Brown Peter: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brown Peter: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21698] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am not a member of the Law and Order Committee which analysed this bill and although I am familiar with the broad thrust of its provisions I am not over-familiar with the detail. I have been sitting listening to the speakers in this debate and I have heard some interesting comments. The commentary on the bill states that as at 21 May 2004 unpaid fines totalled $572.97 million of which $326.2 million was overdue. My colleagues tell me that the $572 million has gone up to $650 million so one can conclude that the $326 million has gone up to something like $400 million in overdue fines whilst this bill has been before the select committee. 
What is the Government doing? We are told that this bill will be administered in such a way as to pick up 117 defaulters per year at various airports. On top of that if I have understood members correctly—and I ask them to please tell me if I am wrong—the judiciary is writing off $40 million a year. I take the Hon Richard Prebble’s point about this $40 million a year. Would it not be more cost-effective to pay those people to leave the country—to pay their way? 
I have been trying to keep abreast of the documents used by the select committee and I have in front of me one from the Ministry of Justice about police resources for fines enforcement at airports which states: “The police also estimate an additional 150 intercepts per annum could be absorbed into existing functions.” I conclude that if the 117 goes up to 150 the police at their current staffing level will be at maximum capacity. Am I wrong? In other words if the 117 rises to 151 we will need more police. So the taxpayer will pay more to keep in the country 151 people who are not paying millions of dollars in fines. 
There must be a simpler way of addressing this issue. I hope the Minister is taking note. I do understand why there is nervousness about data matching and about telling Government organisations details about someone’s personal background but it would be very simple to make data matching part of the punishment so that if one does not pay a fine by a stipulated date all one’s personal details will be forwarded on to all Government agencies. In other words we could put it in the hands of the individual. If the individual does not want to have his personal information forwarded from the Customs Service to the Immigration Service to the Ministry of Justice to the Inland Revenue Department to Work and Income New Zealand and to wherever then he pays his fine. 
Brian Connell 
: Why would we protect somebody who doesn’t pay his fines? 
PETER BROWN 
: Exactly. That is the point I am making. The member is quick on the uptake. I admire him. There has to be a simpler way. We are as the member has just alluded to giving more protection to people who do not pay their fines than we give to the normal law-abiding New Zealand citizen who complies very largely with the totality of the laws of this land. 
This is a very weak provision. It might be a step forward but it is nowhere near as big a step as it should be. I think the Minister said—I listened to him earlier—that it was Labour’s intention—provided it continues in Government—to strengthen this provision in the not too distant future. I ask the Minister why he does not do it now. Why do we have to do things in more than one bite? Why does the Government not strengthen the whole thing the first time the matter comes up? Why are we pussyfooting around initially? [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Finance is making some comment. He will get an opportunity to take a call and explain. I tell him that if Joe Public knew there were overdue fines to the extent of $400 million he would be aghast.