See this latest. With no public discussion and very little discussion elsewhere this was passed into law.

Gee this was kept quiet. Is this to be the new style of NZ politics: Just pass something nasty and then announce it as a "done deal"?

Can anyone defend this at all? It would be interesting to see someone else's input.

Licences removed from defaulters | Stuff.co.nz

Legislation has been introduced which will allow driver licences to be suspended when people haven't made arrangements to pay overdue traffic fines.

It is a new penalty created in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, introduced yesterday, which Courts Minister Georgina te Heuheu says will strengthen enforcement measures generally.

One of its proposed amendments is to the Land Transport Act, allowing driver licence stop orders (DLSOs) to be issued against fine defaulters.

"Driver licence stop orders will be a new enforcement measure where a person fails to make payment arrangements for overdue traffic fines and reparation," the bill says.

"Eligible people will be sent a letter warning them that if they do not resolve their overdue traffic penalties within 14 days, their driver licences will be suspended."

The DLSOs will suspend all driver licences held by people in default, including limited licences, and will also prevent those people from obtaining a licence.

snip

Jesus! Even as of today I hadn't heard about it. I don't have a problem with the actual legislation, what I have a problem with is the government keeping this under wraps. It's a diabolical shamble to have to hide something that will affect so many.

Why on earth do we hear so much about the stupid Rugby World Cup, competitions and crap that will actually cost the tax payer but not let them have a say? Then pass a piece of legislation that will affect a majority of NZ cotizens without their knowledge. I think this is another act of Right wing capitalism.

I normally have no problem with what ever it takes to recover a DEBT. However, "traffic fines" can, in now way, be considered to legitimate "debts".

Traffic fines are EXTORTION, plain and simple. The government seeks to profit from peoples' mistakes on the road. Sure, if you commit a traffic offence (one that has a "victim" that is - not an "offence" against the government, like failing to wear a seatbelt) you should have a penalty to pay - to the victim. I just don't see why if you make a mistake on the road the government gets to take more money (usually a week's pay these days) so that a greedy bureaucrat may travel in luxury to some useless conference or something).

So taking someone's driving licence away until they arrange to pay the ransom is really odd. What is going to be next? Arresting your grandparents and holding them hostage until you pay the "fine" or make arrangements to pay, like happens in China with other things?

I also agree strongly feel that people who fail to pay payment over their overdue traffic fines should have their license suspended until they have made and settle all the payment. This is a good lesson to teach people who don't pay their license fees and it will help prevent people from going into debt. This is a good government bill which is currently under Law & Order Select Committee call Courts and Criminal Matters Bill.

Why should we have to pay "licence fees"?

A "debt" is as a result of a contract that you FREELY enter into, such as when you buy something at an agreed price, or you agree to "pay off" an item at (?) per week, month, what ever, etc. EXTORTION - which is unarguably what "traffic fines" are is DEMANDING MONEY WITH MENACES, "standing over you with a big stick" until you pay, or threatening and intimidating you until you pay.

A shop keeper or mortgage holder will never do that, if they did they'd be jailed. So why do we let government get away with it?

Oh, I know the answer, they have all the power, all the weaponry, all the "big sticks".

I would stand by any form of legislation that would force people to pay there fines. If people don't want fines, they should simply follow the rules and restrictions that they are abliged to follow when getting a licence. If a benificery was in a car accident that they caused, and wern't wearing a seatbelt and got severly injured, who will be the one to pay there health care?, the tax payer. If the person was wearing the seatbelt they wouldn't have been as injured. I myself have received infringment for things I have done, and have learnt my lesson, I also payed them. I did the crime, and I had to face the results.