erratic this young man was driving against the law and he was an accident waiting to happen and it was my mother who was the one who had the accident. Why are the people in authority not taking effective action against these young drivers?”. It was a good question it was a fair question and the question was right on the button. 
This measure of driver licence stop orders seeks in part to address that issue. It says to people who accumulate an excessive number of fines that if they do not take responsibility for them do not pay them and do not learn the lesson of their bad driving behaviour their licence will go—no question about it. I think this is a very powerful message to send. 
It is one that is long overdue and there were some technical problems about getting it introduced in terms of the legislation. There were technical policy problems that took some time and it was whilst I was in Government that a lot of the work was done. I am very pleased to see that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and this Government have introduced this legislation because it is long overdue. 
I do not know where the change of attitude has come from but there was a time in this country when whenever anybody got a fine the first thing they did was to front up to the court and pay it. One did not have outstanding debts. That was the nature of who we were as a people but somehow over a generation or two we have lost that belief. Some people have this view that they can simply have outstanding fines to the Crown and it is of no consequence whatsoever. 
This legislative change says that that time is over. There will be a consequence it will be swift and it will be very effective. Everybody knows that if they get caught driving without a licence they will be in even deeper trouble. 
The message in this legislation to those who incur fines is that they should pay them or the State will take effective action against them. They are given the privilege of driving on our roads. The roads have rules for the safety of others and those people as drivers are obliged to follow those rules. If they do not there will be effective action taken against them. 
The second bit which I think I have missed—in part because I was distracted—but which I want to speak to briefly in the Committee stage is about the change in the credit that people have. This issue runs in a similar line to the one about driver licensing and outstanding fines. 
A number of young people have their cars—quite expensive cars—and for whatever reasons they have a pile of debts against them and they get their cars confiscated. The very first thing they do is to go to a car yard that will sell finance to them and they finance the fines back into the car. The person who lends them the money knows that there is a substantial amount of money outstanding to the State—not directly but they know who these people are and what they do—and they finance the car. When the car is seized by the Crown the person who gets the money first is the finance company under the old arrangement. So the finance company is more than happy to sell them the car on finance because they know that if it gets confiscated it is going to get its money back and the Crown can wait in the back of the queue. 
This legislation will change the priority so that when a car is confiscated and sold the first priority will be the payment of fines. We will do this by making sure that the information about people’s debt is available to those finance companies. If the finance companies sell a car with finance to a person who has outstanding debts to the Crown for outstanding fines they will know that they are second in the queue for the money and that the priority for receiving that money will be the Crown. I think this will be a substantial handbrake on those people making decisions about selling cars to people who are irresponsible with their vehicles and the way in which they drive and accumulate fines. 
So there is a pincer movement here. The pincer movement in this legislation is firstly that if any outstanding fines are left unattended a person will lose his or her licence. The second part of the pincer movement is that we will attack their ability to finance themselves into a car if their car is stolen. 
We will do this with a very serious intent. Our serious intent is to say to the person who wrote the letter to me some time ago about his mother being injured by someone who had a massive list of outstanding fines that we took the matter seriously. Yes I say to the person who wrote the letter we should have known that that person was a menace on the road and we should have taken action against them. This legislation does that in two ways. I think in all good conscience that I can then sometime in the future say to the person who wrote the letter that their matter was taken seriously it was heard and it was done effectively. 
A number of the finance companies tried to quibble with this legislation by saying that the Crown was somehow using its superior weight and power to go past them and to get the money first. Well I want to say to them that sometimes one has to have a batting order. Someone is No. 1 batsman someone is No. 2 and someone plays at three four and five. The Government is entitled to set the batting order. It is entitled to do so not only for its own interests but also for the interests of the community and the people who drive on the road. 
This change in priority is to signal to those people that the Crown takes this seriously and our priority is not to stop people getting financed—we do not want to do that—but to say that if a person has a huge number of outstanding fines he or she should not be treated in the same manner as a person who has no outstanding fines. We want to say to the person who has a huge list of outstanding fines and to the people who want to finance them into a car and put them back on the road that they cannot do that with impunity and that they risk their money. That is because the person they are selling a car to and financing into a car is a liability—a liability measured by the number of fines incurred and the number of outstanding fines not paid. 
This Parliament is entitled to take a dim view of that. This Parliament is entitled to act and act decisively and we do so. I think this is very good legislation from that point of view. It is here to serve the public interest of those who drive on the road and it is not necessarily here to be about collecting fines. 
Let us deal briefly with the issue of collecting fines. I know it is beyond the ambit of this legislation but the point needs to be made that if people do not want fines they should not speed. If people are complaining about the Government and the State using fines as a collection mechanism for finance well the simplest way to cut down the income flow is to not speed and to not break the law. I am sure this country would be very pleased to see its revenue from infringements for traffic offences fall to zero because if it fell to zero we would have a law-abiding citizenry. 
Some may see a fine for speeding as simply a tax; a tax imposed for the privilege of speeding. Well I say to them that if one speeds one has to pay a fine. I must admit that I have had a few speeding tickets; Triumph motorcycles sometimes have a mind of their own I must say but I do my best to control it. I have had fines and I readily accept that if I have broken the law and sped then I have to pay the fine—I have no problem about that. But one does not always do it wilfully and wrongly. However the fact is that I cannot blame the State for my getting a fine; I blame myself and I have to take responsibility for myself. 
I just want to commend this legislation and say that Parliament has done fine work here. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 My colleague Rick Barker has outlined a lot of the rationale behind the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. We live in a society that is based on fairness. If there is one thing I have learnt about New Zealanders it is that we do not ask for much at all but it really annoys us if we think we are being treated unfairly or if people are getting away with stuff that they should not get away with. This is why I really back this measure and I back my colleague Rick Barker and the words that he has said. Traffic fines are imposed for a reason which is that the driver has broken the law. As Rick Barker said and as many of us know we can read in the paper about characters who get arrested for something and they have as Rick said $40000 worth of fines—or it might even be $400 worth of fines. But they act as if they are immune from the law. It is simply not good enough in this day and age to run roughshod over the law to have no accountability and no responsibility and actually to treat the law with contempt. I think the bill deals with that pretty well actually. 
The process under which a driver licence stop order must be served is actually quite robust. There is no excuse—there is no excuse whatsoever—for people to say no one had told them about it so they did not know because what happens first of all is that a warning is served. I will let people know where we are at. I am talking about new section 91AB to be inserted by clause 43 “Ways in which warning notice or driver licence stop order must be served”. This is a legislative requirement. What must happen is that an employee or an agent of the Ministry of Justice—so we are talking about a policeman or a bailiff I assume—must deliver the notice personally to the defendant or if the defendant refuses to accept it and all reasonable care has been taken they may deliver it to the defendant’s place of residence and give it to another person who appears to be over the age of 14. This is a warning—this is a warning. That is what can be done; it can be left at the place of residence. 
