Ardern Shane: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21715] 
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.