Volume 626 Week 92 - Tuesday 14 June 2005(continued on Friday 17 June 2005) 
Volume 626 Week 92 - Tuesday 14 June 2005(continued on Friday 17 June 2005) 
[Volume:626;Page:21643] 
Tuesday 14 June 2005 
( 
continued on Friday 17 June 2005 
) 
Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Extension of existing designations and consequential amendments ( 
continued 
)  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was speaking about the question of the extension under this bill of the designations that were made shortly after the original Act was passed in 2002. The initial designations were basically from the United Nations on Taliban and al-Qaeda entities. Under this bill they would be rolled out for another couple of years. There are two criticisms of that and they were made quite strongly by the Human Rights Commission in its submission to the select committee. 
The commission wondered why the Government knowing that those designations were expiring—and there was a renewal process involving the courts—had not made the applications to the High Court to begin the process of renewing those designations. That could easily have been done. The Government should not at this point particularly with the review of the whole Terrorism Suppression Act in Parliament push out the designations. It is not a good process. 
A lot of the discussion today has been to say that the High Court could not do this it would be too much work the High Court could not do anything else. In fact the High Court could work out how to do it and what staff it would retain to do the checking. But there is a provision in the original Act that the evidence from the United Nations be deemed as sufficient if there is no other countervailing evidence. So it would be a matter of going through and checking whether any countervailing evidence is available. In several cases there would be. It is just as easy for a court to carry out that process with the proper advice as for politicians to do it with the proper advice. 
A number of other countries have addressed this issue. Sweden addressed it because certain of its citizens who are of Somali origin were put on the US list. Sweden asked the US for information on these citizens. All it got was a set of press clippings—a bit like the Security Intelligence Service and Ahmed Zaoui. When the Refugee Status Appeals Authority wanted information from the Security Intelligence Service on him all it got was a bunch of press clippings. Those Somalis had suffered because there were problems with their assets being seized by the European Union and all kinds of things based on this false information. 
One of the problems with the UN designation system is that it is based on information provided by Governments. There is no proper checking there is no notification of the personal entity designated there is no procedure for them to challenge that designation and in the case of those Swedish people of Somali origin there was no way forward for them other than through the Swedish Government because only States can take a case to the Counter-terrorism Committee. So unless the State backs them up and Sweden did in this case they are left out on a limb. 
I think we know the way the United States operates on these questions and I refer to all the people rotting at Guantanamo Bay without due process. The United States Government operates a very loose process when determining who is or who is not a terrorist or a terrorist entity. There are a lot of errors in the system. The first Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill which was originally part of another bill—we are dealing with the No 2 bill today—was designed to allow the Government to take off entities that had been designated and I think one or two have been taken off. 
We do not need to make up for the weakness of the Government in not putting forward to the High Court a designation process for the 318 or thereabouts designations that took place 3 years ago and will expire on this October. I think the whole question of due process lies at the bottom of all this and it has been commented on. Very good comments have been made by leading justices in the House of Lords and by Kofi Annan himself. They make the point all through that if we undermine civil liberties in the name of the fight against terrorism we actually only create more terrorists. 
I believe that there is agreement among everyone in this House to do the most to fight terrorism in all its forms. We should do it in a way that respects due process because otherwise we get into this horrible situation of creating more terrorists. Of course unfortunately because of the US invasion and all the mayhem that has followed Iraq today is a seedbed for more terrorists. When some of those people go back to other countries we will have an even greater danger. Doing things in a way that does not violate conventions be they conventions on human rights or conventions against invading other countries actually undermines the terrorists. Terrorists survive only by being able to draw a certain amount of support among people—support that enables them to carry out their horrific acts against people. 
Just to elaborate further on the Swedish case that I referred to I point out that the Swedish Government filed an unsuccessful request with the 1267 Committee of the United Nations to have these people removed from the UN list. It was only after prolonged efforts with the United States that the United States joined Sweden in requesting the delisting of two of the three individuals and they were taken off the list. There is one Somali still on that list because the United States would not cooperate. So we are in bit of a mess. The Human Rights Commission indicated that we have to listen to all the critiques. Kofi Annan’s high-level panel that he set up a year or two ago headed by Australian Gareth Evans came out with very strong criticisms of the UN designation process too. So we should not treat this designation process as sacrosanct. We cannot just postpone all the designations and everything will be sweet. We have to look at due process if we are to truly combat the terrorist threat. 
There are a whole lot of criticisms around the world of the way anti-terrorism legislation has been applied. In my second reading speech and in some of the discussion that followed there was talk about Guantanamo Bay. I think that that is a case study of the worst situation that operates. People have been rotting there for years without access to due process. Bit by bit they are being released and sent back to their home countries. Some of them have been tortured in one way or another while in Guanatanamo Bay or in other countries—at Bagram Airbase for example. 
The Human Rights Commission has recommended to the select committee that before sole reliance is placed on UN-sourced designations as designations that may be extended without substantive review ministries administering the Terrorism Suppression Act carry out an analysis of the UN procedure used to list and delist individuals and groups designated and note the strengths and shortcomings identified in those procedures particularly with the observance of political rights. The select committee it hopes will report that it is able to determine the importance of domestic High Court review of the designations. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call this morning on Part 2. I just wonder whether the Associate Minister of Justice can help me with my understanding of the legislation. As I understand Part 2 it is about providing an extension of time to a schedule of organisations that have been identified as terrorist organisations. If the Minister can confirm that for me I would be grateful. I then would like him to explain to me how organisations are recognised and placed on that schedule. That is the second question I would certainly be grateful for his help with. I see he is busily digging out the original Act which will be helpful. 
 But the third and most vital point is that Part 2 extends as I understand it the principal Act’s original expiry date for the list. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Quite right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister in the chair Rick Barker will then be well aware that in the original legislation the House determined that the list once developed would expire. I assume it takes considerable time to develop a list of terrorist organisations. I would hate to think that organisations doing good work around the world perhaps for humanitarian causes are inadvertently or incorrectly placed on this list. But the surprising thing to me—and I would certainly appreciate the Minister’s help on this—is that the list having been developed the original legislation has an expiry date so that at the end of 3 years suddenly that list effectively just evaporates. It seems to me a nonsense that an organisation like al-Qaeda could be placed on a schedule as a recognised terrorist organisation—and there can be no doubt— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They turn good. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I think it will be a long long time before Osama bin Laden turns good. Keith Locke may well believe that and he is welcome to explain why he thinks Osama bin Laden might turn good. But the important thing for the Minister to explain is why the Government ever developed the notion that the original list would suddenly reach an expiry date. I would certainly appreciate the Hon Rick Barker seeking a bit of advice rising to his feet and answering that. 
The final point I want clarification on is why we are extending the date in this amendment bill that is now being rushed through under urgency to cover up the original mistake made by the Labour Government for a further 2 years only. I know that member will not be in Government or in Parliament then but why will we on the expiry date in the amendment legislation we are passing today have to look at passing another bill? These organisations are placed on the list after due diligence and a lot of hard work and we will suddenly find that they reach an expiry date after which the list effectively evaporates. It just seems to me— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Ask your colleague next to you. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have certainly taken the opportunity of asking my colleague next to me the Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and there would be no doubt in my mind having listened to his contributions and the odd contribution from the likes of the Hon Steve Maharey last night that Lockwood Smith knows more about this legislation than anyone else in the Chamber. There would be no doubt about that. But I fail to see how the Minister can suggest that it is his responsibility to sit there not be prepared to answer questions throughout the Committee stage and expect that those questions should be satisfactorily answered by an Opposition member Lockwood Smith. If the Minister is acknowledging that he does not really understand— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: If the member had listened to Lockwood Smith’s speech he would have got the answers. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister says I should have listened to Lockwood Smith’s speech. I was not here in time to hear it but if the Minister is really suggesting that he and Lockwood Smith should change position maybe that is the most satisfactory solution. Well that will happen shortly. But if the Minister intends to answer in that way the questions that I have legitimately raised—the Minister has acknowledged that; he says they are good questions— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Very clear. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Even the Minister can understand them so they must be particularly well espoused by myself. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Clause 22 answers your question. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: There is no clause 22 in Part 2. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It’s in the principal Act. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He is now suggesting we go back to the principal Act. Well the Minister should really explain that himself. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I would appreciate the Minister in the chair Rick Barker giving the Committee a little guidance on where things are at currently with the designations. Although Part 2 of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) extends existing designations I would appreciate from the Minister a bit of an update as to where things are at. When the principal Act was passed as I recollect there were 318 designated terrorist organisations. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Still are. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My advice is that New Zealand now has 420. As I also understand it the United Nations now has 433. This is quite important because if there are 433 organisations considered by the United Nations to be terrorist organisations—I know Keith Locke may not consider them to be but if the United Nations thinks they are then that is quite important—at what stage will New Zealand’s list be updated? We are extending the existing list for 2 years but I would appreciate advice on whether our list has been updated yet to pick up the full 433 designated terrorist organisations that I understand are on the United Nations list. 
I realise that some organisations come off and others go on and that is a continuous process but I think it is quite important while we are looking at this issue of extension that we give a little bit of thought to how we make sure we are right up to date with which organisations are terrorist. I realise we have a little bit of an out in that because—and I am not sure that members realised this when we were debating Part 1—in fact funding terrorist organisations is illegal whether or not they are designated. I do not know whether a lot of members picked up that fact when we were debating clause 4— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That would account for why the Greens are so concerned about it. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Hon Richard Prebble says that in jest but there have been members of the Green Party who have done some pretty crazy and outrageous things around New Zealand. Their actions may or may not have threatened life or limb but they have certainly been terrorist in their intent in terms of the damage they have sought to do to other interests around New Zealand. 
But that is an important issue. I think the Committee should understand that terrorist organisations do not have to be designated for it to be illegal for people to finance them. Part 2 extends the list of designated organisations and I would appreciate the Minister’s advice on where we are at at the moment with our designation work. What are we extending in terms of our numbers? I think the Minister would agree with me that it is not the 318 organisations that were originally designated that we are now extending. I would think it is the 420 that are on the list but I would appreciate the Minister’s guidance. If the United Nations has a further 13 organisations on its list and we bring them on to our list will they be automatically taken through to the full extended time of the designations that we are extending now? I am happy to take my seat if the Minister could clarify those points for us. I would appreciate that. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with some sense of anxiety that I stand to take a call on this bill which I had not heard of until about 11.30 p.m. last night when I happened to tune into the radio and heard a contribution from the Green member Keith Locke. It sounded quite reasonable and quite considered and was certainly backed up with quite a bit of information but then I started listening to what he was actually saying. I was reminded of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center that took place in America and I asked myself what Keith Locke’s position at that time was. I was very careful to listen to some of the detail in some of the contributions that came afterwards and I was reminded very clearly that at that point in time he gave no unequivocal condemnation of that event. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to the member who is interjecting with whom I have travelled overseas to places where this kind of tyranny takes place that he cannot have it both ways. There may be some concerns about the way the United Nations establishes its list and there may be some concerns about how countries like the United States impose their view as it were but at the end of the day he has to decide which camp he is in. He cannot have it both ways. At the moment we are here in the Chamber debating legislation that will shore up the list of organisations around the world that New Zealand recognises as having been terrorist in the past or may potentially be terrorist. Maybe we will get one or two of them wrong. Maybe a mistake will be made. Maybe the Minister or the Government will make a mistake—it is quite likely with this Government. But at the end of the day we have to decide where we stand. 
If one thing is absolutely clear to me in this debate it is that the Green Party is not actually green at all. That member in particular is not green at all. The Greens are very very red. They are hard red. They are not green on the outside and red on the inside. On these issues they are as red as anti-American and as anti-development as can be. That is exactly the kind of stuff that caused the problems that led to the major conflicts we have seen around the world. 
Keith Locke 
: What about the American Green Party? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I say to the member who is interjecting—and I am sure he has hoards of information that he will give to the Committee during this debate about the rationale around why the current Government in New Zealand is committing some kind of heinous crime against some poor unheard-of organisation in some dark corner of the world—that we have to make a call on some of these things. Occasionally we will not get it right. I suspect that with the member’s proposition we would end up in a situation whereby we would get it wrong far more often than under what is currently proposed to do. 
I ask the Associate Minister of Justice when he takes a call to answer some of the questions from my colleague the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who has studied this legislation and knows the detail of it to spell out whether it were possible in the future going forward under—God forbid—a future Labour Government that he would end up doing a deal with those people. I think the public of New Zealand deserve an answer to that. As we move into the next election we are looking at who is on the political landscape. I say to anybody who might be listening that one thing that is absolutely clear in this Parliament is that the Green Party is not green. It is hard red. It is as far red as it can get. I suggest that those listening should take a lot of notice of what Mr Locke was saying and go and study the detail. I do not like the sound of it at all—not one iota. 
I also say to the Minister that if the 420 organisations that he has identified are registered on the list and if the United Nations is more or less in agreeance with it why is Part 2 revisiting the process by which that list is established? That is something I clearly have no understanding of at all. There could be a simple explanation for it. Why are we revisiting that at this point in time? 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 4; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “2 years” and substitute the words “1 year”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Obviously clauses 1 and 2 relate simply to the title of the bill and to the commencement date which would be immediately after the legislation receives the royal assent. That is important because of the designations we have just been discussing which expire in October this year. It is really important that this legislation comes into force prior to that because otherwise we will have no list of designated terrorist organisations in New Zealand and we certainly would not be consistent with our obligations to the United Nations under Resolution 1373 were that to be the case. 
I would like the Minister to give us more guidance on the issue of the designation of terrorist organisations that I was asking him about a moment ago. It is quite important because why do we have this provision in the legislation if we do not take it seriously and do not make sure that our designations are up to date and consistent with the thinking of like-minded countries around the world? That does not mean to say we all have to designate the same organisations because obviously as a sovereign nation we have our own view on those matters and that is absolutely right and proper. 
But I pointed out to the Minister and I think it was news to him that in fact 420 organisations are now on our list of designations the number having originally been 318. When the principal Act was passed we had 318 designations and that was the United Nations list. The United Nations updated that to 420 and New Zealand did likewise. I understand—and I certainly stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong on this—that we increased our number of designations by almost 100 to have 420 organisations on our list. Members may or may not realise that the Prime Minister has the power under the principal Act to add designations to the list. It is important that that power is taken seriously. It is important that we monitor the emergence of new organisations around the world and update our list. There is a matter that the Minister did not give us guidance on. I pointed out that I understood—the last I heard—the United Nations had 433 organisations on its list. So my first question to the Minister was whether we have updated our list to cover the full 433 organisations on the United Nations list. 
The next thing is that under the principal Act countries like New Zealand are at liberty to add further organisations to the list. We do not simply have to comply with the UN list of designated terrorist organisations. We can say that we in this part of the world are very concerned about such and such an organisation and if we have good cause it can be added to the list. There is a process that can be gone through: there can be an interim designation and then a final designation. In fact some countries around the world do that. My understanding is that the European Union has more organisations designated on its list than the United Nations has. The European Union is a group of countries with sophisticated institutions. Therefore if the European Union has designated organisations that we in New Zealand have not it invites questions about whether we have looked at the additional organisations that the European Union has designated and if so why we have not incorporated them into the list that we are now extending the duration of in Part 2 of the bill. Have we looked at the additional organisations listed by the European Union? Have we looked at the additional organisations listed by the United Nations? When do we plan to update our list? 
I also asked before whether if we were to update our list those designations would go beyond the 2 years of the extension provided for in this bill or whether they would go for the full 3 years stated in the principal Act. I guess this amendment will supersede the principal Act and I imagine that any new designations that are added would terminate after the 2 years’ extension that this bill is applying. 
There are some issues here that would be of interest to people in New Zealand who are genuinely concerned about our security. There is a question as to whether our list of designated organisations is up to date. I think we should be advised of the answer to that. There are issues about whether we should stick to the UN list or whether we should go beyond that. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to speak very briefly in place of my colleague Dail Jones who is unable to be here today to affirm New Zealand First’s support again for this bill in its present form and to note how important it is to this party to make such provisions as the bill makes overall. We have shown particular interest over several years in people who come and go from this country as the House knows and this matter of international and national security is important. 
I have been listening with some interest to the matters discussed in this debate. I have heard the word “red” being used in this House. That takes me back almost 40 years to Professor Robert Chapman in political studies—and the term was becoming outmoded then. I have found it rather strange to hear last night and this morning the term “red” which pertains to a previous world. It is particularly strange when the Prime Minister has just come back from China and when our primary produce sector is dependent on wool and other exports to Russia the former USSR to hear in this House a viewpoint almost frozen in time on what “red” means. 
Certainly this party is in 2005. We are looking at the dangers that exist and that were demonstrated so dramatically by the events of 2001. New Zealand First is looking forward to the passing of a bill that in its amended form ought to give us greater security protection at the border in years to come. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the last comments by the previous speaker are valid. There has been too much name-calling in this Committee in the discussion on this bill. It does not help when people say as members have said about the Greens and about me in particular that we support terrorists. None of us in this Committee support terrorists. Whenever any terrorist outrage has occurred the Green Party has been at the forefront of condemning it from September 11 onwards as every member knows. The question is how best to fight terrorism and how not to breach human rights in the process. The question is how a country is to move from a situation where there has been a civil war in which terrorist activities have been conducted on both sides such as in the Sri Lankan civil war—in which there has been a ceasefire since late 2001 which is very good—to a real peaceful long-term settlement. The United States designation of the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organisation has hindered that process. A donors’ meeting held in New York attended by representatives from countries all around the world to give donations for reconstruction during the ceasefire to both the Tamil Tiger side and the Sri Lankan Government side was held up because under the designation the United States would not let a Tamil Tiger representative attend. 
That is the practical consequence of that sort of provision and that is why it is wrong to move from the situation under the existing Act where one is prohibited from funding terrorist acts to a situation where one is prohibited from giving money that one knows will benefit a terrorist entity that carries out or has carried out terrorist acts. That applies quite directly to groups like the Tamil Tigers given the background of the United States designation and the way it is half-treated as correct in New Zealand by some Government agencies because of the way the amending clause in the bill is expressed. The report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the bill states: “However we are now satisfied that neither the intent nor the wording of the provision catches the funding of legitimate human rights humanitarian or democratic groups acting solely in this way.” The word “solely” was put in specifically to cover groups like the Tamil Tigers which in the past has conducted some terrorist activities or the African National Congress which did conduct terrorist activities or people like Xanana Gusmao whom we now hold in high respect but whose organisation did carry out terrorist activities that affected civilians. 
Rightly or wrongly when we are dealing with movements that reflect a nationality like the Tamil Tigers—and I am critical of the lack of democracy promoted by the Tamil Tigers—how can we move forward as Norway and many other countries are trying to move forward the situation in Sri Lanka if we try to stop and criminalise anyone who is part of that process? That includes aid organisations like Oxfam and Unicef which I saw in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka when I visited helping to build different social structures—maybe including the police force and the court system of the de facto Government. Overseas agencies that we widely respect were helping to move the process forward towards the establishment of a democratic Sri Lanka where everyone can live together. This bill is specifically geared to stop that sort of thing from happening. That is the reality. It will not just stop people from funnelling funds through front organisations for al-Qaeda. 
Of course when we are talking about al-Qaeda the issue is quite easy because nobody here gives the slightest bit of support to al-Qaeda. Everyone wants that organisation to be destroyed. Everyone wants the maximum police action taken against that organisation and against any real front organisation for it—we all agree on that. But if we go the other way and forgo human rights in prosecuting campaigns against terrorism we actually work in the terrorists’ favour. As Lord Hoffman said in the House of Lords: “The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”—laws that breach human rights—“That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.” Do we want to give the terrorists such a victory today by bringing in laws that will inhibit us in helping places like Sri Lanka or parts of Indonesia to move towards social justice and a peaceful resolution of conflict? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call to answer some of the questions raised. Firstly David Carter asked how organisations get on the list. They are designated to be put on the list by the Prime Minister as stated in clause 22 of the principal Act. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith was correct in identifying that 318 organisations were on the schedule at the beginning. That list has been updated and the number for New Zealand currently stands at 420. As he correctly identified extra organisations have been designated by the UN. Those are under active consideration by New Zealand. We do not simply accept them for what they are; we have to make our own assessment of them and that process is going on. 
Once on the list organisations stay there for 3 years. What happens after that? Lockwood Smith made mention of the review of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to look at all those issues and to come up with some suggestions about how we might improve the process. So it is the intention of the Government in the light of that review the committee’s experience and our experience to come back with legislation that will be more enduring than what we had. That legislation was an instant reaction to a situation that had occurred. The world had to take some action and we did so. 
We want now to make sure we are compliant with UN resolutions—which we are—and that we have legislation consistent with the New Zealand framework and with our attitudes and lifestyle whilst at the same time ensure we are compliant with UN resolutions. All those things are under consideration and I am sure that the New Zealand Parliament will pass legislation on this matter again and that it will be very sensible legislation. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the debate on the first clause of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) and to say that members have to realise—and I think most members do—that the world faces a difficult situation in deciding how to combat terrorism and what action should be taken. What the world has decided—and I use the word “world”—is that one measure is to designate terrorist organisations. The United Nations an organisation of which I am often very critical has designated a number of organisations as being terrorist. 
We then had the matter raised by the Green MP that it is most important in fighting terrorism that we do not give up our human rights. That is an argument towards which the ACT party in particular is extremely sympathetic. But then I look at the bill to see whether there is any substance to that argument and I find it extraordinary that Mr Locke cannot actually produce that substance. Instead he told us about what the United States has done in Guantanamo Bay and what Britain has done. 
We all know that British laws are much much tougher than this legislation. Britain has had problems with the IRA for the last 30 years. They have people letting off bombs in the Tower of London. There is a power in British law whereby people can actually be held without charge. [ 
Interruption 
] Now the member is interjecting on me. I just point out to him that he is wrong in using those examples to then tell the public that that is what this Parliament is doing in this bill. 
When we look at the bill we find that there is a provision in clause 4 that deals with people who knowingly—“wilfully”—give money to a terrorist organisation that they know is carrying out acts of terrorism. According to Mr Locke that is a violation of human rights. What human right? There is no human right of being able to give money to other people to kill people. In fact there are no human rights unless we have a system of order. So Mr Locke is completely wrong on the first point he raised. 
His next point was about the listing of terrorist organisations which raises an interesting discussion as to whether that is a matter for the administration or for the courts. I say to Mr Locke that he ought to listen. Every lawyer in Parliament has said that that is not a matter for the courts. That is not what courts are set up to do. They are not equipped to do it; they do not have the staff and the like; and it is actually a matter for the administration. Those are the facts. 
Then we heard the Minister say that New Zealand does not automatically take all the United Nations’ designations of terrorist organisations and that we still look at the data before adding them to the list. But there is an idea that we should go along with listening to the Human Rights Organisation New Zealand—paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer—defend 413 terrorist organisations as no doubt it would. We have already seen the debacle that occurred with regard to Mr Zaoui. The designations are not a matter for the courts. I therefore ask Mr Locke given that he cannot put up the arguments on this bill why he is putting up that point. 
Mr Locke asks why people are questioning his motives and the reason is that we have studied him. We have seen him for the last 40 years and the only consistent position that he has had for 40 years is that he is anti-American. 
Keith Locke 
: I support the American peace movement— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh he supports the American peace movement. America has 300 million people and I am sure he can find within America some people who have similar views to his own. That does not mean that he supports the United States and its institutions. He says he supports the American people but the American people actually voted for the present President. But no doubt Mr Locke would say according to his warped view of the world that that vote was rigged as well. If we look at his record in  
Hansard 
 we will see—even in this debate—that he has been unable to put together his argument without dropping into his anti-American rhetoric and that is why members say that he is not a Green but a red. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the debate on the title clause. I too have some serious concerns about some of the comments that have been made by the Green MP because in listening to some of those comments it seems to me that the member is saying that some terrorist activity is OK. The Greens are saying that if they believe in a group’s cause then it is OK if some terrorist activities have been undertaken and that that can be forgiven. So the Tamil Tigers can be forgiven if in the past— 
Keith Locke 
: When did I say that? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Just in his last speech the member said that if an organisation has taken part in some terrorist activity in the past but has gone on to good freedom fighter - style work then that is OK and that all that terrorist activity can be forgiven. I say to Mr Locke that this is my summary of his speech. This is my interpretation of his comments. I find some of those comments very very frightening. It seems to me that if the Greens believe in a cause then terrorist activity undertaken by that cause is OK. If the Greens believe that one has gone on to see the light— 
Keith Locke 
: I wish to make a personal explanation on the accusations that I have in this Parliament supported terrorist acts. It is important to explain—and it may be that the member has listened to but misinterpreted what I said—that the Green Party and I have condemned every terrorist act committed. We never justify killing and murdering civilians kidnapping hijacking or blowing up buildings like on September 11. We never do that whatsoever. The distinction that we have tried to make and that I have tried to make in Parliament today is that even though organisations like Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress or the Tamil Tigers have committed terrorist acts in the past—acts that we condemn and will continue to condemn—that does not necessarily mean we want to smash or ban the African National Congress or those who support it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just want to remind that member that it is a personal statement. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am none the wiser as a result of that contribution. It still seems to me that if a group has been involved in some terrorist activity in the past and that if that group goes on to rejuvenate itself and see the error of its ways then that terrorist activity is somehow overlooked and the organisation is then accepted by the Greens. 
We cannot get into a situation whereby we look at the legitimacy of each and every cause because we will all debate that and have different views—well the majority of the House will have the same view. But the Greens I am sure can go through those 420 groups on the list and start to debate whether the causes are valid or should be supported. 
 I do not think we have the luxury of doing that over a period of time so I find some of the comments that have been made by the Greens frightening and I think that New Zealanders who are listening should be concerned by some of their comments because potentially that party could form part of a new Government. When we hear that kind of thinking it should be very frightening to people. 
I am still not 100 percent comfortable with parts of this bill because I am unsure about whether it will achieve what it intends to achieve. It is very clear that if people send money to a group that they know is involved in terrorist activities that is wrong. If they send money to a group that even potentially might be involved in terrorist activity that is also wrong. However this bill says that groups have to be already carrying out or participating in terrorist activities and we know from history that some groups are set up specifically to do things in the future so then those groups will not be captured by this legislation because they are not already carrying out or participating in terrorist activity. They intend to do so in the future which is why they are raising money but technically under this bill we will capture only the groups that have already carried out one or more terrorist acts. So I am concerned that that part of the bill will not apply to groups that have been set up specifically to undertake terrorist activity in the future. 
A whole range of activities have been raised by this bill. Our side supports it and we think that it is important we do more to stamp out terrorism and to ensure that over a period of time we have a good working system that allows terrorist groups to be identified. 
I have one other concern on which the Minister might perhaps like to take a call to explain. I am unsure why the expiry of the designation is after 3 years and why it is automatic in this legislation as opposed to being part of a conscious managed process where names are taken off the list. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Ayes are? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Ayes are 60; the Noes are 49. 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question will be put. 
SIMON POWER 
: With a majority of 60—out of 120? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well it is a fair question. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not a fair question. It is not a point of order; the member knows that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to and clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill reflects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to respond effectively to those threats posed by terrorists. The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed largely in response to the events of September 11—events that confirmed in the most tragic way that terrorism represents a serious threat to international peace and security. Just days after that Act was passed an attack took place in Bali and there was a major terrorist attack in Madrid last year. The threat posed by terrorism has not diminished. It continues to evolve and adapt and New Zealand along with the rest of the international community must also evolve and adapt our strategies to respond to counter that threat. This amendment bill is a reflection of that ongoing process. 
The bill is necessary to update the original 2002 Act in two important respects: firstly to ensure that the designation of terrorist entities as such under the original Act does not expire as that would place New Zealand in violation of the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions; and secondly to bring our law into more complete compliance with Security Council and Financial Action Task Force requirements to criminalise those who would provide financial support to terrorist organisations. Although financing a terrorist act is already illegal not to pass this bill would mean that we would have no legal sanction against those who would support organisations related to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This new offence will not hamper the desire of New Zealanders to contribute funds to genuine human rights or humanitarian groups. The offence targets only those who knowingly collect and provide funds to benefit terrorists. 
