Standing Orders—Suspension

The National members have castigated the Opposition on a number of occasions, I think unjustly, about the way in which it uses parliamentary procedure to oppose legislation. I make the point to the House that the Opposition’s role is to oppose bad legislation, and we will. We will do it with all the power and the force that the Standing Orders provide. There should be no criticism of that.

Following on from that, I reiterate the point made by Charles Chauvel. What we are embarking upon here is no small matter. The Government has asked for the Standing Orders to be suspended. That is what it has asked for: the suspension of the rules. This is never done lightly. The Minister for Courts has come with a well-argued case. John McEnteer on her staff has argued the case for the Government very well. It was only on the basis of the merits of the case that we have agreed to suspend the Standing Orders. It is not something done lightly, as you would well know, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. We have done so because we agree with the intent and the thrust of the amendments that the Minister wishes to bring to the House.

I will put it into simple language. The fact of the matter is that for a long time the administration of our courts system had been overlooked by the legislature. The legislation is old and antiquated. One piece of legislation that is relied upon, and has been amended many times, is the Judicature Act of 1908. I do not know many other parts of our society whose foundation bedrock is legislation that was passed in 1908 and amended and amended. It is well overdue for an overhaul. When I was the Minister for Courts I suggested to the Ministry of Justice that we overhaul the Judicature Act 1908 and update it, and it almost passed out at the prospect of such a huge piece of work. But it is the bedrock on which our system rests. It is very old.

There are many other very old pieces of legislation, and they date from a time when each of the courts saw themselves as separate entities. The High Court, with its inherent jurisdiction, and the District Court all had their separate processes, and not one of them had anything to do with the other. This, of course, was the approach that the judiciary took to it. It is not the approach that the public take. The public see the court system as an entity, simply with different doors to the same house. They believe that when they owe money to a court, they effectively owe money to the State. But as far as the judicial system was concerned, if a person owed money via the tribunal system, it was different from owing money to the District Court, which was different from owing money to the High Court. Not very long ago each court had to have its own process of taking the money that people owed it. A bailiff or registrar of the District Court could not enact matters on behalf of the High Court; nor could it act on behalf of a tribunal. The general public will have seen this as pretty impractical, and it was and is. Money that people owe is money owed to the court system and to the State, and to the victims if it is reparation.

In essence, this legislation proposed by the Minister simply streamlines that process. It helps any debt, any amount that is owed to a court, to be able to be picked up and dealt with by the same process and by the same system, whether it be reparation in any form that it is given, or whether it be a fine in any form that it is given, within any jurisdiction, and concerning any amount that is owed. All the tools that are available in one jurisdiction will be available to all. If there is to be an attachment order for a fine owed, and if a person owes money to the High Court, the District Court, and a tribunal, a single attachment order will cover all three. That is as I understand this Supplementary Order Paper. It is eminently sensible. Anyone would agree with that. I think even the people who owe money to the courts system would agree with that too.

It begs the question as to why we have to suspend the Standing Orders in order to get this sensible legislation through. I make this point to the House and to anybody else who wishes to listen. One of the great frustrations I had when I held the portfolio that the current Minister for Courts, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, holds is that when these ideas come up it takes quite a lot of work and effort by people in the back rooms and back offices, the policy makers, to ensure that the legislation is right. There are many different pieces of intersecting legislation. If the legislature passes the legislation incorrectly, it becomes almost impossible for the courts to fix—in fact, they cannot—and it becomes almost impossible for them to operate. In making these changes, people have to be very, very careful. They have to be very skilled and very knowledgable, and it is work that is not rushed. So I can well understand how the Minister has got this out of sequence and out of time.

The point I make is that in all the hubris we get about reducing the State sector, about shifting people from the back office to the front office, and about cutting down on civil servants who are somehow portrayed in the current atmosphere as a dead-weight loss to the public, we only exacerbate this problem. The one thing that I felt I lacked in the executive arm of Government was the necessary resources to do the policy work, the theoretical work, to bring papers forward and to get legislation prepared, checked, drafted, and passed.

This legislation should have been passed 3 or 4 years ago. Other matters associated with this legislation should have been passed 5 or 6 years ago. I make no criticism whatsoever of the people who work in the Ministry of Justice today, or who worked for me, in terms of the slowness of it. People can do only so much on any particular day. If we want this type of legislation passed, we simply have to put the time and resources into it, which means engaging, hiring, and employing the civil servants with the skills and capacity to develop the policy, to write the papers, and to write the legislation for us. Unless we are prepared to commit to that, then the reform of our judicial processes, which is well behind where it should be, will continue to drag on. The only sufferers will be the people who use it either willingly or reluctantly.

