O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Identity Verification Bill Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Identity Verification Bill Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 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. The provisions of the bill expand the igovt services to all members of the public and will allow more agencies to use the service to identify their clients. I think the current service is a great success and therefore the expansion of it is certainly a good thing. 
New Zealand First is pleased to see the anti-hacking provisions in the bill and we are pleased to see the penalties for the misuse of information as well. It is very important as the bill does to distinguish between corporations and individuals. Organisations that hack information would be doing so for commercial gain and they cannot be imprisoned so we are pleased to see that there are very high financial penalties for their infringements of the bill—of the Act as it will be. We would have liked to see other penalties considered as well such as the deregistration of a company in New Zealand for the most serious of cases. However it is very good at least to see very high penalties for corporations that infringe. 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 also approve in particular of the requirement for the regulations for these purposes to be subject first to consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. I think that is a very important safeguard. New Zealand First also approves of new clause 65A allowing a different duration to be set in regulations for electronic identity credentials issued to children under 14 years of age. This is simply of course because as we know children’s appearances change dramatically as they age and they generally hold fewer identity documents which can limit the effectiveness of biometric checks. New Zealand First further supports new subclauses 26(5B) and (5C) 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 because the bureaucracy does not always get things right and individuals need to at least have the opportunity to say that. So New Zealand First supports the bill and especially the role identified for the Privacy Commissioner. 
New Zealand First also supports the Identity Information Confirmation Bill to attack especially online fraud. The bill will achieve an important objective to facilitate the use of an electronic service that allows agencies to confirm identity information provided to them by individuals with information held by the Department of Internal Affairs under the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Passports Act 1992. In relation to the definition of “identity information” that includes information about a person’s full name gender date of birth place of birth other recorded information—for example in a passport or a photograph in a passport—and the status of any other recorded information. In clause 8 there is a list of conditions for using the confirmation service which most particularly of course require the individual to consent whether in writing or electronically. It requires the agency or intermediary applying to give an assurance that the consent has been obtained and of course that they have entered into the required confirmation agreement. There is also the ability for an individual to consent on a one-off basis or on an ongoing basis and the ability to withdraw that consent as well. We think those also are very important safeguards. 
I also approve of clause 9(4) which states: “The confirmation service must not at any stage supply to the agency or intermediary any recorded information about the individual who is the subject of the search.” It is of course just information that we are concerned with here. Clause 10 gives a long list of requirements in respect of the responsible officials requiring a need to be demonstrated by an intermediary before they can enter into an agreement. Also they must have policies and practices in respect of security of information and relating to the privacy of individuals. Clauses 11 11A and 11B contain I think very comprehensive provisions concerning what must be in a confirmation agreement and in addition how those agreements are to be used. For all of those reasons New Zealand First approves of the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. 
We think there are satisfactory safeguards in the bills with regard to individual privacy. We think especially that the provisions relating to the role of the Privacy Commissioner who will also ensure that the safeguards for the privacy of individuals are respected are very important as well. So for all those reasons New Zealand First will vote in favour of both bills.