The necessity for such terrorist financing offences is part of the global strategy to deny terrorists access to financial support and to ensure they do not secure access to banking services in order to move funds around the globe in support of their criminal activities. To ensure there are no weak links in the international system our efforts in this regard are led by counter-terrorist financing standards set by the OECD-based Financial Action Task Force. In addition to the creation of the offence contained in this bill other Government initiatives already announced include tightening the requirements relating to international and domestic wire transfer of funds and the cross-border transfer of cash by couriers. Both of these mechanisms have potential to be used by terrorists to move money around the globe. Although there is no evidence that New Zealand is a haven for such activity it is important that effective deterrent and preventive measures are taken. 
Further anti-terrorist and anti - money-laundering measures are also under consideration. New Zealand’s largely deregulated financial system has resulted in potential loopholes in the system that require closing in order to meet the strict international requirements. Although greater regulation does impose administrative costs not taking action to meet international standards would not only risk exposure to money-laundering and terrorism but also damage New Zealand’s financial and international reputation. These are a matter of balance. Also in that respect none of the amendments in this bill adversely affects the balance achieved in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 between the civil liberties of New Zealanders and the need to deter terrorism. 
Despite this there are other provisions of the current Act that would benefit from re-evaluation and possible amendment in the light of experience since its passage. The designation procedures are one clear area for further consideration. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is currently engaged in an extensive review of the Act and must report back to the House no later than 1 December 2005. The review of that Act was a requirement inserted by the committee when deliberating on the Act in 2002 after receiving extensive submissions on the measures contained in it. 
The nature of terrorism and the methods used by terrorists are ever-changing and a review is therefore both timely and welcome. I look forward to considering the committee’s report in due course. This bill is important to ensure that the Terrorism Suppression Act continues to remain effective in responding to the threat posed by terrorists. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I believe that in debating this bill the Committee of the whole House actually had a very good debate but I will come back to that in a moment. It is important that people understand exactly what this bill which we are reading for a third time will do. The bill will amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 which implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373—the resolution requiring all members of the United Nations to take measures to combat global terrorism and to take measures within their own jurisdictions to combat terrorism. 
I would like to thank the team of officials who worked with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this legislation. It was a small but very good team. I think there were some quite complex issues and some serious considerations about the balance between security and individual human rights that had to weighed up by the committee. The officials gave us very good quality advice. I do not often say that because I have heard a lot of official advice over the years but I thought the team members advising the committee were very good. 
I mentioned a moment ago that I thought the debate in the Committee of the whole House was very good and I will explain why I believe that. I think it is important with legislation such as this which involves New Zealand’s security that there is overwhelming support for it in this Parliament. The security of our country is one of the most important things this Parliament addresses when we are handling legislation and one would like to think that the kind of legislation we pass enjoys the support of most parties when we are dealing with the issue of security. 
It was interesting that when the debate started on Part 1 New Zealand First was opposed to it and was in fact proposing to move an amendment to delete clause 4. During the debate—which I thought was a very good debate—New Zealand First changed its view and withdrew that amendment and ended up supporting clause 4. I do not criticise New Zealand First in any way for changing its view. I think that the Committee of the whole House is actually working well when that sort of thing happens. There was good debate put forward and good arguments as to why clause 4 was needed and I think New Zealand First listened to those arguments. Dail Jones the member from New Zealand First who was handling the matter on that party’s behalf listened to the arguments modified the view of his party and ended up supporting Part 1. That was very good. 
I think what really persuaded New Zealand First was the very strong argument that there was a gap in our law through the principal Act. Although section 8(1) of the principal Act makes it illegal for a person in this country knowingly to finance a terrorist act that section does not make it illegal for a person to give money to an organisation that he or she knows is involved in terrorism even though the money given may not be directly given to fund a specific terrorist act. Without new section 8(2A) inserted by clause 4 it would still be legal to give money to a terrorist organisation as long as the organisation was not directly funding a terrorist act. I think New Zealand First members were persuaded by that argument despite their concerns about the full reach of new section 8(2A) and I think that that very good debate led to the outcome of New Zealand First joining the consensus of Parliament where all other parties except one supported that important amendment to ensure that our security legislation was as watertight as possible. 
The one party that remained outside that consensus was the Green Party. I want to address my comments over the next few moments to Mr Locke who led the Green Party arguments. I do not want to make my comments personal but I want to address the logic of what he put to this House. Mr Locke even took the trouble of seeking the leave of the House to make a personal explanation about his and his party’s opposition to terrorism. I accept what he put to Parliament—as we must—that he Keith Locke personally opposes terrorism; he does not support terrorism. I accept that and in making the personal explanation to the House he argued of course that everyone abhorred al-Qaeda and everything al-Qaeda did and stood for and that of course it should be illegal to support al-Qaeda. The member is nodding his head. 
But I say to Mr Locke that the problem is that our current legislation does not make it illegal to give money to al-Qaeda. Currently without that amendment people would have to know they were giving money to a specific terrorist act of al-Qaeda. That is why the amendment is required. It seems to have escaped the Green Party that the reason for making that amendment in Part 1—by which clause 4 inserts new section 8(2A)—is to make it illegal to finance an organisation involved in terrorist acts. 
Clearly if a person finances al-Qaeda once that new section 8(2A) goes through that will be a criminal activity here in New Zealand but without that amendment it is not clear that it would be a criminal activity. Existing section 8(1) requires that for it to be a criminal act to finance something a person has to give “funds intending that they be used or knowing that they are to be used … in order to carry out 1 or more acts of a kind that if they were carried out would be 1 or more terrorist acts.” The section links the financing very tightly to the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts and that is the problem with the existing law. 
I accept the arguments of people like the Hon Richard Prebble and my colleagues in National who have said that the behaviour of Mr Locke and the Green Party in this Parliament is anything but the behaviour of people who genuinely care about New Zealand’s wider environment including our security environment. In fact their behaviour is bizarre and many have branded it red because it is so extreme-left. 
 Be that as it may I call on Keith Locke to reconsider because it would be great if this Parliament could actually reach a consensus on this important anti-terrorism legislation that is important for our security and international obligations. I call on Mr Locke to think about the issue again because under existing law it is not clear that giving money to al-Qaeda is criminal. It should be because as Mr Locke himself has pointed out al-Qaeda is an objectionable organisation. 
In my last moments let me cover just one thing in respect of the Act as it will be amended after we complete this third reading—that is there are some real inconsistencies in it. Both existing section 8(1) which relates to the financing of terrorist acts and section 10(1) which is about the prohibition on making property and services available to terrorist or associated entities have for the avoidance of doubt what I call loosely out clauses. But new section 8(2A) concerning the financing of terrorist organisations will not have that same out clause. 
Clearly in our law it is not good—to put it mildly—to have a part of the Act where there is an out clause for financing terrorist acts and for making property and services available to terrorist organisations but no out clause for just funding a terrorist organisation. All offences are equally unacceptable and should be equally criminal and I hope that the select committee as it completes its review of the principal Act the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 will actually remove those avoidance of doubt clauses because I suspect that it would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve a successful prosecution while such sections remained in the principal Act. 
National totally supports this amendment bill. We believe there has been a good quality debate and I think it would be great if the House could reach full consensus on the legislation. If Mr Locke could finally accept that the funding of al-Qaeda should be criminal in this country that would be great too. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I stand proudly not only as a member of this Labour-led Government but also as deputy chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to support the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). 
While I am on my feet I would like to express my appreciation to the Hon Phil Goff the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and also more important to his chief legal adviser and to officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Justice and to the 13 submitters who took the time to participate with their submissions. I also want to thank the Hon Peter Dunne the chairperson of our Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and all my parliamentary colleagues including Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and the Green member Keith Locke. Our select committee worked hard to address the complexity of these issues. I also thank others who have participated in the final stages of this debate and who support this very important legislation. 
I also feel very positive that the statutory review of the Terrorism Suppression Act conducted by our select committee will provide a suitable forum for all stakeholders to engage in addressing some of the complexities and issues like those that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has raised. That report is due back at the end of the year. 
This bill needs to be seen in context not in isolation. It is an element of a range of policies and programmes that this Labour Government has strengthened and supported by including increased funding in this year’s Budget for overseas development aid fairer and freer trade and defence and security—and we now have this legislation. All these initiatives work to address root causes of terrorism and to stop terrorism. 
The human rights theme was also evident throughout the deliberations of the select committee. I want to quote the link between human rights and the bill because it is an important one. The world’s human rights institutions’ joint statement declared in Seoul in 2004 stated: “Terrorism has a devastating impact on the full range of human rights most directly the right to life and personal security.” Our own Chief Human Rights Commissioner affirms that the role of the State is to protect its citizens and all of those within its borders from such violence. This is why we need the legal framework in place to further support terrorism suppression and why the passing of this terrorism amendment bill is another way to stamp out terrorism so as to protect our citizens and the citizens of the world. 
In summary at the time the original bill was first introduced there was uncertainty as to the nature and extent of the terrorism phenomenon. An assumption that some designations might be short-lived has since proved to be false and New Zealand now has over 420 designated terrorist organisations all on the United Nations security list and is considering adding more groups to that list. The bill also proposes extending two sections of the Act that prohibit the financing of terrorism acts and of designated terrorist entities so that they also cover the intentional financing of non-designated terrorist organisations. Given the fluidity of terrorist movements and the unpredictable emergence of new terrorist groups this change is the most practical way of ensuring that New Zealand will always remain compliant with international obligations prohibiting the funding of terrorist organisations. 
New Zealand although small has a critical role to play as a leader in the Pacific region and as a participant in the Asian region and must always be vigilant act consistent with its principles and remain pragmatic and compliant with international obligations prohibiting the funding of terrorist organisations and of all of those who fund and support their actions. The Terrorism Suppression Act has strengthened New Zealand’s ability to combat terrorism. Terrorism has become the greatest threat to the world’s peace prosperity and security. Our collaborative and concerted local national regional and international effort is needed on all fronts including addressing the root causes of terrorism. United we stand; divided we fall. The effective targeting of terrorist financing is a measure that can have potentially significant impact on the ability of terrorists to operate. In plain language we can identify or imagine what life must be like for them without money or an economic base. In passing this bill New Zealand continues to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to stop terrorism in all its forms in our global world. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First to again add our support for the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which amends some sections of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. I also rise because my colleague Dail Jones is unable to be here today. Therefore I begin by going back to the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and to the matters that were raised in the Chamber last night concerning the change indicated in my colleague’s proposed amendment because those matters are still valid and important. 
In submissions made on the bill one of the major issues for those submitters and the committee must have been that in the catch-all legislation that this bill is about to embody the funding of legitimate humanitarian or human rights activities should not be impaired. Last night Mr Jones took some time to very ably indicate his and our caucus’s view on those matters. We were reassured by the Minister who said in his second reading speech which he later reaffirmed for the Committee that the intent and the wording was not to catch such funding and that humanitarian or democratic rights groups acting solely in humanitarian ways were not intended to be subject to that clause. So last night New Zealand First withdrew its suggested amendment. 
When the leader of United Future and chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the Hon Peter Dunne spoke on these matters in regard to the actual matter that Dail Jones was concerned about namely clause 4 which inserts proposed section 8(2A) I was somewhat confused by Mr Dunne carefully going through the suggested new section and saying that test by test the threshold was so high. I also had in mind that earlier the Hon Richard Prebble had talked about this show clause. When one really looks at the actual law in practice I think that Peter Dunne had it right. This threshold may be so high and may seem to be so inclusive but in fact the series of tests that must be met will result in no activity at all in actual practice in regard to this clause. 
Contrary to what Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has said section 8(2A) in clause 4 and section 8(1) of the principal Act are in reality not so far apart. Notwithstanding the language the officials have carefully put together by trying to be all things and setting so many tests in legal practice this may not work as the committee intended. I am not signalling that my colleague was wrong in regard to this clause. I am saying to members that this particular section may yet prove to need further amendment if it is to achieve the intention of the committee. That may yet prove to be the case. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we broadly support the intentions of this bill because we all know that since September 11 of 2001 there has been a change not just to the Americans but also to our world. We received an understanding that into our sphere of influence—and we all realise how close the issues of Indonesia have been in recent times—came a sophisticated selectively targeted type of terrorism that some countries unfortunately had known for many years which knew no favourites and had no agendas other than exactly as we saw in regard to the events of that day. The territorial boundaries were no longer there in regard to that world and our world. 
New Zealand First has been very very concerned over several years about the border and entry of people to this country and has seen particularly in recent months that the Government has been unable to say with any great assurance that its immigration policy is able to identify each and every immigrant in the defined way that it ought; New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters have exposed the inability of the Government to say that person A is that person has that history and has that record. In the sort of environment that we have today this bill is very much needed. 
Therefore we support the bill. We support the need to look further at those designations and contrary to what the member from the Greens has said the matters that are before us are matters of law. What may happen to another country is of no concern to me or to New Zealand First. We take the United Nations designations in regard to who should be a group. But the real matter of this bill is what pertains to New Zealand’s legal system and to our law. All the examples that I have heard from the Green Party are of no significance against the fact of what we think is desirable practice. 
In saying that though as a law and order party we at all times would wish that this be strictly in accordance with sound legal practice. Political judgments must in the end be judgments that can be justified in law. This bill does just that. We support its passing and we look forward to the fact that it is but one step we hope to greater security at the border and for New Zealanders. We also look forward to the final report later in the year that should give a completeness and a comprehensiveness that this short amendment bill does not give. 
Finally on behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are pleased to support this bill further earnestly hoping that the intended objectives will be achieved although I must say personally and on behalf of Dail Jones a wee bit of residual doubt remains. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party would like to say at the outset that of course all the parties in the House are united to fight terrorism in the most effective way and we should have appropriate laws for that. We are utterly against all forms of terrorism be it non-State terrorism or State terrorism. Those listening to this debate might think “Oh the Greens are on their own; they are some sort of minority off to one side.” But if one had been at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and heard the submissions one would have found that overwhelmingly the organisations that submitted—and they were respected organisations: various civil liberties groups such as the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties the Canterbury Council of Civil Liberties the Human Rights Foundation the Peace Foundation the Association of University Staff etc.—raised the same criticisms that the Green Party has been raising in this debate. 
What we want to do is to fight terrorism most effectively. I did indicate before that if we do not fight terrorism in the most effective way and protect human rights at the same time we are in deep trouble. I will just quote Lord Hoffman because I think it is relevant and I have quoted him before. He said in the House of Lords: “The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these [which breach human rights]. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.” 
Another quote is from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour who made the key point: “A commitment to uphold respect for human rights and rule of law will be one of the keys to success in countering terrorism not an impediment blocking our way.” Unfortunately members in this House have seen the Greens’ objection to new legislation that undermines human rights as somehow an impediment to fighting terrorists. In fact it is just the opposite if members look at that. 
Kofi Annan the UN Secretary-General has a similar concern. He puts it round the other way and I will quote from him. “Every time we advance the protection of human rights we deal a blow to the evil designs of terrorists and we remove a sense of injustice which can cause the oppressed to channel their frustration into illegitimate violence. If we compromise on human rights in seeking to fight terrorism we hand terrorists a victory that they cannot achieve on their own. If we build on these fundamentals I believe we can develop a new vision of global security—a vision that respects human rights while confronting the threats of our age including the threat of terrorism.” I think that is very important. 
Mr Prebble mentioned the IRA I think in his speech. When one looks at how Governments around the world confronted such problems before September 11 one finds that the IRA was part of a combined movement with Sinn Fein its political wing. But the British Government never brought in a law such as this to throw people in jail if they gave money to Sinn Fein. The reason it did not do that is it knew that the reality was that Sinn Fein despite the fact it was associated through its support of the IRA with despicable terrorism that everyone opposes totally—putting bombs in pubs and all of that which people like myself were historically the strongest in criticising—also had the support of the bulk of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Its people were being elected to Parliament etc. 
So the best way to end that terrorism—and the British Government had this approach—was ultimately to get into a dialogue with Sinn Fein and convince it that progress could be made in some of its legitimate objectives rather than in its illegitimate objectives through the use of violence to better the lot of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland or to give it a chance to advance its republican agenda which there was support for and was a political goal not a military goal and to allow it to have room in the political structures of the country to do that. That was successful. It has not been totally successful. Sure there are still remnants of the IRA around but proceeding in that way basically has brought relative peace to Northern Ireland rather than trying as in the past to criminalise people who gave money to Sinn Fein. 
The same thing applies in Sri Lanka today where there has been an effective ceasefire since November 2001. A whole lot of effort is going on involving nations around the world—and the New Zealand Government has played its role in that to its credit—to try to rebuild Sri Lanka to promote human rights and to get both sides in the earlier vicious civil war where terrorist acts were committed by both sides through dialogue through rebuilding through aid through what is called if one listens to Norwegian peace negotiators confidence-building measures to bring peace to that country. That process has been undermined by the designation of the Tamil Tigers still this year by the United States as a terrorist organisation. It just does not help. If those designations are combined with the practice of trying to smash that organisation it does not help the whole rebuilding process. 
Actually one of the submitters to the select committee David Small from Arena made a good point and he related it to development and I quote him: “It is now widely accepted by governmental agencies like New Zealand Aid that long-term development assistance is most effective when local organisations are intimately involved in every aspect of the work from its conception to its evaluation and in situations of conflict such as exist in Aceh and Sri Lanka groups that are representative of local communities are necessarily involved in the rebuilding work. However such groups may also fit within the criterion of having participated in the carrying out of a terrorist act. This bill would criminalise any group or individual who provided assistance to such a group. I’m of course not suggesting that the tsunami donor records of the development agencies would be seized and prosecutions brought. However in considering amending the law in the way the bill proposes one must seriously take into account what is made possible and not just what is likely in the current conditions.”—by which I suppose he means with a Labour Government in power today and the general atmosphere towards tsunami relief we are not expecting any prosecutions but when we write laws we are writing them for a more difficult situation. In the future we might have a Government that is pretty antagonistic to the aid community and is running some rather strange foreign policy agendas. 
One of the problems and this came out in the debate is that the report from the select committee stated that people cannot give to any organisation if it had in the past committed or had an aspect of committing terrorist activities even if—and I refer to groups like the Tamil Tigers—it is involved at the moment in constructive activity that the international community is supporting. The select committee report states that the provision does not catch those who are involved in the funding of legitimate human rights humanitarian or democratic rights groups and that these groups have to be acting “solely” in this way. The word “solely” was put in specifically to relate to the Tamil Tigers and groups like that or Sinn Fein; if there is any aspect at all of terrorism in groups’ activities then New Zealanders can be put in jail for funding them. That is where the amendment crosses the line and does not become useful in advancing peace and reconstruction. That is the problem. 
Unfortunately the Green amendments to this bill were not passed. We tried to get the existing exception—the qualifying provision that exists in the present law in terms of funding groups that are promoting democratic rights and democracy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in the third reading debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is just as well to remind the House what the bill is actually about because it was not clear from Mr Locke’s contribution. The third reading is an amendment to the earlier Terrorism Suppression Act that was passed just after September 11. Fundamentally this bill does two things. The earlier legislation made it illegal to give money in this country to support terrorism. It was then realised that there was actually a loophole in the earlier bill—that people could claim they were not giving money to support terrorism that they were just giving it to the entity. So this bill says that that it is illegal in New Zealand—or it will be shortly when this bill is passed—to give money to a terrorist organisation. 
Mr Locke then said that means that people who gave money after the tidal wave would be caught up. Again if members look at that clause it is written so that people have to give the money wilfully they have to know that the money will go to an organisation that engages in terrorism and they have to have no reasonable excuse. I think that Mr Locke is now alone in the House in believing that that could mean that a person who gave money to a street collection could be caught up. Mr Jones on behalf of the New Zealand First Party did raise some questions about that at the Committee stage. We listened to the assurance given by the Minister which is written into the  
Hansard 
 record and which the court will take notice of in the event of any prosecution. All the lawyers in the House say that this law is so written that the requirement of intent is so high that in fact the only people who will be caught will be those who openly say: “I’m collecting money for a terrorist organisation in order to strengthen their ability to bomb the hell out of whomever they are against.” That is about as strong as it would have to be for that one to get home. 
Then there is a second section where the United Nations has designated a number of organisations as terrorist organisations. That section which is now in our law will lapse if this bill is not passed. It was probably contrary to our intentions when we go back to 2002—I have looked back at the  
Hansard 
 lists and no one not even Mr Locke thought that the United Nations would actually have designated 430 is it? 
Hon Member 
: 410. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It has probably gone up a couple more since we started this debate but there are now 410 such organisations. The idea that we would take each one to the High Court would be a huge waste of taxpayers’ money amongst other things. We know from the Zaoui case just how long those sorts of cases might take. 
 So we have a practical question before us. The whole House including New Zealand First now says that we should do this except Mr Locke from the Green Party. It is interesting. I have gone back and looked at  
Hansard 
 and Mr Locke is consistent. He gets up on bill after bill and says that the Green Party is opposed to terrorism and he says that the Greens have opposed it every time it has happened. I have no doubt that he has probably put out press statements after various bombings have occurred. The question is what actions have the Green Party taken in order to protect New Zealand? That is a legitimate question because the No. 1 responsibility of this House of Representatives is the security of the nation and its citizens. It is not our No. 2 or No. 3 responsibility it is our No. 1 responsibility—but not according to the Green Party. 
According to the Green Party it is far more important that we give human rights to those 410 terrorist organisations. I ask the member why. Surely the No. 1 responsibility is the security of New Zealanders. Secondly the proposal he is putting forward as he has been told by officials and by experienced members of this House—in fact I think he himself knows—is completely unworkable. If we were to follow the Greens’ prescription it would not be illegal to raise money in this country for terrorist organisations. We know that if it was not illegal there are a number of misguided individuals—fortunately a very small number—who would do that. New Zealand would become known to be a home for terrorism and that would be as a result of following the Green Party policy. 
Does it matter? Unfortunately it does. We are an MMP Parliament. Obviously the polls might change but it is clearly the objective of Mr Locke’s party to no longer be a critic of the Government but according to Mr Donald to be part of the Government. That is why I think the most significant thing that has come out of this debate is a question for New Zealanders as to whether they want the Green Party to be in charge of our security. I make this statement: if the Green Party becomes part of the Government that is a threat to the security of New Zealand. I do not trust Mr Locke with the information. I do not trust the Green Party. I do not think that the Green members of Parliament should serve on the security committees that look at confidential information that is given to us by our allies. Indeed I think that if the Green Party starts to have Cabinet Ministers we will find that will have an effect on our best protection against terrorism. It has been said by successive Prime Ministers including the present one that our best protection against terrorism is the fact that we have international agreements that enable people to share intelligence. 
I listened to Mr Locke today and he made it clear that he does not trust those organisations. In the speech that he made today his principal arguments against the bill were not what New Zealand would do but what the United States and Britain have done. They are the two nations that supply us with information and they are aware of this House. They are aware of Mr Locke’s  
Hansard 
. No doubt they have a file on him. I have been aware of him since I first ran into him when I was a university student. Mr Locke has never grown up. He has exactly the same views now as those he had at the height of the cold war. He has not moved one inch. The rest of the world has moved on but Mr Locke has not. The only thing that is different about him is that he used to run under a red banner and was never voted for but he then found that if he painted it green but did not change any of his views he could get elected. 
I say that this should be an issue at the next election. I am not standing but I say to anyone who is thinking of voting for the Green Party that if we look at its actual record on this crucial issue the Greens never talk about the environment. They raise matters the logic of which would be that New Zealand would be defenceless against terrorism. Mr Locke has failed in his No. 1 responsibility. His No. 1 responsibility is not to try to get votes from the people who share his paranoid view of the world it is to vote for what is in the best interests of the security of this nation. This bill is absolutely essential for that and his failure to vote for it shows that he is not fit to be part of the Government. I do not think that the Green Party deserves even to be in this House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We have just listened to a very fine speech from the Hon Richard Prebble on a concern that I think is widely felt in this House and for those who are listening widely felt outside it. We have a party—the Green Party—that through its representative is opposed to the provisions of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). It is opposed to the creation of an offence that has for its purpose compliance with international standards for counter-terrorist financing and to the creation in specific terms of an offence in connection with funding terrorist groups. 
Whether it takes the form of bombings hijackings shootings or assassinations terrorism is neither random spontaneous nor blind. It is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends. It seems to me that it is characterised by four key elements. Those elements are that first it is premeditated planned in advance rather than being an impulsive act of rage; second it is political not criminal like the violence that groups such as the Mafia use to get money but designed to change the existing political order; third it is aimed at civilians not at military targets or combat-ready troops; and fourth it is carried out by sub-national groups not by the army of a country. 
The word “terrorism” itself was coined during France’s Reign of Terror in 1793. Originally the leaders of that systematised attempt to weed out traitors amongst the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty but as the French Revolution soured the words soon took on grim echoes of State violence and guillotines. 
There is nothing new about terrorism of course. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. One can think of the 1st century situation in Palestine where Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators. In 7th century India members of the Thug cult would ritually strangle passers-by as sacrifices to the Hindu deity Kali. In the 11th century in the Middle East the Shiite sect known as the Assassins would eat hashish before murdering civilian foes. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 the principal Act which is the subject of amendment and present debate has had something of a chequered history. This is the second time since 2002 that the legislation has been amended. I echo the comments made by others that when National becomes the Government in September we will need to take a hard look at this legislation and deal with some of the deficiencies that have been identified. 
The Act’s original purpose was to implement the obligations for New Zealand law in connection with the bombings convention the financing convention and the anti-terrorism resolution of the United Nations. Then in 2003 the nuclear material convention and the plastic explosives convention were added to the provisions of the Act. 
There is no doubt that the legislation has shortcomings and they include the involvement of the court in the extension of the designation of terrorist entities. It is interesting to see that that responsibility is now to be imposed on the Chief High Court Judge. Most of us involved in the law have seen the role of that particular official as being concerned with the expeditious dispatch of the court’s business. In my view that official should clearly not be cast in the role of determining whether designations should enure. That is the first aspect. 
The second aspect I would identify is that I doubt whether the best way of dealing with terrorist groups is by designation in the way the legislation contemplates. Whatever the number is—I think 450 was the suggested number of groups that are currently outlawed—that seems to me to be an unworkable arrangement. 
It is also right to say that religiously motivated terrorists like al-Qaeda are less restrained than other terrorists. Earlier arch-terrorists such as Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal never contemplated much less attempted the complete destruction of high-rise buildings packed with people. But for those religious groups such as al-Qaeda the Arabian-backed Hezbollah the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo and the Palestinian group Hamas mass killings are considered not only acceptable but holy. 
The rise of terrorism since September 11 has of course produced new strategies and new thinking. In the context of New Zealand defence arrangements where there was for a time a passing interest in what one might call some form of niche response we have had to move on from there. We have had to move on in substantial measure because of the challenges that asymmetric warfare poses. The responses that may have been satisfactory several years ago are now not satisfactory. I think it is a matter of regret that the New Zealand Government has not yet sufficiently caught up with that change. 
So here it is—the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which National supports is on the brink of being passed. We support that legislation for the reasons I have indicated but we see a clear need for the legislation to be reviewed both as to its content and as to the underlying strategy behind it. I join with other members of the House in expressing shock at the comments made by the Green Party in its apparent refusal to accept that terrorism is a real issue that must be confronted head-on. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This bill is necessary to update the principal Act of 2002 in two important respects. Firstly it ensures that the designations of terrorist entities under that Act do not expire. That would have placed New Zealand in violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Secondly the bill brings our law into more complete compliance with the requirements of the Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering to criminalise those who provide financial support to terrorist organisations. I support the passage of the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This bill is very important legislation and I am astounded that the Green Party member—Mr Locke—can stand in this House and say in effect that terrorists have more rights than the citizens of New Zealand. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: That’s what he was saying. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: He was. The role of Parliament and the role of the Government is first and foremost to protect New Zealand New Zealanders our properties our lives our families and all that we stand for. That is what democracy is about. That is true democracy not this woolly thinking that comes from the Green Party. I hope all New Zealanders take on board the fact that we have a party that is prepared to stand in this House and say that this bill on terrorism which we are debating today is not important. I find that absolutely astounding. I am dismayed by it and astonished by it—it is an absolute disgrace. All other parties in this House over the course of the debate have been very clear indeed about the importance of our sovereignty and our ability to be secure in our position in terms of counter-terrorism. But we see that one party in the House is actually going to move away from that provision. It will be interesting when we come to vote on the third reading to see whether the Green Party votes against it. It might abstain. We will see. It might sit on the fence. 
