Chapter 2
Guidance for future pecuniary penalty regimes

2.1Our intention is that this Report will result in our proposals for best practice being employed in future pecuniary penalty regimes. To ensure this takes place, we would like to see the development and implementation of effective guidance that delivers principled and, so far as desirable, consistent pecuniary penalty provisions.

2.2In our Issues Paper, we asked whether there is a need for a form of guidance for policymakers, and whether there is an argument for a legislative response, perhaps in the way of a “Pecuniary Penalties Act”. Some submitters supported standard pecuniary penalty statutory provisions15 or expressly favoured consistency across regimes.16 However, the majority did not think a general pecuniary penalty statute was required.17 Most of those submitters considered that amending legislation might be needed if specific failings were identified in specific Acts. Otherwise, the New Zealand Law Society thought the focus should be on developing general principles as a guide to future legislation. The Parliamentary Counsel Office (Commercial Team) (PCO) was very doubtful about the benefit of a set of standard provisions and/or amending existing regimes. They suggested that PCO could develop model provisions and guidelines.
15Federated Farmers and Air New Zealand.
16New Zealand Bankers’ Association and the Institute of Directors.
17New Zealand Law Society, Parliamentary Counsel Office (Commercial Team), Donald Mathieson QC, Ministry for Primary Industries, Financial Markets Authority and the New Zealand Bar Association.