Worth Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Worth Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21682] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 One would have to have very much a sixth sense to see that the previous speaker was talking about the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. The bill is important legislation. National supports it. We do so with reservations because in many parts it is incredibly weak-kneed. Here was a great opportunity to advance legislation that could have dealt so much more effectively with the problem. 
The other point that I would make in my opening comment is that the bill’s legislative history is simply appalling. It was introduced on 14 May 2003 had a first reading 5 days later on 19 June then went off to the Law and Order Committee where it languished for months. Although Labour members of Parliament praise it in this House as being legislation that is urgent and necessary the legislative history hardly supports that proposition. 
The imposition of fines for breach of the criminal law is a core sanction and in the mass of legislation passing through this Parliament criminal offences are created and refined. A common sentence is the imposition of a monetary penalty. There is a clear direction to the sentencing judge in both the Sentencing Act 2002 and its predecessor the Criminal Justice Act to take into account the financial circumstances of the offender before imposing a fine. For example in section 40(1) of the Sentencing Act the following words occur: “In determining the amount of a fine the court must take into account … the financial capacity of the offender.” Later provisions in this legislation detail how the financial capacity of an offender is to be discerned. For example section 41(2) provides for offenders to make a declaration as to their financial capacity. That point is relevant because when fines are imposed the sentencing officer has to be satisfied that those offenders have the ability to make those payments. 
It is an absolute disgrace—and reflects no credit on this Government at all—that the debt mountain has truly soared. It stands now at a figure that may be in the order of $600 million. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: $650 million. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Apparently the correct figure is $650 million. But monetary penalties are not a sentencing possibility for just breaches of what we could call black-letter criminal law. Fines may be imposed for breach of a raft of statutes; the Resource Management Act and the Commerce Act are two good examples. 
National supported this bill being referred to the select committee. We did that on the basis that it was a praiseworthy aim to deal more effectively with fines collections. So it is hugely disappointing to see the legislation come back in the form that it has despite attempts by National members to tighten it up in a meaningful way. So I tell members opposite that when the National Party becomes the next Government in September 2005 it will be looking again at this legislation to tighten it up and lower the threshold. 
One of the things that the Government has done is to commence upon a campaign to publicly name people in the columns of the daily press because of frustration at the amounts owed. I think that strategy has been successful certainly in some areas. It has been done against the background of big amounts that have been outstanding. In Nelson and Marlborough the Department for Courts as it was then called—now the Ministry of Justice—was owed some $7 million in court fines. In the South Canterbury district there were defaulters with an amount outstanding of $1.2 million. One can instance the case of the Manukau City Council which says that faulty paperwork has allowed thousands of motorists to dodge paying their parking fines for years. In the case of that council there has been a loss in the order of $3.6 million. So we see some attempts feeble though they may be by dint of publishing the names of offenders to ensure recovery by a process akin to shaming. 
I was interested to read in the  
Dominion Post 
 of 5 May a comment from a ministry spokesperson on the whole issue of fines. It was in the context of what I think has not been a successful blitz. She said this: “Fines don’t go away. They are a justice sanction aimed at deterring unacceptable behaviour and are never remitted for reasons of age of the fine or expediency.” Yet we have seen some remarkable and in my view wholly wrong decisions of the courts to remit significant amounts of money. In April of 2005 an Upper Hutt resident Nathan Bentley had $73000 in traffic fines wiped. There have been other cases where there have been similar significant write-offs. I instance the case of a Hamilton judge Anne McAloon who let another offender Aaron Pace off paying a $31352 debt for traffic offences. Quite clearly the courts need direction from Parliament or from the Minister perhaps to deal much more effectively with the whole issue of fines. As we look around New Zealand we see significant errors of administration and a lack of will to deal with what is a mounting problem. 
So hope for this legislation has been unfortunately dashed. We see here proposals to amend nine Acts: the Crimes Act the Customs and Excise Act the District Courts Act the Immigration Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the Privacy Act the Sentencing Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Tax Administration Act. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Nine long debates. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Quite right because this bill is in multiple parts. So we will be here I am sure for many days in a 10-part debate on this legislation. 
Sentiments are fine but action is so much better. As Mr Connell said when he was speaking on this bill there are mechanisms available that could have been utilised to make huge gains. I am speaking of course of the Advance Passenger Processing system for outgoing flights. That system enables an early-warning signal to be given to airline staff to stop or delay a passenger from boarding a flight. The airline staff will not know the reason for the warning. The early warning allows the airline to prevent luggage from being loaded on to the plane until it is clear that the person is free to board. 
There is a comment by the Law and Order Committee in its report back on this bill that I think is worth underscoring and it indicates the lack of will of this committee to grapple with the problems that arise. It is under a heading “Targeting New Zealand fine defaulters in Australia”. The commentary states: “The bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia. We continue to have an ongoing interest in the ministry’s efforts to target New Zealand fine defaulters … especially in Australia.” In the context of our closer economic relationship with Australia this is an issue that should be given priority. It is not the difficult issue that the committee asserts it is. I think it is sad that where there was an opportunity to produce real gains as I have said that opportunity was simply not taken.