Chauvel Charles: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Chauvel Charles: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:673;Page:19655] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As the Minister for Courts presaged in her speech supporting this motion the Labour Opposition will support this motion. For those who are still processing what it means essentially it suspends a Standing Order which is necessary because leave cannot be obtained because one party objects to leave being granted for an omnibus bill to be amended in a substantive way. So there is a slightly arcane point of parliamentary procedure here. Basically the House is being asked to suspend the Standing Order so that the House can simply vote either up or down on what is desired here. Labour will be supporting the suggested course of action that the Minister has put forward—to suspend the Standing Order and to allow a substantive amendment to an omnibus bill. That is an unusual procedure so I will take some time to explain why we have differed from our friends in the Green Party which is not something we do terribly often and have decided to proceed in this way. 
The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is essentially machinery amendments technical amendments to legislation relating to enforcement matters. This bill will complete work that was begun while the fifth Labour-led Government was in office. The provisions are sensible in the Opposition’s view. The substantive legislation will introduce a mechanism into the Land Transport Act 1998 to authorise the imposition of something that will be called a driver licence stop order. This will allow the suspension of drivers’ licences if people have not made arrangements to pay overdue traffic penalties and they are essentially acting as scofflaws—they are saying “Look we’ve got these fines but we’re not going to pay them.” In respect of a certain group of people it will be the only effective way to enforce the payment of traffic penalties—essentially stop the licence take away the right to drive and until the fine is cleared keep that right in suspension. 
There are some technical changes that the bill will introduce in order to ensure that this very sensible further enforcement type of action will be available to the Crown. The Minister has foreshadowed two Supplementary Order Papers: Supplementary Order Paper 202 and Supplementary Order Paper 244. Supplementary Order Paper 202 makes a number of drafting and technical changes to the bill. It will consolidate some statutory provisions about the enforcement of fines and reparations. It will streamline the procedural challenge process for unpaid infringement fees that have been filed with the court. It will provide for the resentencing of an offender where the previous sentence or order of reparation becomes unaffordable or unenforceable. It will align the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002 with the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 concerning vehicle seizures. It will set the maximum period that an offender can be detained in the custody of the court in order to complete some administrative tasks such as making a declaration as to financial capacity. It will enhance the civil enforcement processes relating to the payment of judgment debts through attachment orders and the seizure and sale of property and it will update and align the property forfeiture regimes by amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Supplementary Order Paper 244 will make further technical changes in the areas of the powers of parking wardens owner liability for stationary vehicle offences the issue of infringement notices and the discharge of asset forfeiture orders by the official assignee. 
As I said these are technical matters. They have had broad cross-party support. The issues began to be grappled with in the tenure of the previous Government but for essentially technical reasons these sensible changes were not carried through into the substantive legislation so this motion is a mechanism by which that can be made to occur. It is a sensible mechanism. It is one to which the Opposition could raise a technical objection and frustrate the Government from getting its business through but on this occasion we choose not to take that approach because we do think the substantive legislation makes sense and we would like to see it enacted. 
Having said those things there are one or two points I will make about the general programme of the Government in the criminal justice and the general justice areas. The Minister will recall that last week at the Justice and Electoral Committee I asked her whether she was concerned about the state that the sector would be left in following her departure from the portfolio she holds—Minister for Courts—in just over 5 months’ time. Of course we all wish the Minister well in her retirement but we on this side of the House are concerned that she is going that the Minister of Justice is going and that the Secretary for Justice who I think served 10 years in that role left a couple of weeks ago and there are major reforms being progressed in the justice sector by this Government. And “progressed” is the operative word because those reforms will not be completed in the term of this Parliament.  
Extremely important issues are being put forward for consideration by this House such as reform of the sale of liquor legislation which has now been put off to the never-never because the select committee will not be reporting until 30 August. There is no hope that that legislation will pass in this Parliament despite all the hopes that have been raised out there amongst the public for some meaningful action on that issue. There is a bail review and I could go on at length about how unnecessary that bail review is given that the previous Government fixed most of the problems in the bail area. In fact the legislation we have in respect of bail is largely pretty good but none the less there is a review and the Minister of Justice told the select committee 2 weeks ago that he might like to have legislation introduced into the House as a result of that review. We have had major changes to the legal aid system progressed without much consultation with the legal profession. Again the Minister of Justice told us 2 weeks ago at the select committee that he would quite like to see another legal aid bill introduced to the House prior to Parliament rising on 6 October. And there are many other live matters before both the Law and Order Committee and the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
My concern and the concern of members on this side of the House given the departure of two senior Ministers and the departure of the Secretary for Justice the fact that there is an acting secretary in place and the fact that the Minister who has just spoken could not tell us much— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your guidance in a matter before the House such as this as to how closely the speeches should bear relevance to the matter under discussion. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Speaking to the point of order this motion concerns a bill that is within the purview of a Minister who is about to depart. It is perfectly relevant my having stated the general position of the Opposition which is supportive of the motion to talk about the concerns we have about whether this bill will be able to be passed in the current Parliament given the logjam of legislation and given the mess that the sector is being left in by this Minister and her colleagues. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I wish to make two points. The first one is that it has been the practice of this House for a long time that when a member takes a point of order about order the member makes the point that the member speaking has done something to contravene the Standing Orders. It is not a point of order to ask the Chair whether a rule has been enforced. It is not a point of order to ask the Chair to give the member some guidance on the matter. That is not a point of order. The second point I wish to raise is that the Government sought the Opposition’s cooperation in getting this motion through the House. We did not play procedural politics as we could have and I want to say to the Government whip that if we are going to be very narrow in our interpretation then we might change our attitude— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. It is a wide-ranging debate given the motion that has been outlined by the Minister. But the member has nearly finished his speaking time so I would ask him to heed the request. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Sandra Goudie 
: And he was way out of line with the comments he was making. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: We could just withdraw our cooperation I suppose. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! It is one all. Please continue. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: As I said earlier the Opposition has chosen to seek to assist the Government despite its ill grace on this occasion by allowing it to progress machinery reform in the justice area. My points in the last minute or two have been designed to alert the House to the real danger that despite this courtesy and despite this matter being put on the Order Paper there is no guarantee that this legislation will pass in this Parliament because there is no guarantee that it will be accorded appropriate priority on the Order Paper and because there is an enormous amount of other justice legislation that this Government says it will get through that it plainly will not be able to get through. With those comments and that warning I say to the Minister that we have sought to assist because we think these are minor matters but it would be very disappointing if this legislation was not to be progressed through all its stages. There is a real concern which I hope Ministers and others hear about the state of justice legislation on the Order Paper and the mess frankly that will be left by Ministers for their successors in this area. 
Debate interrupted.