These people are under no illusion that they have been given a warning. But then they have the ability to pay. They have a warning and there is a decision to pay up when they realise they need their licence perhaps for work. The person has done wrong and must pay up because that is the person’s contribution to society and it is about taking responsibility. It is about time that some of these people took responsibility for their actions. They have 14 days. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: This is a National Party line Mr Nash. Come on over. 
STUART NASH 
: Believe me I say to Mr Calder the Labour Party believes in individual responsibility more than the National Party. We believe it is about time that people from the very top whether they are dairy farmers paying tax or whether they are people who have broken the law on a motorbike took responsibility for their actions and paid up. People have 14 days. Someone who has received a warning has 14 days to write a cheque—let us hope it does not bounce—pay the fine and there it goes. The stop order will not take place if the fine is paid. There will be no problems whatsoever which is only fair. 
But after 14 days if people have not paid up if they have not accepted responsibility for their actions then the imposition of a driver licence stop order can be made. It actually says in new section 91D(1): “… the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice may impose a driver licence stop order”. To tell the truth I would have liked to see the “may” be changed to “must” because “may” implies there is no legislative requirement there for the Ministry of Justice to impose a stop order; it just says it is within the ministry’s discretion. “Must” means that there is a legislative requirement and I think that would have sent a very strong message. There would be no excuse then. There may be a little wriggle room in new section 91D because when the 14 days is up there will be the question of whether the period should be taken out to 15 days—maybe that is the reason for “may”. But I think it is really about time that people started to take responsibility. I do not know how much money is outstanding. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Jonathan Coleman one of the other National MPs or even one of my colleagues will be able to tell me how much money is actually outstanding in motor vehicle fines. 
Jacqui Dean 
: $672 million. 
STUART NASH 
: That is outstanding? What is that for? 
Hon Member 
: Yes it is outstanding. 
STUART NASH 
: That is unbelievable—$672 million. That is why I would have liked to see a “must” here because there should be a legislative requirement. Thank you. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni Mr Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I hope that this part will as my colleague Stuart Nash mentioned in his contribution change the attitudes of drivers. 
Far too many drivers are racking up all these fines—I think I heard just a few minutes ago that $672 million is outstanding—and far too many simply do not care about the fines they are racking up. I mentioned in my earlier contribution the level to which young drivers get themselves into a spot of bother in terms of not being able to pay some of their fines. With $672 million outstanding for fines I hope this bill changes the attitude of those drivers who have a significant amount in unpaid fines racked up in their name and under their licence and who do not care at all whether that is paid off. 
I want to talk about an experience I had in my own electorate when I spent a night with the traffic police about a month ago. We pulled over a young driver on the main road. I will not do anything to identify him at all but when he was pulled over— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: That’s lucky for Rick! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: It was not a motorbike so it was not— 
Stuart Nash 
: He said “a young driver”. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: It was a young driver. He only just passed the breath alcohol test and after some investigation into the computer system it was found that he had a significant amount in unpaid fines under his name. His licence was suspended as well which was another issue and he would have been pinged for something else not necessarily under this bill. His attitude to the fines was that he could not afford them they were too much and he would keep driving until he was caught—as he was that night. 
That kind of driver is someone whom this part will address because of those attitudes. We need to make sure that if people have a significant amount in unpaid fines racked up under their name there is a process through which they will be I guess frightened into making sure that those fines are paid. 
As Stuart Nash said in his speech there is a robust process covering how these driver licence stop orders are imposed on drivers who have significant amounts of money outstanding with the courts. This bill sends a message to those drivers that unless they make an arrangement to pay off some of their fines they will be taken off the streets and if they do not take any action themselves to pay them the courts will take action against them. 
As Stuart Nash said there is a period after a warning is issued in which people have 14 days to sort themselves out. If they do not make an arrangement to pay the fine do not pay the fine at all or do not take any action at all these stop orders will be imposed on them. After that if they do not act they will be suspended and will stay suspended until they take some action. It is my understanding that the licence will be taken off them and unless they make some kind of arrangement to pay off the fine they will stay suspended. They will not get back the licence until they have made the payment. 
There is also the ability under this bill for cars to be impounded for 28 days. I think that is a positive move. These people who are flouting the law with absolutely no regard for the fact that they owe money should have some serious action taken against them. 
As I said it is an attitudinal change we are trying to address in those drivers who do not care that they might have a number of outstanding fines against them. Along with the fines goes behaviour. These people obviously do not care about the fact they owe a significant amount of money and for the most part they are probably some of the ones who are acting dangerously out on the roads because they have racked up a significant amount of trouble through the fines they owe. Along with streamlining the process in Part 1 this Part 2 takes action to change some of the attitudes of those drivers who have racked up these fines who do not care and who flout the authority of the courts to take action against them through fines. 
This is a positive move. As I say $672 million is a large amount of money outstanding. We support this move to try to get some of those fines back into the coffers. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to Part 2 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which as others have said is about amendments to the Land Transport Act 1988. In particular people have focused on the provisions on driver licence stop orders. As others have said we think this is a very sensible provision. It inserts a number of sections into the Land Transport Act to authorise the imposition of these driver licence stop orders. It will mean that people can have their driver’s licence suspended if they have not made arrangements to pay overdue traffic penalties. 
It is important to note that that measure was not seen as the penalty in itself. The driver licence stop order is not a penalty in itself as in some overseas regimes but an incentive for the proactive resolution of overdue traffic fines. I understand that similar schemes have been operating in Australia and have been working successfully. It is always good I have to say to find examples of similar jurisdictions where something has been tried out and we can weigh up whether it is beneficial. That is a very positive thing and it is good to see that we have been able to pick up this idea. 
The measure has the following features. A warning notice will be given to people so that they have 14 days to resolve traffic penalties before their licence is suspended. Hopefully that will give people a major jolt. Living as I do in Auckland I say that being without a car in the current environment of limited public transport options would make life very difficult. Most people are still I am afraid to say reliant on their car to get to their workplace and therefore to earn the income they need to live on. That is of course if they are lucky enough to have a job; sadly too many Aucklanders and too many New Zealanders do not because of the unemployment situation and the lack of Government action on jobs. 
I come back to Part 2 and its amendments to the Land Transport Act to allow for the suspending of driver licences including limited licences held by people in default. So on the point I was making about work this would also suspend licences that people in other situations might get to be able to travel from their home to their workplace and back. Those would also be suspended and people would be prevented from obtaining a licence during the time they were subject to the driver licence stop order. 
