Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19790] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will make just a couple of points on Part 2 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I will follow up on the point made by Stuart Nash then come back to the point made by Chris Hipkins. Stuart Nash pointed out that the clamping of vehicles is a very effective means of getting fines paid. This legislation strengthens that means. I bring to the attention of the Committee Ministry of Justice analysis that was done on the amount of outstanding fines. It found that there was a significant group who owed significant amounts of outstanding fines who had very expensive cars and who had the means to pay their fines but they chose not to because there were no consequences. The moment there was a consequence the fines were paid. 
I have a couple of classic examples from the Ministry of Justice. One example was when a very expensive new Mercedes-Benz was clamped in Auckland with a substantial amount of fines outstanding against its owner. The moment the wheel clamp went on the chequebook came out and the fines were paid. Similarly the Ministry of Justice found itself temporarily in the possession of a very flash Italian car—a brand well known to many with a prancing horse on it. It was also clamped and I say to members that a chequebook moved faster than the car was capable of ever travelling. The fines were paid. This person had the money there is no doubt about it but they ignored the fines because they felt that they could do so with impunity. Well the wheel clamp is out and those with outstanding fines have got the message loud and clear. I think it will work a treat. 
I think the point that Chris Hipkins made is a problem that we have in the way in which we register and warrant our vehicles. It is also an issue that I do not think this legislation addresses as well as it could have. Fines should be used in some ways to change behaviour rather than to penalise. The difficulty we create by making our cars’ warrants of fitness contingent upon having a registration means that for a number of poor families it is very difficult to find the money for a lump-sum payment for the registration. If a car is unregistered it cannot get a warrant. This is a coupling of the two things. There was a strong discussion within the Law and Order Committee that we should give people the opportunity to clear their outstanding registration and warrant of fitness and on at least one occasion to not suffer the penalty of a fine. The select committee was not of a mind to do so on the basis that the police and the local authorities told the select committee they had a policy that if a registration or warrant was outstanding by a month and if it was a first offence they would give people the opportunity to rectify it and they would not incur the fine. 
Only one local authority had that advice clearly marked on its website. It was clearly understood that this was the policy of the councils but it was hidden. The select committee was assured by the territorial authorities that the policy was active and alive and that they would action it. I put on the record for this Parliament that the select committee will come back to look at this matter in the future. I think it is important that when people have overlooked as it is quite easy to do the registration of the motor vehicle and its warrant of fitness that for the first offence—for repeat offenders there is no excuse—some leniency should be given. We were given an assurance by all of the parties that that leniency would be given. If it comes to my attention and the attention of the select committee that this is not the case and that the policy is not being applied fairly and evenly then I think it would be time for Parliament to act. Parliament would be asked to change the law because I think it is a pretty tough thing. 
I had in my office on one occasion a young solo parent mother who had virtually no money. She had been in Napier with an unregistered and unwarranted car got tickets for both offences went back to Hastings and got a ticket for both offences again on the same day. It was a substantial amount of money and there was no attempt by any of the authorities to waive either ticket. I felt that to be deeply offensive—two tickets for the same offence on one day. The poor woman had to then go to the courts. She asked to be able to make an on-time payment and was told no. She was told by the local authorities no and by the police no. So she then had to let the debt go into the hands of the court and she incurred a $30 fine on each of them and had to enter in a time to pay. This is another problem that we have to resolve somehow in some way because for a number of people the substantial fine is simply too much to pay off at the time and we should give them the opportunity to pay. 
So there are two unresolved issues here. The first is the ability to waive the fine to change behaviour. I think that is a good principle. It is one that is supposed to be in policy and in practice; if we find it is not it will come back to be legislated for. The second issue is to give people the opportunity to pay as they go according to their means. I do not think that is unfair or unreasonable. With that I conclude my remarks and say that I support this legislation.