We are debating the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) which National is supporting. We have heard some very good arguments today and yesterday on the importance of this legislation to New Zealanders and our economy. I want to highlight the problem that we face as a country so geographically isolated that we could be a threat and we could be used as a base. That is why it is important that our security services and our military are able to cope with any eventuality—those unseen things that creep up on us. It would be naive to think that because of our location we have a defence against that and that we are protected. That is absolutely not the case because terrorism is around the world. Anyone who has travelled since 9/11 will have seen the border controls now in countries such as the United States. That is a protection that we need. It is a protection that New Zealanders expect to be in place when people arrive here. 
Our border control agencies—the Customs Service and Immigration Service—are to be commended for the work they do. Yet we have a party that is saying in the House today—and I hope New Zealanders take note—that this bill is not needed. In doing that the Green Party is probably promoting the view of human rights which it always pushes but what about the rights of New Zealanders? I would have thought that was important. I know my colleagues think our human rights are important because with rights comes responsibilities. One does not just have rights; one expects that responsibilities go with that. Yet one party in this House decides that that is not important. 
When we look at what is happening on the world scene with regard to terrorism we see that it is brutal it is violent there are no qualms about what it can do there is no respect for the laws of the land there is no respect for lives there is no respect for property and there is no respect for the international reputation of the country in which it happens. We have seen it throughout the world. Whether it takes the form of bombings shootings hijackings or assassinations we know that terrorism is neither random spontaneous nor blind. It is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends. If we look at wars around the world we see that they are dominated by a political sense by political intrigue and by people who believe they know best and therefore force on people civilians in particular their views which then of course backlash. 
If we look at the definition of terrorism we see there are four key elements. It is premeditated. It does not “just happen”. It is premeditated. It is planned in advance. It is not an impulsive act of rage that happens at the time. It is premeditated. It is political. It is not a criminal event but a political event—like the violence that groups such as the Mafia use to get money—designed to change the existing political order. Terrorism is based on political ideology and it is aimed at civilians because they are the most vulnerable. They are the ones who cannot react. They are the ones who are unable to stand up for themselves protect themselves or take countermeasures. Terrorism is not aimed at military targets because there would be an immediate response. It is not aimed at combat troops either. It is aimed at those who are the most vulnerable—the people who cannot defend themselves; the civilians. The fourth point in the key elements of terrorism is that it is carried out by sub-national groups. It is carried out by small groups of people who are fanatics. That is what they are. They are fanatics for a political cause. They are pushing an ideological point of view that is contrary to the view of the majority. Terrorism is not aimed at the army of a country; it is aimed right at the heart of those who are the most vulnerable and they of course are the civilians and citizens. 
So where does the word “terrorism” come from? What are the origins of this word? It was coined during France’s Reign of Terror between 1793 and 1794. Originally the leaders of this systemised attempt to weed out traitors among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty. As was found out during the French Revolution the word soon took on the grim echoes of State violence and guillotines. That is the origin of the word “terrorism”. Is it a new phenomenon? No it is not. As my colleague Dr Worth said it has been around since the Middle Ages. I will not repeat what my learned colleague Dr Richard Worth said because he crystallised and articulated a very important facet of what terrorism means and the phenomenon that is associated with it. 
The final point I want to reiterate is that terrorism is not blind. It is a deliberate attempt by groups of fanatics to further a political cause and it is aimed at hitting those who are the most vulnerable in society those who cannot protect themselves. They are the civilians of our nations. Any Government’s primary role is to protect its citizens and its country. That is the role of a Government. This Parliament has the opportunity to put into force laws that will allow our Government and our Government agencies to do what is right. There is nothing more important in a democracy than being assured of our security and our peace of mind during difficult times. We may be geographically isolated but I can assure members that we are vulnerable. Any party that cannot support this bill is not worthy of representation in this Parliament or any Government. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). The need to extend the legislation which Parliament passed in 2002 reflects the way the world now has to do business. The reality of terrorism is with us in terms of the foreign policy of many countries; even a small country like our own of 4 million people at the bottom of the Pacific has to be very focused on this issue. 
The amendment to the legislation is needed as a result of the events of September 11 which are still very firmly in the minds of members as mentioned throughout the whole debate. That terrible event caused tragedy for so many people and the effects continue today. I note that Families of September 11 an advocacy organisation in New York is working on issues arising from the fall-out of that event and the terrible suffering of those people. The new executive director Jennifer Mincin has written very good articles about the issues that confront victims of terrorism. Those things are very firmly in the minds of all parliamentarians. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the chance to say a few words on this bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: There won’t be many. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There could be quite a lot. We have plenty of time. I am staying in Wellington this evening so I am not worried. First of all I profoundly disagree with the comments made by my Green colleague Mr Locke and his approach on these matters. Fundamentally I think Mr Locke is quite— 
Hon David Carter 
: Your colleague? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would refer to Mr David Carter as my parliamentary colleague. One’s “colleague” does not necessarily mean ownership in any sense. Indeed one wants to disown them in some sense. 
I think Mr Locke’s problem as on a number of matters is simply that the world has passed him by. He has not caught up with the change in reality since the 1960s. We are no longer in support of freedom-fighting guerrillas in Third World countries against awful oppression. We face quite different kinds of threats which are well organised financially sophisticated and able to route their activities even through countries such as New Zealand and that is why we have to be part of the intelligence networks and others that deal with them. 
Let me say that I am still sufficiently old-fashioned and liberal also to defend the right of Mr Locke to express those views and to differ profoundly from what Mr Tisch said. Mr Tisch said essentially that if anybody disagreed with supporting this bill he or she had no right to be within this Parliament. I just have to say gently to Mr Tisch that one of the ironies of democracy is that we do have to end up defending the right of people to say things even if they could potentially threaten democracy on occasions if they were to be taken too seriously. I think Mr Locke unwittingly signs up sometimes to views that provide some kind of threat in that respect but I have no doubt at all of his own commitment to democratic principles within our society. Much more important I have no doubt at all of our responsibility to uphold his right to express those views within this Parliament because undoubtedly there are people outside this House who are concerned about some of the measures that we now need to take in order to protect ourselves against movements that are within the international arena. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Courts and Criminal Matters Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 5 May. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
:  
If I have not already moved the motion I move  
That the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill updates and improves a number of aspects of the law relating to the enforcement of fines and civil debts. It will significantly improve the Ministry of Justice’s capability to enforce unpaid fines. 
The Law and Order Committee has recommended a number of very worthwhile improvements to the bill and I would like to thank the members of the select committee for their contribution. In particular I would like to thank the very hard-working and excellent chair of the select committee Martin Gallagher who I know has put a tremendous amount of good work into this bill and has been somewhat frustrated by its process and I commend him for his tolerance. Further substantial changes to the law relating to fines enforcement result from a comprehensive review of the infringement and fines systems now being undertaken. 
This present bill largely relates to technical improvements to existing processes. There is however one very important new policy issue implemented by the bill which is to have enforcement of fines at airports. Currently most fines defaulters are able to leave New Zealand permanently or leave and re-enter the country without this being brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice collections units. This situation is completely unacceptable and undermines the credibility of the fines sentence. Parts 2 4 and 6 of the bill therefore create an arrangement allowing the Ministry of Justice to compare its database of serious fines defaulters with the databases of the Customs Service and the Immigration Service of people travelling in or out of the country. This will enable alerts to be triggered when serious fines defaulters enter or leave New Zealand at an international airport. The serious fines defaulters will be intercepted at the airport and given the opportunity to pay their fine or they will be arrested. 
Restriction of airport interception for the most serious defaulters will minimise the potential to inconvenience other travellers. The definition of serious fines default given in clauses 7 and 15 was however amended by the select committee to include anyone who owes any amount of reparation in addition to anyone owing at least $1000 in unpaid fines. That change does not have a serious impact in terms of the volumes of persons likely to be intercepted but it means that nobody who is in default in payment of reparation to a victim of his or her offending will be able to leave the country undetected. I think that is a good amendment and I support it wholeheartedly. The bill also allows for the threshold in relation to fines to be reduced by Order in Council and the Government will review that threshold in the light of experience in the implementation of the legislation. 
Clauses 7 and 15 were amended by the Law and Order Committee to limit the exemption from liability afforded to the Crown in respect of fines enforcements action taken against the traveller. The committee was concerned that the provisions as originally drafted would suggest that an innocent person who was wrongly detained would not be entitled to recover loss and damages. The redrafted provisions exempt the Crown from liability only in relation to third parties such as airlines and other passengers and then only when the actions were taken in good faith and did not result from gross negligence. 
Other changes made by the select committee include those made to clause 26 which redrafts section 78B of the Summary Proceedings Act to clarify the range of situations in which irregularities and infringement proceedings can be corrected by the courts. This section is quite complex owing to the range of situations needing to be covered and the requirement to be fair to defendants whilst not affording undue opportunities to obstruct the infringement enforcement process on purely technical grounds. It was substantially expanded and reworded at the select committee stage and some additional clarifying amendments will be proposed in a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Clause 27 was also significantly expanded by the select committee. The original intention of this provision was to ensure that fines defaulters who are paying off fines or reparation by instalments and who experience a substantial financial windfall or who are found to have given misleading information when entering into a payment arrangement take responsibility for paying off the fines or reparation as soon as practicable. Currently a fines defaulter who is meeting agreed instalment payments cannot be required to increase them even if it comes to the ministry’s attention that his or her circumstances have improved dramatically. Clause 27 therefore enables a registrar to take the initiative to vary the amounts payable under agreement. New subsections (2) and (3) inserted by the select committee in response to submissions also empower a registrar to take steps to amend a time to pay or attachment order in order to take account of an additional fine. This will avoid the need for the person to enter into a completely new arrangement for a new fine. 
The select committee has also added a new amendment to section 88(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act. This relates to the use of charging orders against the property of fines defaulters. This is a civil enforcement mechanism that is not cost-effective unless the amount owed is relatively large. The committee concluded however that the current threshold in the Act for use of such orders is too high at $10000. The Government agrees that this should be reduced to $5000. A number of further minor technical amendments to the Summary Proceedings Act have been incorporated in the bill by the select committee. These include for example provisions to sections 88 and 91 of the Act to enable warrants for the arrest of fines defaulters or the seizure of their goods to be in the form of a computer printout. The Supplementary Order Paper will include technical improvements of this nature aimed at increasing efficiency of the enforcement proceedings. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition believes that this bill is a wasted opportunity to deal with the growing mountain of court and reparation debt in this country. That mountain of debt is now over $600 million and in fact the vast majority of that $600 million is overdue. So the mountain of debt owed by criminals and those who have been fined up and down the country is escalating on a level that is unbelievable. The Law and Order Committee’s own report states that the total debt in June 2003 was $500 million. In less than 2 years it has grown to $600 million. So a lot more action is needed to deal with this mountain of debt. 
Why should we be worried about the mountain of debt? For a number of reasons. This debt has come because many people have been punished for their offending and have been fined and they are not paying. They have not faced up to their accountabilities. It gets worse because in the last year under Labour’s law $40 million of those fines have been wiped. The suffering of the victims could not be wiped. We should also be concerned because there is a growing mountain of debt owed to the victims of crime in New Zealand. Those reparations are going uncollected. 
What can be done? If the Government were truly serious about dealing with the mountain of debt owed by fines defaulters in this country it would improve the level of information sharing between the Inland Revenue Department the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Justice. But there are constraints on the information that can be provided in order to locate those fines defaulters and those constraints need to be removed. Those who are being denied justice—the victims and the Crown—deserve to get their money. 
The Government promotes this bill as some great new device to collect debts from fines defaulters. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister says “Yes it is too.” Let me look at the numbers. Wait for this. Do members remember that when the Minister introduced this bill he said it would be really tough on fines defaulters who left the country from airports? We asked the officials how many people would be stopped at airports by a warrant for arrest for being a fines defaulter. A hundred? Several hundred? Several thousand? The answer was 35. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How many? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It was 35. The Government introduced a bill that it said would crack down on fines defaulters leaving from airports. The number of people to be affected? It was 35 not 3500 or 35000. There is a $600 million mountain of debt and Rick Barker’s bill for fixing it means that 35 people will be stopped at airports. That is tough. It is about as tough as Phil Goff’s sentencing bill. Thirty-five people would be stopped at airports. 
So the Government majority on the select committee acquiesced and decided to toughen up the bill. The Opposition party members said that surely we should be serious about this. If people can afford overseas airfares which start at $189 with conditions they can afford to pay their fines. So the Government reduced the threshold. The Opposition parties—National New Zealand First and United Future—said we should go further and make it work but the Government said that it would drop down the threshold in this get-tough bill to a fine of $5000 and a warrant for arrest. 
Let me go through the numbers. There is $600 million of debt owed. Well over $350 million I believe is overdue. The Government says it will stop people going out of the country through the airports and will save money for New Zealand victims and the justice system. What did the officials say? They said that the bill as amended will stop 117 people at airports. 
 That is how many people will be stopped at airports according to this bill. That is all—117 will be stopped at airports. Do members know how much the officials said would be saved by this bill—how much would be collected? It is $1.5 million. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How much? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is $1.5 million. We have a growing mountain of debt in this country—$600 million; it could even be higher with the way that this Government has dishonestly hidden the Kyoto Protocol stuff—and this Government has brought in a bill to tackle the debt owed by fines defaulters that will collect $1.5 million. That is 0.25 percent of the debt owed by fines defaulters in this country. What a wasted opportunity. 
When the Opposition parties said that we should improve the information regime and get all the addresses phone numbers workplace information and personal details of fines defaulters so that we could go after them that we should lower the threshold at which we will stop people at international airports so that we can actually get the money and that we should back the call centres and look at the efficiencies of the Ministry of Justice’s collections systems what did the Government say? It said it would get tough with a bill that will stop 117 people from leaving the country and collect less than 0.25 percent of the fines owed in this country. 
That does not deal with the problem. We have to get that debt mountain down because it is money that is owed to victims of crime or is a punishment for offending. It is money that could be used elsewhere in the State sector to improve the quality of public services and to provide benefits for New Zealanders. That is what the money could be used for. The Government is not taking the issue seriously. This bill is a wasted opportunity. The Government could have brought in changes to information sharing. It could have brought in much tougher criteria for people leaving the country if they owe fines. It could have provided improved resources for the Ministry of Justice’s collections systems. But instead we have some flim-flam that will stop 117 people at the airports and collect less than 0.25 percent of the debt mountain owed by fines defaulters in this country. 
It is not a lot. In itself $1.5 million is a lot of money but as a proportion 0.25 percent of the $600 million owed by fines defaulters in New Zealand is hardly worth the effort. But we tell this Government to take the opportunity during the Committee stage to move amendments that will improve information sharing lower the thresholds at which we can stop people at international airports and improve the collections systems of the Ministry of Justice. I guarantee the Government that it will get 120 votes in favour of those changes. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can’t guarantee it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well I cannot essentially guarantee it but I would expect to see 120 votes in favour of those changes. That is the point. 
Government members should wipe the grin off their face especially in light of a poll that will be coming out in the next 3 days. For them to stand up in Parliament and say that they will get tough on 117 fines defaulters is hopeless. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As chair of the Law and Order Committee I will be gracious and thank all the members of the committee for their hard work on the bill. I cannot conceal my disappointment in terms of the previous contribution and its negativity but I acknowledge that all members of the committee did a lot of hard work on this bill. I thank in particular the deputy chair Marc Alexander and I also acknowledge my colleague Ron Mark and the Government members—Georgina Beyer Ann Hartley and Mahara Okeroa—for the work they did. I want to pick up and re-emphasise the main points of this bill. I will take only a very short call because we have a long way to go. The Leader of the House will be most comforted by the fact that I will take a short call because I anticipate much debate in the Committee stage and at the subsequent third reading. 
Basically in summary as the Minister has said this bill updates and improves a number of aspects of the law relating to the enforcement of fines and civil debts. It will significantly improve the Ministry of Justice’s capacity to enforce and collect unpaid fines. As has been detailed I believe that our committee has recommended a number of very worthwhile improvements to the bill. I note also that the Minister in his address to the House noted that further substantial changes to the law relating to fines enforcement will result from a comprehensive review of the infringement fines system that is now being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice in conjunction with the Law Commission. A discussion document was issued last year that outlined the issues being addressed in the review. A number of very useful submissions have been received and the Minister will make further announcements about the progress of that review in the near future. It will be a comprehensive review with comprehensive submissions—not the sort of 30-second sound bite - type of contribution that was made by the previous speaker. 
We will be talking during this debate about the ability of airports to intercept significant fines defaulters and about where the reasonable line is. If a person owes 20 or 30 bucks for a parking ticket and is going for a week or so to the Gold Coast will he or she get zapped and pulled out of the passenger queue for that? Where is the reasonable line? I anticipate debate about where that line should be and also about the need for flexibility as cost of living indices change over time. 
I want to highlight perhaps one area and then I will sit down because I know we will have a long session on this bill. That issue relates to the visit made by the select committee last year to Australia as part of a parliamentary exchange. I note that the bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia in terms of targeting New Zealand fines defaulters who are now resident in Australia. But as a select committee we continue to have an ongoing interest in the ministry’s efforts to target New Zealand fines defaulters who live overseas especially in Australia. That is a difficult and complex area to address but in our view the bill provides a good starting place. It targets people with fines owing who are leaving New Zealand for Australia and we strongly encourage the ministry to continue to look at ways to collect outstanding fines that can be linked to New Zealanders who live in Australia. If someone escapes from a custodial sentence he or she can be extradited back across the Tasman for crimes attracting custodial sentences. But quite frankly if someone who has huge fines outstanding here is living in Darwin or Perth or vice versa—if someone who lives in Taumarunui comes from Perth or wherever else in Australia—then we need to look at better reciprocal arrangements. The select committee observed when we visited Australia that even the interstate arrangements were not as perfect as they could be. There is more work in progress that needs to be done. 
I will be taking further calls later in this debate. I take the opportunity now to thank the committee for its hard work and I look forward to the passage of this bill. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call the honourable Ron Mark.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 You must be clairvoyant Madam Speaker—or be looking at the election poll results that are coming through now. Thank you for that compliment. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Say that again. 
RON MARK 
: I said that Madam Speaker must be clairvoyant or must have just been reading the polls. I appreciate the compliment although I am not an “honourable” yet. 
What can I say? Out of 10 points being really generous on this Friday I would give the Government— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Give us a C pass. 
RON MARK 
: I would give a National Certificate of Educational Achievement pass—whatever that is worth these days—to Minister Swain but I would say: “Nice try.” As they used to say “nice try” meant: tried hard meant well but failed and probably the army description of what we have here is: “This soldier tried hard meant well but failed.” 
Once again Mr Barker is proving to this House that if he is the best man the Government can find in its caucus for this job then God help Martin Gallagher’s mum and dad! We over here would say that Martin Gallagher is far more competent and capable than that pathetic Minister Mr Barker. Members should remember that this is the Minister who when New Zealand First asked how many violent criminals were on home detention stood in this House and said there were no violent offenders on home detention. But what did New Zealand First table? In answer to a written question we tabled his own department’s statement that rapists child-beaters thugs murderers andwife-beaters—any piece of scum that could be found on the bottom of a shoe—were on home detention. This is the same man who brought this bill to the Law and Order Committee to “get tough on fines”. 
Mr Barker is the man who runs around the country boasting about his “confiscated car club” and “name shame” campaigns. The money recovered through the procedures in this bill will not pay for even the advertising in the “name shame” campaign. It will not pay for the advertising in the “confiscated car club” campaign. He is running up a deficit already and God forbid what we would find if we tallied up how many hours Parliament—the select committee and the House—has spent on this bill. Opposition MPs have been trying their level best to assist him. He has accepted some advice but the guts of the advice he has been offered has been rejected. 
I remind the House that on 14 May 2003 New Zealand First first started asking questions about outstanding fines. On 14 May 2003 we lodged written questions asking what the level of outstanding fines was and what brackets we were talking about. We got the most amazing answer—something like $450 million was owed in outstanding fines with some young punks out there owing up to $90000. This Government has been trying to promote itself in the eyes of the public as being fiscally prudent frugal and a good manager of the economy. What Government in its right mind would allow some boy-racer punk to run up $90000 worth of fines and then—worse still—would allow the court which has not been able to collect those fines to write off the lot in return for 400 hours’ community service? 
One of those young punks was getting paid $140 an hour for not turning up to community service and for not doing the work he was supposed to do because he did not pay the fines that had been imposed on him by the courts which the courts could not recover—so everybody gave up put him back in the courts again and gave him community service. That is ridiculous—and they call this the smart Government! 
This Government is full of academics professors and all sorts of people who like to teach people and to tell them how to live their lives. It is the original “nancy State” Government. But what does it do with boy racers who flout the law—who undermine the very integrity of the judicial system and the law enforcement process by gaily clocking up heaps of fines then thumbing their noses at the police and the courts and walking away from it all? The level of interdiction in this bill would only target 117 people and recover $1.5 million—less than a quarter of 1 per cent of the sum of outstanding fines. That is pathetically inadequate. 
What did New Zealand First say? New Zealand First said that the Government must get tough. Anyone with an outstanding fine should not be going on holiday to Queensland or Bondi or spending Christmas in Fiji until the fine is cleared. How are victims of bashing burglary or car conversion expected to feel when they see their offenders getting on board planes to go to Bondi? It is ridiculous. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Well don’t ring 111. 
RON MARK 
: If they ring 111 they will only get a cab. But they will not get a cab to Bondi—they will be told that. 
The ridiculous thing about this bill is that we had a prime window of opportunity to go out and grab defaulters by the throat. But the real rub is that this Government is responsible for boosting the level of unpaid fines because it runs a quota ticketing system aimed not at boy racers but at nana and granddad. It is aimed at recovering fines clocked up by people like an elderly pensioner who was driving too fast to get to church on Sunday because she thought she would be late down High Street in Rangiora where the highway patrol was sitting looking for the big-time speeders. Those police were not in Queen Street at 2 o’clock in the morning when the hoons were burning out their tyres at the intersection but they were there to catch nana going to church. They gave her a fine but because nana is on a pension she cannot afford to pay it. So where is the outstanding fine? It is sitting against nana’s name. 
Instead of targeting the hoons—the recidivist offenders who clock up $60000 or $90000 worth of fines—by locking them up by grabbing them at the airport and by sharing all the information held by the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income within the Ministry of Social Development so that the courts can find the little beggars the Government latches on to nana because it knows her address. She is a law-abiding citizen. Her name is on the electoral roll. They can find her at the snap of a finger. But the people who cause this mountain of debt are those who deliberately go out to undermine the judicial system and the integrity of our law enforcement system by hiding themselves away. 
That issue was the one issue that came through very loud and clear from all the submissions. The biggest problem the courts have the reason they cannot collect these fines is that they cannot find the offenders. But I tell members that Baycorp can. Baycorp has far better resources and far greater capability to find those people who now owe some $600 million worth of outstanding fines. With $600 million we could buy another 105 LAV IIIs. We could pay half the Kyoto Protocol carbon tax bill with that. We could do goodness knows how many hip or cataract operations with that. 
But no this Government says we cannot give the courts the information held by the Inland Revenue Department or Work and Income. At the airport we cannot stop people who are going on holiday to Hawaii and collect the $10000 they owe—or the $5000 or the $1000. It is ridiculous absurd and nonsensical. 
By its very actions in failing to accept New Zealand First’s recommendations this Government is undermining its own ability to enforce the law. It is undermining the integrity of the police who issue the infringement notices the integrity of the prosecutors the integrity of the courts and the integrity of the collections officers who are trying to get the money. It is wasting everybody’s bloody time. 
It is time this Government went if it does not have the gumption the sense the brains or the intelligence to recognise one simple fact: to collect fines the courts need information. The information resides with the Inland Revenue Department Work and Income New Zealand and with the banking industry of this country. If the Government cannot recognise that Baycorp can collect those fines while the Government itself cannot then I give up—and no doubt so will the rest of the country as soon as the election is called. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to the second reading of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. This bill purports to get tough on the collection of fines and civil debt yet according to the speeches that we have just heard from the National Party member and the New Zealand First member that will not happen; this bill just does not do the job. The ACT party did not have a member on the Law and Order Committee that saw this bill but we feel very strongly about this issue. I want to join the previous speakers in calling on the Government to get tough on the people who commit these crimes so that they pay their fines. 
The basic problem with crime and fines in this country is that we have crimes that people do not really consider to be the result of illegal action. 
 The size of the fines in this country is arbitrary in many cases. Certainly many of the fines do not seem to fit the offence that has been committed. The result of course is that the wealthy just write out a cheque and forget about what they have done while those who do not have such substantial means simply do not pay their fines. In fact in many cases they have absolutely no chance of paying so the fine goes unpaid. We have all heard any number of examples of the traffic offences of young boy racers in particular who clock up one fine after another that they never pay. 
The difficulty when people commit crimes that do not seem to be the result of illegal activity is that the message is all wrong. The fines are in place to try to dissuade people from repeating what they have just done. But we have seen that there is no dissuasion in a situation where people are just able to write out a cheque that means nothing to them. Alternatively for those who do not pay or who have absolutely no means of paying their fines as they mount up there is also no dissuasion from committing that same offence again. So we get repeat activity after repeat activity. The message that that sends to people is that they can just go out there and break the law and keep on doing what they are doing. The only people who pay fines in the country are the law-abiding because we know where they live. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And they’re honest. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Yes they are honest. They admit to the fact that they owe that money. 
I am very grateful to the National Party member Mr Tony Ryall for pointing out some of the facts that I did not know because I did not have the benefit of being on the Law and Order Committee. I think that the people of New Zealand should know those facts. Before we set off through the select committee process the officials’ advice was that 35 people would be affected by the legislation. But after the select committee process and after a few amendments were made—not very many and none that were tough—I am told that a staggering 117 people will be stopped at the airport at a cost according to Mr Ryall of 0.25 percent of the total amount of debt that we have at the moment. There is $1.5 million saved as a result of the bill. What has the bill cost the taxpayer to date? More than $1.5 million I would contend when one considers the cost of the officials the cost of members of Parliament and the associated administrative costs. I would say that we are already in a net loss situation with the bill. We have to ask ourselves why we are proceeding with it. It is of course because there is a message to send to people. 
The bill is in two parts: the first relates specifically to the policy proposal to apprehend fines defaulters at airports; and the second focuses on fines enforcement proposals and amendments. In actual fact there is an argument in respect of stopping people at the borders—which nobody has raised so far—that we might actually be doing the country a favour if we did not stop those 117 people at the borders. We should perhaps pay their fare to Australia or wherever it is that they are going and let them incur further debts in the country they go to. There is no reciprocal arrangement and if we look a bit further through the commentary we come to the point that the bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia. 
That is an extraordinarily disappointing outcome of the select committee process. The committee said that it would like to have seen this. It has not happened. People no matter what fine they have incurred should be liable for it. They should be chased until that fine is paid. Until that sort of action is taken and adhered to rigidly people will be encouraged to keep on committing offences because there is no requirement in practical terms to pay up. The idea of picking up a few people at airports—we are told that 117 is the estimate—is ridiculous in the greater scheme of things. 