The good thing is that if the person pays the overdue fines their driver licence will be immediately restored to them unless during that period it expires and then obviously they will not have a licence at that stage. Importantly a person driving in breach of a driver licence stop order will have his or her vehicle impounded for 28 days. Again that is quite a stiff penalty and I think it will make people think seriously about whether they will infringe. 
One of the things I thought was quite interesting was that apparently members of the Law and Order Committee were interested in the advice of the New Zealand Police and the fact that its policy was to waive infringements for expired warrants of fitness or outdated registrations of 1 month or less when the fault was remedied in a timely manner. The committee felt that that policy of compliance incentive—encouraging a person to go and get their warrant of fitness or registration—was a very good practice. 
I agree with that. I think that the committee is absolutely right on that. Apparently the same is true for parking infringements although I do not quite understand how that works. Somebody who was on the committee might like to tell me. 
I understand though that a difference of opinion came about on this matter when the Labour members wanted to use the legislation to regularise the waiver policy we have just talked about. That seems like good common sense but unfortunately it seems that that idea was opposed by the National members. I believe they went on to signal though that they might advance such a provision in future legislation. We would certainly like to ensure that that happens because it seems a very sensible policy to give people that little shove or incentive if you like to become compliant. 
These changes to the Land Transport Act 1998 are actually quite significant ones. They are quite well structured and they also provide fairly major signals to people about the seriousness of paying their traffic fines. 
I noted earlier that my colleague the Hon Rick Barker who as others have noted played a very major part in this Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and who deserves congratulations for that has had traffic fines as have I. It would be interesting to hear about the experiences of others. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Along with my colleagues I will stand and take a call. As we in Labour have said we support this Courts and Criminal Matters Bill although we are disappointed that it is not as comprehensive as it would have been had all the recommendations that Labour put forward come into effect. 
I will also talk about driver licence stop orders because that is what Part 2 is about. Along with my colleagues who have talked about those orders I think that they are really important and a very good and effective way of addressing the new measures in terms of the non-payment of fines. What will happen is that liable persons will be sent a warning notice which will give them 14 days to resolve their traffic penalties before their licences are suspended. That is very sensible. 
I note from the select committee’s report that 69 percent of debtors are aged between 20 and 39 years of age. Members have not made any mention of the fact but I would probably put money on it that the vast majority—certainly a majority—of them would be men. Given that 69 percent are within that age group improving compliance for the payment of penalties is a very sensible and desirable thing to do; if nothing else it will set people on the right track so that they do not have penalties or debt just continuing to stack up because of some misdemeanours. Those infringements may be for parking speeding or any of those sorts of offences that have led to fines. 
Under the process if a warning notice is served by any means other than personally on a defendant the service will be deemed complete only after the driver’s licence card has been returned to the Ministry of Justice. If for example a driver licence stop order was served electronically and the defendant failed to return his or her licence card or to make arrangements to pay the fine—either by paying the fine itself or by making a fine payment—then that driver licence stop order could be reissued and personally served on a defendant by an authorised officer. So it is a very appropriate way of dealing with what is a very real problem. 
I know that Kris Faafoi talked about the amount of $672 million in unpaid fines. That is a substantial amount and goodness me what a lot of good could be done with that. We could certainly see the reinstatement of early childhood education funding and a number of other things. 
Melissa Lee 
: $1.4 billion in early childhood. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Maybe the Government’s contribution to KiwiSaver could be reinstated—goodness me we have a little bit of interest from Melissa Lee over there. Perhaps with that sort of money we might not see the slash-and-burn approach to housing in New Zealand. That is certainly an astronomical amount of money to be tied up in fines but to see it tied up in unpaid fines is really really terrible. 
I think it is very appropriate that we support this bill. I think that the driver licence stop order will be a very effective tool which in a worst-case scenario will lead to tougher sanctions in terms of cars being impounded etc. It is a good step towards getting people on the right path to taking their debts seriously so that that debt does not continue to grow and ruin their lives. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I have a couple of questions on Part 2 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. They are really practical process questions and I would not mind if the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration answered a couple of them. 
I will talk about new section 91C to be inserted by clause 43 “Warning notice to be served on defendant”. It may interest people in the gallery or wherever they are watching that initially this provision was called “Warning notice to be sent to defendant”. But the Law and Order Committee changed it to read “served on defendant”. The interesting part is what was crossed out. New section 91C(1) initially concluded: “by delivering it to the defendant or by sending it to the defendant by ordinary post or by electronic means.” but the select committee obviously decided that that was not a robust enough system to ensure compliance or to ensure that defendants could say with hand on heart that they had received this message. An opening was left for someone to slide on through and deflect his or her responsibility. As I was saying before this is all about accepting responsibility. 
There are a couple of practical issues here that I would not mind the Minister answering because they are quite significant. We have heard that there is $672 million in outstanding fines. That is an astronomical amount—$672 million in outstanding fines. But we have also heard—again this comes down to new section 91C—that now that warning notice has to be served on the defendant. I am assuming that a policeman or a bailiff has to go—well it states it in the bill—to the person’s place of residence and hand the person that notice. If the person is not at his or her place of residence then the notice has to be handed to a person over the age of 14 and if the person refuses to accept that notice it has to be proven that the official reasonably tried to deliver it. So there is no excuse for not having it delivered. New section 91C(3) actually states that “No driver licence stop order imposed on a person is invalid merely because a notice … was not received by that person or was received …” but that is beside the point. 
My question is how will that actually be done? If $672 million is outstanding we are talking about a lot of people. How will this process be resourced? Will the police dedicate a certain team of people? I assume it is all retrospective as well. If someone has a fine outstanding as of now once this bill is passed into law then that person will be liable for one of these driver licence stop orders. They do not know when they will get them. I wonder whether the Ministry of Justice has a process in place or has a suggested time line on how long it will take to police this. How long will it take to get the resources needed to deliver every single one of these notices to the perpetrators’ places of residence and sign off and say that they have been delivered? 
I also would not mind knowing what the payback is. Let me give an example. The Inland Revenue Department has estimated that for every $1 spent on debt collection it gets back about $62. The department chases hard. That is not a bad rate of return we must admit. When we questioned the Minister of Revenue in the last Finance and Expenditure Committee he said that $62 might be a bit high and that it might be closer to $35 or $40. But it does not matter. If we are spending $1 and getting back $35 or $40 that is an amazing rate of return. I wonder whether the Ministry of Justice has done a similar analysis for this process. For every $1 it spends issuing notices or chasing outstanding fines—$672 million of them—I wonder what sort of return it will get. 
