1 / 29

Infringement Review Phase II

Infringement Review Phase II. Infringement System Overview Local Authorities. Collections Unit Ministry of Justice Dec 2007. The Day. 2. Welcome & introductions Agenda Ancient History - background Overview and discussion of proposals Where to from here?. Infringement Review Phase II.

denim
Download Presentation

Infringement Review Phase II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Infringement Review Phase II Infringement System Overview Local Authorities Collections Unit Ministry of Justice Dec 2007

  2. The Day 2 Welcome & introductions Agenda Ancient History - background Overview and discussion of proposals Where to from here? Infringement Review Phase II

  3. Ancient History

  4. Infringements? Approx 2.7m issued each year. Infringement fees are penalties imposed by administrative agencies. Does not include court-imposed fines or reparations. 90% traffic/vehicles related with most: speeding, parking, no reg, no WOF, driver licence breaches But cover all facets of society – carless days.

  5. Every person commits an offence who operates a portable electronic device on board an aircraft in breach of the rules (fine not exceeding $2,500).

  6. Dam owner failing to classify a Dam

  7. Infringement system Established in 1968. Started out as a simplified procedure for parking and heavy vehicle offences. An administratively efficient way of deterring (and penalising) “lower-end” offending. This benefits the State, through lower prosecution/adjudication costs, and defendants, who avoid defence costs and/or possible convictions. Premised on the assumption that most people can afford to pay infringement fees and will voluntarily comply with the penalty imposed.

  8. How the system works Reminder notice sent Ticket issued Must act by due date 7 days b4 due date & Notice of fine sent Enforcement costs & action

  9. Who issues infringements Most infringements filed NZ Police Auckland City Council Wellington City Council Manukau City Council Christchurch City Council Waitakere City Council Dunedin City Council Hamilton City Council Rotorua District Council Palm. Nth City Council North Shore City Council

  10. Who issues infringements

  11. The issue ?

  12. What’s the issue Huge growth in number of infringement schemes 20 Active Infringement schemes 11 more enacted but not yet active – 20 more proposed. There were 9 ten years ago (1998) Developed in an ad hoc manner with little oversight Key assumption – Voluntary compliance 46% of NZ Police issued offence notices paid voluntarily – a decreasing percentage. 63% for Local Authorities. 65-80% internationally.

  13. The issue … $331.5 million filed at Court in 2006/07 5.9% increase. Overall outstanding debt increasing $755.8m at 30 June 2007 overdue now 57% at $433.8 m. 85% of profiles will have a new fine within c.2 years Not changing behaviour or new business Not able to collect more $

  14. Worth knowing 28% of individuals owe less than $200 29% of individuals owe between $200 and $500 = 57% owe less than $500 Average owing across all profiles is $1,450 ($2,342 for aged 15 – 25) Largest single amount owing is $1.8m (overseas) 87 profiles owe more than $65,000 (18 in prison or overseas)

  15. Mind stickers … Rapid growth Unsustainable numbers Premised on an assumption that does not hold true Particular groups it is just not working for – eg. young infringement offenders Continuing to do what we have been doing just won’t cut the mustard Credibility of the Justice sector being impacted

  16. Decision to review Infringement Review announced in 2004 Two main reasons for the review: The sustained and continual growth in infringements and numbers filed in court – base assumption clearly not working. Increase in high profile of cases where large dollars are remitted.

  17. Work to date Review announced in 2004. November 2004 discussion paper issued. August 2005 Law Commission Report. December 2005 Minister agrees the review would target discreet enhancements. May 2007 Cabinet agrees to progress specific series of discreet enhancements. August 2007 Operational Policy development starts December 2007 – guidelines report to Cabinet. July 2008 – progress report to Cabinet on other proposals. December 2008 – Cabinet report on research into referral programmes

  18. The package of reforms Five main themes: Governance framework Development of guidelines – a framework Increased voluntary compliance rates Transfer of PIB receipting to the MoJ Early Interventions Automatic Court referrals Positive referrals for young infringement offenders Enhanced enforcement Driver licence suspensions Release of details to credit reporting agencies Low value/heavily financed vehicle confiscations Alternative sanctions MoT review – GDLS – demerits rather than fines

  19. Impact on daily Collections work

  20. Mind stickers … There are no silver bullets Package of reforms that work together Each has a different target and focus On their own, none will solve the world’s ills Focus on quality resolutions and a whole-of-government perspective We are deliberately moving away from a “one size fits all” approach towards measures targeted at specific defendant segments

  21. Contact details For any questions, further information required Policy Team Collections Business Unit Ministry of Justice Angela Holmes 04 978 7024 Andre Chatvick 04 978 7079 Kelvin Ratnam 04 978 7087 Richard Ward 04 978 7027 @justice.govt.nz

More Related