Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21712] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on Part 4 of this exhilarating debate. I am really enjoying being here this afternoon and digging in for a long session. I look forward to getting back here tomorrow morning and engaging in battle with my Labour colleagues. It is the type of invigorating stuff that makes one want to be a member of Parliament. I cannot wait for the election so that we can get involved again. 
There were two or three components on the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker that like my colleague Tony Ryall disturb me. One of the questions he asked—and it is one that I think we need to examine in more detail—is why is it that airlines are allowed to get prior information about persons of interest when this issue was brought to the attention of the Law and Order Committee and rejected. I have here and I will share it with the Committee— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Bring back Maurice Williamson. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: If he wants to take another call he will. We will be here until morning so the Minister should just hold his horses. 
Simon Power 
: He’s in no hurry to go back to Auckland. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Absolutely not. Let us just carry on. The Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand presented to the select committee and said this: “We ask the committee in consideration of the bill to seek from the departments an assurance that the need for early advice to the affected airline with respect to travellers of interest is understood and will be implemented as part of the procedures that are put in place.” I draw that to the Committee’s attention because the select committee rejected that suggestion. We were not satisfied about how that information might be used. This is a very serious issue. The select committee rejected it because we were not satisfied as to how that information might be used by the airline—that is for commercial reasons the breaking of privacy laws—but the Minister thumbing his nose at the select committee recommendation has now moved it on a Supplementary Order Paper. That is one issue. 
The second issue of note is one that my colleague Maurice Williamson was speaking about and that is the way in which people can be identified—a person’s full name aliases etc. The one thing that is missing from the list is an IRD number. If there was concern as to who a person using an alias was then if the IRD number was there all one would have to do is simply cross-reference. So just by pushing a button on a computer it could be instantly known whether it was the right person. Removing aliases and not having an IRD number in place is just setting up the legislation to fail from the outset. That is a significant flaw that I would like the Minister in the chair to address. My specific question to him is: why are IRD numbers not included as an identifier? 
Finally I want to address the issue of no Crown liability for third parties for fines enforcement action. I can understand that but what happens if the Crown acts in such a way that it is responsible for a monumental mistake? What is an analogy? It could be making a huge mistake like getting Kyoto wrong. Let us say that it was wrong by $1.3 billion. Would the Crown have any responsibility for that? Who was the Minister responsible? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh probably Minister Hodgson. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It would not be him now. If he was the Minister who made that mistake he would not still be in that position would he? [ 
Interruption 
] It went well did it not? Someone must take responsibility for that. 
The point is if there is an error of that magnitude who will take responsibility for it? Surely the Crown has to take responsibility if it makes a mistake of that magnitude. The next point is that if the Crown is not taking responsibility and there is a whole lot of aggrieved passengers floating around will that responsibility be driven back to the airlines? Will they be asked to take responsibility? Is the Crown doing what it does best—if we use the analogy of Kyoto again—or will the airlines have to wear that liability?