I will make a couple of points about the reform. Anybody who goes to a local courthouse on a Monday morning will see a great big queue of people standing outside waiting to be heard. They have all been told to turn up at 10 o’clock, but they are then processed in some haphazard order; no one knows when they will be heard. They could be heard at 2 or 3 o’clock. I do not know of any other part of the State that does it in this way. Imagine if a hospital said it was going to do hip operations, and everybody should turn up on Monday. It would have queues everywhere, and people would then wait and wait to see the doctor. They would camp, and camp, and camp. Of course the health system does not do that. It gives people a date and time to see the specialist, and we turn up in an orderly queue. We are treated in a civilised manner. But in the court system, one is simply told to wait and wait. This is out of date; it is antediluvian.

A lot of other things also need to be done, such as electronic filing in courts. We have to do a lot more work, which requires a lot more policy. I re-emphasise the point made by Charles Chauvel that the overhaul of the administration of our justice system lags well behind. Charles made a very good point that we have had a change in people: the Hon Simon Power, Georgina te Heuheu, and the Secretary for Justice. At a time when the system needs to be overhauled and have strength and direction, it has had a complete change of the guard. It seems to us that this will simply exacerbate the problem.

We will be faced with more situations in which this type of amendment—worthy, justified, and supported by the Opposition—will come to this House in an inappropriate way. That is no criticism of the staff who bring the work together; it is a criticism of the structures and resources that are not there in order to do the job properly. We will continue to suffer from this until it is well managed.

Labour will support the suspension of the Standing Orders, we will support the motion for the legislation to be put before the Committee, and we will, in all probability, support the legislation when it comes before the Committee. Thank you.

This is very interesting legislation that we are speaking on tonight, not least because of the procedural matters associated with it, which of course my colleagues Charles Chauvel and the Hon Rick Barker have outlined to us. It is quite interesting to be in the situation of suspending the Standing Orders so that basically we can adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202, as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 242. These amendments are to the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill.

From listening to previous speakers, and looking at the bill, I see that this is a very sensible and overdue bill that makes a number of changes that will assist in making sure that our fines system is dealt with appropriately. It will enhance the District Court’s powers and processes for the collection of fines, other monetary penalties, and civil debt. It arose, really, from a general concern about the amount of overdue fines, which is quite staggering; the dissatisfaction of victims when offenders do not comply with reparation orders; and the frustration of creditors and debtors using the court’s civil debt enforcement processes. Those were the underlying reasons for the bill, and those are all very good reasons. Indeed, as my colleague Rick Barker said, it is a shame that it has taken so long for this legislation to pass. It was well under way when Labour left office. In fact, I was quite pleased to see that the commentary on the bill states: “This bill, the development of which commenced under the previous Government, represents the most comprehensive legislative improvements for the recovery of unpaid fines, reparation, and civil debt in 12 years.” So it is a substantial piece of work, and I give my congratulations to all concerned, because I think it is long overdue. I think it is good that the work of the previous Government was acknowledged in the commentary.

In this bill we also show, as Rick Barker said, that where there is a matter that is sensible and in the best interests of the public, this side of the House will not be oppositional just for the point of being oppositional. Hence, we are cooperating, and we will be voting in favour of and supporting the incorporation of Supplementary Order Papers 202 and 244. It is important to think about that, and to think about the times that this House should cooperate, and should do the right thing when there is legislation, or opportunities to pass legislation, that everybody would see as being in the best interests of the community. I put on the table the example of loan sharks, which are an issue that many in the House will be concerned about, I know. I brought a bill before the House nearly a year ago; it was initially put into the ballot by Charles Chauvel, and was then picked up by me. That was a sensible bill; it was a bill dealing with something that we would all agree is a problem in the community and it continues to be a problem in the community. In the last day or so we have seen a new dimension to that problem, in the form of text loan sharks. It is absolutely horrendous; people can get loans of up to $600 in 4 minutes, with interest rates going as high as 678 percent. The bill that was before the House a year ago could have put paid to that provision. We would have had the tools to deal with text loan sharks.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that this is a procedural debate, and it is wide ranging, but it has to be wide ranging in relation to the motion moved by the honourable Minister.

