Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21942] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I start by saying that Michael Cullen must be highly embarrassed to have this bill still before the Committee as it formed part of his urgency motion. It is symptomatic of a Government that is on the way out that this Government had to throw in the towel and could not get the legislation in its urgency motion passed. 
Pansy Wong 
: Bye bye. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Bye bye as my colleague Pansy Wong contributes. Part 9 deals with the Tax Administration Act 1994. I want to reflect on clause 35 and on subclauses (1) and (2) in particular. Clause 35 “Disclosure of certain information in relation to fines defaulters” states: “(1) Section 85A(4) of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraphs: ‘(c) the telephone number of the fines defaulter;’ ”. I think we can all agree with that. But the subclause goes downhill from there when it goes on to state: “ ‘(d) the name of the employer of the fines defaulter; and (e) the address of the employer of the fines defaulter; and (f) the telephone number of the employer of the fines defaulter.’ ” 
That suggests to me that there is a problem which is this: why has all the responsibility for fines collection been loaded on to the shoulders of the employer? Employers do not mind— 
Pansy Wong 
: Labour hates employers. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Labour hates employers— 
Simon Power 
: Hates risk-takers. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: —and hates risk-takers. Whatever it may be employers do not mind making their contribution and doing their bit but the message here is that fines defaulters are not being asked to take sufficient responsibility for themselves. The bill has some improvement to the law in it. The National Party accepts that there are some improvements but we are concerned about the concept of a lack of responsibility— 
Pansy Wong 
: A lack of personal responsibility. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: —yes a lack of personal responsibility on the part of fines defaulters. 
Subclause (2) of clause 35 states: “Section 85A(6) of the principal Act is amended by repealing the definition of fines defaulter information and substituting the following definition: ‘fines defaulter information—(a) means information that identifies a fines defaulter; and (b) includes—(i) the name address and telephone number of the fines defaulter;’ ”. That is great but then it goes on to state: “‘(ii) the name address and telephone number of the employer of the fines defaulter.’” Why on earth would one want to have that second component? Maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker can explain that to me but I do not see why that is necessary. 
What is missing though is the IRD number of fines defaulters. That is the real reason that fines defaulters are not found in sufficient numbers. If the Minister would only allow that requirement to be inserted into the bill we would not need to have all that other nonsense. What happens when bailiffs go around to serve— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’d know. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I think I may have to take another call just to defend my position on that. The member for Waimakariri has made a scurrilous attack on me by saying that I would know what bailiffs do. Well I can say that I do not know in terms of my own personal situation what bailiffs do. Now that the member has made that remark though I feel that it is only reasonable that I am in a position to defend myself. The point I was going to make is that when a bailiff goes around to serve a warrant for arrest on a fines defaulter the bailiff finds all too often that the person is no longer at the address that was given. But if one had an IRD number one would in most cases be able to find those people. 
The message that is being sent is that we are not terribly serious about our fines regime. Let us look at what is in play here. We see that $650 million of fines have been incurred of which $350 million are overdue and we are about to pass legislation that will collect $1.5 million. The situation is worse than that. To collect that $1.5 million will cost $1.7 million a year.