Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21716] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to pick up where my colleague Shane Ardern left off. I really need the assistance of the Minister in the chair Rick Barker to get through this. When reading clause 16 which relates to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 I cannot remember as a member of the select committee why this is being done. I know that the Minister in the chair is all-knowledgable. I would be grateful if he could get to his feet take a call and explain to the Committee why it is necessary. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It enables fines imposed by the High Court to be collected by officers of the District Court. Currently fines of the High Court can be collected only by officers of the High Court. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: So why the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act? Why does it go to that principal Act? [ 
Interruption 
] I understand. I thank the Minister for the clarification. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This is improving our efficiency in collecting the fines. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I hear the Minister’s answer and I thank him for it. I am not sure I agree with his conclusion but I am pleased that he attempted to clarify that point. 
What is of concern to me though is the number of young kids in this country who have significant fines against their names the efforts that they go to to clear their name and the sheer red tape and bureaucracy they run into in trying to do that. As a constituency MP—and I am sure the Minister in the chair will be able to identify with this—I am faced all the time with parents bringing their kids into my office and saying: “Look Johnny did this. He didn’t mean to. He understands it was an error. He’s trying to clear his fines now but he’s having difficulties. How do we go about it? Can you help?”. It is easy to give advice but I find it very difficult to counsel these kids as to how to go about getting out of trouble. It is becoming a very perplexing issue. More and more kids are getting into these sorts of situations. 
The other issue on my mind—and I see it from an employer’s perspective through having talked to owners of businesses and having experienced it myself—is the number of employees who have the amount of fines they owe collected from their wages and the trouble that employers go through to try to collect it. Something I see happening regularly happened just last week to a friend of mine who has a factory. The employee who was otherwise a good employee decided in the end that it was all too hard. He said: “I just can’t meet these obligations.” and he vanished. He is owed wages but my friend does not know how to contact him. He has no idea where his employee has gone. He has just gone into the ether. It is quite possible that the guy has left the country. It is not that this person is bad. He had a very good work ethic I am led to believe but unfortunately everything just got too much for him. If someone could have sat down with that young fellow counselled him and helped him through that bureaucratic nightmare he might have met his obligations and then been in a position to make a constructive contribution to New Zealand society in the broader sense. He is not a bad young man; that is the emphasis I would like to leave the Committee with. 
The other issue is the definition of “serious default”. It refers to a person who owes an amount of $1000 or more or any amount of reparation and for whom there is a warrant of arrest. One would think that meant there is an obligation on that person as soon as he or she is confronted by the authorities to pay that money and meet that obligation—working on the principle that if one owes money one pays it. But we have been told here today and it has been reinforced by a number of speakers that the only obligation the authorities have if a person meets those criteria is to activate the silent alert to notify that this is a person of interest. What sort of signal does that send? Why is someone who owes less than $1000 of less interest than someone who owes $5000? One either owes the money or does not owe the money. I know that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker will argue that it is all about expense-to-income ratios and whether collecting it is worth it but the point is that it sends the wrong signals.