Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill

Members, we come to clause 5. This is the debate on clause 5, “Schedule 1 amended”, and the Schedule. The question is that clause 5 stand part.

This is a Schedule which just makes it very, very, very clear that the change from 10 percent to 14 percent only applies to fines which are recovered and imposed “on or after 1 July 2024”. The 10 percent figure “continues to apply to an amount of a fine recovered—(a) on or after 1 July … (b) [but] in respect of a fine imposed before 1 July”. So, effectively, if a council is fining someone today, but, of course, it may take some time for that fine to go through the system, because that fine was based on a date before 1 July, it’ll be based at 10 percent. If that fine is issued on or after 1 July, then it will be 14 percent. So this is, effectively, a subsequent amendment to ensure that there is no retrospectivity based on the date of the fine—a very sensible and sound change. I commend it to the House.

Thank you to the Minister for pointing that out, because he actually informed me of some of the mechanics there that I wasn’t fully aware of. That was very useful. So thank you. Always happy to cooperate if the Government knows what it’s doing.

But one of the questions I do have is about the tail here, because, as the Minister says, the new regime applies only to fines imposed on or after 1 July, and the old section continues to apply in respect of a fine imposed before or recovered after 1 July 2024. But I guess the question I have is this: there’s going to be a whole lot of fines out there—you know, hundreds of thousands of these things—and some of them grind their way through the courts slowly. Is he confident that there’s a system in place where you’re going to be able to silo off these ones that might be six months, 18 months old and have to be dealt with quite differently, because this is going to be, presumably, two entirely separate systems, and what’s the process for separately tagging—well, the language of the Act is the fines under the old section, and making sure they’re distinct from the fines under the new section, which is the amended section.

So it’s really a pretty simple question, because what we don’t want to see is a whole lot of confusion and the Invercargill situation cropping up, where we had to go back and get the IT experts in, unwind the whole thing, and start doing additional payments. So it’s really about that shrinking tranche of fines which were imposed prior to 1 July, but where they go to court after 1 July and are, therefore, subject to the old section—what’s the system for making sure that that all works?

The answer to that question is called the calendar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is indeed related to the provisions relating to the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 2024 Part 4, and I’m—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re on Part 5.

SCOTT WILLIS: Part 5. Part 4 is scheduled into it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member’s missed Part 4. Does the member have—is it Part 4 of the Schedule—

SCOTT WILLIS: Part 5.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is it Part 5—Part 4 of the Schedule, is that what your—

SCOTT WILLIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Right. I’m glad we clarified that. Keep going.

SCOTT WILLIS: My apologies, Madam Chair. Thank you. My question, really, is: has he considered the cost of administrating? So it sort of follows on from my colleague Duncan Webb’s question: has he considered the cost of administrating the 10 percent of fines and the 14 percent of fines with that differential in timing? Because we’ve heard from the Minister that this is a Government of action. But, actually, what we’re seeing is a bit of chaos here.

I’ve got several questions. I’m interested: has the Minister actually considered simply stopping the process here, allowing us to consider it more properly through a select committee process—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we’re—[Interruption] Stop just a moment. I’d really like this to be at the point—because it really is about fines imposed before the start of this, as opposed to fines after, and I think the Minister’s clarified that very well. So I need questions to be related to specifically that.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and that is exactly my point, because I would like to know—[Interruption] If I may without the distractions, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ignore the distractions; just ask the question.

SCOTT WILLIS: I would like to know what the costs are associated with those fines. Let’s see, the old section continues to apply for fines imposed before 1 July. So how are we going to manage the administration of that and what will the costs be associated with those costs that accrue a 10 percent fine, as opposed to the different 14 percent fine after that? How much has that been calculated? How has that been calculated? And is there any work under way to make sure we understand the true cost of this? Because, really, this may seem like a very inconsequential and silly piece of legislation, to be frank, but there’s a true cost associated with it and it relates to that differential in time.

So if we could have some clarity about how the Minister has been able to judge the value of this legislation and breaking it down with that old section to apply for fines imposed before 1 July, I think that would be very helpful for us to understand because, really, we’re here—we’re not in a select committee; we’re doing this through urgency. We have to get as much information out as we can in a very, very pressed environment. We really don’t want to drag this on. We want the Speaker to be able to get his 2 o’clock flight tomorrow but we also want to know what the answer is, and this is an important question. I know the members opposite are really keen to get on the road but we need to do this properly, given that we don’t have the luxury of select committee.

So, please, if the Minister could come back to giving us that breakdown of what the difference in the date is going to make for the cost of implementing this piece of legislation. There’s perhaps another question there—

Hon Members: Oh no!

SCOTT WILLIS: Oh yes—oh yes!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Make it quick and make it relevant.

SCOTT WILLIS: Well, I’m attempting to. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, the relevance is, really: did the Minister also talk to local government about that difference? That is really key here, because local government is going to need to know this as well. So there’s two questions there and I’d appreciate an answer please. Thank you.

There were two very simple questions in there. The first was in relation to cost recovery and I was pleased to hear the member actually ask about cost recovery. Page 9 of the cost recovery impact statement is quite useful in outlining that this will raise $285,000 in year one. So that answers the first question.

The second question, which eventually the member got to, was in relation to consultation, and page 10 actually has a section on consultation in relation to this issue.

I’m going to take another question now, from Arena Williams, but I feel like right now we’re dancing on the head of a pin, because it’s a very small piece of legislation and this needs to really home in on this Schedule.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister three questions about the difference between the provisions which will apply before July and the provisions which will apply after July. The first question is about, given that there are a number of councils that will be referring parking fines into the court systems, what procedural unfairness exists between those councils that progress them quickly and those councils that progress them slowly? We might assume, because we haven’t been provided this in the documents, that smaller councils progress these matters with greater periods of time involved, because the administration between levying the fine and then progressing it to enforcement might perhaps be longer.

I’m asking about that procedural unfairness because different rates will apply at different times, but, essentially, committing exactly the same offence in one town might result in a different result for claiming an offence in another town, and I want to understand what that difference is.

The second question is: how many court sessions are in train now? Because my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has been asking questions about how the delay in timing will affect prosecutions that are on foot now. We haven’t got any information to understand the size of that problem. The Minister simply answered that the answer was the calendar, but what we’re trying to get to here is how many people are impacted by what is, essentially, a procedural unfairness here, given that there is a change of law and a change of timing for exactly the same offences being prosecuted in exactly the same way.

The third question is: have the courts taken these changes into account in their systems? And the fourth question is: has an appropriation been made for the Minister for Courts for any flow-on costs expected from this?

To answer the member’s question, there is no procedural unfairness because the point of this whole part is to ensure that for fines collected before that date, there is a lower amount; after that date, there’s a higher amount, and the imposition is on the council, not on the individual. Then the question there is around the cost of actually implementing it. I would just like to remind members that it is well worth reading the cost recovery impact statement which actually even states the estimated cost to implement.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Point of order. I’m sorry if I anticipated you, but were we going to get to the tabled amendment on that schedule?

There’s a tabled amendment, still, on my sheet here. Thank you.

Schedule