I think the point I was making is that we support this bill and the procedural motion before us because it is common sense, it is good legislation, and it is in the interests of society, and that is why we are going that way.

I return to the matter before us. Others have talked about the piecemeal approach to reforms in the justice sector. I have recently joined the Justice and Electoral Committee. Submitters to that select committee have made a similar point—that although there are a lot of different pieces of legislation floating about and being undertaken, there is a real concern that they are not being looked at as a comprehensive whole. I say that by way of reinforcing the points my colleague Charles Chauvel made earlier.

In respect of the Supplementary Order Papers we are talking about, my colleague Charles Chauvel went through some of the detail. Supplementary Order Paper 202 makes a number of substantial drafting and technical changes to the bill. They include the consolidation of statutory provisions, processes, and powers relating to the enforcement of fines and reparation, through to things like updating and aligning the property forfeiture regimes by amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Supplementary Order Paper 244 also makes some drafting and technical changes to Supplementary Order Paper 202, but in addition it includes changes relating to the power of parking wardens, owner liability for stationary vehicle offences, issue of infringement notices, and discharge of assets forfeiture order by the official assignee.

The Acts that effectively are being incorporated into the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill by what we are doing here are the Crimes Act 1961, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They will be incorporated alongside the other Acts that are already in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, which are the District Courts Act 1947, the Land Transport Act 1998, the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, the Customs and Excise Act 1996, the Family Courts Act 1980, the Immigration Act 1987, the Immigration Act 2009, the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, the Privacy Act 1993, the Railways Act 2005, the Sentencing Act 2002, the Social Security Act 1964, the Tax Administration Act 1994, and the Transport Act 1962. [Interruption] My colleague Sue Moroney has just commented that there might be an opportunity here for me to mention railways and the link between Hamilton and Auckland that is much awaited by the fine citizens of Hamilton.

There are a number of Acts there that were already included in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, which, as I said, is something that we have been awaiting for some time and that we support. With these two Supplementary Order Papers, we add in quite a significant number of other bills. Effectively, as the Minister said in introducing this to the House tonight, this is really about aligning and standardising court enforcement powers. I think the Hon Rick Barker did quite a good job earlier in talking about why that is important and how that will hopefully practically improve the operation of our criminal justice system and give some confidence to victims who are expecting reparation and that we carry through with fines. There is nothing sillier than basically imposing fines for particular offences, then those fines being completely ignored. In many cases, that has been the case.

I am sure other colleagues will want to talk a little bit about how this legislation will be used in terms of fines under the Land Transport Act, for example. I am sure that we will get to hear how that will work, but I will leave that to others to comment on.

I rise to speak on the Government motion No. 5 (Courts and Criminal Matters Bill), following on from my colleague Carol Beaumont. I think she did a good job of going into the technical aspects of the bill, so I will speak to it more broadly. Labour supports the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, and, as many other members who have stood tonight have said, it results from work that was undertaken while Labour was in Government, so it is good to see it finally moving along that path to being put through. We continue to wonder why it has taken so long. That is one of our concerns. Why has it taken so long for this bill to pass? It was practically ready when Labour left Government. Given that National often stresses that it is tough on crime, it is hard to understand why it would not fast track this legislation. It had its second reading on 16 November 2010. The rhetoric we often hear about the need to be seen to be tough on crime is really reduced to nothing when we look at the fact that this has taken so long to come through.

It is not the only legislation that this is the case for. I only need to look at the Order Paper to see a very, very important bill that was put up by Labour. It was widely consulted on within the sector concerned. It is the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That bill still continues to languish at the bottom of the Order Paper. In fact, it is second to last. It is at No. 58, so it is of concern that we, during this term, almost definitely will not get an opportunity to consider that very, very important legislation. I guess that is just another example where the rhetoric does not really fit with the action in respect of being tough on crime. As I say, another bill, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, is not being considered. The Minister of Justice does not seem to take it seriously. Unfortunately, he does not seem to understand that domestic violence is a very important issue that should be taken seriously, through legislation and through this process.