It was interesting to look at the comments of my colleague Muriel Newman. In her first reading speech she was quoting 2001 figures. On 1 May 2003 there were $487 million of unpaid fines $314 million of which were overdue. Fortunately the select committee must have been given updated information because we now know that on 30 June 2003 there was a total of $500 million by 31 May 2004 the figure was $572 million and now others tell me that figure has risen to above $600 million. I suspect it is much greater than that because that last figure $572 million was from over a year ago and we have heard this week about Kyoto Protocol underestimations—there are probably underestimations in every department that we are looking at. So the total is $600 million and a large proportion of that is overdue. 
It is always distressing to see fines being wiped. Fines are clocked up with no requirement to pay and when they are absolutely beyond the means of the individual they are suddenly wiped. We have heard this morning that $40 million has been wiped from the over $600 million of debt that now exists. When people break the law they should be punished they should be fined and they should pay up. We need legislation in this country that allows the enforcement of this. I am afraid to say that this legislation just does not do it. I join with my colleagues on this side of the House to say that this legislation is a wasted opportunity to get on top of the growing mountain of debt that has proliferated under this Government. 
The commentary goes on to state that the bill “allows a formal information-sharing regime to be established between the ministry the Customs and the Department of Labour” and quite rightly so. I do not know quite why we had to go to the select committee to allow this to happen. I see that there are amendments to the Privacy Act which I presume are put in place so that this information sharing can happen. It should not be just an informal thing; it must be formal so that each department has the opportunity to share information that they know about individuals particularly if people are going to be picked up at airports—even if there are only 117 of them. I suppose we should all be very grateful that it has increased in size from the 35 that we originally thought. 
Further on the commentary states that the monetary threshold for information sharing has increased. The amended definition of “serious default” was previously $1000 owing. It now seems that any amount owing will be able to be collected. I hope that is the case. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Only of reparation. 
HEATHER ROY 
: But only of reparation I am now told. So those powers need to be much more wide sweeping. 
ACT New Zealand would like to see rigorous debate in the Committee stage. It is not of course too late to see some tough amendments put in place so that the right message is sent to those people who commit offences and who then think that there is no point in paying them back because nobody will make them. We want to see provisions made for the improved collection of fines and very important we would like to see reciprocal information-sharing especially with Australia so that it is not possible just to hop on a plane. A person may not be one of the 117 who are caught but gets through and suddenly is scot-free until he or she comes back to the country. That is perfectly unacceptable. 
We need to take into account the rights of victims. What about the victims in all of this? I have been having a quick read through the bill and I cannot see anything about victims here. It is very important that they are considered and it is certainly not fair that they are left with the consequences for a long time but those who created the offences are not. 
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. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a press release dated 28 May 2003 entitled “Kiwis rack up huge traffic fines” which shows that 556 people owed over $10000. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table another document dated 2 May 2003 entitled “Quota ticketing is a fishy business” highlighting the fact that a gentleman owed over $30000 in outstanding fines so the Government is wasting its time by chasing ordinary people. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I welcome the chance to rise in this Parliament at midday on Friday to speak in support of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I must say that any bill that has been sired by the Hon Rick Barker and wrenched from the loins of Martin Gallagher’s committee has a good pedigree and we can be sure it will perform well on the track of social justice. Those people who are talking about waste of time should reflect upon the hours spent in this Chamber where to quantify would reflect on much productive effort—unlike the very good work of Martin Gallagher and his committee who have delivered to us a bill that this country will look upon finally as being a good piece of social engineering to deliver back into the coffers of the Government that which we deserve. I support the bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I love the smell of urgency. It builds the collegial spirit which is just so necessary for a team that will be going into Government very very soon. It toughens one up. I issue an invitation to anyone from the Opposition parties to come to coffee before we commence again tomorrow morning because we are digging in on this issue. National members will drag it out because we like being toughened up. We know what is ahead of us unlike this Government which is soft soft soft and I am about to explain why. This bill is a lost opportunity of immense proportions. The Government said it would get tough on fines defaulters but what it proposes is as Mr Alexander said a slap on the wrist with a wet bus-ticket. 
I want to thank the members of the Law and Order Committee who worked on this bill. I will even acknowledge that some fair work was done on the part of the Government members. It is not their fault that their leadership is soft on crime and they had to work on conditions that were imposed on them. 
A key objective of this bill and the most substantial part is to improve the compliance of fines defaulters who travel overseas. Let us have a look at the scope of this problem. In June 2003 there was approximately $500 million in unpaid fines and of that amount $305 million was overdue. On 31 May 2004 it was a whopping $527 million in unpaid fines and the overdue component was $326 million. Now we are told and I accept Mr Ryall’s figures that it is now over $600 million— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s at December. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Ryall tells me that is the figure as at December last year. Goodness knows what it might be now! 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s probably $650 million now. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It could be as high as $650 million or even $700 million and the unpaid component I imagine will have gone through $350 million already. We have been told that this bill will fix that problem. 
Under the bill as it was introduced as Mr Ryall pointed out only 35 people would have been stopped at the border and now as it has been recommended back to the House 117 people will be stopped. That is one person every 3 days. That will scare the hell out of those people who thumb their nose at being fined—that will really scare them! That will make them lie awake at night and think: “Should I take the risk of travelling or not because this tough mean Government has introduced this tough mean bill that will stop me at the border and say: ‘You need to pay your fines!’.” Pigs might fly as well. 
The revenue from fines collected will be about $1.5 million. That is 0.25 percent of $600 million and we are expected to believe that is tough. I ask my colleagues what the point is of introducing a fines regime if legislation to enforce it is not also put in place. The problem is not with the people out there being fined; it comes right back to this Parliament right back to this Government which is soft on crime and sends out all the wrong messages to the criminals of this country. It sends the message: “It doesn’t matter if you get a fine; the chances of it being imposed are slight.” The only people who pay fines in this country are the compliant people the mums and dads who go about their everyday business and get caught by a traffic officer on one of our main highways for doing 4 or 5 kilometres over the speed limit—and that is meant to be an example of being tough. The only reason they get nailed is because they have a fixed abode so the authorities know where they live. 
Rather than take the opportunity to drive home that message to people who thumb their nose at the fines regime in this country this Government let that opportunity slip through its fingers. It is not as if we cannot find out where those people live. The excuse we have been given is that most fine defaulters have no fixed abode keep moving addresses and cannot be found. But if they are registered with the Inland Revenue Department or if they register their Lotto number and have a win in the Lotto they can be found—no problem whatsoever. Michael Cullen and his cronies have no problem whatsoever finding out where those people are if they have an inland revenue issue. That is the great travesty of this PC soft Government. Rather than insist that Government departments share information it has allowed the Inland Revenue Department not to share this information. That window could have been closed very very simply but it has not been. The ministry tells us that at present the system of enforcement is very ad hoc. I will allow that this bill goes somewhat towards improving that situation but as I have said it is a shame that the opportunity has been lost in such huge proportions. 
The ministry receives information about a fines defaulter for whom there is a warrant for arrest. It normally gets that information because of an ex-partner or someone the fines defaulter owes money to dobbing him or her in. That is how this system normally operates. The ministry then tells the police and the police if they are not too busy on our main highways writing tickets or trapping motorists will wander down to the airport intercept someone and tell him or her to pay the fine or be arrested. That sounds all well and good—very ad hoc. The chances of being stopped are one person in three. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: One person in three. Those are the odds. They are not bad. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No one person every 3 days. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: One person every 3 days. They are not bad odds. Fine defaulters will say: “Well I’ll take the chance. I’ll travel. What’s the issue?”. But if fines defaulters are caught they are told to pay their fine and if they say they cannot afford to pay they are released on bail. They are set free. It is like the woman during the Michael Jackson trial who released a white dove every time someone was released. This is what happens: Michael Cullen sits there with all those white doves and every time someone is arrested then released on bail he releases a white dove. That is the teeth of this bill. Rather than close down the system the Government has reinforced it—and the Government wonders why people have no confidence in it. 
We were told by the Government that one of the reasons it could not enforce the situation more vigorously is that it would interrupt overseas travellers. The ministry’s suggestion on this has some merit. It suggested loading a silent alert system into the New Zealand Customs Service database that would alert the authorities as someone checked in not to load that person’s baggage if a warrant was out for his or her arrest. That suggestion makes a lot of sense but it would work only if at the other end there was an enforcement regime that threatened people sufficiently enough for them not to take the risk. It will not work unless we have a tougher approach from this Government. 
The other lost opportunity was in respect of the liable parents who all the time drift out of this country to Australia. Was this net widened to incorporate those people as the National Party members suggested? No the Government could not do that; it would be politically incorrect. So there is another lost opportunity. On one hand mum and dad the compliant people in this country will pay their fines but on the other hand the boy racers will not get nailed. Those liable parents— 
Ron Mark 
: They’ll get nana! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: They will get nana but there will be no repercussion for liable parents whatsoever. Here is a Government that maintains that it is tough on crime but when the rubber meets the road it is soft soft soft. Unless when we go into Committee there are significant amendments brought to support this bill National will have severe reservations about whether to continue its support. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to make a couple of comments about this and I have to say that that was an example of another road to Damascus experience from that member. [ 
Interruption 
] “What about his CV?” my colleague asked. Well we will not go into that. 
The National Government had 9 years to do something about fines defaulters. 
Brian Connell 
: Come on! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh he is fired up—he has had his muesli this morning. Somebody put some chilli powder on the muesli this morning. 
This bill talks about people being stopped at the border. To put that into plain language it sets up a trigger mechanism so that if that member wanted to go to Sydney and he is triggered on the system as having fines then he can be stopped at the border. [ 
Interruption 
] I think the member is out of control. The enforcement mechanism which he bleats on about and says does not apparently exist in the bill means he would be stopped at the border and would not get on the plane. He would not be allowed to go until the fine is paid. 
We have defaulters going back 20 or 30 years and I would have thought that that member Tony Ryall who was the Minister of Justice for a period during those 9 long years of the last National Government might have done something about that. But now when the rubber has hit the road we have introduced a bill to tighten up the situation and have put forward some practical measures like data matching with the Customs Service information sharing with the Inland Revenue Department and stopping people at the border so that they do not get out unless they pay. 
Of course members opposite say that it is not tough enough that it is all wrong and that we should do a whole series of other things. Well I ask why the lift did not make the top floor with that member in it while his party was in Government. Why did the last National Government not have all the ideas that those members have proposed to the House today now that they have no responsibility and they know damn well they cannot implement anything? Why did they not propose those solutions then? Why did Tony Ryall when he was the Minister not actually propose something while he was in Government? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Because the debt was half of what it is now. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is his alibi and excuse for doing absolutely nothing apart from parking his ministerial backside into a limousine and taking his pay. Because the debt was half he did nothing about it he says. I suppose that means that if under a National Government the crime and murder rates were half what they are now those members would say that they should not do anything about it. People would still be getting killed and burglaries would still be going on but they would do nothing. Well I thank Mr Ryall who will be the next Minister of Justice—or so he says. What a wonderful campaign slogan that will be to take around the country! 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: A few halfwits! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes there are a few halfwits over there—absolutely! So when things get to be about half as bad as they are now Mr Ryall will say: “White flag! I’m off. I will do nothing.” That attitude tells members in this House a lot. 
I say to Mr Ryall that for 9 years he had an opportunity to tidy up the fines defaulter system but National members never put forward one piece of legislation that would tighten it up. They never did the sort of simple thing that my colleague Mr Barker has done—the “name and shame” campaign. Now I like that because the names of the people who do default are put out there. I am not sure what the statistics are for those who have paid up because they have been shamed but it is a really simple idea—put an advertisement in the paper. 
But Mr Ryall says that because the numbers of fines defaulters were only half what they are now he chose to do nothing. I really do thank him for that contribution because it tells the people of New Zealand a heck of a lot about National. If things are half as bad those members are off down the beach in their Speedos out with the tanning oil and getting a tan—they do not care! Well the Labour Government has now done something to fix that problem. We have introduced practical measures in this bill. What did those members put forward when they were in Government? They put forward nothing. What do they put forward now? They still put forward nothing. They simply say that when it is half as bad they will go off to the beach and do nothing. That was a pathetic response from that side of the House. Despite the gasbagging coming from the member for Rakaia this is a good bill. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: They used to stand for something. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: National members used to stand for something but now they sit for something. 
The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is a good bill and I support it. Yet again people will know that we put forward the practical ideas and the solutions that are implemented while National members do nothing. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In listening to those contributions I feel moved to move that the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be referred back to the Law and Order Committee so that it may be strengthened and improved in respect of information-sharing legislation so as to enable the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development to be able to provide all necessary information to the courts. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is completely out of order. It is not a point of order and he cannot do that. [ 
Interruption 
] You did not seek leave; that was the problem. You moved and you cannot do that. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you for your guidance. I seek the leave of the House to move that the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be referred back to the Law and Order Committee so that it may be strengthened in order to give greater powers to the courts. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 One would have to have very much a sixth sense to see that the previous speaker was talking about the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. The bill is important legislation. National supports it. We do so with reservations because in many parts it is incredibly weak-kneed. Here was a great opportunity to advance legislation that could have dealt so much more effectively with the problem. 
The other point that I would make in my opening comment is that the bill’s legislative history is simply appalling. It was introduced on 14 May 2003 had a first reading 5 days later on 19 June then went off to the Law and Order Committee where it languished for months. Although Labour members of Parliament praise it in this House as being legislation that is urgent and necessary the legislative history hardly supports that proposition. 
The imposition of fines for breach of the criminal law is a core sanction and in the mass of legislation passing through this Parliament criminal offences are created and refined. A common sentence is the imposition of a monetary penalty. There is a clear direction to the sentencing judge in both the Sentencing Act 2002 and its predecessor the Criminal Justice Act to take into account the financial circumstances of the offender before imposing a fine. For example in section 40(1) of the Sentencing Act the following words occur: “In determining the amount of a fine the court must take into account … the financial capacity of the offender.” Later provisions in this legislation detail how the financial capacity of an offender is to be discerned. For example section 41(2) provides for offenders to make a declaration as to their financial capacity. That point is relevant because when fines are imposed the sentencing officer has to be satisfied that those offenders have the ability to make those payments. 
It is an absolute disgrace—and reflects no credit on this Government at all—that the debt mountain has truly soared. It stands now at a figure that may be in the order of $600 million. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: $650 million. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Apparently the correct figure is $650 million. But monetary penalties are not a sentencing possibility for just breaches of what we could call black-letter criminal law. Fines may be imposed for breach of a raft of statutes; the Resource Management Act and the Commerce Act are two good examples. 
National supported this bill being referred to the select committee. We did that on the basis that it was a praiseworthy aim to deal more effectively with fines collections. So it is hugely disappointing to see the legislation come back in the form that it has despite attempts by National members to tighten it up in a meaningful way. So I tell members opposite that when the National Party becomes the next Government in September 2005 it will be looking again at this legislation to tighten it up and lower the threshold. 
One of the things that the Government has done is to commence upon a campaign to publicly name people in the columns of the daily press because of frustration at the amounts owed. I think that strategy has been successful certainly in some areas. It has been done against the background of big amounts that have been outstanding. In Nelson and Marlborough the Department for Courts as it was then called—now the Ministry of Justice—was owed some $7 million in court fines. In the South Canterbury district there were defaulters with an amount outstanding of $1.2 million. One can instance the case of the Manukau City Council which says that faulty paperwork has allowed thousands of motorists to dodge paying their parking fines for years. In the case of that council there has been a loss in the order of $3.6 million. So we see some attempts feeble though they may be by dint of publishing the names of offenders to ensure recovery by a process akin to shaming. 
I was interested to read in the  
Dominion Post 
 of 5 May a comment from a ministry spokesperson on the whole issue of fines. It was in the context of what I think has not been a successful blitz. She said this: “Fines don’t go away. They are a justice sanction aimed at deterring unacceptable behaviour and are never remitted for reasons of age of the fine or expediency.” Yet we have seen some remarkable and in my view wholly wrong decisions of the courts to remit significant amounts of money. In April of 2005 an Upper Hutt resident Nathan Bentley had $73000 in traffic fines wiped. There have been other cases where there have been similar significant write-offs. I instance the case of a Hamilton judge Anne McAloon who let another offender Aaron Pace off paying a $31352 debt for traffic offences. Quite clearly the courts need direction from Parliament or from the Minister perhaps to deal much more effectively with the whole issue of fines. As we look around New Zealand we see significant errors of administration and a lack of will to deal with what is a mounting problem. 
So hope for this legislation has been unfortunately dashed. We see here proposals to amend nine Acts: the Crimes Act the Customs and Excise Act the District Courts Act the Immigration Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the Privacy Act the Sentencing Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Tax Administration Act. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Nine long debates. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Quite right because this bill is in multiple parts. So we will be here I am sure for many days in a 10-part debate on this legislation. 
Sentiments are fine but action is so much better. As Mr Connell said when he was speaking on this bill there are mechanisms available that could have been utilised to make huge gains. I am speaking of course of the Advance Passenger Processing system for outgoing flights. That system enables an early-warning signal to be given to airline staff to stop or delay a passenger from boarding a flight. The airline staff will not know the reason for the warning. The early warning allows the airline to prevent luggage from being loaded on to the plane until it is clear that the person is free to board. 
There is a comment by the Law and Order Committee in its report back on this bill that I think is worth underscoring and it indicates the lack of will of this committee to grapple with the problems that arise. It is under a heading “Targeting New Zealand fine defaulters in Australia”. The commentary states: “The bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia. We continue to have an ongoing interest in the ministry’s efforts to target New Zealand fine defaulters … especially in Australia.” In the context of our closer economic relationship with Australia this is an issue that should be given priority. It is not the difficult issue that the committee asserts it is. I think it is sad that where there was an opportunity to produce real gains as I have said that opportunity was simply not taken. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 This is an interesting debate. If one was listening to this debate one would think that the Opposition parties might have taken their opportunity in the Law and Order Committee to do the work that they get paid for by the taxpayer. They have all stood up and said: Woe is me this bill doesn’t go far enough. It’s not tough enough. We want to send it back for another go.” Well I read the commentary on the bill from the select committee. Who is on that select committee? The members are Martin Gallagher a very good chair Marc Alexander the deputy chair and a very conscientious man Georgina Beyer Brian Connell of the National Party Ann Hartley Mahara Okeroa Ron Mark and the Hon Tony Ryall. I read the committee’s membership and I looked for the minority report that stated the Opposition disagreed with this bill because it did not go hard enough and tough enough and did not do enough. What did I find? Nothing—absolutely nothing. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: They are lazy. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Well either the Opposition members are lazy or they do not know how to do their jobs. They are still learning on the job and expect to be paid full wages. They still expect to be paid full wages yet they did nothing—absolutely nothing. 
The failure to provide a minority report was not because the Opposition members on the committee had insufficient time. The public came along and gave 1 hour and 9 minutes of evidence. That committee considered the submissions for 9 hours and 2 minutes. I think the 2 minutes was probably what the Opposition members did and the 9 hours was what the Government members did. Now the Opposition members whinge and moan and come here to the House and say the bill is not tough enough. Well who is going to take them seriously? Nobody could take them seriously. That is why they are the Opposition—because they are too lazy too incompetent and too hopeless to have actually done the job in the select committee that they said needed to be done. Who stopped them? Did anybody say that no they could not do that? Did anybody from the Opposition say that if they did not like the bill the way it was they as members of Parliament could put a minority report in even if they were voting for the bill? Even if a member is voting for a bill he or she can say that it is not tough enough. 
The Opposition members on that select committee need to take lessons from Maurice Williamson. He is on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which I chair and he said he thought the Government had done a good job on a bill but that National would go a little further than the Government so it would put that in the report. Maybe Maurice Williamson needs to run a seminar for the Opposition members to show them how to do the job properly because I think they are hopeless and so does the public. 
This is a competent Government which is doing an excellent job and saying to people who have broken the law that they will not get away with it. It is telling people they cannot go for their holidays to Australia and come back and get away with it any more with a big fine owing. If they do not pay up they will not be going. That is the simple truth. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That is not what the bill states. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: That does not suit Tony Ryall—no no. Tony Ryall says he would not do anything because when he was the Minister the size of the millions was only half the present amount. He sat back took his salary drove around the country and pretended he was important but he did nothing. He would do nothing again if the country ever gave him the chance. 
Jill Pettis 
: They won’t. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: People will not do that. This is good legislation from a good Minister and it states to people that we are fixing the issue. Can we fix it? Yes we can. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a report of a Mr Craig James Taylor who had $42259 wiped from his slate by Judge Moran. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a report of one Dane Anthony Blake aged 19 who had $22000 wiped off his fines by Judge Moran. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that Howard Willis Case had $20000 of his fines wiped off by Judge Moran. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a report that shows that Dennis Fishburne had $20000 wiped off his fines by Judge Moran in replacement for 100 hours’ community work. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a report showing that the fines of one Nathan Bentley of $73000 were wiped by a District Court judge in the period around May 2005. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a report that states that fines totalling $31352 were written off by Hamilton judge Anne McAloon in or about May 2005. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a report that shows that in 1 day in Greymouth Judge Moran wiped $109000 in fines for four young men. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Over there in the Opposition parties is Tony Ryall acting like Captain Mainwaring and Ron Mark from New Zealand First is like Colonel Klink: “I know nothing.” They are absolutely full of wind bluff and bluster. They are what one could refer to as “gonnas”: “I’m ‘gonna’ do this and I’m ‘gonna’ do that but when I had the opportunity what did I do? I did nothing.” The irony of the situation is that when those Tories were in Government for those 9 long years they attacked Housing New Zealand tenants at the airport and at the border when they were going overseas for the first and only time. One of my constituents only ever left the country because her family paid for her and she left New Zealand with NZ$20 in her pocket and she was stopped at the border and advised that her rent would go up for the 2 weeks she was away because she would not be occupying her Housing New Zealand property. Those mean horrible bullies attacked defenceless Housing New Zealand tenants—the poorest people in New Zealand—but did nothing about fines defaulters. They left them alone. It just shows what bullies they are and God forbid they should ever get the opportunity to be bullies again! However the people of New Zealand are far too intelligent to do that. 
This is a good bill and a positive aspect of it is that victims are more likely to get reparation. This is an excellent bill by a hard-working and competent Government. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could not hear very well and I was wondering whether the member who has just resumed her seat said “a $1 billion Kyoto stuff-up” somewhere in there. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 5; Progressive 2. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Crimes Act 1961 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is in respect of amendments to the Crimes Act of 1961. The principal change proposed in this legislation is to allow bailiffs to execute warrants to collect money owed by fines defaulters. 
We heard from Mr Gosche earlier along the lines that if a person who owed a fine tried to leave by plane that person would be stopped and not allowed to board the plane. That might be what the Minister for Courts told his caucus but I will tell Mr Gosche what the actual fact of the matter is. It is in respect of the ability to execute warrants under clause 4. The Government introduced a bill that stated that if a person owed $10000 in fines and a warrant had been issued for his or her arrest that person could be stopped at the airport. The pressure of the Opposition in the select committee got that amount lowered but the Government would agree only to drop it down to $5000. 
What Mr Gosche needs to know is the only people who can be stopped at an airport under this bill are people who owe $5000 of debt and have a warrant for their arrest. There are about 500 people in the country who fit that category who have a warrant out for their arrest. The Government’s own advisers estimate that they will stop 117 people—that is they will stop one fines defaulter every 3 days—and those defaulters may be prevented from getting on the plane if they do not pay their fines. The Ministry of Justice officials advised us that $1.5 million would be collected because of this bill. So Mr Gosche was wrong in respect of that. 
This provision allows for bailiffs—obviously someone stationed at the court—to execute the warrant and require someone to pay his or her fines. The level of fines owed is indeed a considerable concern to all. At the beginning of 2000 the debt was under $300 million; today our estimate has that debt at $650 million and it is growing exponentially. It is vital that we stop these fines defaulters. We know from official information provided by the Government that not very many people will be affected by this bill. Even though we are giving bailiffs this power under clause 4 it will be exercised very sparingly. 
The Opposition will be moving amendments in the Committee stage to lower the threshold. We want this Committee to focus seriously on whether we should be limiting this measure to people who have arrest warrants out on them. We raised that at the select committee and the Government said it could not do it because it thought it was administratively burdensome. Why can there not be a provision in this bill that allows the Government of the day when the system is up and running to remove that requirement for an arrest warrant? Why can we not have that amendment? 
Let us just go through the numbers again. When the bill was introduced by the Government the officials said it would affect 35 people a year. I wrote it down when they said it—35 people per annum. With the amendments made to this bill to have it catch fines defaulters with arrest warrants who owe over $5000 the estimated number is 117 people. The officials said that the estimated full benefit of fines enforcement in this bill would be $1.5 million. I do not know whether that is the estimated amount of fines recovery or whether it is just the value of the fines owed by the 117 people who will be stopped from leaving. Maybe the Minister could answer that question. Is the $1.5 million that the officials told the select committee would be the estimated full benefit of this bill the amount of collections that can be expected as a result of it or the total value of the fines owed by the estimated 117 people who will be stopped from leaving by this legislation? National members think that is something the Government should answer because the mountain of growing debt is incredible. As I said we estimate that it will have grown to $650 million by the end of this financial year and we estimate that the amount that is overdue is probably close to $350 million. 
The bill provides for the role of bailiffs but it also looks at the issue of reparation. The second part of the bill which will be debated a little later on deals with providing name and address information of people who owe over $1000 so that the courts collection staff can go after them but it does state that if people owe reparation there is no threshold in terms of that information being made available. What is worrying is that the proportion of reparations being collected for all collections made by the collections unit is dropping. There seems to be less focus on collecting reparations because the proportion of reparation receipts to total receipts collected by the collections unit of the Ministry of Justice is dropping and we are concerned about that. 
This bill is a missed opportunity. We think the Government could have gone a lot further and we will be moving amendments which we hope the Government will support to allow that to happen. Let us just go through the numbers again. This so-called get-tough bill was introduced into Parliament and the Government’s own advisers said that the bill as introduced would have seen it catch 35 fines defaulters each year. With the amendments that the Opposition encouraged the Government to make at the select committee we squeezed it up to 117 people per annum—one every 3 days—and the Government did not really want to do even that. The officials’ words were that the estimated full benefit of the bill for fines enforcement is $1.5 million. Is that $1.5 million the value of the fines owed by those 117 people that this bill will stop or is it the amount of money the Government expects to collect from them? We think that goes to the heart of whether the Government has acted as it should have with this bill. 
The way in which the bill will work is that if someone turns up at the airport who is in the computer system as being one of those few fines defaulters with a fine over $5000 and with an arrest warrant issued against him or her that person will then be taken to the side and dealt with. If those people say that they have an arrangement or that it is a case of mistaken identity the presumption will be that the police will let them carry on. If someone does admit to being the person who owes the money and if he or she does not have an arrangement in place that person will deal with a courts collection officer. 
What will happen if people say: “Yes I am going to make a down payment of $20 and I will keep paying it off.” they leave on the plane and they do not pay it off? What will happen there? What is to prevent people from saying they are going to make an arrangement paying a couple of hundred dollars and off they go? They still owe the debt and they still have an airline ticket that they paid for with money they could have put towards their fine. What will happen there? Maybe the Minister could take a call to explain to us what will happen if a fines defaulter for whom there is an arrest warrant makes a part-payment of the fine; will that person be allowed to continue on his or her flight? 
During this debate the combined Opposition parties will make this point: the Government is saying that this measure will stop fines defaulters from getting on to planes. That is what the advertising campaign will be all about. We will be moving on to that because this is more about the advertising campaign than the substance. 
Heather Roy 
: How much will the advertising campaign be? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We will be talking about that later on. This is all about an advertising campaign to give the impression that everybody who has a fine will be stopped at the airport and prevented from going overseas. Well the fact is even the Government’s advisers have said that 117 people will be caught. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of points but first I will clarify a mistaken belief of the Opposition that has been repeated a couple of times. I have heard a couple of Opposition speakers say that the Ministry of Justice—the courts department and its collections unit—cannot data match with the Ministry of Social Development and the Inland Revenue Department and that they will be moving amendments. I say to those members that they do it now they do it regularly and they do it thoroughly. Let us not be mistaken about that. 
