Volume 683 Week 21 - Wednesday 29 August 2012(continued on Thursday 30 August 2012) 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 683 Week 21 - Wednesday 29 August 2012(continued on Thursday 30 August 2012) 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4937. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 29 August 2012 
( 
continued on Thursday 30 August 2012 
) 
Reports 
Inquiry into the Identification Rehabilitation and Care and Protection of Child Offenders 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Social Services Committee on the inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders.  
The Social Services Committee has produced this report as a result of our inquiry into the way child offenders are dealt with by our justice system. It also provides an assessment of the effectiveness of the current care and protection model in identifying and rehabilitating child offenders. This is an important issue in my local community in Maungakiekie and the committee believes it is an important issue across the various communities that form our nation. 
Seventeen submissions were received from professional and non-governmental organisations service providers individuals and the courts. We also considered advice from the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice. Our terms of reference of the committee’s inquiry covered four key areas: first identifying potential child offenders; secondly the effectiveness of rehabilitative programmes; thirdly the care and protection referral process; and lastly the effectiveness of the care and protection mode. 
The law defines child offenders as over the age of 10 and under the age of 14 under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. These offenders have “committed an offence or offences the number nature or magnitude of which is such as to give serious concern for the wellbeing of the child;”. There were concerns around delays in processes to deal with child offenders especially between apprehension and resolution. We know that some child offenders continue offending after they are caught simply because we lack the tools to address their offending before their case is resolved. Although we cannot treat children as adults that interim offending needs addressing. 
The report also makes a number of recommendations designed to change Government responses from a model too focused on what works for agencies to a model focused on best practice and what works for these children and their families. This I believe is a conversation our community needs to have and needs to address and this report is certainly a step in the right direction. It is about getting behind our young people and making sure we are putting them on the right track to success in life and it complements the programmes that have been undertaken by this National Government since our coming into administration in November 2008. 
So what are we doing? Well our focus is on building a safer New Zealand. We have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities prevent crime and put victims first. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Act of 2010 created a dual-track system by empowering the Youth Court to deal with children aged 12 and 13 who commit serious offences. By the end of January 2012 nine of 19 twelve and thirteen-year-olds referred to the Youth Court had been either referred to the Family Court for resolution or dealt with by other means—for example through family group conferences. Twelve and thirteen-year-olds cannot be transferred to the District Court for sentencing. The only means by which a child can be dealt with by adult criminal courts is if they are charged with murder or manslaughter or if they elect trial by jury. 
 This National Government is staying tough on criminals keeping record numbers of police on the beat and ensuring the justice system focuses on the rights of victims. We are firmly committed to reducing child offending and youth crime and this is highlighted by some of the policy changes to date. As the chairman of the Social Services Committee this report has many sound recommendations that will address the serious issues facing our youth today and into the future. Our Government has already acted in the interests of our youth their families and our communities. I commend this report to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Members our bell sounds a bit feeble this morning. I will see how we go. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in response to the Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders. This was an inquiry in which Labour participated actively on the Justice and Electoral Committee. At that time the committee was chaired by Chester Borrows. I am very pleased that he now has a role as a Minister which allows him to carry forward the recommendations of this report and I look forward to working with him as he takes on that role. 
But there are a couple of things that I want to highlight from Labour’s perspective that were of concern while debating this issue at the select committee. Labour’s focus when it comes to child offenders has always been very very clear. For us it has never been about just dealing appropriately with children when they are found to criminally offend. As Mr Lotu-Iiga has pointed out those children are defined as being over the age of 10 but under the age of 14 because of course beyond that they are dealt with through our youth justice system. But Labour’s concern has always been about what we can do in the early stages of a child’s life to prevent them reaching our criminal justice system whether it is a hybrid form of care and protection or youth justice. For us there were several issues highlighted in this inquiry that demonstrated that we were not making the most of our early points of intervention and that in fact our threshold for intervention was particularly high. 
There are three areas in particular I want to highlight that are part of the recommendations of this report that I think deserve further scrutiny. The first is the agency that holds accountability when a child begins criminally offending. We had examples from the Family Court in particular. Peter Boshier very kindly created a mock Family Court situation using real examples to demonstrate to us the delays that happen in the Family Court. Often those delays are caused by the agencies involved either not taking a primary role of accountability for a child because there is confusion as to whether or not it is primarily a care and protection or a justice issue so accountability was an issue there but also delays generally within the Family Court process. I am very pleased that my colleague Charles Chauvel will be taking a call to flesh out how actually recent changes in our Family Court system may in fact make that situation worse not better. So the Family Court has a strong role to play here and there are some very strong recommendations in here on how we could utilise that process more effectively. 
The second point of debate is the quality and effectiveness of our interventions when we do identify a child offender. Are we using well-researched evidence-based programmes that are fit for purpose in the New Zealand context? I do think there is more work to be done to make sure that we have quality evaluation of the programmes that are being used. We have a very ad hoc approach to contracting at present. The third area as I have already touched on is the issue of our threshold for intervention. Let me give you an example. Early on in my political career when visiting a school I met with a school principal who was talking about issues amongst her student body. She raised the issue of I believe it was at that time an 8-year-old child who she said clearly had had issues at home in the past. These were not clear care and protection issues but issues that led her to believe that that child and their family needed assistance. That was manifested by the child one day going out of the school grounds and lying in the middle of the road. That school principal’s only choice was to call a police officer and ask for their assistance. The threshold for intervention for that child because it was not a clear case of neglect or abuse was not high enough for Child Youth and Family to be involved yet the trajectory that child has since taken was one that would lead them into the criminal justice system. 