The reason I ask is that it comes into the benefit-cost analysis. If the ministry puts 10 people on to serving this will 10 people over the space of a year be able to recover $50 million or maybe even $100 million? I am not too sure. This is simply a lot more than putting a letter in the mail to the person and saying: “OK in 14 days you’re stopped.” 
As my colleagues Rick Barker and Kris Faafoi have outlined there are many instances of young men and women—well I assume there are some older ones as well—who believe they are immune. They believe that they can drive and it does not matter. They will get pulled up they will get a ticket and they will keep driving. That is simply not good enough because as we said it is about taking responsibility. But I am assuming—and I could be wrong—that if a young man like Kris Faafoi in the example he gave is pulled over by a policeman— 
Lynne Pillay 
: You’re a young man like Kris Faafoi. 
STUART NASH 
: —OK let us not the stretch the truth here—and it is proven that he has $10000 worth of outstanding fines is the policeman allowed to issue a warning on the spot? That would make it easier. That would make the process a lot easier. As Kris Faafoi said the man was not drunk under the legal definition. Legally what happens is that the policeman or policewoman issues an infringement notice and the offender drives off. What do they do with that ticket? Well $672 million worth of outstanding fines shows that they rip up the ticket and throw it in the back seat. They forget about it until they are pulled up next time or perhaps until we find them and they can go to court. They get a fine in court but they go out keep driving and keep committing these offences. It is simply not good enough. 
Are the police allowed to issue a warning on the spot there and then? Obviously a name has to go on the ticket. After 14 days the policeman will register the ticket and then the Ministry of Justice can go around and take the person’s licence off them or impound their car which I think is a very sensible solution. This guy has $12000 worth of fines so take his car for goodness’ sake. He has to take responsibility for those fines. These people have broken the law. That is what our democracy operates under. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Agriculture to give us a bit of an idea how this process will be policed and the sorts of resources that will be put into it. This thing will have no teeth. We all support it—well I do not know whether the Greens do—but it will have no teeth if it is seen as just another piece of legislation on the law books to be filed away without the necessary resources to chase it up and follow it up. That is what is absolutely necessary. That is what will send the message. If a guy walks along to a drag race and all his mates ask where his car is and he says that the police came around and the new enforcement team they have in place came and took his car his mates will say: “Oh goodness me. That’s rough.” All his mates will have fines and if that is not enough impetus then it will happen to the second chap and the third chap until these young offenders start getting the message that they have to take responsibility for their fines for the $672 million worth of fines outstanding. 
There are some resourcing issues. This system will not have the teeth that we want it to have it will not have the consequences or the outcomes that we would like it to have unless the police have the ability to issue something on the spot or the Ministry of Justice diverts some resource into it. A benefit-cost analysis would be good; I assume the ministry has done it. It may well allow it to up the staff and up the resource. As I said for every $1 spent the Inland Revenue Department collects about $40 and I suspect it is just as high with this system. It may even be higher. It is not as if we are chasing fraud. We are chasing people who have committed an offence. It is there in black and white. We do not need to take them to court. They have been to court they have been issued a fine and there it is. But that is a slight concern I have—it is a concern I have. 
I think members have heard that every Labour member supports this bill. It is a really good measure—it is a good measure. We are talking about $672 million. As my colleague Lynne Pillay said we would not have to sell a power station if we got in $672 million. We could have early childhood education back or even night classes. But I think everyone agrees it requires extra resourcing; there is no doubt about that. There could be more jobs maybe through the Youth Guarantee scheme but I suspect they will have to have a little bit of training in this area. 
It is good law. There are a couple of questions that I would not mind the Minister answering. Thank you very much. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which deals with the introduction of driver licence stop orders. It is a part that I support. I think it is a useful initiative that will certainly help to collect overdue fines. 
I do want however to draw the Committee’s attention to a comment made in the Law and Order Committee’s report on this part. I quote from it: “The committee was interested in the advice of the New Zealand Police that it was their policy to waive infringements for expired warrants of fitness or for outdated registrations of one month or less where the fault was remedied in a timely manner.” 
I am particularly interested in that comment which is all to do with overdue fines because effectively it says that in New Zealand we have a 7-month warrant of fitness. In fact we do not. We have a 6-month warrant of fitness or a 12-month warrant of fitness depending on the age of the vehicle. I have always been under the impression so this was a surprise to me that the obligation was on the owner of a vehicle to have the warrant of fitness renewed before such time as it expired. 
This bill is saying that we can extend the life of the warrant of fitness by an additional month by simply running the risk that if we get caught then whip our car in to get a warrant of fitness the next day we will get away with not having renewed the warrant of fitness. 
Jonathan Young 
: No you don’t; it’s retrospective. They don’t start from that day. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Warrants of fitness do start from the day they are issued. Jonathan Young is a little mistaken. Registration is different but a warrant of fitness takes effect on the day on which it is issued. This policy that is in place by the police now effectively tells people to take the risk and wait until their warrant of fitness is a month overdue then go and get it. If people get caught in the interim period they will be able to whip their car in get the warrant of fitness and be deemed to have remedied it and the fine that they might have otherwise received will be waived. 
I think that sends the wrong message to people. I think responsible vehicle owners should make sure their vehicle has a current warrant of fitness. If we want to say as a Parliament that the vehicle warrant of fitness should be for 7 months then let us change the law and say that it should be for 7 months. It is not; it is for 6 months. This policy that is in place by the police and as mentioned by the select committee effectively gives a 7-month warrant of fitness. I think that is something the Committee may want to give some attention to. 
I move back to the driver licence stop order which allows somebody’s licence to be effectively taken away if the driver has outstanding fines. I think that is a useful thing. I was concerned when learning of this however about how it can apply to a limited licence—to somebody who relies on their licence for work. How will this impact on them? We could see a situation in which someone gets themselves into debt they have a licence for work and suddenly that licence is taken away and they cannot earn any money. Therefore how do they earn the money to pay the fines in order to get the licence back again? 
I was reassured by the comment from the select committee that the person involved did not necessarily have to pay all of the fines; they needed to enter into an arrangement for the payment of the fines. Had it been the other way around I would be very reluctant to support this bill because I think it is really important that we do not rob somebody who has got themselves into a bit of financial difficulty with outstanding fines of the means to earn the money to pay those fines back. 
A person might get themselves into that difficulty and that vicious cycle and they might have all these outstanding fines and suddenly find that their licence has been taken away but providing that they negotiate an arrangement over time to repay those fines and the debt that they owe they will be able to get their licence back. I think that is really important otherwise we run the risk of giving ourselves more difficulty in collecting the fines than we have intended to with this particular part. 