My second point is about the process. I say to the Opposition that this has been an evolving process. When the bill was first mooted 4 or 5 years ago there was very little data information available on people who were about to travel because it was not collected. People could simply turn up to a ticketing centre get a ticket and climb on a plane within 2 hours and be gone. 
Brian Connell 
: What’s changed? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: What has changed is advance passenger information. Not only do airlines have to give us information in advance about people coming into the country airlines are having to give information in advance of people going out. So we now have knowledge of who is coming through airports before and after their flights. When the bill was first conceived the airlines made the point that when people front up they have no idea whether those people are on the Customs Service watch list because they have not gone through customs and they and their bags are treated as they normally would be. If the Customs Service was then going to hold someone it would have to de-van the whole plane to get that person’s bags off which would be a great inconvenience to the travelling public and would incur huge extra costs because as anybody who has been in the airline industry knows if a plane takes off late it lands late and there are big costs that go with that. 
Now things have changed. People now have to buy their tickets in advance and the systems are being integrated. So when the airline has ticket information it then has to be as advance passenger information put into the system of either or both the Customs Service and the Immigration Service. So as a result of the courts—the Ministry of Justice—being able to load on to those systems those whom they are interested in the flag can come up much more quickly. By the time any such people front to the counter it is known that they are of interest and their bags can be set aside and thee matter can be dealt with much more easily. That is a significant advance that gives us greater ability to deal with these issues. Some procedural issues will be associated with that and we have to do these things with the cooperation of the airlines and the travelling public. When the members of the Law and Order Committee said that the figures should be lowered the technology and the systems had moved on and we were able to comfortably say that yes we can do that. I think that is a good thing. I support it wholeheartedly. 
The second thing the select committee did was to set the level at $5000 automatically but the bill was set up so that it can be changed by Order in Council to be lowered over time. As the systems bed in and prove workable we can move very quickly to change that level. I support that provision as well. I say in response to Tony Ryall’s point that there is zero limit on reparation although he did not particularly highlight that fact. Before people can leave the country they have to pay any reparation due. Reparation can be awarded for personal reasons or commercial reasons. Very often people think of reparation in terms of damage done to the victim of a crime but approximately half of all reparation involves a commercial loss—for example an insurance company might have a claim against it. So half is for personal reasons and half for commercial reasons. 
Brian Connell 
: So that’s not important? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not saying it is not important. I am just saying that people quite often think of reparation in terms of personal injury or personal tragedy and of course that is very important but a commercial loss is also important. 
Mr Ryall is making some play of the fact that there is a rise in the number of fines being issued. The principal driver of that has not been court-imposed fines as Mr Worth indicated. The number of court-imposed fines has been relatively stable. It has been climbing slightly over time but is relatively stable. The rise in the number of infringement fees being issued is driven principally by the police infringement programme which is aimed at reducing speed and reducing the number of road deaths. In fact there are over 100 people alive today who would not be if there not been that focus on lowering speed. The police are not apologetic about that. The Opposition does not like the campaign against speed. It is saying it is prepared to see 100 families sit down at Christmas without one of their family members because the family member has passed away due to a road accident. The Opposition is prepared to blight another 100 families. 
The Government has played a huge role in increasing the amount of fines being collected. We inherited quite a complicated situation when we came into Government. We have introduced a call centre for the public. We have extended the hours from early in the morning to late at night. We have doubled the time they operate. We have some of the most advanced technology in the world. We have collected record amounts year on year of overdue fines. No one can criticise us on that. We collected $40 million in one year and $25 million in another. Those are big sums and there is a lot more money to be collected from people who are under an obligation to pay. 
Some members say this bill does not go far enough and the point I make to those members is that I accept there is a fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is our infringement system. It is old out of date and creaky. In fact we have over 80 issuing authorities who—[ 
Interruption 
] The court system I say to the member is creaky and out of date and it has not been reviewed in about 30 years. It is inefficient in the way it collects fines and there is a long delay from the time the fine is issued—that is over 3 months—until it is up for enforcement by a court. Another problem with the court system is that when the police issue for example an infringement for a warrant of fitness offence or an outstanding registration the individual cannot pay it off on a “pay as you go” basis then and there. The person has to go through the system and get to the court process before he or she can be granted time to pay. I think we would all say that that is nuts. We need to overhaul that system. 
Also we need quicker supervision and better management of it. No one knows—I have asked on several occasions—how much an individual owes because no one has complete oversight of the system. So for 3 months there is almost a blanket. No one can tell how much is in the system against a name—for example Rick Barker or Ron Mark. I think that is a fundamental flaw. Therefore an overhaul of the infringement system is long overdue. I am very pleased that we will be announcing some process on that in the next few months and I am sure the Opposition parties will be delighted to have a look at it and add their tuppence worth to try to help. This will be very good work and I am sure they will do their best. This bill is good legislation and I look forward to the Opposition’s support. I accept that the bill could have gone further in some areas but that is subject to a wider review of the infringement process which this Government will be doing some time in the near future. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are dealing with the bill part by part. The parts are quite specific and mostly refer to relevant Acts. If members would be conscious of that it would be appreciated. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I acknowledge your guidance Mr Chairperson but given that the debate has been opened up widely by the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker and because unfortunately I will not be here after 2 o’clock to give the Minister any further guidance I intend just to follow his line. 
Firstly the Minister said that the measures that have been taken at airports are “as much as they can do right now”. He admitted that. I must say it is good to hear that and I would love to have heard it admitted in question time when we asked about those problems some time back. The Minister also admitted that the Government will have to come back to the House with another amendment bill to amend all those Acts—the Crimes Act the Customs and Excise Act etc—and that we will be addressing this legislation again. I ask the Minister then why the Government did not agree to my motion put earlier today which would have meant that the bill went back to the Law and Order Committee so we could get stuck in and tidy it up? 
Let me give the Minister some guidance. This bill would have been far more effective if the Government had recognised one thing. Having bailiffs stopping people at airports as Part 1 allows is the very last thing we should be doing to collect those overdue unpaid fines. The very first thing the most important thing which is not included in the bill is giving the Ministry of Justice through the courts carte blanche access to Inland Revenue Department records. 
At the select committee we asked the officials about that and the guidance we had was that the Government would not be receptive to such wide and far-reaching legislation which would impinge upon the Privacy Act. The Government itself is the handicap. The officials quite clearly were gleeful at suggestions from the Opposition that the Ministry of Justice should be given that ability. But no the Government sees more importance in strengthening the Privacy Act than in collecting $600 million worth of outstanding fines. 
The very last thing we should be doing is stopping people at airports. If our systems were robust if the bailiffs had the same investigative capability as the Inland Revenue Department or even Baycorp and if the courts on finding that an offender had missed one payment were able to go straight into the computers of the Inland Revenue Department or Work and Income to find the person—whether he or she was receiving a benefit or the dole where the cheques were being posted to and which account they were being credited into—they would have that person by the shorts within seconds. But this legislation does not do that. Instead we are focusing on trying to catch people at airports. 
Well we agree: anyone who is trying to have a holiday in Hawaii but who has $5000 worth of outstanding debts should not be allowed to leave for Hawaii. We are pleased that the Government has taken that on board. But we think the threshold is too low— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: You have to have an arrest warrant! 
RON MARK 
: They have to have an arrest warrant. The point is that the failure is occurring at the very front end of the system. Members should look at the answers I got from the Ministry of Justice on 28 May 2003 when I asked how many people had up to $5000 outstanding. The answer was 199458 people. So nearly 200000 people as at 28 May 2003 had outstanding fines of up to $5000. The number of people owing fines between $5000 and $10000 was 1903. How could we possibly allow such a system to exist? But it has happened and I say to the Minister that it is no good throwing the issue back at the Opposition and saying that National had had 9 long years to do something. This Government has had 15 years. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Part 1 deals with the execution of warrants but I do not think the provision will keep the bailiff very busy. Any legislation whereby there is a chance that someone will be intercepted one day in three will hardly act as a disincentive for a significant number of people. 
In the lunch break I went over some submissions made to the Law and Order Committee and looked at some advice from the officials. I point out that the National Party’s position has always been that if people owe money to the courts they pay it. We have always said that if people can afford international travel they can afford to pay their fines. In the select committee we asked the officials to have a look at lowering the monetary threshold from $5000 to $1000 of fines owing as a starting point. That initiative came from members of the National Party. Our concern was what the cost-benefit would be. I think members might be interested to hear what we were told. The officials said that a full cost-benefit analysis was carried out only in relation to the current proposal—that is that one person would be stopped every 3 days. That number is the equivalent of people who had a warrant for arrest and owed fines of $5000 or more. The officials estimated that the proposal would provide the opportunity to resolve approximately $1.5 million of court-imposed fines reparation orders and infringement fees each year—charges that would otherwise not be resolved. I want to put that amount in context. Outstanding fines are now in excess of $650 million. 
Peter Brown 
: How much? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is $650 million. That fact was presented to the select committee. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What was that fact? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: There are outstanding fines of $650 million—actually I stand corrected. It is not $650 million. The facts at that point were that there was just over $500 million of outstanding fines. The estimate is now $650 million. The amounts are big. We were told at the select committee that the figure was substantial. If we think that through it shows that the Labour Government having understood the scope of the problem is insisting on a regime that will collect only $1.5 million of outstanding fines. That is about a quarter of 1 percent of the outstanding amounts. Members of the House and members of the public who are listening across New Zealand will wonder just how serious the Government is about trying to capture those people who have outstanding fines when this is the best it can do. 
The officials also provided this advice: “In addition there is an anticipated increase of $1 million in collections of fines as a result of enhanced voluntary compliance arising from publicity surrounding the initiative.” So there we have it. We have people who thumb their nose at authorities who continually move addresses and do not give a damn whether they owe $5 $500 $5000 or in some cases as much as $50000. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 which enables information to be given to the Customs Service. When we look at the commentary on the bill and the statements made by the Minister as I understand it the situation is that about $650 million is now owed in fines. Of course everyone agrees that that is an outrage. As Mr Connell said if people have enough money to be able to afford to go on a trip to Aussie they should have enough money to be able to pay their fines. The logical thing is to swap the information. 
But there is another rule that people when passing laws think of. It is called the law of unintended consequences. I ask members whether we really want to do what we are doing. I would also like to know from the Minister whether this proposal is being put to us by the Australians. What is the effect of this measure? The effect is that ratbags people who owe large sums of money will quickly learn that if they leave the country they will get arrested. Some will decide to go but most will decide to stay. I understand that every week 700 New Zealanders go to Australia and the number will probably drop to about 670 as a result of this measure. Thirty ratbags who would otherwise have left New Zealand and been a problem to Australia will stay here. 
I want to know whether any cost-benefit analysis has been done on this. Although we will collect a few fines—not many—those people will be arrested and we will have to put them in jail and all the rest of it. The real problem is that amongst the ratbags will be the people who commit crime. As bad as crime is about 90 percent of all crime in New Zealand is committed by fewer than 5 percent of the population. We are passing a bill to guarantee that that 5 percent stay in this country. I am not sure that this bill withstands any cost-benefit analysis at all. I just raise this issue and say to the Committee that I am not sure this was the smartest measure—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The Minister of Finance is shaking his head. But if he thinks about it the Australian Government must be very pleased indeed to hear about this measure. It guarantees the quality of the people we are exporting to Australia who already have better qualifications than the average population and they can now guarantee that they have a crime-free record. The reason I raise this is that I do not think the logic of the Government’s crime policies stands up at all. We ought to be asking ourselves questions such as how did the amount of fines owing ever get to $650 million? Just having this measure the effect of which is to make sure that ratbags criminals and the like who owe more than $5000 in fines and it is now down to $1000— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: 117 a year. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is 117 a year. If it is 117 why is the whole Parliament so keen to keep them here? When we look at them they are bad repeat offenders. In fact they have to be to have that number of fines. I would like to hear from the next member: where is the great advantage to New Zealand in keeping these people here? I would not mind if we just switched this information to customs and when those people come back to New Zealand we can then charge them. That would encourage them to stay after having left New Zealand. But that is not how it will be done. I understand that the penalties are on the people who are leaving New Zealand. 
I do not know whether anyone in the Government thought about that before this bill was introduced. [ 
Interruption 
] Members are suggesting that they did not. Well now that they have perhaps they might like to rethink it and ask why we do not do some sort of proper cost-benefit analysis before we bring up a measure of this sort. I understand that the Government thinks it is going to raise very little money. In fact all it will do is discourage people from leaving the country. If people are going to leave the country surely we should select who we want to go. This measure seems to me to guarantee that we will continue to lose the best people and the worst will stay. I would like to know whether any Government members have thought about that. If they have where is the logic? Where is the compelling national interest in keeping fine defaulters in New Zealand so that they can continue breaking the law and continue not paying their fines because everyone accepts that they will do that? 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to address Part 1 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I would like to pick up on the point that the Hon Richard Prebble has come up with. It is quite a novel interpretation which I had not thought of before. The member makes a very good point. We may not want to keep those 117 people here at all. I was under the impression that we could nab them when they come back into the country but perhaps the Minister in the chair Rick Barker would like to take a call on that to say whether that is true. 
The interesting thing is that the number “117” has been bandied around. For the life of me I cannot remember during the select committee process where that figure was derived from. It was simply an estimate but what was the estimate based on? Was there any experiential basis overseas where this sort of legislation has had effect from which they came up with this number or—as is probably the case—has it simply been plucked out of thin air just to satisfy a desire to put a numerical value on something that is unquantifiable? It would also be interesting to see what the threshold movement would be if it went lower than it is currently. 
Clause 4 “Warrant to collect fine or other sum of money ordered to be paid” amends the principal Act to include a bailiff a deputy bailiff or a person acting as a bailiff. It is a pretty sensible measure to expand the number of people who can access and utilise this legislation. I am also quite happy to hear from the Minister that the Order in Council to lower the amount owed either in fines or in reparation is a possibility. It would be great if there were an intention to do that but I do not see that there is any huge desire to do so. 
The other point I would like to make regarding that is the basis on which the Government will alter the threshold. Will it even in fact raise it if it becomes too cumbersome? If those 117 people become such a burdensome chore for the Government will it raise the amount? Does it go both ways? It seems to me though that the whole point of having legislation like this is that it is for the victims and the law abiding. So in a sense thresholds ought not to be much of a consideration. It is the interests of victims that should dictate the threshold. 
I understand that one needs to test new technology. We need to test the efficacy of the kind of legislation we put into place in case there are huge expenses and delays that occur as a result but once we know that it is working and that there are not any delays we should lower the threshold in the interests of the assertion of law of victims’ rights and of justice. I would like the Minister to take a call on that in order to hear whether that is the case. Nothing that I have read states that the basis of the threshold level will be changed depending on the interests of victims rather than the usefulness to the Government in being able to obtain some extra funds when it sees the potential for doing so. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Customs and Excise Act 1996 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I ask the Minister in the chair Rick Barker to look at Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker. There are proposed changes on that to the Crimes Act which is what we have just debated in Part 1. I would be happy to entertain any changes that may be necessary there but I think he will find that there is a Supplementary Order Paper with amendments to Part 1 and we did not vote on them. 
Part 2 puts in place the information-sharing regime. There are quite considerable changes being proposed in this bill with respect to information sharing and I have put forward a number of amendments on that. Part 2 allows the Ministry of Justice to notify other agencies that people are specified fines defaulters. Members will recall that those are the people whom the system is designed to ensnare. The Government gives the impression—as it certainly plans to give in its advertising campaign I am sure—that people who owe fines will be stopped at the airports. In fact the number who will be stopped is very small. It is not people who owe $5000 worth of fines nor is it people who owe reparation. It is people who owe $5000 worth of fines and have an arrest warrant and people who owe reparation of any amount and have an arrest warrant. The officials said that was about 500 people in total according to the reports we have here. 
Let me go through who will be targeted by this elaborate information-sharing regime. Originally we were advised by Ministry of Justice officials that the bill as introduced by the Minister would catch about 35 serious fines defaulters a year. With the changes to the bill made as a result of pressure from the Opposition that has grown to 117 serious fines defaulters a year and the Government expects to collect $1.5 million from them. That is one fines defaulter every 3 days. I think the Government could go a lot further than that. 
The Minister has tabled Supplementary Order Paper 370 in his name and it is quite extensive. There are very significant changes in that Supplementary Order Paper and they have not gone before the Law and Order Committee. I want to look at the amendment to clause 7 to insert new section 280F. Those are the rules that will allow the Customs Service to supply information concerning specified fines defaulters to the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour. That in itself needs further explanation from the Minister. It allows the chief executive of customs to supply the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour with information about specified fines defaulters and that information can then be passed on to the Ministry of Justice. Is that not correct? Why did the Government not put that in the original bill? It is a very obvious question. It is something new. It has not gone to the select committee and the public has not had a chance to talk about whether customs information should be made available to the Immigration Service which would then make it available to the Ministry of Justice. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Of course it should. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We think it should but we wonder why the public of New Zealand was not entitled to make any submissions on that provision. 
 We want to know why the Government would limit the amount of information about serious fines defaulters that is passed to the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour. There is no provision for any other information the Customs Service has that may identify a fines defaulter to be passed on. The Government is limiting it to a person’s name date of birth sex passport number and notice that that person is a specified fines defaulter. What if the Customs Service has any other information that may identify a person such as an address or the name of an employer? 
Peter Brown 
: What about an IRD number? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is dealt with later on—we will deal with that in the debate on Part 9. Why is that extra information not being allowed to be sent forward? If we are serious as the Minister says why do we not have a provision that all the information the Customs Service may have on a specified fines defaulter should be made available to the system in order to locate that person? What if the Customs Service has an invoice a packing slip or a customs declaration that has the person’s name and address on it? Does this bill provide for the Customs Service to provide the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour with that information? No. What if the Customs Service gets some additional information at the airport that may help to identify a fines defaulter? Why will that not be passed on? We are limiting the information that can be provided to catch those people. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this most important debate on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. Progress is slow and understandably so because of the turgidity and complexity of the provisions in this bill which have so much to say and from which so much seems to be omitted that would otherwise constitute good practice. 
I start by dealing with an issue that the Hon Tony Ryall dealt with touching on Supplementary Order Paper 370. I believe that the comments made by Mr Ryall warrant some reinforcement. The first comment he made was that the Supplementary Order Paper has come late in the day. That is assuredly so against the background of a bill that was introduced on 14 May 2003. It had its first reading on 19 June 2003 and then went off to the Law and Order Committee and there languished for several years. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance that with all the time for mature reflection and consideration of this bill this Supplementary Order Paper from the Government has come so late and as Mr Ryall said with no opportunity at all for public input on what are clearly critical matters. They are critical matters because the whole question of information and data matching is sensitive. Although a robust attitude should be taken toward such issues when we are talking about the evasion of the criminal law nevertheless care is also required. 
The Supplementary Order Paper as it deals with this part makes some changes of particular relevance. The explanatory note to the Supplementary Order Paper states: “The amendments to clause 7 relate to a sub-category of serious fines defaulters (referred to as “specified fines defaulters”) who are likely to be intercepted at an airport or a seaport in relation to their unpaid fines. These are persons who owe $5000 or more in unpaid fines (not including infringement fines) or any amount of reparation and for whom there is a warrant to arrest. There is provision for the amount of $5000 to be changed by Order in Council.” I argue that that threshold of $5000 has been set too high and that there is an immediate justification for a lower threshold than that fixed here. 
Second the Supplementary Order Paper proposes to add new section 280F to the Customs and Excise Act. That section provides that the Chief Executive of the Customs Service may supply information concerning specified fines defaulters to the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour. There are associated amendments to clause 15 that insert new section 141AG into the Immigration Act which members of this Parliament are all too familiar with. Those amendments authorise the Customs Service and the Immigration Service to give airlines and other carriers information about the identity of specified fines defaulters. 
In the course of this Committee stage the Minister in the chair Rick Barker has sought—and I give him credit for this—vainly and in vain to respond to particular issues as they have arisen. One of the most interesting responses that he gave was to acknowledge in his candid and frank way that there are significant gaps in this legislation. He identified the fact that there are real issues around the administration of the infringement notices regime and that those issues would be visited in the life of this present Government. I doubt that that is so because this is a dying Government that has only weeks to run. The chance of this Government ever tackling those significant issues is I am sure a forlorn and futile one. 
But they are important issues and it is in this particular part that one might have seen given the readiness of the Government to advance at very late notice Supplementary Order Paper changes the sort of changes that the Minister has said are clearly required. I say that it is simply unsatisfactory when a bill has been so long in its gestation for the Minister to say to us and to listeners that the reality is that this legislation is in some respects both incomplete and imperfect. If I may I would like to deal with the interpretation provisions in the part and seek that the Minister comment on certain aspects of those interpretation provisions. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow on from my learned colleague who has given me quite a bit of new material to use in this debate. I start by saying that in an earlier debate today on an issue that is similar in some ways to what is happening here—the whole issue of trying to protect New Zealand’s integrity and defence and now its financial base as it were in terms of trying to get back the fines that people are failing to pay—a member of New Zealand First Jim Peters raised an interesting point. He said that a National Party member had just spoken about a red Green member and had used the terms “hard left” and “red” in a way that is no longer relevant today given that we are trying to enhance our trade with China and other such places that would otherwise in a time gone by have been described as very red. I accept that the honourable member who is a former headmaster—a very good one I hasten to add and one who would if he were to go back to that profession earn a lot more money under National Party policy than he did in the past under the Government—is partly right. I accept that Jim Peters’ assertion is partly right. But in my comments I was trying to demonstrate the historic meaning of “red”—that is those hard left Russian kind of Stalinists that we seem to be debating more and more in this Parliament as we move closer and closer to the election. 
Here is another example of that kind of approach. We have before us a bill that is on the surface quite a good idea: to get those who are not paying their fines to do so. I am led to believe that there is somewhere in the order of $600 million or more in outstanding unpaid fines. The Government is introducing various clauses to deal with that. In particular Part 2 gives the Customs and Excise Act 1996 a bit of a revamp so that customs officials at the airport can catch those crooks on the way through. We are playing with that and maybe we will toughen it up. Then when I look at some of the figures that have come out of the various official papers and at some of the comments my colleagues have made I find that if we are totally successful in this measure we will catch 117 people. That estimate was put forward during the development of the bill. 
Who are those people? They are the people who have convictions. As the ACT member the Hon Richard Prebble said they are crooks—it is the crooks whom we are going to hold on to. We are losing 650 or 700 New Zealanders a week to Australia. We will keep back 117 of them per year and those will be the crooks. We want to keep them here. It is a classic example of the sort of red policy that we talked about when we discussed the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). 
I am told that if we do manage to catch those crooks at the border that will gain the Government $1.5 million out of the $600-plus million that is already being lost through unpaid fines that the courts are writing off—at the rate I am told of about $40 million a year—because they decide that it is a lost cause and they will not follow it up. How does that compare with the treatment of poor old “Joe Hard-worker” out there who may though some mistake or other fill in his tax return form slightly incorrectly? What kinds of penalties would be imposed on him and what kinds of assets would be seized from him if he were to make such a mistake? The only conclusion I can come to is that once again our very left Government which is moving further and further left and into the red has decided that the way to get back at that limited number of people is to keep the crooks in New Zealand and to allow the good hard-working decent citizens of New Zealand to be driven offshore because of the punitive policies the Government adopts towards them. 
I also ask the Minister who is in the House and looking after this bill why he has put in place— 
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. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 ACT does not have anyone on the Law and Order Committee so I have been sitting here listening to the debate and before I came down to the House I listened to it from my office. I think this is a good piece of legislation. I think it is needed. Like a number of the other speakers I do not think it is tough enough or goes far enough. I think Parliament could consider extending this sort of legislation into other situations where New Zealanders go overseas and default on money they owe. For instance student loans are treated as a tax which means that they cannot be recovered from people who move overseas. We should treat them as a debt and when people move overseas and default on their student loans there is no reason why we should not sell those debts to a private collection agency and have them collected. That would be a deterrent to students who think they can rack up loans here and then go away and welsh on them. 
I am horrified by the amount of money that is owed in fines by defaulters how difficult it is to recover those fines and how hamstrung the agencies are by having to rely on just a simple address when they try to recover those fines. Even when defaulters remain in New Zealand it must still be a nightmare for those agencies. But a couple of things concern me. One is that when we have legislation that allows the sharing of information we have to be very careful that that information is not abused or misused. I have had experience of this in drafting the Sex Offenders Registry Bill which causes obviously a much more emotive reaction than this sort of legislation does although one could argue that the harm done by those people is worse than the harm done by these people. However we have been very careful when copying legislation from Canada and the UK—where information is shared between agencies and passed on between people—that the information is correct and is correctly used. Everybody knows that there are times when fines—especially fines for less serious things—are disputed. If people do not have a system in place for paying them off they are liable for arrest. 
The New Zealand Customs Service has enormous powers. I remember writing a story about information being passed to it in a malicious way. This information accused two individuals of importing class A drugs and selling them in Parnell nightclubs. One of the people who came back into the country was detained by customs for 6 hours and searched and suffered enormous humiliation and distress because that person was innocent of all of those things. It was very difficult for that information to be removed from the records of the Customs Service. The service finally conceded that the information had been passed to it maliciously and it said it had to act on any information it was given But for the innocent parties it took a long time—over a year—for that information to be corrected on their records and for them to be able to travel between countries and to and from New Zealand able to breathe easy in the knowledge that they were not likely to be pulled aside questioned and have all their stuff searched. 
It concerns me that section 280E which is inserted by clause 7 states that there is no Crown liability for third parties unless it has not acted in good faith or has been grossly negligent. It seems to me that that would not include the fact that information had been passed to the Crown maliciously that the information had been used in good faith and that the Crown had not been grossly negligent. That does not offer any protection to someone who has none the less taken months to clear his or her name and get the issue cleared up. There is no liability on the Crown to address that. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to an amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to insert in subsection (1) of proposed new section 280F of the Customs and Excise Act the following new paragraph: 
(da)the person’s nationality:. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 27 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to an amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to insert in subsection (1) of proposed new section 280F of the Customs and Excise Act the following new paragraph: 
(da)any other information that may assist in the location of the specified fines defaulter. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 27 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to an amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to insert in subparagraph (i) of proposed new section 280F(3)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act after the words “(or any other” the word “lesser”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 27 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson . I waited until all the votes had been put because I did not want to be seen to be either churlish or in any way questioning your judgment. I came down to the Chamber some time ago very interested in Part 2 because of the information-sharing stuff in it. I am probably one of the few people in the House with a degree in computer science and information technology. I tried on two occasions to take a call because information sharing is a very important part of the bill and will be a major issue that the House will deal with across the whole of government as time goes by. Yet I notice that you very quickly took a closure motion even though I was trying to take a call. Maybe I have quite a quiet voice and I am quite hard to spot in a crowd but I did try to call as loud as I could. I wonder whether you could give us some guidelines: is it just futile for members who are interested in a bill to come down to the Chamber to try to take part in the debate if you are going to take closure motions as quickly as that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. National had three calls on that part. I think that was covered. There were two clauses in that part. 
Part 3 District Courts Act 1947 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 Part 3 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill goes to the heart of one of the important mechanical ways in which this bill seeks to operate. It provides to court registrars the power to issue arrest warrants to debtors with or without a judge being present in the courthouse. Currently the law allows registrars to issue those warrants of arrest only if the judge is absent but now it will provide that the rest of those matters will be dealt with by registrars even if a judge is present in the courthouse. 
That is an important provision for this bill because once there are warrants of arrest out for people and they either have fines in excess of $5000 or outstanding reparation sentences or payments they can then be subject to this regime. Right now there are a very limited number of people who owe more than $5000 and who are subject to an arrest warrant—in fact the number is 500 according to advice from the Ministry of Justice. But let us just look at those people who do owe more than $5000 in fines. According to information I received from the Minister in the middle of last year—which is older information—about 25000 people owe more than $5000. Those 25000 people according to my calculations owe $220 million in total. We have people who owe sums of $800000 $300000 $139000—huge amounts of money are owed in fines by people who owe over $5000. 
