O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4969. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 As we know this bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill is intended to regulate the operation of the Electronic Identity Verification Service to give individuals using the internet the option of using a secure channel to verify their identities and to access services from approved Government and non-Government agencies. 
I use the igovt service. I find it a service that is secure very efficient very usable and something that I look forward to using as a means of doing business on the internet which I need to be secure. I think it is a good facility that should be extended to other users and to other agencies. It is the way of the world. It is what people expect of us today. The provisions of the bill will expand the service to all members of the public and will allow more agencies to use the service to identify their clients. So for those reasons New Zealand First supports the bill. I do however have some comments to make concerning the penalty provisions. 
 First of all relating to unauthorised hacking deleting and altering of information in respect of clause 56 New Zealand First approves of the penalty increases for individuals being up to $250000 or 10 years’ imprisonment and for organisations being up to $1 million now. The only thing I would have suggested had I had the opportunity to do so at the appropriate time would be an addition to clause 58(1)(a) adding “or attempts to access” after the word “accesses”. Similarly to clause 58(3) I would have added the words “attempts to use” as well. I think it is actually quite important that we cover attempts—even though they may be difficult to prove—to show that we wish to have the widest possible coverage for the penalties concerned. However— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Good idea. It’s not over yet; this is only the second reading. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Exactly. So that is something I would like to consider for the future and something I would like the House to consider. 
With regard to clause 58 concerning accessing information and using information New Zealand First would like to see higher penalties still. We would like to see an increase in the penalty for a person from up to 2 years or a $50000 fine to up to 5 years or a $200000 fine. For corporations we would like to see a further increase from $200000 which for many corporations is actually not a huge sum to at least $500000 for the illegal accessing and using of information. I think we need to understand that the possibility of commercial gain from some of these illegal activities is so huge especially for corporations that very high penalties are necessary. Of course it is very important—as the bill does do—to distinguish between corporations and individuals. Organisations that hack information would be doing so for commercial gain. They cannot be imprisoned so we need to have very high financial penalties. That is why we would like to see further increases. We could also even consider other penalties such as the deregistration of a company in New Zealand. However maybe that is going too far. But higher penalties at least would be warranted we believe. 
New Zealand First does approve of the definition of “organisation” that has been inserted as a result of the Government Administration Committee’s deliberations. It includes a person—and under the Interpretation Act of course that includes a corporation—and it includes partnerships Government departments and Crown entities. That is good stuff. 
New Zealand First also supports the committee’s recommendation for ensuring that it is necessary to obtain a search warrant as a condition of access to the service’s records of an individual’s usage history. We think that is a well-tried trusted and robust procedure and it is the only one really that adequately protects individual rights. 
In respect of the regulation of information New Zealand First agrees with the proposed new clause 65A concerning regulations to prescribe the length of time that electronic identity credentials photographs records of usage history status information and technical codes are retained after their cancellation revocation or expiry. We approve also in particular of the requirement for the regulations for those purposes to be subject first to the consultation of the Privacy Commissioner. 
New Zealand First also approves new clause 65A allowing a different duration to be set in regulations for electronic identity credentials issued to children under 14 years of age for the reasons stated in the committee’s report—simply because children’s appearances change dramatically as they age and generally they hold fewer identity documents which can limit the effectiveness of biometric checks. So that is just sensible stuff as far as we are concerned. 
New Zealand First further supports new subclauses (5B) and (5C) of clause 26 in relation to the situation where an individual’s application to amend their information has been refused by the applicable chief executive by requiring that chief executive to take reasonable steps to indicate that the information recorded in a credential is disputed. That is the very least that we think should be done in those sorts of circumstances. 
Overall New Zealand First supports the provisions of the bill and the select committee’s other recommendations especially the roles identified for the Privacy Commissioner. We will wish to debate further the issues I have mentioned concerning penalties the additions of the offence of attempting to access or attempting to use information and increased penalties for individuals but especially for corporations illegally accessing and using information in the way I mentioned previously. Apart from that New Zealand First is happy to support the bill.