Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would just like to very briefly make one more point with regard to my last rather laborious point on privilege—Hon Amy Adams: Oh not at all!STUART NASH: Ha ha! That is actually new section 159A in clause 51A and it does actually state here that If any person refuses to disclose any information or document on the grounds that it is … privileged …" then what can happen is "the Commissioner an [anti - money-laundering] supervisor or that person [can] apply to a District Court Judge for an order determining whether or not …" it is privileged. So there is a higher authority that the authorities can go to if in fact the lawyer or another person claims privilege.There is one other point. Mr Parker actually brought up an interesting point. If we go to new schedule 2 at the very back of the bill and this is just under the heading "Details to be contained in domestic physical cash transaction report" there is actually quite a lot of information there that must be contained in any report—and this is on the very last page of the bill. For example it is their date of birth their ID document number the type of account the physical address the phone number and any other identifying information or in fact if it is someone acting on behalf of a customer then there are other unique identifiers that do need to be outlined as well. This makes sense because what we are attempting to do here of course is to stop the crooks from laundering money and if this type of information is the sort of information we need to stop that then so be it.One thing I would like to talk about in a little bit more detail is again something that we debated in our select committee a reasonable amount and for quite a while and not just between the officials and the committee members but also with submitters. This was who had the ability or what entity had the ability to determine whether information sharing was to be allowed. I am looking at new section 139A here but if you look through the bill from about clause 38 all the way through to nearly the end of the bill but certainly through to clause 51 there is a whole lot of stuff that has been taken out from the original bill as it was presented to the Law and Order Committee. The reason for that is that initially in the bill what was determined was that officials had the ability to determine whether information could be shared. So when the bill was at the select committee we said that the commissioner the New Zealand Customs Service or an anti - money-laundering supervisor may disclose information supplied or obtained via the exercise of the powers and performance of its functions.The bill originally said that Government officials—paid officials—could determine which information was shared. We came to the conclusion at the end that when there were people who were far more expert in this area than myself and I suspect a number of the other MPs around the select committee to determine that this should in fact be an authority that only the Minister has. So what we did is we actually inserted a new clause 38A which inserts a new section 139A. What that did is that took out the original bill's new sections 139 140A 143 157 158 and 159—I think I have outlined all the ones that we actually removed—by saying that officials should not have the delegated power to make these sorts of decisions.What we actually concluded is that the Governor-General—I am talking about new section 139A here regulations relating to information sharing—"may by Order in Council made on the recommendations of the Minister make regulations for the purposes of … (a) specifying the type of information that may or may not be disclosed: (b) prescribing the conditions under which the information may be disclosed" and how that information can be used. But we also said and this is what we inserted into the bill that "Before recommending the making of regulations under this section the Minister must consult"—so this was not "may" consult. We absolutely put an obligation on the Minister to consult the agencies and regulators that may be affected by proposed regulations. So we thought we were quite tough there. They must also consult the Privacy Commissioner which we thought was actually a very good idea because it needs to be tested there and "any other person or body that the Minister considers may be affected"—so it is not "must" here.If information is to be shared amongst agencies then this should probably be discussed around the Cabinet table. The Privacy Commissioner must be consulted to make sure that this is done under the law all the agencies that are affected must be consulted and even ones that might not be but are on the periphery must be consulted if they may be affected. The reason around this is that what we are saying in this legislation is in fact quite far-reaching. What we are doing here is allowing information which I am not going to say is privileged but which is detailed and stored in different areas to be shared which obviously is important if we are trying to chase down money-launderers or people who are financing terrorism. We do not want that so we do need to have the complete picture but we felt that the Minister had to be responsible if in fact we were going into new areas around privacy or the sharing of information between agencies.So we have taken out as mentioned a whole lot of stuff that was originally in the bill and I think we did the right thing. I really do think we did the right thing. There was no one who submitted to the committee who suggested that this was the wrong thing to do. So I just thought I would talk about that because it is quite important. I might leave it at that at this point."