But of that 25000 who owe a total of $220 million only 500 are subject to a warrant of arrest and they are the group this legislation hopes to target. The Government’s own advisers said that when this bill was first introduced it would have caught 35 of those people each year. Now it will catch 117 of them each year but members must wonder when $220 million was outstanding from that group of people this time last year how much money will be caught with this legislation. I tell them it is only $1.5 million. The legislation really does not go far enough. That percentage is 0.25 of 1 percent of the debt that is outstanding. 
Brian Connell 
: Say that again. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: One-quarter of 1 percent of the debt outstanding will be caught by this legislation. Why are we even bothering with this provision to extend the ability of registrars to issue warrants of arrest? I bet members that this Minister cannot even tell us how many extra people the provision will help catch. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Lots. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: OK we have that on the record. It will catch lots more than the 117? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: How many? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I haven’t got the precise figure but it will be much more effective— 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I ask for a precise figure. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I want to say to the member that the sooner we get this legislation passed the sooner we can start implementing it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is right. We should get moving. We say to the Government that if it is serious about cracking down on fines defaulters its members should vote for the amendments that I have put forward because those amendments will provide for a number of things. They will provide for us to get all the information the various departments have. They will provide for us not to allow the Labour Government to lift the threshold whereby people can qualify— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Oh! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I heard Mr Tamihere say that some people have the ability to just change one word here or one word there in order to change the whole meaning of a clause and that is why I am moving that amendment. 
Frankly I do not think that what is being proposed in this bill goes anywhere near far enough and I would like to hear from this Minister an explanation of the numbers that will be involved and of what the benefit of doing this actually is. What is the actual benefit of doing this when 117 people will be caught by this legislation? There has to be an arrest warrant before people can be caught. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The provision gives the registrar more powers to issue arrest warrants. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: So how many more will be issued? He does not know and that is the whole point of what we have been saying—the Minister does not know. When the Minister first brought this bill to the House I bet he did not even know that it would affect only 35 people. Did the Minister know that it would affect only 35 people? Did he ask? It is a pretty basic question. Obviously not! He did not ask whether 35 people would be affected or even what number would be affected. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill but there is a “but”. I have listened to the debate this afternoon and I want to cover a number of issues. In looking at Part 3 I go along with what Mr Ryall from National said and I start asking myself why we really need to include these clauses or this part in the bill. 
I want to cover one or two provisions in the part which I think will be important if carried out correctly. Under clause 9(1) section 84C(1) of the principal Act is amended by “omitting the words ‘a Judge or if a Judge is not available a Registrar’ and substituting the words ‘a Judge or Registrar’.” Clause 9(2) states: “Section 84C(2) of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (d) and substituting the following paragraph: ‘(d) if the judgment debtor cannot practicably be brought immediately before a Judge or a Registrar any member of the police or any bailiff may take the bail bond of the judgment debtor and Parts 1 to 3 of the Bail Act 2000 apply with any necessary modifications as if the bail bond were taken by a member of the police under section 21(1) of that Act.’” 
I want now to cover what the Hon Richard Prebble said that $650 million of fines are outstanding but that we are to look for only 117 people and the amount we will get back will be only $1.5 million. I go along with Mr Ryall in asking why we need that provision in the legislation. I have some figures that were obtained by the Minister for Courts which show that the total amount wiped in 1999 had grown by 54 percent when $25.6 million in fines was wiped. I have another quotation: “The figures also showed 830 people had fines over $10000 wiped last year compared with 23 in 2003 although the majority were for sums less than $1000.” Why do we want this provision in the legislation if we are to use it like a wet bus ticket to slap people on the back of the hand? There is also information as Mr Ryall said stating that most of the fines were written off because people went to jail or were given community work. A Rotorua man had $43000 of fines wiped in return for 300 hours of community service. Well I tell the Minister I have seen people in court being handed down sentences of community hours but not doing them and they have been back in court 2 or 3 months later. So coming back to Part 3 I say that a lot more work needs to be done in that area. 
To cover the last issue I ask why we have clause 13 “Judgment debtor undergoing periodic detention to be discharged on payment”. The clause states: “The heading to section 84Q of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘undergoing periodic detention’ and substituting the words ‘doing community work’.” I tell members that I know a lot of young people who have been given those sentences and they are not even doing the work. I say to the Committee and to the people of New Zealand that when New Zealand First’s law and order policies are put in place youth will be put in the army for a bit of discipline. The Minister should look carefully at Part 3. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Mr Perry’s contribution was a very fine contribution and I would like to ask him when he is doing his factoring not to forget that in addition to the $1.5 million this initiative will bring which is $1.5 million of the $600 million - odd due the Government expects to get another million dollars from the advanced voluntary compliance arising out of its publicity surrounding this initiative. So there will be $2.5 million but $1 million will come from those thugs who thumb their noses at law— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yeah right! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yeah right! I suppose is the term that comes to mind. The other thing I should add before I turn my attention to Part 3 specifically is that the increased ongoing annual operating costs to fund this initiative—this comes from the officials—is estimated at $750000. So that is the increased operating cost per annum. Then there is an additional set-up cost of $938000. That is a total cost of $1.7 million to recoup $1.5 million. Do members understand the maths? $1.7 million to capture $1.5 million—and the Government wonders why we are having a little bit of trouble following its logic. 
I turn my attention to Part 3 clause 9. That is the component that broadens the number of authorised people who can issue warrants for arrest. That sounds good but I want to share with members exactly what happens now and they can ask themselves whether it will make any difference. One of the submitters to the Law and Order Committee told us that once the prescribed fee has been paid the collections unit of the District Court takes over and attempts to serve the judgment debtor with an order for examination. The submitter said that all too frequently the collections officer responds that: “The defendant has moved to another address. The house is vacant. Please provide additional information for the collections officer to attempt to serve again.”—then there is one little line and it is the show-stopper—“The order for examination hearing will not proceed.” They go to all the trouble of doing that they go back to the court the court rules again the deputy registrar directs the warrant to arrest against the judgment debtor and it is issued. 
What happens next is all too common. The court writes in relation to the application for a warrant to arrest the judgment debtor: “The collections officer’s notice of non-execution advises that the defendant has moved to another address. Please provide additional information for the collections officer to attempt execution again.” The submitter said that they were getting pretty frustrated by this point that they were looking to the Government to help them out and that they failed to see how this law would help them. They go to a lot of trouble and supply a lot of information through their own devices which the Government agencies say they simply could not get hold of—they even find out where the debtor lives even though the Government says that it could not do that. 
They supply the new address to the court and they try again to effect the execution of a warrant to arrest and the response usually is: “Defendant is not known at this address.” They write and tell the crooks that they are coming then wonder why they are not there when they arrive. “The defendant is not known at this address.” says the flatmate who has been slipped 20 bucks to say that. “The defendant has moved overseas.” We could follow Mr Prebble’s argument—and I think it has some merit—that we ought to just let debtors go. Why do we want to intercept them anyway? The trouble is that some of them come back and that is when we want to pick them up. “Please provide additional information for the collections officer to attempt execution again.”—that is the bit that really rotates them. 
They have received that three times with that little show-stopper at the bottom that the order for examination or warrant will not proceed. We are asked to believe now that this bill is going to change all of that. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 As I said before this legislation appears to be good legislation. The intent is good in terms of not letting people welsh on their fines and not take their punishment. It is a piece of legislation that looks good but when one drills into it further one wonders what in fact it will actually achieve. Listening to the debate so far I heard Edwin Perry say that we will be going after only 117 people at the moment and collecting $1.5 million at most out of $500 million. I cannot see that there has been a cost-benefit analysis done on this legislation. 
Brian Connell 
: Yes there has. It is $1.7 million. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The benefit is $1.7 million. And what is the cost? 
Brian Connell 
: The cost is $1.7 million to get back $1.5 million. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Everybody knows that the courts system is in total disarray and has been for decades and this legislation will not clean it up. When I ask what the cost is we all know this legislation will invoke the law of unintended consequences. I just wonder whether there are things in here that are really necessary and actually defeat the purposes of this bill. For instance there is an education programme whereby people first of all will be told according to Brian Connell that they will be arrested and will be served with something so that when we turn up to serve the something on them they are not there. Then people are told that if they leave the country or when they come back they will be stopped at the border— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If they’re unlucky. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well we have to be really nice to criminals because if we are nice to them then they will be nice back. That is the socialist philosophy. And if they are really bad one should say: “Please be nice.” One just has to read the latest  
Rip It Up  
magazine. It has the Greens’ crime policy there in a nutshell. 
I get back to Part 3 and the education system. Why do we tell fine defaulters? Would it not be better not to have them come back just to let them go? If a person racks up a fine of $500 that amount compounds because of enforcement charges and it goes on. Most members here have children; we know what they are like. To use an analogy a young person goes out is meant to be home for tea at 7.30 but is not. At 9.30 the young person thinks he or she will get a growling anyway so might as well stay out until 1.30 and enjoy him or herself. Young people are the same with fines. They rack up fines for $1000 $1500 and think that they are never going to be able to pay $1500. They let it go and the fine goes up to $7000. Why do we not just let them go and not let them come back? [ 
Interruption 
] Edwin Perry is right; it is true—it will be wiped when they get back. That is quite right. If they get taken before the court if they get through all the barriers that this legislation sets up before we actually get the money out of them they are likely to get 6 months’ periodic detention or some community service. If we work backwards and calculate the time it takes to pay off the fines some of them are in effect earning something like $300 an hour through community service—and that is if they even turn up to do it. 
Clause 10 in Part 3 is another interesting interpretation in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court. We now do not even know what the difference is between salary and wages and a payment in consideration of work performed under a contract for services. We cannot blame the courts for that. That is what this Labour Government—Margaret Wilson—has told them to do. It has told them to walk all over contracts. It does not matter if someone has a contract for services performed with a film production company for instance the contract is not that at all according to this Government because it can go before the court and it will become classified as wages and salary. 
That will have enormous consequences on the film industry as well as on all sorts of other industries where people are paid huge amounts of money for a very short time and then they might be off work for 2 or 3 months. But under this new philosophy from this Government people with employment contracts of that type will be entitled to the same personal grievance claims as people on wages or a salary. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Part 3 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which National supports is clearly important legislation and there is no need to hurry through it. I am concerned that we appear to be proceeding at breakneck speed and I look ahead to see that there are nine parts to this bill. So there is every opportunity that we could spend tomorrow in concerned and critical debate about some of the key provisions. 
I would just like to focus on one particular aspect that comes quite dramatically out of Part 3 which is the references to the word “bailiff”. That word first appears in clause 9 “Where judgment debtor does not appear at examination or order cannot be served” and reappears in clause 12 “Contempt procedures” where wide-ranging changes are planned to section 84O(6) of the principal Act. I have just been looking at the definition of “bailiff” in the District Courts Act because Part 3 is concerned with the District Courts Act and I have been reflecting on what the implications might be of this change. 
The word “bailiff” is from the Latin  
bajulivus 
 and is the adjectival form of  
bajulus 
. It means a governor or custodian. So in its modern context it is used to describe a legal officer to whom some degree of authority care or jurisdiction is committed. I would just note that because the definition is an open one in this statute a number of possibilities are certainly thrown up. 
The term was first applied in England to the King’s officers generally such as sheriffs and mayors and more particularly to the chief officer of a hundred. So the county within which the sheriff exercises his or her jurisdiction is still called the sheriff’s bailiwick while the term “bailiff” is retained as the title of the chief magistrate of various towns and the keepers of royal castles. 
Members may know that under the manorial system the bailiff the steward and the reeve were important officers. The bailiff managed the property of the manor and superintended its cultivation. 
I have been asked to make some comment about the position of the reeve and those special responsibilities and I may seek leave for an extension of time to deal with that at some length but I would say that the bailiff of a sheriff is an under-officer employed by a sheriff within a county for the purpose of executing writs processes distraints and arrests. It is in that context that I believe—subject to the Minister making some comment about this in a moment—we are perhaps most appropriately concerned. 
As a sheriff is liable for the acts of the officers acting under his warrant his bailiffs are annually bound to him in an obligation with sureties for the faithful discharge of their office. As a result of that they are called bound bailiffs. They are also often called bum-bailiffs or shortly “bums”. The origin of this word is uncertain. The new English dictionary suggests that it is an allusion to the mode of catching the offender. 
Special bailiffs are officers appointed by the sheriff at the request of a plaintiff for the purpose of executing a particular process. There have been significant changes to the District Courts Act 1947 since that legislation was enacted. Members of Parliament who are lawyers would I think mourn some of the changes that have been made in the context of the enforcement of judgments and in particular the very critical role that bailiffs have performed over the years since this legislation was enacted. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I thought for a moment that I would be struck out of having the opportunity to speak to this part of the bill. I will just say to my colleague who is about to leave the Chamber— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: No he’s not. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —oh he has come back in—that listening to his contribution has I believe headed off the 4 a.m. contribution I made in the Chamber some years ago when I made reference to those who might be listening on the cowshed radio. Thank goodness the cows are dry because if farmers were listening on their cowshed radio to the previous contribution I am sure they would be as confused as I am. But I have learnt a lot about bailiffs and about where they came from through that process. I will go back to discussing the bill for a moment if I can. I look at the members on the Government benches and I see that the Minister of Finance is back on deck and will be the No. 51 vote which those members will maintain until the wee small hours of tomorrow morning— 
Simon Power 
: Sunday. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —or at least until Sunday morning to make sure that this bill gets a proper hearing. 
I say to the member that when we listened to the Budget with some interest clearly we were looking at a number of areas the Minister had included in his statement on how the State would fund the various activities it would be involved in. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: We never thought they would do this. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is right—my colleague is on to it. We never for a moment considered that the Government would introduce legislation straight after the Budget to catch 117 crooks at the border who are trying— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: These are alleged ones. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: No they are the convicted ones. They are not alleged crooks; they are the ones who have been convicted. They are convicted crooks who are trying to escape New Zealand at the border. Now I understand how the Government will overcome the huge problem that it has with regard to the shortage of prison cells in this country. It will get the Customs Service to protect the borders in such a way that anybody with unpaid fines and a criminal conviction who tries to get out of New Zealand will be turned back at the border and that person will not be able to escape to Australia or anywhere else until he or she has cleared those fines. 
There are quite serious issues that probably need to be touched on in this legislation as well particularly in this part because it refers to this matter. One issue is why the Government which is trying through this legislation to enhance the information flow between the Immigration Service the Customs Service and the police is not allowing that to happen so that all three departments in unison—along with the Inland Revenue Department if that is necessary—can identify the people who have as I am led to believe $600 million - plus worth of unpaid fines? Why does the Government not allow information to flow between those departments so that they can find those people and go out and make them pay their fines? The Minister may want to answer that question; I do not know the answer to it. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: We’re doing it now. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well why is there a need for this legislation if the Government is doing it now? Why are we doing this? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This is about civil debt enforcement. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Oh well we will let the Minister take a call and explain that in a moment because that would be a good idea. 
The next point the Minister may like to touch on when he takes the call is why if that is so we have a $5000 threshold. Why do we not just reduce the threshold to zero and then anybody with an unpaid fine who presents himself or herself to one or another of those departments is then clobbered? Why does the Government not do that? How come we have put a $5000 threshold in place? Is it because the Government believes that the cost of retrieving fines of less than that might be greater than the benefit to the State? That would be a reasonable explanation. Most members in the Committee would accept that explanation if that is so. Why is there a $5000 threshold? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 38 
New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of Hon Rick Barker to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Immigration Act 1987 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 Part 4 actually has quite a significant number of important issues and questions. I hope the Minister will take a call and answer some of the questions or I will be required to move further amendments in order to try to get some clarity on this matter. I will just look at what we are particularly wanting him to talk about in respect of this part. Part 4 proposes changes to the Immigration Act to allow for improved information-sharing on the part of the Immigration Service—specifically in its role at our nation’s airports and departure points—providing information to the courts on a number of areas. 
I want the Minister to answer a number of questions. First of all his Supplementary Order Paper removes the requirement for the Department of Labour to advise anybody’s aliases that might have been used in its immigration files. Why would the Government not allow the fines enforcers to know the various aliases that people may be using? There are people who get fined under various aliases. Why would one remove that extra information from the bill? 
Hon Member 
: That’s not right. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes if the member looks at the Supplementary Order Paper he will see that under clause 15 the Minister is removing the requirement to provide any known aliases—[ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. It is a question of whether that person is known as Anthony or Tony or Harold or Harry or something like that. That is the sort of information that could be provided. 
Also and I want the Minister to take a call on this what about the new provisions that he has brought in under the Supplementary Order Paper to provide for the commercial airline carriers to receive confidential fines information? This bill did not go to a select committee. I presume it has gone past the Privacy Commissioner—the officials are nodding furiously. Can the Minister explain to us why we are providing this right for the airlines to get specified fines defaulter information? Where is the protection to stop the airlines from passing that information on to anybody else? There is no protection. 
I have moved an amendment that would expressly make it an offence for any airline or any of its staff to pass on the specified debtor information. That should be an offence. That is information that would normally be within the wider Crown sector going out to the airlines—and sensibly too because that is how the system will work. But where is the protection to make sure that that information does not go any further and is not used for any other purpose at all? I would like the Minister to take some time to explain that to us. 
I have also moved an additional amendment. I am concerned that if it becomes too difficult for the Government to implement this policy with the $5000 cut-off and an arrest warrant—117 people a year—it may move to lift that threshold. Because the bill as introduced stated $10000. Opposition parties got it down to $5000 plus the power for an Order in Council to drop it further but the wording does not say that. It allows the executive to say that that $5000 threshold could go up. 
Just remember John Tamihere said that the Minister of Finance could pull the wool over parties by moving one word here or one word there. So I ask United Future to support my amendment that states: “The Governor-General by Order in Council cannot change the amount other than by Order in Council of a lesser amount.” Because remember the Government was telling us: “Oh once we’ve got it all organised and working efficiently we’ll drop it down.” Remember? That is the line that the Government was running. But look one cannot trust these people. John Tamihere told us that one cannot trust them. We need to put a word in there that says that one cannot lower the level. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: You had me up till that point but I’m going in the opposite direction now. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well that is my worry. I do not want these things moved in the opposite direction. I want them moved down. I saw the Minister of Finance cringe when Mr Ardern made the point: “Well why does it have to be $5000; why can’t it be lower?”. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 On the basis of the member’s amendment about a lesser amount I have given an undertaking to accept his amendment. There is no problem about that. We are going to be absolutely straight. 
On the other issue about information that goes to the airlines I come back to the point I made earlier. If we want the situation whereby the bags of a “person of interest” are not loaded with everybody else’s bags and therefore we do not need to hold the plane up and everybody else we want the airline to be able to say: “This person is of interest.” No other information will be given to the airline. 
Brian Connell 
: How does that work? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The airline will be told only that the person is of interest to us. It will not be given any other information or background. We can tell the airline to make sure those bags are put aside. The airline will not know any of the details. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What about other activities? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The airline can have a lot of other things but that was the issue in terms of aliases. My advice is that we want to try to avoid as best we can mistaken identity. If I Rick Barker was heading off to Australia to attend the funeral of someone who was very close and someone else had a fine owing and I thought: “Well my name is actually Richard John Barker” but the system had the alias “Rick Barker” and I was told: “This is your fine.” and I was held at the airport and missed the funeral we would all feel terrible about that mistake. We have to make sure that we do this at the highest level. The officials made the point that aliases in the system make it more probable that a mistake will occur and the wrong person will be picked out. So we are trying to do this thing properly. If it is my fine I will have to pay it before I get on the plane. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I feel compelled to make a contribution to this part of the debate—in particular this part of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I want to record the Minister for Courts’ comments again in  
Hansard 
 and thank him for indicating support for what no doubt from this point on will become known as the “Ryall amendment”. I think the Minister to his credit given the late hours that the Committee has been working on various bills has seen the sense of the amendment tabled by Mr Ryall and the National Party thanks the Government for its support on that amendment. 
There does however remain the question of the deletion in Part 4 of aliases—in particular their deletion from the information relating to a person who is in default that may be held. The Minister’s statement—and I will paraphrase for the Committee’s sake—was that the officials were against aliases being included because they were concerned that more people would be picked up who were not people of the kind that they wanted to pick up or words to that effect. The Minister nods and agrees that that is a fair interpretation of his remarks in his last contribution. Well actually this bill and the seriousness of the bill are not the officials’ concern. They are there to advise the Minister. I would be interested in knowing why the Minister is prepared to have aliases removed from the information that may be held. The Minister gave the example of his travelling overseas and being known by a name other than the Hon Rick Barker—Richard I believe the Minister said was his given name. 
But is not the point that that provision which errs on the side of caution in terms of people who may go by more than one name is completely inconsistent with the provision that follows relating to Crown liability? Under that provision—I am talking about new section 141AF(2) inserted by clause 15—the Crown is “not liable to any person … for any loss or damage caused as a result of or in connection with the actions described’’ above which is liability for fines if the employee of the Crown “has not acted in good faith or has been grossly negligent.” Would not the easy way to deal with the aliases question and the question contained in that part of the clause simply be to weaken the second provision so that there is liability if the official or authorised employee was simply wrong? If we include aliases and if the official or employee gets it wrong then the Crown should have liability in that instance. 
This bill is trying to have a dollar each way by saying on the one hand we do not want to be too tough and on the other hand we will make the threshold that a person owing fines has to meet far higher than an ordinary criminal threshold. In other words there is liability on behalf of the Crown only if the employee of the Crown has not acted in good faith or has been grossly negligent. Well what if there was liability if the employee was just wrong? Surely that would be enough of a protection for the person who may or may not use an alias and it would enable the Government to reinsert aliases and information relating to aliases back into the bill. At present the Minister is trying to have his cake and eat it too. It would be a far simpler drafting exercise for the Minister simply to include aliases and while he is at it drop the threshold of liability for the Crown so that if officials get it wrong the person concerned can bring an action against the Crown. That would make far more sense. The Minister should include aliases and drop the standard. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I shall carry on from that member on the issue about aliases. There are two issues on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker that relate to Part 4 and they are both important issues that should have gone to the Law and Order Committee so that for a start the airlines could make submissions on them. Why are we making the airlines responsible for helping us to catch criminals? They may be pretty relaxed about that or they may not be. But they should at least have had the opportunity to have their say on it. It is extraordinary that it has suddenly come to the Minister’s notice at this very late stage when we are putting this legislation through in urgency that those two very important things suddenly need to be included or excluded. 
Before I move on from the subject of the airlines we wonder why our airfares go up and up. It is because of all the compliance things that are put on to the airlines. The Minister says that it is just a simple thing like noting that if certain bags belong to a person of interest the airlines need to keep them out. But that is never a simple thing for a business. Anything that adds to the handling or the time businesses spend adds to their compliance costs and affects their bottom line. Of course their prices go up. In order to try to attract passengers when they advertise they break their fares down into all the little bits and then they are taken to court by the Commerce Commission because they are breaking their prices down into little bits and add-ons. The commission says we are all stupid we cannot add them up we do not know the full cost and we need to be protected from ourselves. So that is the first issue that this provision relates to. 
I am pleased to support the “Ryall amendment” which will go in. That is a very good idea. It is extraordinary that it was overlooked before—that it was not a higher amount. 
The other issue relates to aliases. If one looks at the way that people behave we see they always behave according to incentives. People’s behaviour is guided by incentives. For instance when they have one child and are on the domestic purposes benefit if they know they will get more money and a bigger house by having two or three more children then they will have two or three more children while they are on the domestic purposes benefit for that reason. It is just human nature. We had the classic example of supplementary minimum prices which were taken away in 1984-85. It was social welfare for farmers—and my father was one of those farmers and I probably benefited from them. But in the long run it was better for them to be taken away. Farmers were paid more money according to how many sheep they ran if one wants to put it simply and the sheep were ground down for fertiliser. That is how bad supplementary minimum prices were for the country. Some of our erosion problems are a direct result of those incentives. So incentives affect people in short-term and long-term ways. 
Mr Chairman is probably wondering how that relates to Part 4 and I am about to get back to that point. If we are to remove the reference to aliases here—and the only reason we have had from the Minister to remove it is that his officials have advised him we should remove it because of the issue of mistaken identity for the Hon Richard Barker when he goes overseas—what will people do? They will use aliases. That is the first thing they will do; it is the logical thing to do. People will just go out there and use an alias. It is a very easy thing to do for instance if one has a car and the fines are traffic fines. It is a very easy thing to have aliases so that is what will happen. That will send a signal out there straightaway. Not only does someone have to owe $5000 and have a warrant out for his or her arrest but all that person has to do in order to escape these provisions after that is to rack up fines under a whole lot of different aliases. Then one will not come under this legislation according to Part 4 of this bill. The Minister needs to give a better explanation than he has given for removing the reference to aliases. 
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. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on Part 4 of this exhilarating debate. I am really enjoying being here this afternoon and digging in for a long session. I look forward to getting back here tomorrow morning and engaging in battle with my Labour colleagues. It is the type of invigorating stuff that makes one want to be a member of Parliament. I cannot wait for the election so that we can get involved again. 
There were two or three components on the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker that like my colleague Tony Ryall disturb me. One of the questions he asked—and it is one that I think we need to examine in more detail—is why is it that airlines are allowed to get prior information about persons of interest when this issue was brought to the attention of the Law and Order Committee and rejected. I have here and I will share it with the Committee— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Bring back Maurice Williamson. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: If he wants to take another call he will. We will be here until morning so the Minister should just hold his horses. 
Simon Power 
: He’s in no hurry to go back to Auckland. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Absolutely not. Let us just carry on. The Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand presented to the select committee and said this: “We ask the committee in consideration of the bill to seek from the departments an assurance that the need for early advice to the affected airline with respect to travellers of interest is understood and will be implemented as part of the procedures that are put in place.” I draw that to the Committee’s attention because the select committee rejected that suggestion. We were not satisfied about how that information might be used. This is a very serious issue. The select committee rejected it because we were not satisfied as to how that information might be used by the airline—that is for commercial reasons the breaking of privacy laws—but the Minister thumbing his nose at the select committee recommendation has now moved it on a Supplementary Order Paper. That is one issue. 
The second issue of note is one that my colleague Maurice Williamson was speaking about and that is the way in which people can be identified—a person’s full name aliases etc. The one thing that is missing from the list is an IRD number. If there was concern as to who a person using an alias was then if the IRD number was there all one would have to do is simply cross-reference. So just by pushing a button on a computer it could be instantly known whether it was the right person. Removing aliases and not having an IRD number in place is just setting up the legislation to fail from the outset. That is a significant flaw that I would like the Minister in the chair to address. My specific question to him is: why are IRD numbers not included as an identifier? 
Finally I want to address the issue of no Crown liability for third parties for fines enforcement action. I can understand that but what happens if the Crown acts in such a way that it is responsible for a monumental mistake? What is an analogy? It could be making a huge mistake like getting Kyoto wrong. Let us say that it was wrong by $1.3 billion. Would the Crown have any responsibility for that? Who was the Minister responsible? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh probably Minister Hodgson. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It would not be him now. If he was the Minister who made that mistake he would not still be in that position would he? [ 
Interruption 
] It went well did it not? Someone must take responsibility for that. 
The point is if there is an error of that magnitude who will take responsibility for it? Surely the Crown has to take responsibility if it makes a mistake of that magnitude. The next point is that if the Crown is not taking responsibility and there is a whole lot of aggrieved passengers floating around will that responsibility be driven back to the airlines? Will they be asked to take responsibility? Is the Crown doing what it does best—if we use the analogy of Kyoto again—or will the airlines have to wear that liability? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67.  
