Williamson Maurice: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21711] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am really delighted to get a call on Part 4. I tried so earnestly in Part 2. I notice that a lot of clauses in the bill are very similar except instead of the issue being between the Customs Service and the Ministry of Justice when we get to Part 4 it is between the Department of Labour and the ministry under new section 141AE inserted by clause 15. 
Deborah Coddington has probably raised one of the most interesting issues here which is why the Minister for Courts would have put into the original bill section 141AE(4)(b) which refers to any aliases. Members should remember that this is the information that is to be made available to the authorities to identify a person who is a fines defaulter. Why would the Minister have put it in the legislation from the outset? Now we have some stupid Supplementary Order Paper amendment stating we need to take it out. 
If the Minister knows one thing and if members know one thing it is that for just about everybody we hear announced on the radio as having done some crooked deal the announcer will say “so-and-so also known as”. We will often hear three or four names. I think it is a cracker. I do not know how people keep track of the different names they are “also known as”. That is what a lot of the offending criminal world is about. [ 
Interruption 
] We know how people get aliases—like the David Benson-Pope “Tennis Ball” alias which just flies off the tongue or “David the Enforcer”. There is a very godfather-type thing about him. We know that those aliases float around with people all the time. 
Here is the question: why is this information going to be shared? The answer is so that we can identify the person. Therefore would it not be logical to share every piece of information that could be provided to allow the person to be identified? Why say that we will share the information but we will restrict it to people’s full Christian name and surname when a lot of the thugs and the crooks out there do not even remember their original Christian name and surname? Those names are often long forgotten and they go under all sorts of names like “Louie the Tough Guy”. This situation is just bizarre. I did not actually pick it up until the Hon Tony Ryall made it clear because the way it is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: “Maurice the Regulator”? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes “Maurice the Regulator” has a good tone to it. It never happened but one day it might. “Maurice the Regulator” is a great name. All I want to say to the Minister is that if we are talking about information sharing why is the bill so specific about these fields? That is the worst thing about legislation; we go down to the level of the actual data fields that can be passed over and we say that probably the most useful field for identifying some of the criminal fraternity is not allowed to be passed over. So the name “Frederick Horace Crichton” can be passed over even though Frederick does not know that that is his name because although it was given to him in the hospital when he was born it has never been used since. It is just bizarre. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is this the best filibuster the member can come up with? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Actually I can tell Mr Cunliffe—I think that is his name—that there have been better filibusters and there are more to come. 
But I want to get on to another point in the bill and that is to do with liability of the Crown. New section 141AF in clause 15 is headed: “No Crown liability to third parties for fines enforcement action”. This is where some obligation goes on the Government to act a little bit responsibly and in a timely manner. One of the things that has happened to airlines in recent years is that they rely on the very last handful of passengers loaded on to a plane for their profit. Anyone who has read the  
Dominion Post  
today will see that Air New Zealand says that even with full aeroplanes crossing the Tasman it is losing money. It is such a cut-throat competitive business. Airlines go through the lists of people who are booked and do some culling right up until the last day. They say: “Well that one’s a no-show and that one won’t be there so go back to the travel agent.” because an airline seat is the most perishable commodity in the world. The moment the airliner door is closed the seat has no value at all. 
What the Government is saying here is that it might through its agencies pull out of a flight right at the last moment a passenger who has paid $12000 $15000 or $16000 for a first-class airfare to London. That leaves an empty seat and the airline is unable to offer it to anybody on a wait list or a go-show. I want the Minister to explain what he will do about that liability.