The other thing that is really important is that people are sent a warning notice giving them 14 days to resolve their traffic penalties before their licence is suspended. I think that is really important. Again we have this issue now whereby somebody is caught they have received these fines and they are given 14 days first up to sort themselves out. Even if they do not and they lose their licence after that period of time they still have the option of entering into a repayment arrangement at which point if they do that they can potentially get their licence back as I read it. 
If I am mistaken on that point it would be useful to have that clarified because I think it is quite critical and it is certainly part of my comfort with the bill and one of the reasons for supporting it. If that is not the case I would certainly like for that to be pointed out to me. 
Overall I can see the value in this provision. It is a good bill. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will make just a couple of points on Part 2 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I will follow up on the point made by Stuart Nash then come back to the point made by Chris Hipkins. Stuart Nash pointed out that the clamping of vehicles is a very effective means of getting fines paid. This legislation strengthens that means. I bring to the attention of the Committee Ministry of Justice analysis that was done on the amount of outstanding fines. It found that there was a significant group who owed significant amounts of outstanding fines who had very expensive cars and who had the means to pay their fines but they chose not to because there were no consequences. The moment there was a consequence the fines were paid. 
I have a couple of classic examples from the Ministry of Justice. One example was when a very expensive new Mercedes-Benz was clamped in Auckland with a substantial amount of fines outstanding against its owner. The moment the wheel clamp went on the chequebook came out and the fines were paid. Similarly the Ministry of Justice found itself temporarily in the possession of a very flash Italian car—a brand well known to many with a prancing horse on it. It was also clamped and I say to members that a chequebook moved faster than the car was capable of ever travelling. The fines were paid. This person had the money there is no doubt about it but they ignored the fines because they felt that they could do so with impunity. Well the wheel clamp is out and those with outstanding fines have got the message loud and clear. I think it will work a treat. 
I think the point that Chris Hipkins made is a problem that we have in the way in which we register and warrant our vehicles. It is also an issue that I do not think this legislation addresses as well as it could have. Fines should be used in some ways to change behaviour rather than to penalise. The difficulty we create by making our cars’ warrants of fitness contingent upon having a registration means that for a number of poor families it is very difficult to find the money for a lump-sum payment for the registration. If a car is unregistered it cannot get a warrant. This is a coupling of the two things. There was a strong discussion within the Law and Order Committee that we should give people the opportunity to clear their outstanding registration and warrant of fitness and on at least one occasion to not suffer the penalty of a fine. The select committee was not of a mind to do so on the basis that the police and the local authorities told the select committee they had a policy that if a registration or warrant was outstanding by a month and if it was a first offence they would give people the opportunity to rectify it and they would not incur the fine. 
Only one local authority had that advice clearly marked on its website. It was clearly understood that this was the policy of the councils but it was hidden. The select committee was assured by the territorial authorities that the policy was active and alive and that they would action it. I put on the record for this Parliament that the select committee will come back to look at this matter in the future. I think it is important that when people have overlooked as it is quite easy to do the registration of the motor vehicle and its warrant of fitness that for the first offence—for repeat offenders there is no excuse—some leniency should be given. We were given an assurance by all of the parties that that leniency would be given. If it comes to my attention and the attention of the select committee that this is not the case and that the policy is not being applied fairly and evenly then I think it would be time for Parliament to act. Parliament would be asked to change the law because I think it is a pretty tough thing. 
I had in my office on one occasion a young solo parent mother who had virtually no money. She had been in Napier with an unregistered and unwarranted car got tickets for both offences went back to Hastings and got a ticket for both offences again on the same day. It was a substantial amount of money and there was no attempt by any of the authorities to waive either ticket. I felt that to be deeply offensive—two tickets for the same offence on one day. The poor woman had to then go to the courts. She asked to be able to make an on-time payment and was told no. She was told by the local authorities no and by the police no. So she then had to let the debt go into the hands of the court and she incurred a $30 fine on each of them and had to enter in a time to pay. This is another problem that we have to resolve somehow in some way because for a number of people the substantial fine is simply too much to pay off at the time and we should give them the opportunity to pay. 
So there are two unresolved issues here. The first is the ability to waive the fine to change behaviour. I think that is a good principle. It is one that is supposed to be in policy and in practice; if we find it is not it will come back to be legislated for. The second issue is to give people the opportunity to pay as they go according to their means. I do not think that is unfair or unreasonable. With that I conclude my remarks and say that I support this legislation. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in her name to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to Part 3 debate on clauses 51 to 77 and schedule 2. The question is that Part 3 stand part. 
Part 3 Amendments to Summary Proceedings Act 1957 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 If I have this part correct—I am just flicking through it to make sure I am correct—this is the part that enables the disclosure of the amount of money that is owed to the Crown by people who have fines outstanding. This is another part of the legislation that will put pressure on fines defaulters to pay. When we examined what was happening with outstanding fines it became clear that there were a number of people who had significant assets who could pay their fines but refused to do so because there were no inherent problems with it. The amount of money that they owed to the Crown was effectively secret. There was no knowledge of it. This was quite different from the debts that they owed in the private sector. All the information about a person who had an outstanding student loan owed monies to the bank owed monies to a finance company or had however many other debts in the private sector would be available to any potential creditor but the amount of money the person had outstanding to the State was not. The unintended consequence of this was that people would pay off their private sector debts in preference to their debt to the Crown. Once a person had paid down their private sector debts it had a positive influence on their credit rating. A person’s credit rating could therefore be manipulated. 
I felt and others felt that there was an imbalance here in conjunction with the changes that we have made to disclose the number of outstanding fines to finance companies. Also part of it was the disclosure of the outstanding balances that people had in fines in general. When people were then looking at their debt if the amount of outstanding fines was disclosed as well as their other debts then this would change people’s attitude towards paying off their court fines. It seems in the current structure that there is no pressure to pay fines because it does not affect one’s credit rating. There is pressure to pay off one’s credit card bill because that affects one’s credit rating but there is no pressure to pay fines because it does not affect one’s credit worthiness. By disclosing this information we are now putting another pressure point on people who have outstanding fines. There are extra and improved rules for clamping vehicles the driver licence stop order demerit points for unpaid fines and the other rules are about the disclosure of credit. This again shows that Parliament is serious about people who do not pay their fines. I think the message must be very clear. 
The public has the impression that the system somehow does not care about debt to the State. All members of Parliament would have received letters or submissions from people saying “What about these outstanding fines? What are you doing about it?” how bad it is and so on. All of that is true but the problem has been one of our own creation. Parliament has created this situation because the amount of fines that people have outstanding is effectively hidden and undisclosed until it reaches the courts and comes out in public. We need to put pressure on people to make them pay. This is a third pressure point on people to make them pay. 
