Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I stand on behalf of the Green Party. We are opposing this legislation before the House today. This is the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. This bill is in fact a response to a single event which is of course when Phillip John Smith who was on short-term release from Spring Hill Corrections Facility was somehow able to leave the country for South America. We absolutely will enforce and will always stand for safer and secure communities countries and passage. However a number of flaws that allowed Phillip John Smith to be able to get away from the country and indeed be released from prison have in this instance seen a sort of a knee-jerk reaction as well—a sort of a twin towers reaction if you like—where everything is tightened up. The screws are put on and in that process—and I acknowledge what my colleague Jacinda Ardern has been highlighting in terms of the privacy concerns and the civil rights and liberties that are being thrown out which we need to be really concerned about. If this bill does go through to the select committee stage I will also really look forward to any sort of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act human rights and privacy concerns analysis because all citizens of New Zealand need to be considered—there are considerations—but particularly Māori are overrepresented in the prison population and will be disproportionately affected by the collection of prisoners' biometric data. So that is essentially our primary concern in opposing this piece of legislation. We would like clear and robust analysis and it is actually concerning. I myself having come from a Human Rights Commission background have been trying to search for whether or not there is a justification for impeaching upon civil rights liberties and privacy rights as well. My other point is that what happened here in the release and departure of Phillip John Smith was a number of things that could be solved without the breaching of civil liberties by collecting biometric data—so for example just picking up on the fact that the prisoner's birth name and passport name were different from the name that he was convicted under. I think immediately of my own father who has a birth name on his birth certificate that is very very different from his public and stage name and therefore—this is someone who has just this year finished travelling to every single country in the world over the past 2 years—he himself has had to negotiate at every border and entry into every single country the difference between his birth name and his passport name. Something as simple as having a register whereby you have all of the names of the prisoner registered as a person who is not able to leave the country would have just on its own been able to pick up that flaw in the system. For example if there was any sort of comprehensive system in place to ensure that the Department of Internal Affairs knew about citizens who were not allowed to leave New Zealand that could have happened without the quite huge consideration of the collection of biometric data. When we are talking about biometric data we are talking about things like fingerprints retina scans DNA and palm veins and as our technology increases there are more and more ways to collect biometric data. It is now starting to include heart rhythms as well—that is the sort of new development. So it can be quite intrusive and the concerns about that include for example firstly consent. I note a concern—and I am happy to be corrected on this by the Minister—where perhaps mental health patients could have their data collected without consent. So consent is something. The privacy concerns about biometric data also refer to an unintended function or scope. This is where the authentication goes further than what was actually intended—for example finding a family tumour—in the process of collecting biometric data. Or another concern is where there is unintended application scope so this is where the process correctly identifies the subject when the subject did not want to be identified and it possibly could be for a reason that has nothing to do with a security or safety measure. Then thirdly there is covert identification. So for example that is where the subject is identified without seeking identification in a crowd somewhere and I am thinking of situations where that could actually impinge on the well-being of anybody as well. So there are huge privacy concerns. As a democratic country and as one that has a reputable position on human rights—a longstanding one—we must always keep the civil rights and other considerations at the forefront. Another one is whether or not it will be counteractive—whether or not the collection of biometric data will be counteractive to bringing down recidivism or reoffending. So for example we must ask whether the collection and sharing of data will take into account any change of behaviour with any prisoner release—whether or not there has been genuine change of behaviour in any prisoners who are released and who are trying to move around—and whether or not we are disproportionately applying the legislation as a sort of a knee-jerk response in a situation where it could also be quite counteractive. So we are opposing this bill today. We will be keeping a sharp eye on it if this does go through and we will want departmental reports and thorough investigation as to any unintended consequences specifically around the gathering and the sharing of biometric data. I have looked through the recommendations of the report when the Government did an inquiry into what happened with Mr Smith and I can see the logic and the security measure contained around sharing information—absolutely. As I said before something as simple as having a register of who should not be allowed to leave the country could be quite a logical recommendation to adopt but we absolutely must always be reasoned and calm in any situations where we are about to just fling away a whole load of civil liberties with regard to privacy because that will concern all of our citizens as well and it will impact on the future of how we organise and govern our country—whether or not we are going to be counteractive and be creating further harm in our communities and in any prisoner release situations where they actually are trying to integrate fairly and genuinely back into the community. Thank you.