Williamson Maurice: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21735] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 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. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: 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! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: 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.”