Courts and Criminal Matters Bill

The Government has introduced the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to try to improve the collection of outstanding fines. The debt mountain was below $300 million at the start of this Government’s term, and has grown to an estimated $650 million today. The estimated outstanding debt—fines that are not under any payment schedule—is $330 million. That is an awful lot of money, and that is why this Government is making these changes to the legislation. The Opposition says the changes do not go far enough.

Part 5 makes changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act, to give new powers to registrars and deputy registrars in respect of the enforcement of fines imposed by the High Court. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain exactly how the new provisions of this bill will apply to people who may be subject to the various orders issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act. People who receive convictions under that Act can be subject to various orders. What will this Government do to prevent people who are subject to proceeds of crime orders, and who have not satisfied those orders, from travelling overseas? Those people are serious fines defaulters, who have been required by the authorities to provide assets for sale under the proceeds of crime legislation. They should not be leaving the country if they have not paid the money, because they are evil people who have sold drugs to our young people. They should not be allowed out of the country while they have outstanding fines.

Which provision in this bill will stop those people from leaving? Which provision in this bill will deal with drug dealers in the same way we deal with speedsters? A speedster with more than $5,000 worth of fines and an arrest warrant out will be prevented from getting on a plane, but a drug dealer with outstanding orders under the proceeds of crime legislation can get on a plane and fly off to Bali or Thailand. What will be done to stop that? The Opposition agrees with what has been proposed in Part 5, but says it could go further. I ask the Minister to tell us what he is doing to stop people who are subject to an order under the Proceeds of Crime Act from getting on a plane and flying out? Those people should meet their obligations, because of the evil they have perpetrated on young New Zealanders. They should not be allowed out of the country until the order has been completely satisfied. I think that is quite an important issue.

I would also like the Minister to explain why the system sometimes makes it so difficult for people to pay their fines. People ring me up, or come to my electorate office, who say that they have been trying to pay their children’s fines, but that they cannot get any information on what is outstanding and how they can pay it. I have constituents who have rung the department and said they want to pay their son’s fines, and the department has said it is sorry, but it cannot talk to them about their son’s fines. People who want to reduce the debt mountain are being turned away by the Minister’s department. They ring the call centres or they go into the courts, and they say they want to make payments on behalf of their son. The parents ask how much the son owes and whether they can make a contribution. The departmental officials say they cannot tell those people anything about the fines, and that they must deal with their son. If the constituent says the son is overseas, the officials say that is too bad. The department is effectively saying that it does not want the money. Why does the department make it so hard to pay fines? I have had two cases in the last 2 months of parents trying to pay their kids’ fines, but they have not had any cooperation from the Government.

Can the Minister take a call and tell me two things. First, how are we dealing with people who, under the proceeds of crimes legislation, may have various orders outstanding? What are we going to do to prevent them from leaving the country? Secondly, why is it made so hard for parents who want to pay their kids’ fines?

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.

I want to pick up where my colleague Shane Ardern left off. I really need the assistance of the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, to get through this. When reading clause 16, which relates to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, I cannot remember as a member of the select committee why this is being done. I know that the Minister in the chair is all-knowledgable. I would be grateful if he could get to his feet, take a call, and explain to the Committee why it is necessary.

Hon Rick Barker: It enables fines imposed by the High Court to be collected by officers of the District Court. Currently, fines of the High Court can be collected only by officers of the High Court.

BRIAN CONNELL: So why the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act? Why does it go to that principal Act? [Interruption] I understand. I thank the Minister for the clarification.

Hon Rick Barker: This is improving our efficiency in collecting the fines.

BRIAN CONNELL: I hear the Minister’s answer and I thank him for it. I am not sure I agree with his conclusion, but I am pleased that he attempted to clarify that point.

What is of concern to me, though, is the number of young kids in this country who have significant fines against their names, the efforts that they go to to clear their name, and the sheer red tape and bureaucracy they run into in trying to do that. As a constituency MP—and I am sure the Minister in the chair will be able to identify with this—I am faced all the time with parents bringing their kids into my office and saying: “Look, Johnny did this. He didn’t mean to. He understands it was an error. He’s trying to clear his fines now, but he’s having difficulties. How do we go about it? Can you help?”. It is easy to give advice, but I find it very difficult to counsel these kids as to how to go about getting out of trouble. It is becoming a very perplexing issue. More and more kids are getting into these sorts of situations.

The other issue on my mind—and I see it from an employer’s perspective, through having talked to owners of businesses, and having experienced it myself—is the number of employees who have the amount of fines they owe collected from their wages, and the trouble that employers go through to try to collect it. Something I see happening regularly happened just last week to a friend of mine who has a factory. The employee, who was otherwise a good employee, decided in the end that it was all too hard. He said: “I just can’t meet these obligations.”, and he vanished. He is owed wages, but my friend does not know how to contact him. He has no idea where his employee has gone. He has just gone into the ether. It is quite possible that the guy has left the country. It is not that this person is bad. He had a very good work ethic, I am led to believe, but unfortunately everything just got too much for him. If someone could have sat down with that young fellow, counselled him, and helped him through that bureaucratic nightmare, he might have met his obligations, and then been in a position to make a constructive contribution to New Zealand society in the broader sense. He is not a bad young man; that is the emphasis I would like to leave the Committee with.

The other issue is the definition of “serious default”. It refers to a person who owes an amount of $1,000 or more, or any amount of reparation, and for whom there is a warrant of arrest. One would think that meant there is an obligation on that person, as soon as he or she is confronted by the authorities, to pay that money and meet that obligation—working on the principle that if one owes money, one pays it. But we have been told here today, and it has been reinforced by a number of speakers, that the only obligation the authorities have if a person meets those criteria is to activate the silent alert to notify that this is a person of interest. What sort of signal does that send? Why is someone who owes less than $1,000 of less interest than someone who owes $5,000? One either owes the money or does not owe the money. I know that the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, will argue that it is all about expense-to-income ratios and whether collecting it is worth it, but the point is that it sends the wrong signals.

I move, That the question be now put.