Pillay Lynne: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19772] 
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.