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a)(i) of the definition  
serious default 
 in section 141AD of the Immigration Act after the words “(or any other” the word “lesser”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 15 to omit paragraph (b) of new section 141AE(4) of the Immigration Act set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to omit this amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; United Future 7; Green Party 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to an amendment to clause 15 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to insert in proposed new section 141AG of the Immigration Act the following new subsection: 
(3A)No person concerned with the movement of persons out of New Zealand may supply to any other person or entity any information supplied to that person under this section. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; United Future 7; Green Party 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 The Government has introduced the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to try to improve the collection of outstanding fines. The debt mountain was below $300 million at the start of this Government’s term and has grown to an estimated $650 million today. The estimated outstanding debt—fines that are not under any payment schedule—is $330 million. That is an awful lot of money and that is why this Government is making these changes to the legislation. The Opposition says the changes do not go far enough. 
Part 5 makes changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act to give new powers to registrars and deputy registrars in respect of the enforcement of fines imposed by the High Court. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain exactly how the new provisions of this bill will apply to people who may be subject to the various orders issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act. People who receive convictions under that Act can be subject to various orders. What will this Government do to prevent people who are subject to proceeds of crime orders and who have not satisfied those orders from travelling overseas? Those people are serious fines defaulters who have been required by the authorities to provide assets for sale under the proceeds of crime legislation. They should not be leaving the country if they have not paid the money because they are evil people who have sold drugs to our young people. They should not be allowed out of the country while they have outstanding fines. 
Which provision in this bill will stop those people from leaving? Which provision in this bill will deal with drug dealers in the same way we deal with speedsters? A speedster with more than $5000 worth of fines and an arrest warrant out will be prevented from getting on a plane but a drug dealer with outstanding orders under the proceeds of crime legislation can get on a plane and fly off to Bali or Thailand. What will be done to stop that? The Opposition agrees with what has been proposed in Part 5 but says it could go further. I ask the Minister to tell us what he is doing to stop people who are subject to an order under the Proceeds of Crime Act from getting on a plane and flying out? Those people should meet their obligations because of the evil they have perpetrated on young New Zealanders. They should not be allowed out of the country until the order has been completely satisfied. I think that is quite an important issue. 
I would also like the Minister to explain why the system sometimes makes it so difficult for people to pay their fines. People ring me up or come to my electorate office who say that they have been trying to pay their children’s fines but that they cannot get any information on what is outstanding and how they can pay it. I have constituents who have rung the department and said they want to pay their son’s fines and the department has said it is sorry but it cannot talk to them about their son’s fines. People who want to reduce the debt mountain are being turned away by the Minister’s department. They ring the call centres or they go into the courts and they say they want to make payments on behalf of their son. The parents ask how much the son owes and whether they can make a contribution. The departmental officials say they cannot tell those people anything about the fines and that they must deal with their son. If the constituent says the son is overseas the officials say that is too bad. The department is effectively saying that it does not want the money. Why does the department make it so hard to pay fines? I have had two cases in the last 2 months of parents trying to pay their kids’ fines but they have not had any cooperation from the Government. 
Can the Minister take a call and tell me two things. First how are we dealing with people who under the proceeds of crimes legislation may have various orders outstanding? What are we going to do to prevent them from leaving the country? Secondly why is it made so hard for parents who want to pay their kids’ fines? 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak on Part 5. I want to follow on from my colleague. It is absolutely bizarre that we have this situation now. Surely the Minister will take a call and explain this to the Committee. People come into constituency clinics to see us and they run through a range of issues. They do that with me on a regular basis. I have constituency clinics in the north and south of my electorate which are about 4 hours apart when driving between the two locations. People often come in and raise this issue. In fact the very good member for Bay of Plenty reminded me of it. Someone may have a son a daughter or a relative who for whatever reason has a fine. It might be a minor offence in some cases such as a speeding ticket or a parking ticket—it is probably not a parking ticket because parking infringements are handled by the local council—or a small fine for something or other. That person finds it enormously difficult to clear the fine on behalf of the person who owes it. The person who owes the fine has to front up and identify himself or herself with photographic identification in order to clear the fine. How bad is that! A person wants to clear a debt on behalf of another person but under the Privacy Act as it stands at the moment he or she is not allowed to be given that information. I say to the Minister that that surely must be able to be fixed at the Committee stage. 
Can I also touch on a couple of points that were made earlier. I am sure I will be able to link them into Part 5 if we look hard at them. I refer to the aliases and the area of concern that was raised. I share with the Committee a simple example. I went recently to a firm in Taranaki to whom within the last month I had paid a substantial amount of money—an amount of four or five figures. I bought some goods and the staff members said to me: “We don’t appear to have an account in your name Mr Ardern.” I said: “Have you looked under Philip Shane Ardern or P S Ardern?”. They said: “Oh no. Philip Shane Ardern. We weren’t aware of that. Where did that come from?”. I said: “Well that’s the name I was given at birth and that’s the name we operate under. It is P S and C J Ardern.” Of course they looked on their computer and there was the account. 
The Minister might shake his head but I could turn up at the airport with a ticket bought in the name of Shane Ardern MP for Taranaki – King Country. The airline staff could look on their computer and their information would say “Philip Shane Ardern farmer from Taranaki” and I could be caught by that under the clauses in this bill. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Arrest him. He owes some money. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Government members are interjecting. I ask the Minister whether he can name the former leader of the National Party. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Jim Bolger. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: No he is one but I am talking about the immediate past leader. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Rob Muldoon. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: No he is not the immediate past leader. Get with it. He has been gone for a couple of years as well. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Jack Marshall. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: No the immediate former leader of the National Party. 
Brian Connell 
: Bill English. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: My colleague says “Bill English.” Well he is wrong. It is actually Simon William English. Who knew that? Simon William English could turn up at the airport and he could be caught under the provisions in the clauses in this bill. I say to the Minister: “How good is that?”. He might be going to Australia like Richard Barker could be. He could get caught by that. I say to the Minister that he should leave in the alias provision instead of taking it out in the way that he has and then reduce the ability for the Crown to abscond as it were with no liability if it were to get that wrong as my colleagues have put forward previously. 
Can I say to the Minister as we seriously debate this bill that we do need to have a look at Part 5 and what it means when it says it is going to amend the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 called the principal Act in this part. What is it that the Minister or the ministry are trying to achieve in their amendment? What are the potential unintended consequences? Once again as has been stated earlier one of those unintended consequences could be that we have a drug dealer in this country whom of course the authorities would want to have knowledge of and he could get through. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to pick up where my colleague Shane Ardern left off. I really need the assistance of the Minister in the chair Rick Barker to get through this. When reading clause 16 which relates to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 I cannot remember as a member of the select committee why this is being done. I know that the Minister in the chair is all-knowledgable. I would be grateful if he could get to his feet take a call and explain to the Committee why it is necessary. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It enables fines imposed by the High Court to be collected by officers of the District Court. Currently fines of the High Court can be collected only by officers of the High Court. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: So why the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act? Why does it go to that principal Act? [ 
Interruption 
] I understand. I thank the Minister for the clarification. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This is improving our efficiency in collecting the fines. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I hear the Minister’s answer and I thank him for it. I am not sure I agree with his conclusion but I am pleased that he attempted to clarify that point. 
What is of concern to me though is the number of young kids in this country who have significant fines against their names the efforts that they go to to clear their name and the sheer red tape and bureaucracy they run into in trying to do that. As a constituency MP—and I am sure the Minister in the chair will be able to identify with this—I am faced all the time with parents bringing their kids into my office and saying: “Look Johnny did this. He didn’t mean to. He understands it was an error. He’s trying to clear his fines now but he’s having difficulties. How do we go about it? Can you help?”. It is easy to give advice but I find it very difficult to counsel these kids as to how to go about getting out of trouble. It is becoming a very perplexing issue. More and more kids are getting into these sorts of situations. 
The other issue on my mind—and I see it from an employer’s perspective through having talked to owners of businesses and having experienced it myself—is the number of employees who have the amount of fines they owe collected from their wages and the trouble that employers go through to try to collect it. Something I see happening regularly happened just last week to a friend of mine who has a factory. The employee who was otherwise a good employee decided in the end that it was all too hard. He said: “I just can’t meet these obligations.” and he vanished. He is owed wages but my friend does not know how to contact him. He has no idea where his employee has gone. He has just gone into the ether. It is quite possible that the guy has left the country. It is not that this person is bad. He had a very good work ethic I am led to believe but unfortunately everything just got too much for him. If someone could have sat down with that young fellow counselled him and helped him through that bureaucratic nightmare he might have met his obligations and then been in a position to make a constructive contribution to New Zealand society in the broader sense. He is not a bad young man; that is the emphasis I would like to leave the Committee with. 
The other issue is the definition of “serious default”. It refers to a person who owes an amount of $1000 or more or any amount of reparation and for whom there is a warrant of arrest. One would think that meant there is an obligation on that person as soon as he or she is confronted by the authorities to pay that money and meet that obligation—working on the principle that if one owes money one pays it. But we have been told here today and it has been reinforced by a number of speakers that the only obligation the authorities have if a person meets those criteria is to activate the silent alert to notify that this is a person of interest. What sort of signal does that send? Why is someone who owes less than $1000 of less interest than someone who owes $5000? One either owes the money or does not owe the money. I know that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker will argue that it is all about expense-to-income ratios and whether collecting it is worth it but the point is that it sends the wrong signals. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Part 6 Privacy Act 1993 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 Part 6 which I think should take a reasonable amount of time to debate because I would hate to have to write a whole lot of extra amendments in order to get some points made is in respect of the Privacy Act 1993. Currently section 103 of the Privacy Act prohibits these agencies from taking adverse action against any individual on the basis of a result produced under a data-matching programme unless that agency has given the individual written notice of the adverse effect that may be taking place. So what is being proposed in this bill is that we pass a law that allows the authorities to use that information immediately. It means that people who will be stopped at the airport can be arrested and dealt with. Remember that that will be only 117 people a year. 
When it was introduced this so-called get-tough bill from the Government provided that only 35 fines defaulters a year would be stopped at the airport. Following some pressure from the Opposition the Government has dropped the threshold which means that 117 of our country’s worst fines defaulters are stopped when they get to the airport and they will be expected to pay back $1.5 million. It is not a lot and it does not go very far. What is being proposed here is to give the power to the individual bailiff or police officer to arrest somebody using a warrant to arrest that has been granted. The only way a fines defaulter can be stopped at the airport under Labour will be if there is a warrant out for that person’s arrest. Forget the 25000 people who owe fines over $5000. 
Peter Brown 
: How many? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There are 25000 people who owe fines over $5000. Only 500 of them have an arrest warrant. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The others might be paying them off. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I doubt it. Of those people 500 have an arrest warrant and they are the people whom this legislation apparently will target. Of those 500 people a maximum of 117 are expected to be caught. What is being provided in this part is power for people to deal with them. What will happen is that a serious fines defaulter who has an arrest warrant out and at least a $5000 fine will turn up at the airport and check in. Little silent alerts will run through the system. That person will go through immigration and he or she will be pulled aside. 
What will the police officer and the bailiff do? Will they say: “You owe $5000. You owe reparation. You’re not going on that flight to London until you pay your fines.”? Is that what will happen? The provision in this bill should be what worries people. They can go and confirm that the fine is being paid or that an arrangement to pay has been made. If fines defaulters can say that and if they can show that they have or will make an arrangement for their fines then off they go to London. If they can just say to the bailiff that they will make a deal where they pay it back at $20 a week off they can go to London. 
How ridiculous is this? Under our Labour liberal justice system a woman who defrauded to the extent of $120000 is being allowed to pay off that debt at $20 a week. It will take her 107 years to pay off her debt. That is the sort of nonsense we are seeing under this Government. 
I tell members that I do not expect that 117 people will be turned away because what they will do under this Government’s liberal system is to say that they will pay back their debt at $20 a week and the authorities will let them go off on the plane when the whole purpose of the legislation is that if they can afford an airfare they can afford to pay back some if not all of their fines. If they can afford an airfare they should be paying their fine or the restitution they have been ordered to pay to their victims. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: A Freedom Air ticket could be a lot less than your fine. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: A Freedom Air ticket could be a lot less than a fine but I would rather see that ticket price of $189 with conditions paid to the victim of a crime or paid to the Crown in punishment than see it going to the airline. That is the point here. This stuff needs to be tighter. Why are we not making changes to the Privacy Act so that parents can go and pay their kids’ fines? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 As I listened to the honourable member those facts astounded me. I hope I heard him right. He said that over 25000 people in this country have overdue fines of over $5000 and this bill if I have it correctly is effectively targeting 117 of them per year. I ask the Minister in the chair Rick Barker what he will do about the 24883. Nothing! He has gone blank. He does not have a clue what the Government will do about the 24883. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: We’re pursuing them relentlessly. Many of them are already paying their fines off piece by piece. Under arrangement to pay is at a record level. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh he has a lot of confidence in arrangements to pay. I tell the honourable member that if he owed me $10 and I could not find him I would ask his colleagues where he was and they would tell me. [ 
Interruption 
] I will put it the other way round. If I owed him $10 he would probably ask my colleagues where I am and nobody would worry about telling him. 
 There is a very simple solution to address the problem in total—never mind the 117 but the whole 25000 people with overdue fines of over $5000. It is very simple. When people get a fine it should be part of the understanding that if it is not paid by a certain date they will lose their privacy privileges totally. On the date when the privileges expire the data-matching process would come into play. All Government agencies would have access to their information—from their Inland Revenue Department number to their telephone number their address and any aliases. People would lose the right to privacy. It is a very very simple solution and the choice is not the Government’s—the Government is not imposing anything. The choice is that of the person who owes the Government money. 
If guys are getting away with owing that amount of money that is absolute daylight robbery. It sends the wrong message to law-abiding New Zealanders and the Minister knows it—in his heart he knows it. He knows he would like to target the 24883 people not just the 117. A simple way to do it is to put a little notation on the bottom of a judge’s order that if a fine is not paid by such-and-such a day the Government has the right to data match all of the individual’s personal data no matter what. The situation will be permanent unless he or she pays the fine. If the individual wants to clear the backlog and get back to being treated like a normal citizen who has his or her privacy respected maybe the Government will say that it will not charge a fee. That would encourage people to pay their fines on time. 
This bill addresses just one tiny little aspect of the problem. When I heard today that outstanding fines total over $650 million I was absolutely appalled. I looked at the pro rata tabulation in the commentary on the bill and I saw that it simply calculates that of the $650 million owed in the vicinity of $400 million relates to fines that have been overdue for some considerable amount of time. I looked at figures my colleague Ron Mark gave me some time ago that showed how much people owe. This Government is stuffing around and blowing against the wind. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: It must be true if Ron gave it to you. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not for one moment think the member is saying my colleague was not telling the truth. He would not dare to do that. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I come back to this issue of whether this legislation will work. The privacy issue is one reason why we can see that it absolutely will not work at all. It comes back to the issue of forcing everyone to be nice to each other before we even get round to trying to get money off them. 
If we look at section 103(2A) inserted by clause 19 we see that a bailiff or member of the police cannot execute a warrant to arrest an individual unless that person has been informed of the intention to execute it. The police could get a warrant then find out the person is going off on an overseas trip. A police officer could ring up the person and say: “Well Mr Richard Barker I hate to have to tell you but when you get to the airport we are going to execute this warrant.” When the police get there before executing the warrant they would have to give the person the opportunity to confirm whether he or she was the individual named in the warrant. 
How will that work when we have already with a previous Supplementary Order Paper amendment removed the opportunity to share information regarding aliases? It is well known that crims use aliases all the time. When they are arrested they give a false name. We heard a few examples before. We could have “Myrtle Ardern” and all sorts of aliases being used. Getting rid of the aliases provision and bringing in the Privacy Act wipes out the whole way that this legislation can even be used. 
The Hon Tony Ryall drew our attention in the debate on the last part to the fact that we will try to catch people who have racked up traffic or parking fines etc. but he also asked about those people who are fined in the High Court for selling drugs. We have this Customs and Excise Act so what about the people who are fined—if they are ever brought before the court—for downloading child pornography on the Internet? I say “if they are ever brought before the court” because we have such a useless and hopeless Minister of Police. Not only does he sit around and wait until  
Time 
 magazine humiliates this country in front of the rest of the world about the number of paedophiles here known to be downloading child porn on the Internet—and the information was handed to us on a plate by Interpol—but he still sits there and does nothing. When he finally does do something will those people be prosecuted under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act which the Government has just tightened so that such people can be imprisoned? No. They will be prosecuted under the Customs and Excise Act which relates just to importing indecent and objectionable material. Such people probably will not even fall under the category in this bill because the fines they get are so pathetic. They will be able to go off to Thailand get more of those child videos and indecent films bring them back and distribute them on the Internet. They will not even be caught under this legislation. 
I come back to the issue I raised before of the cost-benefit analysis. My colleagues in the National Party kindly provided me with the facts on that. It is unbelievable that we are spending this time in urgency to pass legislation that to all and intents and purposes looks good and looks like it will do a lot but that as we find when we drill into it will be very lucky to catch even the 117 people we talked about before. We are putting everything in our way to assist those people. Members should look at this. In the first year it is estimated that we will collect $1.5 million but that it will cost us $1.7 million to do that. It is just like the old Liable-parent Contributions Scheme that was set up. The Government is still hopeless at collecting money owed under that legislation. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I thought I would for a moment remind the Committee that we are talking about Part 6 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and touch on a couple of the issues raised in that part particularly around the Privacy Act. Before I do that I also remind the Committee that the amount of outstanding fines is apparently according to all the information I have been given somewhere around $650 million. We should bear in mind Dr Michael Cullen’s keenness through the taxation laws and suchlike—and we debated one of those laws in the Chamber a couple of days ago—to close every loophole in terms of the taxation system. We have pages and pages of regulation and ways to catch the overseas crooks who get away with New Zealand’s hard-earned tax. So we would expect that when it comes to the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and particularly to the discussion around the Privacy Act the Misuse of Drugs Act and that kind of legislation the Minister would apply the same kind of standard that he applies in the taxation legislation. But what do we have instead? What we have today is 25000 people with outstanding fines of over $5000. The Minister the roaring Dr Michael Cullen who is keen to make sure that every loophole is closed has stumped up with what one can only describe as a wet bus ticket. 
What sort of signal does that send to society? Hard-working individuals who run small businesses and battle away day and night good community mums and dads and “Joe Hard-worker” from New Lynn—and I see that the member for New Lynn is here—will be clobbered by the Government which will get its hands so deeply into their pockets that they will potentially find life pretty difficult. But when it comes to crims who run up endless speeding tickets or other kinds of fines and do not bother to pay them the Government will make some minor adjustments to the Customs and Excise Act the Privacy Act and other such Acts so that it can collar them if they front up at the airport—and the estimate is that about 117 of these people per year may do that—and they may have to pay their fines. But the Government will make sure that they are not collared if the fine is less than $5000. If people owe less than $5000 the Government will not bother about them—they can walk straight through. 
The Minister now has an opportunity to amend the Privacy Act to allow information to flow freely between departments in order to help to catch those who would use the various clauses loopholes and suchlike in various bits of legislation to escape the obligation to pay their fines—fines that have been set by the Parliament of New Zealand which is the representative of all in New Zealand. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain why he does not take the opportunity to make some amendments during the Committee stage to ensure that those crooks are caught and made to pay their fines. 
I tell the Minister again—because I do not think the message got through last time—that in the constituency clinics I have attended recently people have told me what has happened when they have tried to pay a fine on behalf of their son brother auntie mother or whoever the relative is. They have fronted up to whichever of the various agencies they think will be interested—the courts for example—and have been told that the agency cannot give them the information they require because the Privacy Act stops it from doing so. They have been told that they need to track down the person who owes the money and get that person to turn up with photo ID and verify that he or she is who he or she claims to be. If all of that can be tidied up and the person who owes the money signs a paper then the agency will accept that someone else can pay the fine. 
Can the Minister not see the irony and the double standard in what is going on there? Can he not understand that law-abiding decent New Zealand citizens whom we want to encourage to get on and do well—to help the Government under its notion of how to collect tax—are being penalised while those who break the law flout the law and thumb their noses at the Minister are allowed to walk away scot-free? How is it that I can see that and the Minister cannot? What am I missing? Which aspect of this issue am I not picking up? 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 6 and the following amendments in his name to Part 6 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) of clause 19 after the expression “subsections (1A)” the expression “ (1B)”;  
to omit from paragraph (b) of clause 20 the word “Section”; and 
to omit from paragraph (b) of clause 20 the word “Sections”. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Part 7 Sentencing Act 2002 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 This is quite serious; I cannot believe how quickly that last part went through. I would hate to think that that debate had been curtailed for any reason to do with the fact that we are here at 4.35 on a Friday afternoon and someone has some arrangements—because this is a serious debate. The debate on Part 6 had gone for 20 minutes when Mr English who had not participated in the debate previously sought the call and was ignored. I would hate to think that that is what is going on. Frankly this debate should go on a lot longer. Mr Tisch and I hope more Opposition members will be down here contributing to it. I do not want someone’s arrangements in his or her electorate curtailing the debate on Part 7 of this bill. 
This is an important bill because it makes changes to the way in which people are paid reparation. At the moment if someone has several reparation orders against him or her—say that person has 10 reparation orders—and pays $1 of reparation to the court that $1 is split amongst the 10 people and they get 10c each. This bill proposes to set some rules for reparation. If for example someone’s reparation orders all relate to the one circumstance—if for example that person bashed up several people or burgled one house and got several reparation orders relating to that—those orders will all be paid on a pro rata basis—$1 is paid and 10c goes to each person. 
But if the offender has a never-ending series of reparation orders because he or she has smashed up people’s property belted people up and stolen stuff from them the reparation orders will now be paid in the order in which the offences took place. So the person with the oldest reparation order will be paid first rather than getting only 10c. This means that every subsequent victim of the offender will have to wait. 
This is a really big problem. We have a whole lot of career criminals whom this Government keeps letting out of prison on parole who are continuing to offend. The House will be shocked to know that one individual has 92 orders to pay victims—92 reparation orders. About 20 people have over 40 reparation orders. A whole lot of bad people are getting out of prison early having served one-third of their sentence reoffending while on parole and getting all these reparation orders—huge numbers of them. 
The amendments being made here are quite serious. We have close to 7000 people who owe money under reparation orders to more than one person so what is proposed is quite a serious amendment and quite a big change. 
The National Party says that it is all very well for the Government to pass a bill that will change the order in which people who are owed reparation are paid but let us do more to get the money in the door to start with. Over $22 million owed to victims of crime is going uncollected. Some of that debt is quite outstanding. Some of the debt that is owed in reparations has been outstanding for ages and not enough is being done to collect it. I totally reject the proposals in Part 8 of this bill which we will be talking about later. 
A lot of people owe reparation. We are talking about huge amounts. Some people owe over $100000 of reparation. Many owe over $2000 of reparation. More should be done to get this money in. The Government is simply not taking advantage of every opportunity to get more information from Government departments to help locate these people. We should be telling the Inland Revenue Department to give us every piece of information it has that could help us locate these people. We should be telling the New Zealand Customs Service to give us every piece of information that it has in order to locate those people. It should be the same in respect of the Immigration Service—every piece of information. We should not be limiting ourselves to phone numbers and addresses of current employers and of the individuals themselves. 
The Government is not really very serious because if it were serious would it be bringing in a bill under urgency that would stop 117 people from getting on a plane? Maybe or maybe not because that is the situation. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to talk on Part 7 having been a recipient of reparation. Having received those letters in the mail so long after the offence occurred that I could not remember what it was about I then received even more months later some single-figure amount. The reparation that I am talking about related to a young man who went about the Invercargill Airport car-park smashing car windows. I have to say I was reasonably impressed that someone found him that he went to a family group conference and that anything happened at all. I think the people involved deserved some credit for that. I am sure that his case was one that would have been considered when a policy for Part 7 was being considered. A lot of windows were smashed and even if that young man paid what I imagine to be several hundred dollars—maybe $400 or $500—so many windows were smashed that we were all recipients of quite a small amount of money. 
Although the detail of this provision will continue to be debated in the Committee stage I think we need to acknowledge that under the current Government no one who is involved in criminal activity feels any particular pressure or obligation to pay anything for any reason. That is why $22 million of outstanding reparations is owed to victims and that is on top of the figure that appalled me which was that there is $640 million in unpaid fines—a much larger number than it was 4 or 5 years ago and involving not only a good number of hardened criminals but tens of thousands of people. It is quite clear that the measure in Part 7 as with those in Part 6 is intended to try to turn a tide that has built up momentum and will not be turned by those particularly detailed measures. That tide is the tide of slackness and unconcern that the Government has about the effects of criminal behaviour particularly on the victims of criminal behaviour. If $22 million is owed to victims then I agree with my colleague Mr Ryall that the Government ought to be doing a great deal more to get that money. 
The problem with the reality of someone having 92 reparation orders is that it undermines the integrity of the whole system. Victims will have faith in the process only if they see it being prosecuted vigorously. In my case I was surprised that anything happened at all and it must have taken some 18 months. I would have to say that my faith in the forces of law and order would have been much greater—in fact I would have been impressed—if something had happened within a few months or even within 4 or 5 months. As it happened it took about 18 months. That is why the Government is having to run around with measures like Part 7 and previously Part 6 trying to stick its finger in the dyke and trying to bring some credibility to a system in which victims and criminals do not believe that the people who run those systems and who provide political leadership really take them seriously. 
So I suppose that it is with some grudging acceptance that we note that the Government is making some changes here. Those changes may make some difference. It is possible that some victims will get more reparation out of this measure but it is only trying to slice up in a different way the relatively small proportion of reparation orders that are actually fulfilled. People are not going to feel any overwhelming need or pressure to fulfil those orders. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I can understand why the Government wants to put this measure through under urgency because when one studies what the Government is doing one sees that it is basically saying to Parliament that we need to change the law because the present system is not working. If I am reading this part correctly—the ACT party was not on the Law and Order Committee—it appears to me that the problem is this. Crime is running out of control and there are repeat offenders. A person who has committed an offence and been ordered to pay reparation may commit another offence in order to pay that reparation and that person then cannot afford to make the two reparation payments. So we now have a system to decide the order in which the payments should be made. I think that that is the purpose of Part 7. 
Of course the Government is not asking a much more basic question: how is it that we have a criminal system whereby people despite having been caught having gone through the court system and having had a penalty imposed on them then go out and commit another crime? I think Mr English put his finger on one of the reasons which is the length of time it takes between being convicted and going through the court system. He mentioned his case and that causes me to say that I know of one as well. I had the misfortune to be burgled in October last year. The offender was caught. I received a note from someone in the police called the victim support person—I have often felt like a victim but it was nice to get a letter from that nice person—who told me that the offender had finally been sent to jail 10 days ago. In fact I received a note asking me to ring the police. I thought: “Oh my God!”; I had completely forgotten about the burglary. The burglar was a relatively young man who had committed a string of offences which is why he had been sent to jail. But the point is as Mr English said to us the offence was committed so long ago that he could not really empathise with it—and Mr English is a mature man. To an 18-year-old 6 months ago seems like forever and that would be a very quick processing time after an offence is committed. 
I have been to New York and looked at how the police there have changed their system. I saw people who had been arrested that morning be processed by the court that day. They were going to be on the streets that afternoon having to pick up litter while wearing a sign that stated: “Manhattan community court”. That would make some progress. If we had a system whereby people were being charged and processed within a day—as the Americans can do—and were then being required to do reparation that day for an offence that had been committed against someone on the previous day that system would work. 
I say to the Government that we all know this bill will not work. We know that the earlier provision will cost more money to put in place than we will collect back in fines and I do not believe that anyone in the Committee including the wettest Government member actually thinks that setting out a priority order in which people have to pay back reparations will somehow result in a better criminal system. It will not. Even the Government knows that which is why it is putting it through on Friday afternoon and hoping that nobody is listening to this debate. What we actually need is some fundamental reform of our legal system. We know that $650 million worth of fines is outstanding and also $900 million worth of liable parent contributions and $22 million worth of reparation. The figure for reparation seems to me to be a very low figure and I suspect that it is wrong. I suspect that the real figure is much higher than that. But the Government is uninterested in reparation because those payments actually go to citizens and not into the greedy Government’s coffers. I suspect the real figure for reparation is far higher than that. 
