Alexander Marc: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21676] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to address the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I guess I am a little more positive about the bill in at least one sense: it is baby steps it points the nose in the right direction and it at least does something. Nevertheless it is a wasted opportunity as a lot of the previous speakers have said and it could have been a lot tougher. But to be perfectly honest when compared with what we had previously it is a hell of a way forward. I can see amendments coming down the track very soon when the anticipated results of this legislation fall far short of what the expectations might have been but at least the early building blocks are there to push us in the right direction. 
Interestingly enough I do not think the bill is really meant to make any major changes in the fines enforcement processes; rather it is intended to refine and update the existing system. That is a pity because the bill could have been much much more than it is. The fact is—and some people have already commented on this—that most fines defaulters when they have fines or reparation orders to pay are able to leave New Zealand permanently or are able to leave and re-enter the country without being brought to the attention of anyone. It is a blight on our criminal justice system that people can effectively escape the punishment that was imposed upon them in such a frivolous manner. Members have raised the idea of people hopping on board a plane and going over for a weekend to Bondi while owing thousands of dollars in reparation to victims they have ripped off hurt or victimised previously. That is an affront but unfortunately if we look at the prison system we see that things are not much better there either. Where is the accountability? If a person does manage eventually to get into prison that person will serve only one-third of the sentence before being up for parole and in a sense what we have seen is a mirroring of exactly that inadequacy when it comes to reparations and fines. 
There is a provision to enhance information sharing—to improve the existing information-matching and information-sharing arrangements between the Ministry of Justice the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development—and one wonders why that was not addressed earlier and in a wider sense. I admit that it probably would lie outside the scope of this legislation but there is no reason why other areas of crime ought not to be equally covered and given some legislative teeth. We have a range of criminals in this country who seemingly at will can walk away from their punishments. We witnessed just recently the case of a sex offender the paedophile in Blackball who went there without his parole conditions allowing him to do so. What happened to him? Nothing! He was told that he was not allowed to go there or to be there under the provisions of his parole conditions but nothing was done. He just simply walked away with no punishment. And we see again that same attitude demonstrated right throughout the criminal justice system—a lackadaisical attitude towards the enforcement of punishment. 
The problem is that we find that people learn from each other. They learn that if others get fines or punishments and they do not fulfil their obligations nothing happens—they get away with it. 
Brian Connell 
: It’s not very tough is it? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: It is not tough at all. In fact just as an aside I tell members that I did a bit of research on the tough law and order policies of this Government because the Government claimed that the Sentencing Act of 2002 would keep more people in jail. In fact the average length of prison terms has increased by only 6 months. How is that tougher? Ninety-two percent of the population said that they wanted there to be tougher sentencing and harsher conditions in prison. Those people wanted punishment to be brought back into the penal system but what has happened? This Government has turned round and slapped them in the face by saying that it will up the time offenders spend in prison by an average of 6 pathetic measly months. And can members guess what? The rate of violence in this country has escalated astronomically all out of kilter with the extra 6 months in prison that prisoners actually receive. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: They serve only 2 months of it. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: That is probably right. But I come back to the bill. 
One wonders why if the information-sharing provision is to expedite the tracking of defaulters it has not been expanded and enhanced for other areas of crime such as rent arrears benefit fraud and victim reparations. The Inland Revenue Department seems to be the one instrument of this Government that is tenacious. It will go after people whether they are in a hospital bed or even I dare say if they are 6 feet under. Even if people are cremated the Inland Revenue Department will be after them because that department has the long-fingered hand of the Minister of Finance. The red that Labour wears so proudly is the blood of taxpayers and the long fingers of Cullen are everywhere. They go into the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders and pick those pockets with no sense of shame whatsoever. Yet if a person commits a crime he or she gets a wet bus ticket. People who commit crimes get reparation orders and fines but they can walk away—nothing happens. That is sad. 
The Hon Tony Ryall pointed out that $600 million is owed in fines and reparation orders and that over half of that is overdue. That is an additional cost over and above that of the original offending and it is borne by the victims and the law-abiding alike. Who ends up having to pay for the agencies that have to go after those individuals? Well it is us the law-abiding and the victims while the offenders walk away and very little is done about that. The fines and reparation orders are unenforceable punishments. They represent justice that is denied because the point of them is that they are actually a punishment. But those people walk away to the tune of the $600 million that is still owed. If those people get away with that what does that say about the force of law? There is no point in passing legislation in this House that tries to grasp some idea of what the criminal justice system should be about and then not enforcing it. It is a paper tiger; it is toothless and a waste of time. 
The issue goes to the very nature of punishment and respect for the law—something that is increasingly lacking amongst those who are lawless. When Government members stand up and argue they have had a drop in crime of 4 percent of 2 percent of 1 percent or of whatever it may be I say that is not really good enough. Violent crime rates are going up. In fact I was given an email—and I do not know how true this is—stating that the only crime that had gone down by 100 percent was in the electorate of the Hon Paul Swain and it was in an interesting but dubious form of animal husbandry. That says just about everything regarding the law and order approach of this country. 
The effect of this bill as somebody else has pointed out is that 117 people will be stopped at airports. That is not a helluva lot. I dare say though that if there is a positive side it will be that a few more people knowing this law is in effect may actually front up and pay some of the money that is owing. It will not be many people but some will—in the same way that the threat of publishing names in newspapers brings people out of the woodwork and gets their hands into their pockets to pay some of the fines they owe. But those people tend to be the easy ones the ones who are basically lawful anyway. It is the other ones we really need to target and we are not doing very well in that area. 
We can see where the emphasis in this legislation lies however. This legislation is all about trying to be tough trying to go after some money and trying to enforce the law. But the point is that it does try—it is a step in the right direction. The legislation takes baby steps but it is something we have to support because at least it is in the right direction and sends the right signal. However much more needs to be done and the legislation needs to be much tougher than it presently is.