I think it also goes back to the point I made earlier about the person who wrote to me about his mother who was injured in a car accident because the system took no effective action against the driver who had outstanding fines. I think disclosure is a very good idea. A number of people have complained about it because they say there are privacy issues here. People say that their debts to the courts to the Crown should be private. Well I say no and I think this Parliament should also say no. If a person racks up a substantial amount of debt yet does nothing about it does not enter into an arrangement to pay with the Ministry of Justice takes no action and believes that they can leave their fines and do nothing about them and can do so with impunity then this legislation tells them to think again. 
When these debts are disclosed—and they can be $20000 $30000 or $40000—and people go to the bank to get a mortgage for a house they will suddenly find that they cannot get the money. If they try to get a loan from any other facility they will suddenly find they cannot get the money because of their debt to the Crown. I think this is a very good thing. In the past debt to the Crown was undisclosed and it had no impact on credit worthiness. I believe that if a person’s debt on a credit card can affect their credit worthiness then their debt to the Crown by way of fines should also have an equal impact on their credit worthiness. 
This is the issue that is at stake here. I see the Minister has an amendment to this bill to change some of the requirements in it and from looking at it I think we will support that. I report to the Committee that the Law and Order Committee had an extensive discussion with the Privacy Commissioner about these issues and the means of them and there were quite a number of concerns but the select committee was at pains to address all of the issues of the Privacy Commissioner. Issues were also raised by the Regulations Review Committee. It had quite a number of issues to raise with us and with the assistance of Ministry of Justice officials we managed to resolve all of those issues as well. 
Although there were some privacy issues in my opinion the amendments that have been made to the legislation have addressed those concerns and we now have in place a regime where if an individual thinks that their debts by way of traffic fines and speeding fines will go unnoticed the message from this Parliament is for them to think again. They should think again because it will affect their ability not only to carry a driver’s licence but also to get credit. I think this is a very good thing. I say to those people who rack up these extensive debts and do little about them that this Parliament cares about it. The State will use all the tools it can to get its money not because it wants to be owed this money; it is money from fines that people have incurred because of the way they drive. Parliament will make sure that they are held to account by every means possible. I think this is a very good message for this Parliament to send particularly to those people who in the main have the means to pay but simply choose not to. As I said in debate on the previous part when someone’s car was clamped the cheque was found immediately. They did not pay the fines because they did not feel any pressure. Well there will be pressure from now on. Thank you. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am really happy to stand and speak and I congratulate Rick Barker on a very good speech in terms of Part 3. Part 3 is a very very important part of the bill. I know that Carol Beaumont agrees with me and will probably take a call on this as well. In terms of credit reporting the bill proposes that the penalty balance of eligible people via credit reporters would be able to be disclosed using an automated information-matching system. We all know that with knowledge comes power and the ability to have this scheme for overdue penalties would be very very helpful. 
This scheme will not include overdue penalties subject to court orders relating to name or identity suppression from either the Youth Court or the Family Court. It will also not include people whose penalties are not overdue including those subject to a payment plan so that good behaviour will not be punished. If there is a process in place to pay back those penalties then the people concerned will not be part of the credit reporting scheme. The Ministry of Justice is authorised to use the information to collect those fines. This will lead to efficiency and the amount which I forget—the hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding fines—will go a long way towards getting back so much of the money involved in unpaid fines. 
The bill requires the Minister for Courts to consult with the Privacy Commissioner before recommending any regulations implementing the exchange of information between the Ministry of Justice and the credit reporting industry. I think that is a very sensible move. Although it is important to get to the bottom of the issue of making that information available it is also very important to comply with people’s rights and entitlement to privacy. 
As I have said in an earlier speech this part also authorises prison or home detention sentences to be substituted for repayments that are unaffordable and unenforceable. That move would be very regrettable and I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would see it as a positive move but in situations where the debt cannot be repaid it does come down to accountability as my colleague Stuart Nash said. People in these instances are quite clearly breaking the law and it is very important in our democracy that the law is upheld. Although the ability is there for that substitution to be made I along with everyone else I am sure hope that that will not be a frequent occurrence. 
There is also an amalgamation of all the existing provisions relating to seizures which have been reordered to better align with the more up-to-date seizure process. In what I think is a very progressive move arrangements can now be made to have longer times to pay fines or make payments by instalment. There is no point in insisting that a defendant pay a debt if there is utterly and completely no ability for that person to pay. This measure would give the ability for the court rather than to make the order itself to direct a registrar to determine whether it is appropriate to enter into an arrangement with the defendant to allow a greater time to pay that debt or fine upfront or by instalment. It could be paid by a mixture of both so that there could be an upfront payment and payments as affordable in instalments. That is a very sensible move in the long term or medium term and it will go a long way towards clearing debt. 
We have already identified that 69 percent of people affected are between 20 and 39 years of age and this change means that those people have some hope of making their repayments. It is a win-win situation not only because the debt can be cleared by the person and will not become a black mark against his or her character that is available to be viewed through credit reporting agencies but also because the money can be retrieved. If it takes a longer time to retrieve it so what? At least that money is being retrieved. 
There is a provision in the bill whereby the registrar will also have the power to take action if the fine is not paid or if time payment arrangements are cancelled. This provision sets out actions that a registrar may take if a fine or instalment is not paid or if an arrangement extending the time available to pay the fine or attachment order is cancelled. I ask the Minister in the chair Christopher Finlayson to take a call on that issue. It would be very interesting to hear about it because having not been on the Law and Order Committee and certainly not being the Minister in charge of the bill I would really like to know how that would work. I would like to know whether there is the ability for people in hardship to voluntarily go into that arrangement or to request that arrangement from the registrar. I am uncertain about that but I am sure that Chris Finlayson with his sharp legal expertise and ability to explain things will be able to enlighten the Committee on that issue. He is certainly not backward in coming forward to show off his intellectual abilities in terms of the law. I must say that I have at times heard some quite smart things come from him. He is a little bit remiss and backward in terms of the Sentencing Council; that was always something that saddened me as the former chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. But I can see that the Minister is getting ready to spring to his feet and answer the questions I have asked and I think the Committee will be very appreciative of that. 
There are a number of other aspects to this part but I really would rather focus on the most important aspects. As I said the credit reporting the prioritising of seizing a property and substituted sentences are all important. I did not touch on streamlining but the infringement system under the Summary Proceedings Act has been amended to improve the operation of the system court collection and enforcement processes by looking at the inconsistencies there in order to make the whole operation more effective and efficient thereby delivering a benefit again in receiving and collecting the moneys that are owed. 
