O'Rourke Denis: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Identity Information Confirmation Bill to help attack identity fraud and ensure that only identity confirmation information is supplied and only to approved agencies. Identity information means information about a person’s full name gender date of birth place of birth and other recorded information—for example a passport photograph—and the status of the recorded information. The service can be used by an intermediary who is a party to a confirmation agreement with the responsible officials. 
The purpose of Part 2 is “to allow an agency or intermediary to check whether an individual’s identity information is consistent with any recorded information.” That in itself limits the scope of the confirmation service but I am glad to see that there are many other safeguards. In clause 8 there is a list of conditions for using the confirmation service which most particularly of course require the individual to consent whether in writing or electronically and that is an important basis of the protections provided to the individual under this bill. It requires the agency or intermediary applying to give an assurance that the consent has been obtained and of course that it has also entered into the required confirmation agreement. There is also the ability for an individual to consent on a one-off basis or an ongoing basis and to withdraw that consent as well. We think those are all very important safeguards in the bill for the individual. 
We also approve of course of clause 9(4) which states: “The confirmation service must not at any stage supply to the agency or intermediary any recorded information about the individual who is the subject of the search.” So it really is only confirmation information that is provided and it is important that it be limited in that way. Clause 9 of course provides a bit of an exemption in respect of obviously people who have died or where there has been a name change or where the status of recorded information has changed as well and those are necessary exemptions. 
Clause 10 gives a long list of requirements in respect of the responsible officials requiring a need to be demonstrated by an intermediary before they can enter into an agreement and also they must have policies and practices in respect of the security of information and relating to the privacy of individuals. We think those are particularly appropriate and important ways of limiting the scope of the bill to make sure that it is focused only on what it is intended to achieve. 
Clauses 11 11A and 11B contain very comprehensive provisions concerning what must be in a confirmation agreement and in addition how those agreements are to be used. I note the addition of new clause 11A concerning how the agency must obtain an individual’s consent and how he or she may withdraw that consent. I also acknowledge the very important role of the Privacy Commissioner. 
New Zealand First believes that the protection of the individual forms an important part of this bill while at the same time it provides an efficient and valuable service for agencies and intermediaries to obtain confirmation information. So for those reasons New Zealand First is happy to support the bill. 
I did finally want to comment on Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 148 to exclude the use of the service for employment processes. That should be supported as well. Like Jan Logie I agree that it is very important that we should do all we can to stop age discrimination and similar forms of discrimination. We think it is a serious problem. We think that it is often underestimated in this House. I think that Trevor Mallard and some other speakers have underestimated it and I would really ask the question in relation to that of what harm it would do to pass that Supplementary Order Paper and have that provision. I think it is harmless and I think it would make a contribution. I do understand that—