Nash Stuart: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
Nash Stuart: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:676;Page:21775] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 There are a couple of points that I would like to make. First of all members heard Mr Jones say that if people had doubt about an assessment there are a number of routes to take and one of those routes is to go to see their local MP. I suggest to everyone out there who has an issue with their assessment that they book an appointment with Mr Jones and go to see him. He will no doubt organise a solution—or did I hear wrongly? Mr Jones also mentioned that people could get a Queen’s Counsel. But a fine for an individual is only $3000 and I think Queen’s Counsel charge about $1000 an hour so I do not know about that course of action. But it was not a bad legal point. 
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. They are pretty standard I suppose. I am looking at clauses 45 and 46. Clause 45 is with regard to the removal and retention of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are not on clause 45; we are on Part 3. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes OK well the same applies. The same applies because what we are talking about here is the— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Similar issues. 
STUART NASH 
: They are similar issues. It is about what is reasonable. I notice that if someone has reasonable cause to assume that an offence has been committed then they may take action. The reasonable person test is one of the very first tests one learns in Legal Systems 101. What does the reasonable person expect? And how is that reasonable test met? Often in law—the bush lawyers over on the other side will not tell us; there are no lawyers on that side. Simon Bridges would tell us. Mind you Simon Bridges may get it wrong because he was the first to admit that he had won only about half his cases. 
Talking of lawyers goodness me I very much enjoyed Simon Power’s valedictory speech. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: It was a very good speech. 
STUART NASH 
: It was a very good speech. He is a very hard-working Minister. I do not know whether I am the only one but I thought there were a couple of digs at a lot of his colleagues. He is a hard-working Minister— 
Hon Members 
: No you’re the only one. 
STUART NASH 
: OK there were maybe one or two digs. 
The reasonable person test is often one that is left to the courts to determine. It is left to the courts to determine. Therefore it opens up a gap. Whenever I see the words “reasonable person” or “reasonable grounds” I often wonder whether that leaves a little bit of a hole in the system for someone to challenge in court. Because these bills go from one part to the other and they all have to be interlinked I suppose what this comes down to when I look at penalties is that someone may well challenge the imposition of a penalty because they think that an inspector has not acted in a reasonable manner. I cannot think of grounds off the top of my head. 
I have a fire engine. It has a monitor on it and I pay my road-user charges. I pay my road-user charges before they expire. They are not very cheap. They are not very cheap with the price of diesel these days which under this Government is more expensive than petrol was a couple of years ago. I am astounded at how much the prices have increased but anyway that is a discussion for another day about the cost of living I suppose. 
I will talk about the imposition of penalties in Part 3. We come to clause 54 “RUC collector may cancel penalty”. I am wondering whether the road-user charges collector may cancel a penalty because they are challenged around that reasonable grounds test by someone who has been pulled up under this law. There are a number of reasons why a road-user charges collector may cancel a penalty. Mr Jones has talked about those; Mr Lees-Galloway has as well. Basically if the road-user charges collector thinks that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case he may cancel the whole lot or a part of it or refund it. When I read clause 54 I think it is actually not 100 percent clear under which circumstances they may do that. 
Hon Member 
: Not really; I think that needs to be explained. 
STUART NASH 
: The road-user charges collector might think “Is it a mate?” “Is it worth a dozen beers?” or “I know that guy. He works really hard. I think I’m going to cancel that penalty.” and might say “Just pay a little bit; that’ll be fine.” It is not as clear as a lot of laws can be. I am not saying it is bad law at all. I am not saying it is bad law at all and I am not saying we disagree with it; it is just slightly unclear—