Along with my colleagues I am very pleased that Labour is supporting this bill even though we know that it has not gone as far as recommended and despite all the work that was done under the Labour Government prior to this legislation. As I have said earlier I do not want to be too churlish but I feel that it is a pity the bill has taken so long to come to the House especially when I can see all the hard-working officials sitting in the Chamber. I know they will be very relieved because the bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for quite some time. Thank you very much. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to talk on Part 3 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. As others have mentioned amendments are made to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Part 3 is a fairly substantial part of this bill. Quite major things are covered including quite a large area that covers “Service under this part”. Another large area covers default balances to certain authorised persons which are the credit reporting provisions that a number of recent speakers have talked about. There is a huge area on seizure release and sale of property so there is quite a lot in this part of the bill. 
I will talk about two things first of all the bit that my colleague Lynne Pillay talked about which is the credit reporting element. This is about the release of overdue penalty balances of eligible people to the private sector credit industry. The Hon Rick Barker when he spoke earlier made particularly good points on the fact that debt to the Crown was perhaps harder to ascertain than debt to private sector organisations and that did not seem right. This part deals with that. It provides for a credit reporting scheme. Importantly it does not include those people whose penalties are not overdue including those who are subject to a payment plan. 
I think as Chris Hipkins said it is very important that people who are finally taking responsibility for paying back the fines they owe and who have come to some agreed arrangement should not be further penalised. We all know that at the moment it is tough for people to make ends meet and people can easily get into debt situations. The important thing is that they come to an agreed payment plan where they are paying back that money. It is important that that arrangement is specifically precluded from this credit reporting scheme. The Ministry of Justice is authorised under the bill to use information from credit reporting agencies such as updated addresses and so on to collect fines. 
I was interested in the bit about the Privacy Commissioner. The Hon Rick Barker mentioned this bit as well. The bill requires the Minister for Courts to consult the Privacy Commissioner before recommending any regulations that implement the exchange of information between the Ministry of Justice and the credit reporting industry. When I look at this bill I see that this was quite a significant matter that was dealt with by the Law and Order Committee and the Regulations Review Committee had quite a lot to say about this. 
It has been interesting as a new member of Parliament to see the role of the Regulations Review Committee. It seems to me that it is very important that— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Hard-working committee. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I have to agree with the member opposite. It is very important work and somebody needs to keep a very close eye on the powers that are given to make regulations. As I understand it the Regulations Review Committee expressed concern that the regulation-making powers in this part potentially had a high policy content which could infringe on the right to privacy. Select committee members also felt that it would allow regulations to be made that could override the general provisions of the Privacy Act. Consequently the Law and Order Committee clearly thought quite long and hard about this and this part requires the Minister to consult the Privacy Commissioner before recommending any new regulations to the Governor-General. That provision was further strengthened by amending clause 69 to require the Minister for Courts to be satisfied that any proposed regulations are consistent with section 92B of the Summary Proceedings Act. 
The committee went a step further and amended section 92A of the Summary Proceedings Act by amending the definition of “recognised user”. When I look at section 92I(1) in clause 69 I see that “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister for Courts make regulations for …” and then there is a lengthy list of things. So it seems to be quite important. Some of those things include quite serious matters including prescribing the period for which fine status responses may be retained or used by recognised users and subscribers and requiring the destruction of those responses on the expiry of specified periods. 
It is really important I think that individuals have the confidence that although they have some responsibilities—and this bill is about making sure people fulfil those responsibilities to pay fines for things they have done—they also have rights and there is some balance. I think that quite a lot of thought has been given to this matter by both the Regulations Review Committee and the Law and Order Committee in trying to get that balance right. It is quite a lengthy provision and I think good work was done by the select committee. 
The select committee did not go as far as the Regulations Review Committee would have liked. The commentary on the bill states: “We do not propose adopting the Regulations Review Committee’s suggestion that the bill be amended to require confirmation by Parliament of any regulations made under subparagraph (h) that overrode the general provisions of the Privacy Act relating to the use and disclosure of information.” I think committee members tried to take account of the concerns and they came up with some reasonably robust provisions but they certainly did not go as far as the Regulations Review Committee would have liked. 
The other thing I found interesting in this part is the bit about “Service under this Part”. It is not something I know a great deal about but I was quite interested to see how extensive the provisions were. It talks about the various ways that a document can be served. It can be personally by mail electronically or anything else. Interestingly enough it has a whole section section 79B of the Summary Proceedings Act “Mode of service under this Part modified in special cases” inserted by clause 58. I wondered what they were. 
They include situations where somebody is served who is “living or working on board any vessel (including any vessel belonging to the Royal New Zealand Navy) by an authorised process server delivering the document to the person on board who at the time of service is apparently in charge of the vessel:” So it even goes as far as talking about serving notices on ships and to members of the New Zealand armed forces although there will be fewer of them of course as we have seen major cuts in our Defence Force. But none the less those who remain may have something served on them by delivery of the document “at the barracks camp or station to the officer for the time being in command of the unit or detachment to which the recipient belongs:” It was interesting to see just how detailed this legislation is with regard to the service of these documents and the way it is done in special circumstances some of which I have just outlined. 
Finally an area in this part that is quite significant is called the super-priority seizing of property. The District Court can obtain higher priority over secured property of a creditor provider if the loan was advanced when the overdue penalties could have been released under the credit reporting proposal and when that property is subsequently seized by the court some or all of these discoverable penalties are still overdue. Lenders for example can check registers and so on but the court will retain a higher priority over secured property. I did not go into a lot of detail in looking at that bit but I am interested in hearing more about the super-priority that is provided in Part 3 which I have been speaking about. Thank you. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in her name to Part 3 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Power to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to clause 69 be agreed to: 
to omit proposed section 92I(1)(ea) and substitute the following paragraph: 
“(ea)requiring recognised users to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a query subject’s driver licence number (if any) or driver licence card number (if any) or both are obtained from the query subject by or on behalf of the recognised user each time a fine status query is submitted:”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to Part 3 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 69 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 92I(1)(c) and substitute the following paragraph: 
“(c)prescribing the procedure requirements or other matters in relation to the cancellation of access codes including the circumstances when access codes may be suspended immediately pending their proposed cancellation and the opportunity for submissions in that respect are required to be given to the recognised user concerned:”. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Amendments to other Acts 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 To be consistent I will take a call on Part 4 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which is the final part in the bill. As such it amends a further 13 statutes and that is quite a considerable number. Although most of the amendments are minor and ensure consistency amongst all the statutes they are also very important amendments. Although Part 4 is not controversial and one could almost say it is quite tedious—the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General is nodding—it is still vitally important. If these amendments are not made or are incorrect then this legislation will be inconsistent with the other statutes. I cannot imagine what it would be like to do that work. I do not think I would have the patience and I know that Maurice Williamson would not. But for those who do have the patience those with an eye for detail—probably like the Minister in the chair has—then that is really really valuable work. It is work that never really receives the full recognition that it should have. Many other amendments are really interesting and make substantial changes to improve legislation. In this case the bill affects the collection of fines. Part 4 is more about making sure things work properly: technical amendments to ensure consistency. 