The Government continues to take a piecemeal approach to reforms in the justice sector, with no coherent plan or vision to strengthen the system or provide improved services to the public. It is of concern that it is a piecemeal approach. There is something happening over here and something happening over there, but there is no consistency. There is no overall plan from this Government in regards to justice. Unfortunately, that lack of a plan the National Government has demonstrated extends to other areas including the economy, moving New Zealand forward, jobs, and opportunities for training. There is a lack of a plan in respect of justice and what we would hope to see. It is a piecemeal approach to reforms in the justice sector and is just symptomatic of a lack of a plan in general by the National Government.

This bill omits some proposals developed by Labour. For instance, we wanted to create a single agency to have responsibility for fines. Currently, there are 80-plus issuing authorities and this impedes the collection of fines. National has not adopted this sensible policy. It is a sensible policy. We really struggle to understand why the Government would not want to take that on board. There are 80-plus authorities involved in the collection of fines. It is hardly a tight ship or the smartest way for this to be dealt with. Labour recognised that and proposed that we create a single agency, yet that proposal has been ignored. It does not seem to make sense at all to ignore that. It is unfortunate, because one would think that things would be much more consistent and there would be a much smoother running of things if collection was condensed into one agency, rather than spread over 80 different authorities.

Ministry of Justice research shows that when people cross a certain threshold of money owed—around $2,000 for young people—they become unable and unwilling to even attempt to pay off their fines. The research for that goes back some 10 years. I was looking at a couple of reports. One of them I have here is from 2005. The report is called Young People and Infringement Fines: A Qualitative Study. It was prepared for the Ministry of Justice by Litmus Ltd back in October 2005. One of the quotes from that really does support what I have just said about young people building up fines and then all of a sudden it just becomes too difficult to pay any of them. A quote from one young person was “When I had a few fines I tried really hard to pay them off. Once they get out of control they mount up and up and you can’t see any way of clearing them so you give up.” That was a young person who had numerous infringement fines. It is a concern that when people cross a certain threshold of money owed—around $2,000 for young people—they become unable and unwilling to even attempt to pay off their fines. Through the fines register established by this bill, lending companies in the wider community will be made aware of people who owe money, which will pressure people to pay fines they might otherwise be able to avoid. I guess we need to take into consideration that we are in tough times at the moment. If there was ever a time when fines were less of a priority it would be at this point in time when people are struggling to pay for the bare necessities like putting food on the table.

Having observed the justice and law and order policies that have been brought in over the last 2½ years under the National Government I must say I have noticed that there has been an increase in the punitive measures, particularly with things like fines. On paper it looks good to the public. Often, they think “Yes. Fine them more. Fine them more.”, but the reality is whether that is really worthwhile when so often it is so difficult to collect the fines. Do fines really make a difference when we see from young people—like the person I have just quoted—that once the fines get to a certain point they do not even attempt to pay them, because it all becomes too difficult. We believe that there needs to be a much more concerted attempt to collect the fines, but I personally am sceptical about some of the increases that have been put on fines and some of the extensions that have been made by the National Government. I am concerned that on paper the measures look harsh but in reality very little is happening there.

It is good to see in the commentary on the bill that it is recognised that this bill—the development of which commenced under the previous Government—represents the most comprehensive legislative improvements for the recovery of unpaid fines, reparation, and civil debt in 12 years. The previous Labour Government and the Ministers of that time need to be commended for the work they put into this bill. My colleagues and I are of course happy to see that this is actually moving along now, rather than languishing on the Order Paper as it was before, although we are disappointed that certain things have been left out, particularly the omission of the one single agency that we had recommended be established to be responsible for fines collection, which has now been excluded. We are disappointed that that has happened, but we are happy that this is finally getting somewhere. Thank you very much.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): Along with my colleagues I am happy to stand and speak in support of this motion. The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is certainly non-controversial, and, in fact, the motion allows it to amend a number of Acts that were not included in the original Courts and Criminal Matters Bill as it was introduced. They include the Crimes Act 1961, Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, Disputes Tribunals Act 1988, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, and Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I think it would be fair to say that this bill is a tidy-up.

I can certainly see the Minister for Courts looking extremely interested in this bill at this point in time and very appreciative that it is being passed. I might even say that she is really listening with bated breath. I heard the Hon Rick Barker speaking before and my colleagues Charles Chauvel, Carol Beaumont, and Carmel—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: The full team.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: The full team. The full muster. The full group was here to acknowledge this bill.

💬 Sue Moroney: What about Carmel’s second name?

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: Carmel Sepuloni. The whole lot were down here, because they saw it was very important to acknowledge just how important this bill is.

