Ryall Tony: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21733] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 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 $20000 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.