What are the amendments to other Acts? There is an amendment to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The amendment repeals the old definition of “traffic offence” and substitutes a new definition which adds references to a number of transport Acts and any offence under them will constitute a traffic offence. So that is a very important amendment. There is an amendment to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to change the definition of “fine” for reasons of consistency. There is an amendment to the Family Courts Act 1980. There is an amendment to the Personal Property Securities Act 1999. New section 167A(2) provides that a registrar of the High Court or of a District Court may enter in the register a financing change statement in certain circumstances prescribed in the amendment. Again in order to make things work properly it is very important that the Act be amended. 
There is of course an amendment to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005; we are getting more into current times. That adds an Order in Council provision in the section relating to the deduction of money for legal aid and for reparation etc. The Privacy Act 1993 is amended and we note the requirement for the registrar to consult the Privacy Commissioner in certain instances. There are amendments to the Railways Act 2005. Who would have thought that that Act would need amendment? Again that is why it is really important to acknowledge the work that gets done in these instances because that matter has been picked up on. God forbid if the Railways Act was inconsistent with this legislation! There are amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002. Goodness me that is my old favourite. That Act is amended to authorise a court to direct that an offender can be detained for up to 2 hours to complete a declaration of his or her financial capacity. That is really important because as previous speakers including myself have said when we are looking at these outstanding fines and getting them sorted it is really important to establish whether the person has the financial capacity the ability to make the payments. The Social Security Act 1964 has also been amended as has the Tax Administration Act 1994 and the Transport Act 1962. 
All of those Acts have been amended and all in all there are 12 of them. But that is quite mysterious because it states in the bill that 13 statutes have been amended. I am counting them again but I can find only 12. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice will take a call and enlighten me. I will go through them. I have the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 the Family Courts Act 1980 the Immigration Act 1987 the Personal Property Securities Act 1999—that is fine—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 the Privacy Act 1993 the Railways Act 2005 the Sentencing Act 2002 the Social Security Act 1964 the Tax Administration Act 1994 and the Transport Act 1962. That is 12 statutes. It is just one of those things and it is annoying. 
What is that other Act? I suspect that some people in this Chamber know and I will ask them. Does the Minister know? If he knows—and I can see that little gleeful look on his face and that he is feeling kind of proud—he will be able to jump up to take a call and enlighten the Committee about that other Act. In the absence of that information I wonder whether perhaps we have been given misinformation. Although that would be very rare perhaps we have. If anyone in this Chamber can enlighten us it would be a lovely finish to this bill which does have majority support although not from the Greens. It would be very good to find out about that pesky missing statute. Imagine if I were to turn the page and it was just on the other side but it is not. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The Minister has nearly got it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice is scribbling frantically; I think he has found it. I would have a lot of respect for him if he could find it. 
Hon Member 
: His officials know. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The officials know. They might be able to give him the word. Poor old Simon Power has not had a good run lately. He is leaving and we will all miss him. I think it would boost his morale if he stood up and told us what that missing statute is. 
I do not want to be frivolous; I think I have said enough tonight. I am really happy that this is a bill—unlike many other bills in this House—that we in Labour are supporting. I look forward to its progress through the House. Thank you very much and I do hope the Minister in the chair can enlighten the Committee about the missing statute. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 While the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice is frantically looking for the missing Act that was mentioned by Lynne Pillay—we are very keen for him to enlighten all of us on what that missing Act is—I will speak to Part 4 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. It amends a whole number of pieces of legislation including the missing one which Lynne Pillay will beaver away on as well while I talk. One of the members will find it. There is a prize for the winner—the person who finds it. Ms Pillay has obviously gone through and listed the amendments to other Acts so I will not—[ 
Interruption 
] I would rather not do it again. I am sure the Committee really does not want me to do that. 
I repeat that the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is an omnibus bill and Labour supports it. Part 4 illustrates the extent of the reach of these changes and the number of different Acts that are affected by this bill. Primarily the principal Act in each case is amended by different definitions and interpretations. I will illustrate that for people so that they get a sense of it as I am sure members would like me to do. 
The amendment to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is a change to the definition of “fine”. The bill adds paragraph (e) to the definition which states: “any amount payable under section 138A(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.” Likewise there are amendments to some of the other Acts including the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The Act is amended by clause 79 “Interpretation” which repeals the definition of “traffic offence” and substitutes the following definition: “ ‘traffic offence’ means—(a) any offence against the Transport Act 1962 the Road User Charges Act 1977 the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986 the Land Transport Act 1998 or the Land Transport Management Act 2003 or against any regulation rule or bylaw made under any of those Acts: (b) any offence against any regulation rule or bylaw made under any other Act if the offence relates to the use of motor vehicles or parking places or transport stations”. 
The reason why this multitude of Acts has to be changed under Part 4 is to deal with all of the situations where people can incur fines. There are also some other changes like the changes being made to the Privacy Act for example which I spoke about at some length when I was speaking on Part 3. 
The Railways Act—that is interesting—is being amended in relation to the issuing of infringement notices. I will not go through all of the wording there because it is quite a long change but the bill puts in a whole new section 100. It talks about the content of infringement notices and reminder notices and about what is meant to be in those things. We also have amendments to the Tax Administration Act which is quite interesting. Those amendments relate to the disclosure of certain information in relation to fine defaulters. The definition of “fine defaulter” is amended. 
Again these are all very much consequential changes. They are if you like tidy-ups to ensure that these various Acts will be able to deal with the substantive changes in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which as we have said earlier—and we agree with members opposite—has a very good purpose. It is to address a general concern about the number of overdue fines the dissatisfaction of victims when offenders do not comply with reparation orders and the frustration of creditors and debtors who use the court’s civil debt enforcement process. 
I think in the course of the discussion tonight on the various parts including Part 4 we have seen some real efforts to try to balance protections and so on—such as people’s rights under the Privacy Act—with the responsibility to pay fines. Certainly most of us in this Chamber believe it is important that when fines are given for various offences people do pay those fines. A failure to do so not only builds up a huge amount of debt which leads to problems for individuals and their families but also undermines the legislation. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in her name to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 202 and 244 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
New schedule 2A 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to proposed new schedule 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in her name be agreed to. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
New schedule 2A as amended agreed to. 
New schedule 2B 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to insert new schedule 2B be agreed to. 
New schedule 2B agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the District Courts Amendment Bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 4) the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Immigration Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) the Railways Amendment Bill the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 3) the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 5) the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Tax Administration Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper243. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.