Alexander Marc: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21693] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to address Part 1 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I would like to pick up on the point that the Hon Richard Prebble has come up with. It is quite a novel interpretation which I had not thought of before. The member makes a very good point. We may not want to keep those 117 people here at all. I was under the impression that we could nab them when they come back into the country but perhaps the Minister in the chair Rick Barker would like to take a call on that to say whether that is true. 
The interesting thing is that the number “117” has been bandied around. For the life of me I cannot remember during the select committee process where that figure was derived from. It was simply an estimate but what was the estimate based on? Was there any experiential basis overseas where this sort of legislation has had effect from which they came up with this number or—as is probably the case—has it simply been plucked out of thin air just to satisfy a desire to put a numerical value on something that is unquantifiable? It would also be interesting to see what the threshold movement would be if it went lower than it is currently. 
Clause 4 “Warrant to collect fine or other sum of money ordered to be paid” amends the principal Act to include a bailiff a deputy bailiff or a person acting as a bailiff. It is a pretty sensible measure to expand the number of people who can access and utilise this legislation. I am also quite happy to hear from the Minister that the Order in Council to lower the amount owed either in fines or in reparation is a possibility. It would be great if there were an intention to do that but I do not see that there is any huge desire to do so. 
The other point I would like to make regarding that is the basis on which the Government will alter the threshold. Will it even in fact raise it if it becomes too cumbersome? If those 117 people become such a burdensome chore for the Government will it raise the amount? Does it go both ways? It seems to me though that the whole point of having legislation like this is that it is for the victims and the law abiding. So in a sense thresholds ought not to be much of a consideration. It is the interests of victims that should dictate the threshold. 
I understand that one needs to test new technology. We need to test the efficacy of the kind of legislation we put into place in case there are huge expenses and delays that occur as a result but once we know that it is working and that there are not any delays we should lower the threshold in the interests of the assertion of law of victims’ rights and of justice. I would like the Minister to take a call on that in order to hear whether that is the case. Nothing that I have read states that the basis of the threshold level will be changed depending on the interests of victims rather than the usefulness to the Government in being able to obtain some extra funds when it sees the potential for doing so.