I say to the Committee that we will not vote against this measure because it will not make things worse. But it certainly will not make them any better either and no victim will feel better to learn that he or she cannot be paid back. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to that previous contribution because a lot of very sensible advice was given to the Minister for Courts. I noticed that the Minister was not taking much notice but he should probably be reminded of a few figures because I doubt whether he understands them. My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall mentioned them earlier. Outstanding at the present time are 92 reparation orders that affect 7000 people and total $22 million—but the Hon Richard Prebble has said that he suspects that that figure is not right. 
I say to the Minister that prior to this bill being debated under urgency we had the debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). People from all parties were in the Chamber roaring like lions about what could be done in that regard. Some of them are Government supporters on most occasions but they were opposing what could be done—so they supported the terrorists I guess one could argue. But those who will go out in the next election campaign stand on podiums thump the table and talk about what they will do in terms of law and order catching crims and suchlike have an opportunity actually to do something here today right now in the Committee stage—where the rubber meets the road where the legislation is formed where we have an opportunity to debate and amend the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and where we can actually do something about those crims. And what have we got? We have the ACT party taking calls to make contributions and the National Party making contributions but there is not a peep from anybody else. The only thing we have from Government members is the closure motion. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Where’s United Future the “common-sense” party? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is right. My colleague asks about the “common-sense” party which was roaring up and down the country at last election and was going to fix criminal law in this country. Its members are supporters of the Government and they have the numbers to actually change the law now. They have the opportunity but none of them is making a contribution to this debate at the moment. The Minister is introducing a wet bus-ticket process and nobody is doing a thing about it. 
So I suggest to the Minister that in the Committee stage at the moment he should move an amendment that would actually do something about the matter—as the Hon Richard Prebble said something that would be meaningful with regard to developing an incentive for those who go out and commit crime to take some responsibility for their actions. This is a classic example of members talking tough and voting soft. It is the old Phil Goff approach—talk tough and vote soft. I tell the Minister in the chair Rick Barker that he should make a name for himself establish himself and do something—change the law right here and now and make it a bit tougher for those crims. He should make them front up and pay what they are owing. 
As it stands at the moment something like $22 million worth of outstanding fines is out there on the never-never. They may be processed at some stage but people can pay “in order of preference”. That is another bit of the legislation that is certainly not just and justice does need to be seen to be done. We have people who have a string of criminal offences. One as I said has 92 reparation orders against him. The people towards the bottom of the preference heap may get 10c a week if they are lucky and those even further down the line will get something in 50 years’ time if the crim is still around and still able to pay. 
So I ask the Minister to take a call and explain to us why he will not take the advice given to him by senior members of Parliament. My colleague Tony Ryall made quite a few good suggestions to him about areas where he could do something where it is possible to do something. The Minister will be campaigning in a month or so saying he will do something and here he can do something. I urge United Future members to get up take a call and tell the Minister what they would do in these circumstances and if the Minister will not do it they should withhold their vote so that he will do it. But “Do something!” is what I say to the Minister and to those other parties. I am wondering—and I am sure others are—why Keith Locke has not been down to take a call on this part because clearly he had a great interest in the previous bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I have taken a great deal of interest in Part 7 and I have read the entire part verbatim which is something members of Parliament do not often get the chance to do. It seems to me that it is one of the best examples of the situation when more than two full pages of a bill state just one simple thing. Maybe the Minister can tell me whether I have it wrong but I believe that basically the part just states that if an offender has more than one reparation order out and if the orders are for the same offence then the payments to be made should be split equally amongst those who are owed. If the offender has orders for different offences then they should be paid out in the order in which they occurred. 
I ask the Minister whether draughtspeople get paid by the word. I mean why was it not possible to say in two sentences: “We will split the payments; and if it is the same offence the payments will be equal and if it is one offence before the other then the first offence gets paid out.”? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: They wouldn’t want that to be public. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well maybe they do not want that to be public. I do not quite know but I have to say that when I read that and when I look at legislation like this I keep thinking: “Why do we encumber this place with such enormous volumes of verbiage when in fact it is just a simple thing to say?”. If that is not the case then I would really like to know. The Minister could easily take a call to explain whether there is something more devious or more well hidden. 
I notice that there is a lovely little section 145C “No Crown liability for error etc in applying payments of amounts of reparation” inserted by clause 22. I have to say that that will increasingly become a common practice in this Government’s legislation—a clause that says there is no Crown liability for Government error—because this week we have seen the biggest Government error that has ever occurred in this country in the miscalculation of our Kyoto forest credits. The Government told us it was worth $500 million per year—that is what Pete Hodgson said. He asked whether the National Party Opposition was prepared to tear up a cheque for $500 million per year. It turns out that it is actually a bill for $1 billion per year. 
I am sure that if any legislation is to surround the Kyoto Protocol Marian Hobbs will be listening very carefully and looking at that section and saying that yes it is a section she wants to put into any Kyoto legislation in the future. It states: “No Crown liability for error etc”—I love that “etc”! It is not just for the errors—it is for anything. 
Shane Ardern 
: Does it include stupidity? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I guess that is a question we should ask this Minister—does the “etc” include incompetence or sheer stupidity? Let us remember that if this goes to a court—if there is an error on behalf of the Crown—the judge will look at this section: “No Crown liability for error etc in applying payments of amounts of reparation”. That is the heading. The actual provision states: “The Crown is not liable to any person for any error omission or delay in applying any payment of an amount of reparation in accordance with section 145A or section 145B.” Section 145A and section 145B were the two sections I referred to before. They state that reparation is split equally if it is for the same offence to more than one person and that it is split in sequential order to the first person and the second person. Honestly how much belt and braces does the Minister need to give himself to keep the Government safe? 
Shane Ardern 
: I don’t think it’s enough. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: In this Minister’s case it is probably not. But I can see the gleeful look on Marian Hobbs’ face. I know that she would have got on to officials immediately and said that she wants this provision in any Kyoto legislation in the future. The Crown will not be liable for any error of calculation. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Etc. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Etc.! I am very tempted to move in a minute if there is another speaker in this part to add “any error omission delay incompetence or just sheer bungling on behalf of the Minister”. I think the courts may— 
Shane Ardern 
: I don’t think “etc.” is in there. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No the member is wrong; “etc” is already in there. But I think “error omission or delay” needs to have an extended list added to it and I hope the Government will accept my amendments that incompetence and sheer complete bungling on behalf of the Minister should also be a reason why there should be no Crown liability. Because if we are going to have the legislation the way it is then surely that is what it is now. The Minister could easily tell us why it takes more than two full pages of a bill to state something that I think could be stated in two sentences flat—in fact common sense would say that if one were splitting reparations they should be split between two people if there are more than one person or three people if there are more than two etc. Why if there was one order that existed from long ago— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What about four? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Tisch is now testing me because I know that the moment he wants me to answer in respect of four there will be some bright spark who wants to take it to five and beyond that I cannot count so I am not going to get into that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 18; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to the amendment to clause 22 to omit and substitute new section 145B of the Sentencing Act set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading to proposed new section 145B of the Sentencing Act 2002 the words “where entitlement to payments unclear”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to and Part 7 as amended agreed to. 
Part 8 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly to this part in particular to the Supplementary Order Paper amendments and in particular new clause 30AA. This clause was put forward because there have been some significant problems in the collection of fines because of the quality of information. This came to my attention when I read in the Auckland newspaper the mayor of Auckland complaining about the courts department owing money to Auckland City and not paying its debts. I made inquiries into what this was. It was simply that Auckland City would issue parking infringements and the like and because they were uncollectable—no one would pay them—they were forwarded on to the courts department for enforcement. The department was unable to collect them. 
I went through these and I saw that in large part the department did not have the information. For example a parking ticket or infringement notice might be issued to Mr John Smith Balmoral Road. Well it would be very very difficult to track down J Smith on Balmoral Road—no registration number no date of birth nothing. Effectively that fine was uncollectable. By the time one gets halfway down Balmoral Road the people at the beginning of Balmoral Road have changed addresses and so on. One could go up and down Balmoral Road for the rest of one’s life and never find any J Smith. So we have a large number of fines that are uncollectable. 
Elsewhere in the Supplementary Order Paper it provides that there will be a minimum data set that people have to supply—date of birth and so on. If it is not supplied the fines or infringement notice will not be accepted by the department for collection because it is simply uncollectable. But this amendment was to tidy up some of those cases currently in the system and it was supposed to be about information about identity and location. On examination of it more closely I can see that there is a problem. It seems to me that if we know the identity of the person—for example my full name and my date of birth—if we are convinced that we know who the person is it should not matter how long it takes to locate him or her; the fines should remain. But by having the 3-year limit on locating a person the identity issue falls by the wayside. 
My point is that the wording as it is would enable the registrar to wipe fines—even if the identity of the person was known—if the person was not able to be located within 3 years. That is not acceptable and I withdraw new clause 30AA on that basis. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I am glad to see that the Minister has taken notice of the point I raised with him an hour ago when I said that I was not prepared to accept that amendment and would make it absolutely clear to Ministry of Justice officials that after the change of Government the provision was never to be used. The clause is a shameful sneaky means by which this Government was proposing to reduce the level of outstanding debts in this country. I know that was the plan. The Government is embarrassed about the unrelenting increase in the mountain of debt in this country. If that was not the plan—if it was such a good idea—why was it sneaked in by way of a Supplementary Order Paper and not brought to the Law and Order Committee and why was it never explained to United Future? Why were the consequences of new clause 30AA never explained to United Future? The reason is the one I have given. I raised the issue of this clause with the Minister. I told him it was outrageous and I am pleased he has given it away. 
Does the Minister actually read these proposals? Does he actually read what is brought before him by his officials? The proposal was that even if the registrar of the court knew the name of the person and that person’s location then the registrar could if he or she considered the fine uncollectable wipe the fine after 3 years. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The registrar would be able to do that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes the registrar could do it. We already know that judges have wiped $40 million worth of fines but here the Government’s proposal was to allow court registrars to wipe the fines of people whose names and addresses are known but whose fines are considered uncollectable. 
What amounts would that have meant? In the middle of last year the total amount owed in overdue fines that were over 3 years old—which one could say were uncollectable—was $140 million. If the Minister wants to make a name for himself as the Minister who wiped the ever-growing debt mountain this is not the way to do it. I am pleased he is removing that clause. We may now find ourselves in a position of being able to support the progress of Part 8 but we were very concerned about what was proposed. 
I wonder whether the Minister would take a call and say also whether he will allow support for my amendment to the amendment to section 88(3) of the principal Act in respect of the amount of $5000. We have provided for the Government to be able to decide that the threshold for stopping people at the airport should drop—and we have put a limit on that stating it cannot be higher than $5000. So surely we should be allowing for some flexibility in respect of clause 30(1). I think that that should be done. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes and that it is the charging order change. I think that that is sensible but I wonder about whether the $5000 needs to be affected there as well. 
It really worries me with this Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is prepared to yield about the sneakiness of new clause 30AA only at this late hour. What else is on this Supplementary Order Paper that he has not read and does not fully understand? What else has he read in here? Now that he has accepted what the consequences of new clause 30AA could have been has he read the rest of the Supplementary Order Paper? Will he give an assurance that there are no other sneaky little things like that on it where one changes a word here or there and completely changes the outcome of the bill? Will there be any of that? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: There are no sneaky things on it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What was being proposed was simply outrageous—that we could know the name and location of a debtor and wipe the fine as being uncollectable. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No you couldn’t do that. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That was outrageous! That is what was being proposed. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No it is not what was being proposed. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The proposal was that an effort was to be made to locate information on the identity of the informant so that the name of the fines defaulter could be known. It was going to be left there and the debt was going to be written off. That is wrong. That debt should stay with those people. They should pay it back. 
Where are the Minister’s ideas about actually paying the debt off? This bill is supposed to be about reducing the debt mountain. We know that when Labour came into office that the debt was less than $300 million. Today it is estimated to be $640 million. We know that the overdue amount itself is close to $340 million. The debt is going up so what is the Government proposing to do about it? Is it asking the Customs Service to tell it everything it knows about debtors? No it is not. Is it asking the Immigration Service to tell it everything it knows about the debtors? No it is not. Is it asking the Inland Revenue Department to give it every piece of information that could help locate those debtors? No it is not. 
What is the Government proposing to do in this bill? It is proposing that if a person owes more than $5000 is subject to an arrest warrant—which means the person has to be really bad—and turns up at the airport then he or she will be taken aside and asked to make an arrangement to pay back the loan. That person can then catch the flight to London. Twenty-five thousand people owe more than $5000 in fines and this Government says it will pass this legislation—legislation that will affect 117 people—under urgency on a Friday afternoon. When this bill was introduced with great fanfare from the Government as part of a great campaign to collect money the officials revealed that it would affect only 35 people a year. Only 35 people would be stopped at the airport and asked to make an arrangement to pay back their loan at $20 a week and then they would be allowed to go off. But the Opposition put the pressure on and we are now up to 117 people a year who can be stopped. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Two a week. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is two a week or one every 3 days. It is just outrageous—one every 3 days. That figure would not be so bad if we thought we would collect many millions of dollars from them but do people want to know what the officials said? They said that this bill will collect an extra $1.5 million a year. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A week! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No—a year. We have a debt mountain of $640 million and this bill will collect $1.5 million a year. That is outrageous. We should get serious about this. I will tell people what the first few steps the next National Government Minister for Courts will take. He or she will bring in amendments to provide that the Inland Revenue Department can make all the identifying information it can available to the collections service. In this bill the department can provide only the name and address of the current employer. What if we were to have the name and address of the former employer because the former employer may actually know where the person is living? But the Inland Revenue Department will not be asked to provide that information although it would be asked to do so in my amendment to Part 9. 
I suspect that the reason we are not taking every opportunity to get information to deal to those people is that the Government is very worried about their privacy. Why are we asking only the current employer? If a fines defaulter changes a job the Inland Revenue Department will tell the collections agency who the current employer is. Well what about the past employer? What about the people paying interest on the bank accounts of those people? They could provide information. Further information could be provided about those people. None of that is included in this bill. That is why National says that this is a wasted opportunity on a Friday afternoon and that this Minister could have done a lot more. 
The fact that at this late opportunity and at this late time the Minister is removing what would have been one of his centrepiece changes in Part 8 is very very concerning. I am not sure that he is on top of his game because we identified that issue very early on. We raised it with him and his officials and now an hour later we find that the Government is backing away from its proposal completely. What it was proposing was outrageous. It was saying that a public servant should be able to wipe out tens of millions of dollars of fines even though he or she knows the name of the fines defaulter and in many cases might know where he or she is and has not taken the steps to actually get that payment. That was outrageous. 
Other members on this side of the Chamber want to take the opportunity to talk about Part 8 and explain why we were concerned about new clause 30AA. They also want to talk about what better options the Government could have had to deal with the situation and why the Government is planning a multimillion dollar advertising campaign for these changes when all it will collect possibly is $1.5 million from 117 people—one every 3 days. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on the challenge made by my colleague to the Government to tell us which Government members will stand on the podium in the election campaign and quote new clause 30AA in Part 8 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill when they talk about how they are getting tough on crime. I wonder whether the honourable Minister will do that. I say to the Minister Rick Barker that this is his opportunity to make a name for himself in respect of that huge pile of debt. Under Part 8 he can do that. The Minister has already acknowledged that the Hon Tony Ryall has a few good ideas and he has accepted one amendment. Why does he not use Part 8 to assert himself and actually do something? I am sure the Hon Dr Michael Cullen would be very pleased to get some more revenue. I know that he is a bit cash-strapped at the moment—he keeps telling the public of New Zealand that things are tighter than the National Party would have them believe. 
Hon David Carter 
: He’s got Pete Hodgson doing his Budget. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well that is the problem of course—and it does not matter who does it on that side of the Chamber. That is certainly the case when it comes to getting the dough out of the crooks. The Government knows how to get it from the poor “Joe Hard-worker” Labour voter who is out there battling away—and who will not be misguided enough to vote Labour again—but it does not know how to get tough on the crooks. The Government always talks about getting tough and says that it will do so as it campaigns up and down the country. I invite the Government to go out on the hustings in this election campaign—which will kick off in a few days’ time when Dr Cullen says he has had enough—and say that it has fixed the problem of the mounting pile of debt by adding clause 30AA. Up to $650 million is owed through all those outstanding fines. The Minister has the opportunity to fix the problem but he does nothing. 
It is a wet bus ticket of a bill that we have here today. I guess we could say that it is progress and that it is incremental. It does represent the aspirational approach that we have seen from this Government. It shows the same kind of level of aspiration in terms of getting on top of this problem as the Budget shows in terms of getting New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. At the end of this debate when this legislation is passed by the Government we will have a situation where 117 criminals will be caught at the airports. Of course that means they will be kept in New Zealand when it would be better if they actually got away and went somewhere else. The Minister will be able to retrieve a small amount of money from them. These crooks will be asked politely and treated with absolute courtesy and once they have made arrangements to give the Government $2.50 or some such payment a month they will be able to hop on an aeroplane take off to London and disappear into the sunset. 
So I ask the Minister to take a call on this part of the bill and tell us why he has not exercised the power that has been bestowed upon him to get on top of what is clearly a major problem in his own portfolio. I ask the Minister to tell the people of New Zealand why the $22 million that is outstanding from those who are supposedly paying reparation is being paid off at the rate of $2.50 a week $5 a week or whatever it might be in the order in which the offences occurred. He should tell people why that is so. He should tell people why 25000 people out there at the moment have outstanding debts and why the court system is writing off $40 million of that a year. He should tell people why that is so and give them an explanation as to why the Government has concluded that that is how it should stay. He should tell the people out there why he believes that clause 30AA in Part 8 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is absolutely consistent with the Government’s policy to get tough on crime and make criminals pay for their crimes. He should tell the people out there why when the Government does catch those 117 people at the airport it will extract from them no more than $1.5 million per year when the outstanding debt is $650 million. I ask the Minister to tell people why that is so and I tell him that he is missing an opportunity. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 When the Hon Bill English was speaking before he put his finger on it when he said that this legislation was nothing more than the Government sticking its finger in the dyke. As I said we are going to support the bill because it does not make things any worse. But we could do this legislation properly instead of rushing it through in urgency. The Government should go back and see why crime is out of control why so many millions of dollars are owed in fines why $900 million are owed in liable parent contributions and why according to the Government—if we are to believe it—$22 million are owed in reparation. I find the latter figure very hard to believe. As someone said if that money was going into the Government coffers it would work much harder to get it. I cannot see why if liable parents owe $900 million criminals owe $22 million—it is totally illogical to believe that. I would say that at least triple that is owed in reparation. 
It is obvious from all the changes in Part 8 of the bill that the Government now has an enormous problem with regard to its automatic fines system. I am not at all surprised that it has problems with that. Someone else talked about a constituent who had tried to pay a fine for an adult child who had left the country and that parent could not do so because one has to have a PPN number and all sorts of other information which totally bars one from paying off some of those fines. 
I had a constituent come to me recently. She and her husband had split up and as part of the matrimonial property settlement the husband had taken a car. Both cars had been in the wife’s name but he had taken one and she had taken the other. The husband because he was quite a vindictive sort of fellow decided not to reregister the car. He could park it anywhere he liked—on loading zones and all that sort of thing—because he did not get the fines notices. They went to his ex-wife who was being driven mad by all the fines that kept coming through even though she did not have the car. She applied to the court which told her to fill out a section 57B form I think it was. All that did was go back to the issuing authority. She did not get a reminder notice and then she got the fines again. She then rang the land transport licensing authority and said she did not own the car any more but that it was actually with her ex-husband and she told the authority what he was doing. The authority said that it could not force anyone to register a car but it could take the car out of her name and note on the file that it was no longer in her name. 
A few more months passed and a few more fines came in and the Ministry of Justice rang her as it does. It is quite good at ringing people these days to remind them that their fines are overdue. She said that she did not owe the fines that she was not using the car and that it was not hers and she asked the ministry to please go and repossess the car. I am talking about this case Mr Chairman because it comes under clause 30B “Warrant to seize property”. That is absolutely no good at all. My constituent told the land transport licensing authority that the car was no longer in her name. The Ministry of Justice could not seize the car because although the fines were in her name the car was not. So my constituent will probably go to the airport and be arrested or be told that she will get arrested and she is one of the innocent people. The thing is that she will not be arrested because she is actually an honourable citizen and she will pay the fines. She realises that she is trapped in a situation where the dispute is a civil dispute not a criminal dispute and so she will pay the fines. 
So all the fines that are so outstanding and that we are spending $1.7 million on in the first year in order to try to collect at best estimate $1.5 million worth will not be a drop in the ocean in terms of the huge problem we have. As somebody else has already said today the way to fix the problem is to deal with it fast. We should not have such a delay in the justice system. The delays between a person’s arrest and his or her first court appearance are far too long. The delays from the first court appearance to the final outcome are far too long. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 18; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I wish to clarify my statement to the Committee earlier. I seek leave to withdraw proposed subsection (2) from new clause 30AA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370. I wish to leave in subsection (3) which enables the registrar to make an order remitting a fine imposed if the registrar is satisfied the person is dead and the fine cannot be recovered from the person’s estate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that Part 8 stand part and we have a number of amendments. The first one is in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall. It is an amendment to omit subclause (2) from new clause 30AA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370. That amendment is now out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to proposed new clauses 25C and 33E set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 71(1B) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in proposed new clause 25C the expression “21(1)(b)” and substitute the expression “21(3) or (3D)”; and 
to insert in new section 255A(1)(b) of the Fisheries Act 1996 in proposed new clause 33E after the words “filed or” the words “a reminder notice is”. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 8 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to and Part 8 as amended agreed to. 
Part 9 Tax Administration Act 1994 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 Part 9 in a bill that is full of wasted opportunities is really the greatest wasted opportunity. This provision allows for the Inland Revenue Department to provide information to the Ministry of Justice for the collection of fines. I have moved a number of what I think are quite practical amendments. What the Government wants to do is limit the information disclosed so that it includes only the phone number of the fines defaulter the name of the employer of the fines defaulter and the address and telephone number of that employer. Why limit it to that information? The Inland Revenue Department could also provide the names and addresses of former employers and of people who have filed tax returns or paid PAYE on behalf of the defaulters. 
The reason why that information should be provided is quite simple. If we know who the former employers are we can ask those workplaces whether they know where so-and-so who owes $20000 fines is now. Many people do keep in touch with their former workmates. They may have provided their forwarding address to their former employers. Why would the Government limit itself to just the information about the existing employer? Why would it limit itself to information as to the person’s telephone number? What if a person has supplied several telephone numbers on his or her inland revenue form? What if a person’s attachments to the inland revenue form—we know that people have to attach evidence of share income or various payments they have made for which they make deductions—have the person’s actual address on them? What if the certificate of donations to a church has a person’s actual address or a different address? Why cannot the Inland Revenue Department make that available to the collections units? Why cannot all that appropriate identifying information which is not involved with a person’s tax status be involved and be made available to the Ministry of Justice? 
I have put forward a number of amendments. The first is a catch-all amendment to clause 35(1). The amendment inserts paragraph (g) which states that the Inland Revenue Department would provide to the to the collections unit “any other information held which may assist in the location of the fines defaulter.” If a fines defaulter has included on his or her tax return a donations form—for example from a church—that gives his or her address or phone number why cannot that be made available? [ 
Interruption 
] No the church gives the person a certificate. The Minister may not have ever made a donation to a church but the church would give him a certificate that he would provide as authentication and it would have his address and details on it. Why cannot that be made available? 
I have moved a series of amendments to clause 35(1) that would also allow the Inland Revenue Department to provide the information of former employers and I shall explain the benefit of that to the Minister. The Inland Revenue Department would have information about former employers. Many people who are fines defaulters are quite itinerant and may have several employers during any year. Why would they limit themselves to only one when they file their tax return? Former employers may be able to provide information about any forwarding address or where those people may be. People in the workplace may in fact know where they live so why would one limit oneself to that information? Why? I just do not know. 
Similarly I have moved an amendment to clause 35(2)(b) to make it clear that the name address and telephone numbers of any former employers of the fines defaulter can be made available. Essentially my major criticism of this bill—apart from the very weak response in terms of airports—is that we are just not taking every opportunity to get the information to get those people. We are just not taking every opportunity. The Inland Revenue Department the Customs Service and the Immigration Service will have more information than the Minister is asking for. If we were really serious would we not require every one of those departments that have any additional information to make it available? That is what my amendments are proposing in particular with regard to the Inland Revenue Department—that it give details of former employers and any other identifying information that may have been filed with a tax return such as a donations form from a church or some other area that a person was claiming for. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to carry on with that exact same theme and say to the Minister that I am disappointed that in the year 2005 we keep talking about technologies such as “phone number” as we would have back in the 1950s when people had only a phone number. [ 
Interruption 
] That may be where this Minister is in his head. But I want to assure the Minister that the world has moved on. In fact the latest tendency and there are already several million users is voice-over Internet protocol. Voice-over Internet protocol means we do not have a phone number. We have an Internet protocol address for a Skype-type provider. All the phone calls are carried by the Internet protocols on the Internet. So it is quite easy to track the people. We can still phone them from their voice-over Internet protocol address. We can still speak to them as we would. But by putting such specific wording into legislation the Minister is saying that we are excluding them. 
For example the one phone number that normally travels with an individual even when that person’s home phone number and work phone number do not is his or her cellphone number. Most people keep the same cellphone number as they move from job to job from address to address. So why would the Minister not at least have put in the legislation their phone number or their cellphone number? In fact my advice to him—if he is serious—is that we have a “reasonable person” test and we stop someone out in the street and ask whether this sounds as if the Minister were interested in catching up with these defaulters these people who owe fines and have not paid and then we say: “Here’s the list of things that you can provide in the list.” It says that the Inland Revenue Department can provide the phone number the name of the employer the address of the employer and the telephone number and that is all. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: At the time they filed their return. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is at the time they filed their return; that is exactly right. Why would we not just put in an all-catch clause that says that the Inland Revenue Department can furnish any information that may be valuable in locating the individual? What is wrong with that? If the Minister is going to say that that is a breach of privacy or that it is a bad principle then why is he providing this? He is providing these handfuls of fields. How many are there? There are four fields such as phone number. I know that a lot of people especially young people in my electorate do not have a phone number. They have a cellphone and that is all they have. They do not have a landline because it is too expensive to keep both. 
 I know a couple of quite smart leading-technology people right now who have dropped their landline and their phone line and home line altogether and gone to a voice-over Internet protocol line. One can still call them. People can get on the Internet any time they like and use a Skype service. To show members how widespread it is I point out that the Ministry of Social Development has gone to voice-over Internet protocol across its entire network. So if we say that we want the phone number of the people at the Ministry of Social Development why do we not have their voice-over Internet protocol number included in this list? 
Would the Minister be prepared to accept a few amendments along those lines—say an amendment that added “cellphone” “voice-over Internet protocol address” or “email address”? They are other things that people carry with them. People can take their email address with them as they wander around the world. It is very easy to catch up with people if they have a standard email address. They do not like to give that up because they have a list of friends all around the place who can get in touch with them. From that email address through the Internet service provider we can locate anybody we want. 
I will tell the Minister the Parliament and the people listening why those amendments have not been included. It is because the Minister is not serious. If he were serious about catching those defaulters—it is really simple—we would take out clause 35 which refers to information that can be provided by the Inland Revenue Department we would take out all the nonsense about the time people filed their last return we would take out all the nonsense about only these few fields and we would include a catch-all clause that states— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I give up! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Michael Cullen has given up. It is good that he has given in. So he will accept an amendment to delete all the words in that provision and just state: “The Inland Revenue Department can provide any information at all that may be useful in locating the individual.” 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
Motion agreed to. 
Report noted. 
The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m. (Friday)