1. RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister for Courts
Is he satisfied with the number of fines being remitted by the courts; if so, why?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) Link to this
I have no control over the number of fines that are remitted by the courts. The decision to remit fines is made by members of the judiciary, who are best placed to make such decisions. Judges use the information they have in front of them at the time and base their decisions upon whether it is beneficial to impose an alternative sentence upon the offender before the court, or to continue to pursue the outstanding fines for their balance. I am confident that judges make the best decisions on the information available to them.
Is the Minister satisfied that fines are proving to be an effective deterrent; if so, how does he reconcile that with the fact that more than 7,050 people have had multiple agglomerations of fines excused by the courts in the past 5 years?
I do know that the courts have taken this matter very seriously. I can tell the member that although the number of fines being remitted in that period is quite large, the number of people who are being sentenced to prison as an alternative to that has grown quite considerably. In 2002-03, 140 people had imprisonment as an alternative sentence; in 2005-06, the number was 293. This shows a certain toughening of the courts’ attitude towards fines.
Martin GallagherFurther to the Minister’s previous answer, can he outline what reports he has seen personally on the improved collection of fines?
I have seen a report that states that the courts have collected $206.9 million in outstanding fines for the 2005-06 year. This is an increase of 82 percent on the 2001-02 figure of $113.4 million. The report goes on to state that the proportion of fines that were overdue in 2001-02 was a high 79 percent. This figure has been reduced to 54 percent in 2005-06. I have also seen a report that states that the courts have collected over $10 million in 2004, 2005, and 2006 from the confiscated car club. The court staff are doing a very good job in collecting fines and outstanding fines.
Simon PowerWhen will he just admit that recent figures show that 184,572 people owe fines that are over 5 years old—which confirms the fact that he is totally hopeless as the Minister for Courts?
I would say that the problem for part of that lies entirely with the previous National Government and its incompetent management of this matter. It has come to my attention as the Minister for Courts that issuing authorities, such as local authorities and the police, very often have issued fines with no name attached to them or with no address. This makes it utterly impossible for the court staff to collect the fines. The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill now makes it very clear that issuing authorities will have to have a minimum subset of information that makes it possible to collect the fines. This is in part a large legacy issue from the incompetence of the previous National Government.
How can the public have any confidence in a fines system when only half of the criminals who have had fine groupings pardoned have had an alternative sentence imposed, and why are these fines being imposed in the first place if there is no intention of enforcing the payment and only, it would seem, an intention for judges to pardon and excuse the non-payment of those fines?
I draw the member’s attention to the figures I gave before, which showed that in the year 2005-06 the courts had collected $206 million in fines, as compared with $113 million in 2001-02. So it is a doubling of the amount. The other point I would draw to the member’s attention is—as I said earlier—that the number of sentences in lieu of outstanding fines has climbed from 140 to 293, and that the number of attachment orders being put on offenders has gone up dramatically, as well.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could help me, Madam Speaker. In my primary question, I asked the Minister about remitted fines, and in my subsequent supplementary questions, I have asked the Minister only about remitted fines—that is, fines that the judge has “pardoned”—and I have used that word. In all of the answers he has given thus far, he has made no comment about that precise issue, which is clearly stated in the primary question. Madam Speaker, I would ask you to ask him whether he could expand, or at least comment, on the number of fines that judges are pardoning.
Madam SPEAKERThe Minister did address the question, but if he wanted to add anything more to it he may. No, he does not.
When will the Minister just admit that recent figures showing that eight people have a total of 2,494 separate outstanding fines between them confirms that he is utterly hopeless as the Minister for Courts?
The answer to the question is simple. Courts do not impose fines themselves. Courts have fines forwarded to them by the issuing authorities—that is, the police or local territorial authorities—that have failed to collect them themselves. The court staff have increased the amount of money that is collected by fines—
I am sorry, but would the Minister please be seated. It is very difficult to hear with the chipping in. Members want Ministers to address the questions. When they are endeavouring to do so we should give them the courtesy of enabling them to be heard.
I was making the point that the issuing authorities issue the fines, not the courts—that is, territorial authorities, Government agencies, and the police. That is who decides to issue fines. When those authorities cannot collect the fines themselves they hand them on to the courts. Every indicator shows that the courts are being more rigorous and are collecting more fines—
Hon Tony RyallI can tell Mr Ryall that the figures show that clearly. Just to show members how effective the system is being, I can tell them that in 2001-02 there were 41,000 attachment orders on people’s pay; in 2005-06 there 203,208, which is a fivefold increase. We are collecting more money; less is outstanding.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In asking my question of the Minister I did not ask him who fined whom. I simply asked him what he was going to do about the eight people who, between them, owed $2,900-odd in separate fines. He has not addressed that specific issue.
In relation to a number of people who have substantial amounts of fines outstanding, the courts have organised a small team to concentrate specifically on those people, as well as collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from the general public.
If the Minister expects the public to believe that the fines system is working and that pardoning multiple groupings of fines for individuals—in fact, for more than 117 people per month—is proving effective, how does he explain that there is someone out there who has had more than 10 groupings of fines excused by the courts in the past 5 years?
The member is referring to a question he put down to me for written answer. He will be surprised, as I was, to find that the individual with the number between 10 and 20 is, in fact, “name unknown”. The court staff simply collated the number of fines for which there was no name on the fine but which the issuing authority had forwarded to the courts to collect. I think everybody would accept that it is impossible to collect a fine without a name of a person on it. Court staff should have identified that in a separate category. I found it frustrating to find this out 5 minutes before the House.
I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that 5,539 offenders have had two groups of fines remitted—that is, pardoned—between January 2002 and December 2006.