Woods Megan: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6547. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Electronic Identity Verification Bill which is a very timely piece of legislation for many reasons. Members have gone over the current events that make this a piece of legislation that we need to think about very carefully. 
One of the things that struck me as I have sat here listening to the speeches in the Chamber tonight is that a number of members of this House went to a cross-party forum this evening. This was for a number of our small and medium sized enterprises and high-tech companies and people were talking about working with the Government and how it is that they could add to the weightless economy. It dawned on me that there is no more weighty responsibility for the Government than when it is dealing with people’s private information. This is really what this bill gets to the heart of. I think that Part 3 of this bill has some incredibly important points to make in terms of how it is that this piece of legislation interacts with the very legislation that protects our rights in this country. Specifically I am referring to the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act. 
Some very interesting points have been drawn out as we have gone through this debate tonight and I would like to address a couple of those as we go through the bill. This is important as a number of my colleagues have noted in this debate. Kris Faafoi who is getting quoted a lot in this debate tonight finished his speech— 
Hon Annette King 
: Name-dropper. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: I am being a name-dropper. Kris Faafoi finished his speech by saying that it is absolutely imperative that individuals have confidence when the Government is dealing with private information. I think many of us have instances of constituents in increasing numbers coming to visit us and sharing their anxiety at the personal information that the Government has stored about them and what might come about because of that. 
But Labour is supporting this bill and as I said I want to address some of the points in the debate. I specifically want to pick up on what Ruth Dyson talked about in terms of clause 61 of this bill and the point that was brought up in Chris Auchinvole’s speech in response to Kris Faafoi. [ 
Interruption 
] There is another name—Annette King! 
In terms of Government responsibility and the allegation that when someone is just carrying out their normal duties and there is no malice involved and they come across information we need to recognise it for what it is—this bill in clause 61 does. The example of Keith Ng has been used and it is a good one because putting a USB stick into a computer is not hacking. Keith Ng was merely using the portal in the way it was designed and clause 61 does cover this. 
This brings to mind some other breaches that we have had in terms of people’s personal information. If you receive by email from a Government department the details of a whole lot of people’s personal information as happened in the case of ACC is the person receiving that email going to be liable? Well no—clause 61 actually covers that off because there is no malice intended. 
But what if you are a teacher or you are a principal or you are an administrator at a school and you receive from the Ministry of Education because of the breakdown of the Novopay system personal information and bank account details of teachers from another school? That has been happening with the Novopay system so is it something people could be liable for? That is why clause 61 of this bill is incredibly important—it does cover that off. It does cover off this protection from liability. 
I think these are things that we have to be very mindful of because we are dealing with a technology and we are in an era when technology is being employed to move around massive amounts of data. So we do need to empower chief executives to protect people from liability when things go wrong through no fault of their own and when it is someone else’s problem. 
But when we look at some other provisions of this bill—and there are some incredibly important ones under this part—and we look at the relationship with the Official Information Act we see some really important interfaces here between these two pieces of legislation. What we see is that we have the Government having the responsibility to deal with it. We see reporting to the Privacy Commissioner being an incredibly important protection that people will be given under this legislation. So this is a bill that Labour is happy to support. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain to clause 61 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.