Courts and Criminal Matters Bill

Part 9, in a bill that is full of wasted opportunities, is really the greatest wasted opportunity. This provision allows for the Inland Revenue Department to provide information to the Ministry of Justice for the collection of fines. I have moved a number of what I think are quite practical amendments. What the Government wants to do is limit the information disclosed so that it includes only the phone number of the fines defaulter, the name of the employer of the fines defaulter, and the address and telephone number of that employer. Why limit it to that information? The Inland Revenue Department could also provide the names and addresses of former employers and of people who have filed tax returns or paid PAYE on behalf of the defaulters.

The reason why that information should be provided is quite simple. If we know who the former employers are, we can ask those workplaces whether they know where so-and-so, who owes $20,000 fines, is now. Many people do keep in touch with their former workmates. They may have provided their forwarding address to their former employers. Why would the Government limit itself to just the information about the existing employer? Why would it limit itself to information as to the person’s telephone number? What if a person has supplied several telephone numbers on his or her inland revenue form? What if a person’s attachments to the inland revenue form—we know that people have to attach evidence of share income or various payments they have made for which they make deductions—have the person’s actual address on them? What if the certificate of donations to a church has a person’s actual address or a different address? Why cannot the Inland Revenue Department make that available to the collections units? Why cannot all that appropriate identifying information, which is not involved with a person’s tax status, be involved and be made available to the Ministry of Justice?

I have put forward a number of amendments. The first is a catch-all amendment to clause 35(1). The amendment inserts paragraph (g), which states that the Inland Revenue Department would provide to the to the collections unit “any other information held which may assist in the location of the fines defaulter.” If a fines defaulter has included on his or her tax return a donations form—for example, from a church—that gives his or her address or phone number, why cannot that be made available? [Interruption] No, the church gives the person a certificate. The Minister may not have ever made a donation to a church, but the church would give him a certificate that he would provide as authentication, and it would have his address and details on it. Why cannot that be made available?

I have moved a series of amendments to clause 35(1) that would also allow the Inland Revenue Department to provide the information of former employers, and I shall explain the benefit of that to the Minister. The Inland Revenue Department would have information about former employers. Many people who are fines defaulters are quite itinerant and may have several employers during any year. Why would they limit themselves to only one when they file their tax return? Former employers may be able to provide information about any forwarding address or where those people may be. People in the workplace may, in fact, know where they live, so why would one limit oneself to that information? Why? I just do not know.

Similarly, I have moved an amendment to clause 35(2)(b) to make it clear that the name, address, and telephone numbers of any former employers of the fines defaulter can be made available. Essentially, my major criticism of this bill—apart from the very weak response in terms of airports—is that we are just not taking every opportunity to get the information to get those people. We are just not taking every opportunity. The Inland Revenue Department, the Customs Service, and the Immigration Service will have more information than the Minister is asking for. If we were really serious would we not require every one of those departments that have any additional information to make it available? That is what my amendments are proposing, in particular, with regard to the Inland Revenue Department—that it give details of former employers, and any other identifying information that may have been filed with a tax return, such as a donations form from a church or some other area, that a person was claiming for.

I want to carry on with that exact same theme, and say to the Minister that I am disappointed that in the year 2005 we keep talking about technologies such as “phone number”, as we would have back in the 1950s when people had only a phone number. [Interruption] That may be where this Minister is, in his head. But I want to assure the Minister that the world has moved on. In fact the latest tendency, and there are already several million users, is voice-over Internet protocol. Voice-over Internet protocol means we do not have a phone number. We have an Internet protocol address for a Skype-type provider. All the phone calls are carried by the Internet protocols on the Internet. So it is quite easy to track the people. We can still phone them from their voice-over Internet protocol address. We can still speak to them, as we would. But by putting such specific wording into legislation, the Minister is saying that we are excluding them.

For example, the one phone number that normally travels with an individual, even when that person’s home phone number and work phone number do not, is his or her cellphone number. Most people keep the same cellphone number as they move from job to job, from address to address. So why would the Minister not at least have put in the legislation their phone number or their cellphone number? In fact, my advice to him—if he is serious—is that we have a “reasonable person” test and we stop someone out in the street and ask whether this sounds as if the Minister were interested in catching up with these defaulters, these people who owe fines and have not paid, and then we say: “Here’s the list of things that you can provide in the list.” It says that the Inland Revenue Department can provide the phone number, the name of the employer, the address of the employer and the telephone number, and that is all.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: At the time they filed their return.

That is at the time they filed their return; that is exactly right. Why would we not just put in an all-catch clause that says that the Inland Revenue Department can furnish any information that may be valuable in locating the individual? What is wrong with that? If the Minister is going to say that that is a breach of privacy or that it is a bad principle, then why is he providing this? He is providing these handfuls of fields. How many are there? There are four fields, such as phone number. I know that a lot of people, especially young people, in my electorate do not have a phone number. They have a cellphone, and that is all they have. They do not have a landline, because it is too expensive to keep both.

I know a couple of quite smart leading-technology people right now who have dropped their landline and their phone line and home line altogether and gone to a voice-over Internet protocol line. One can still call them. People can get on the Internet any time they like and use a Skype service. To show members how widespread it is, I point out that the Ministry of Social Development has gone to voice-over Internet protocol across its entire network. So if we say that we want the phone number of the people at the Ministry of Social Development, why do we not have their voice-over Internet protocol number included in this list?

Would the Minister be prepared to accept a few amendments along those lines—say, an amendment that added “cellphone”, “voice-over Internet protocol address”, or “email address”? They are other things that people carry with them. People can take their email address with them as they wander around the world. It is very easy to catch up with people if they have a standard email address. They do not like to give that up, because they have a list of friends all around the place who can get in touch with them. From that email address, through the Internet service provider, we can locate anybody we want.

I will tell the Minister, the Parliament, and the people listening why those amendments have not been included. It is because the Minister is not serious. If he were serious about catching those defaulters—it is really simple—we would take out clause 35, which refers to information that can be provided by the Inland Revenue Department, we would take out all the nonsense about the time people filed their last return, we would take out all the nonsense about only these few fields, and we would include a catch-all clause that states—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I give up!

Michael Cullen has given up. It is good that he has given in. So he will accept an amendment to delete all the words in that provision and just state: “The Inland Revenue Department can provide any information at all that may be useful in locating the individual.”

I move, That the Committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m. (Friday)