I would like to talk specifically about Rick Barker and about how committed he was. It was under his watch, as the then Minister for Courts, that much of this work was done, and I think the current Minister would be the first to acknowledge that. I know that Rick Barker put in a lot of work. He is a very, very hard-working member of our caucus, and a thoroughly decent guy who just happens to be the chief whip.

💬 Hon Simon Power: That’s true. That’s true.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: That is right. That is right. He was really committed. He was very committed to improving the justice system in regard to this issue. I can see Simon Power over there nodding enthusiastically. Members should look at that head going.

💬 Hon Members: The honourable.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: The Hon Simon Power. In fact, on many occasions he did not share the same enthusiasm for some of the bills on criminal matters that have been before this House, like the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation and those sorts of things. I can see a wry smile on his face now.

But there is no dissension on this bill; it is very common sense. As my colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Carol Beaumont said, it is a pity that these things take a while to go through. The Government rushes through all sorts of legislation that slashes workers’ rights and makes people’s lives really, really miserable, whereas something as common sense as this bill—

💬 Jo Goodhew: And the relevance?

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: I was just making a little reference there, not straying from the bill. This bill has taken quite some time—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Far too long.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: —far too long, some would say—to come to the House. It is sensible.

The changes to the driver licence stop orders are really one of the key parts of this bill. We all know, as other speakers have said before me, that penalties and fines may continue to grow until a point is reached where it becomes impossible for people—often predominantly young people—to meet their obligations, or they feel that it is impossible to meet their obligations. So it is really, really important to be able to come in at that level of fine, before things are unattainable and before—let us use young people as an example—it is impossible for young people to pay their fines. I guess it might sound a bit tough, but stopping people from driving is a short, sharp lesson. Indeed if it comes to the worst action, then impounding their car for 28 days will certainly be an incentive to pay their fine.

If you will bear with me Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson—I do not think I am getting away from the bill—I heard Carol Beaumont talk about debt and loan sharks and the work in that area. If young people were able to borrow money at a reasonable rate from reputable organisations, then they could look towards paying that fine or, indeed, enter into time-payment arrangements. If they have mounting debt and get into a state of panic, then go to a loan shark and pay exorbitant interest, it compounds the problems that happen in relation to fines and infringements. I am sure that members can see that there is a connection there.

I think that it is very good that this bill, which will go through, will tidy the legislation up. Certainly in terms of—

💬 Jo Goodhew: It’s a procedural motion.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: I should say that this amendment is going through, thank you very much.

I wanted to talk about some of the important points from the Law and Order Committee, and my extensive notes refer to them. The committee went through how a warning notice of a driver licence stop order is actually served, and that is quite important. I was not on the select committee, but my colleague was, and I think it was something that the committee spent quite a bit of time on, and it came up with some really sensible recommendations. It was a reorganisation, but without changing what would be required. It ensures that driver licence stop orders are brought to the defendant’s notice. That can be done in a number of ways, either directly, which is probably the preferred way, or by an enforcement officer or agent leaving it at the place of residence, as long as it is handed over to somebody who appears not to be a young person, who is over the age of 14 years—[Interruption]—thank you, and peace to you too, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has 2 minutes.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: —certainly to ensure that it gets handed over. Also, the issue of leaving the order with another person at their residence or their workplace is something that the select committee would have put some time into considering. If a defendant cannot be found at his or her home, then why not go to the workplace? It is a common-sense arrangement. It is common sense, because at the end of the day this is about getting in there early and getting to the problem—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Nipping it in the bud.

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: —and nipping it in the bud. That is the sort of comment I would expect from a former nurse. That can then set the young person on the right track with the proviso that if they do not behave they will have their car impounded. That is a pretty serious matter, and if the order is served at their workplace it is a bit of a reminder that they do not have their car and there is also the embarrassment. They will just want to get the problem solved.

I could speak on this motion for a lot longer, but, sadly, I think I am nearly coming out of time.

Coming out of time or running out of time?

💬 LYNNE PILLAY: I am coming out of time—my year of retirement—but I am not talking about me; this is about the bill. It is common sense and, as others have said, it would be a lot nicer if there were more bills before this House that we could agree on, but, sadly, there are so many that are very distressing and serve no justice. In fact, they are quite the opposite of that, in terms of this Parliament, our communities, and our nation. Thank you very much.