Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): The Green Party is opposing the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. We are very clear that the problem of Mr Smith escaping could be addressed by the existing legislative provisions and that actually it is a matter of applying what we already have and practising things better.I just quickly want to respond to the previous Government speaker Jonathan Young who said that we have a responsibility in this House to respond. We have a responsibility in this House to remain calm thoughtful and considered especially when applying measures that could be seen as quite intrusive. I just wanted to quickly pick up on that particular point. This bill tries to respond to what its commentary says are legislative weaknesses. I have just said that the Greens are very clear that it is a process application and practice matter instead—those so-called legislative weaknesses identified in the escape of prisoner Phillip Smith in 2014. The explanatory note says that the bill is seeking to make information about restricted patients and offenders easier for a number of agencies to collect and share.We are opposing the bill. There is a rightful and serious and valid concern from the public about safety. That is not a minuscule concern which is even more reason why we should have a considered and thoughtful response that actually gets to the heart and the true causes of the failure. So I have to stand here and be quite honest in this House and wonder how much of this legislative response is actually a political one to try to mask over the truer failures of what happened in the case of Mr Phillip John Smith. This is not at all me commenting and being critical and harsh on particular departments but it is just asking whether we can be honest and actually address the true reasons why Mr Smith was able to escape in the way that he did.I do want to say that I disagree with my colleague Mr Nash who said that it is our role to comment on the character of New Zealand citizens whose names are brought into this House particularly with remarks such as thick as a brick". I do not think that is our role and I do not think it is becoming. I think we need to stick to the issue: there were application failures. Even the Government Inquiry into Matters Concerning the Escape of Phillip John Smith/Traynor amassed that there were "numerous failings of process notably within Corrections that contributed to the escape long before he got near the border."If we are going to be intrusive in the way that this bill is proposing to cast such a wide net then we do need to be considered. Particularly with regard to new Part 10A in clause 6 we saw that the Law Society itself said: "No clear policy rationale supports the introduction of proposed Part 10A. The Government Inquiry … did not identify any barriers in the Act that prevented information sharing." Part 10A is in regard to information sharing. The Law Society continued to say that "rather the inquiry noted that the cultures of the relevant agencies primarily explain why information was not shared." Even other members have attested to that very fact—that we could have done better by picking up a phone.I am also going to include that in the throwing of a wide net to collect biometric data we must absolutely consider that Māori are always more likely to be impacted on by any surveillance legislation particularly because we are overrepresented. Māori are prosecuted convicted and apprehended at a higher rate than anyone else for the same things. Even the Waitangi Tribunal found that there were Treaty breaches in the way the Department of Corrections is failing to work with Māori. So we in here must be aware that the casting of this wide net is going to impact disproportionately on those who are overrepresented in apprehension conviction and imprisonment rates.We will continue to oppose this bill for the reasons that I have outlined. Thank you."