Dean JacquiFinancial and Government Administration Sector and Annual Financial Statements of the Government (continued)Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to make a couple of comments on behalf of our committee on internal affairs and the first comment I want to make is around the RealMe services. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) reported to the Governance and Administration Committee that they weren't happy with the progress of RealMe and I know a little bit about it as some members in the committee will know a little bit about it because it's been an issue which has been under consideration for quite some time. The last time I was part of any consideration of RealMe was when I was chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee back in 2015. We were conducting a review into the general election of 2014 and it was at that time that we determined that having a good verifiable RealMe form of identification would be very helpful in terms of ease of voting in a general election and then in a local election. Five years later—five years later—in the second year of the term of this Government DIA are still expressing to the committee that the satisfaction levels with RealMe haven't been as high as they would have liked. In this Government's year of delivery I would like to know from the Minister in the chair just what he plans to do about RealMe verification particularly since there is a renewed interest it seems on behalf of the Government in conducting elections online. So it does seem to me that if the Government is going to move forward with that policy direction then verification of voter identity should be pretty crucial to that work. I could not find any evidence of any consideration around that. So I'm very interested to see whether or not the Government is going to continue to sit on its hands over something which might not well be attention-grabbing and headline-grabbing but is crucial if we are going to have a good safe online identity verification process. So I leave that question. The other comment I would like to make is on our examination of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). Before the committee thinks this is about Crown limos and all sorts of other things it's not; it's actually about the outbreak of M. bovis. DPMC worked with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to ensure it had the full support that it needed in the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak. So having done that two years ago it is now very disturbing to see that the M. bovis outbreak is not in fact tracking as well as MPI would like to have us believe. MPI just very recently reported that another 300 farmers—300 farmers—who've had high-risk animals move on to their property will now be contacted and it is expected that 50 of those farmers will have notices of direction placed on them. So that means that there are 50 farmers who now cannot move stock on and off their property at a crucial time of year for them. Now DPMC have taken responsibility for that. So I want to know from the Minister again having set themselves up to support MPI where we are with that. Where are we with that for rural New Zealand who are already under a considerable amount of pressure from this Government the latest of which is some totally unrealistic methane reduction levels in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill that was debated this afternoon? So this is just another example of the Government saying one thing and in this case DPMC saying We will support MPI in their response to M. bovis" and yet the contrary is true. So what's DPMC going to do about it? Are they just going to say "Oh well we tried. We helped MPI. We seconded a couple of officials across to a system."? That's not good enough. That is not good enough for those farming families in rural New Zealand 50 of whom now have their farming operation stopped. I want the Minister to explain that to the committee."