 My point is that we have a child protection system that is under strain. There were 150000 cases reported to the Child Youth and Family last year 58000 of which required follow-up. We have in this country 1200 social workers. By default they are dealing with the most serious end of care and protection issues. We do need a system that responds as early as possible to the needs of our most vulnerable children before they enter into our criminal justice system. If we are to truly make effective use of taxpayer money and care for those vulnerable children I would suggest that that is where our attentions thus forward need to be paid. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am pleased also to speak on this Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders and I want to acknowledge Chester Borrows for bringing the inquiry to the Social Services Committee in the last term of Parliament. Data shows that children growing up in violent families are more likely to engage in youth offending. The inquiry reiterates this fact this connection but then does not deal effectively with this part—addressing these issues of family violence and how we can connect the dots on these issues for our most at-risk kids. The social and economic risk factors for youth offending correspond very closely to those risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse so joining the dots between these things is critical. Given the findings an effective strategy to combat child abuse domestic violence and youth violence would be a collaborative community-based prevention an early intervention effort that aims to reduce the social and economic risk factors for families. 
There is a very strong argument for the development of national and local collaborative prevention efforts between these three areas and that approach is missing from the inquiry and its report. Child abuse and domestic violence often occur in the same family and they are linked in important ways to the serious consequences for the safety of all family members. First where one form of family violence exists there is a very strong likelihood that another also does. Second research shows that the impact of children witnessing parental domestic violence is strikingly similar to the consequences of being directly abused by a parent. Both experiences are significant contributors to youth violence. 
There has been some new research in New Zealand by psychologist Julia Ioane following 600 Maori European and Pacific Island violent youth offenders. That research shows a very strong connection between exposure to family violence and the likelihood that those young people will become offenders themselves. More than half of all violent youth offenders involved in the study regardless of their ethnicity were exposed to family violence at some point in their lives. There is compelling evidence that exposure to inter-partner violence is associated with a host of negative mental health and social consequences in children and adolescents and that these children display more negative effects and negative cognitions as well as more social and academic problems compared with those who do not. 
I agree that the thresholds for activating care need to be lowered as has been set out by previous speakers. What I am concerned about throughout these findings and recommendations is that there is no mention of how this support is going to link together youth-offending child abuse and domestic abuse services. When we look for opportunities for that early identification we could start simply with the 150000 notifications to Child Youth and Family that happen every year. They are often described by the Minister for Social Development as false positives—those who do not meet the threshold. They are not false positives. They are indications of concern and problems that need to be addressed. The problem is that those people do not meet the threshold for active intervention. They go into a waiting room and there they stay waiting for someone to help them. There has been a cry for help and there is no response. We do not have a system that connects all of those things together and provides support to those families at an early stage when they need it the most. 
Where is the protective place? Where is the place that a protective parent can go when they need help? Where are the services that will provide direct intervention for those families? This was identified in  
The Netherlands Study 
 which Every Child Counts put out last week. In the Netherlands there are places community hubs where families can go at that early stage of need to get their issues addressed before their kids become young offenders in the future. We need to stop working from a model where we need to identify those children and work to a model where we have a place for those families and those kids to come for help and that does not exist in the services we provide at the moment. 
The Family Courts have recently announced changes whereby in a rush to save costs they are increasing the risk of those who have been exposed to domestic violence to continue to be exposed to that violence by having a family resolution process together without addressing the issues of family violence and domestic violence. Often those who are subject to that violence are then exposed to further risk. Are we really so blind that we cannot connect the dots between all of these parts of the family violence issue? 
This Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders has been effective in some respects by raising these issues and addressing and providing some recommendations that are very good. But without a concerted effort to join the dots between youth offending domestic violence and family violence we simply will not provide support to those families and those kids who need us the most before they get into trouble. And surely that is where we should put our resources. Kia ora. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this report on the Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders. First of all I acknowledge the work of the Social Services Committee which resulted in this report being submitted to the House. New Zealand First is pleased to be involved in the discussion although it was very much at a late stage given our return to Parliament at the recent election. There is no question that an inquiry was needed and it is a shame that it was not done earlier. Now that the report into this inquiry is before the House the Government needs to do something about it. 
When identifying potential child offenders the Social Services Committee addresses the importance of early detection of at-risk children. The Government needs to look closely at the committee’s recommendations especially around Government agencies to focus on risk and protective factors. There needs to be a thorough analysis of the severity of risks that children identify with and whether all these risks justify intervention. Having collaborative cross-agency and Government departments is key to creating successful interventions. It is acknowledged that the health and education sectors must have more responsibility and input into the process. However I believe that the Government should consider a wider approach involving different key ministries—namely the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the Ministry of Maori Development. These ministries need to contribute more towards addressing the social and economic drivers of offending. 
Recent incidents arising as a result of poor system administrative processes in Child Youth and Family services highlight poor strategic thinking. Of child offenders who are apprehended 57 percent are Maori and just under 6 percent of them are Pacific Islanders—that is 63 percent are Maori and Pacific Islanders alone. The lack of awareness around cultural perspectives will make rehabilitation hard not only for existing youth offenders but also for those who are possibly at risk. The culturally specific approaches in the Youth Court for Maori and Pacific offenders have been commended. However there are still loopholes within these approaches. Application of specialised cultural services—for example cultural assessment and relevant resources—would contribute to addressing some behavioural issues of children falling through the cracks. It should be mentioned that demographic areas need also to be considered when considering where Government resources and funding should be allocated. These should be allocated not by the populations of cities but by the highest concentration of youth offenders. 
There are still concerns surrounding programmes to address at-risk children. The question needs to be asked as to whether there will be a clear difference between rehabilitative programmes for offending children and at-risk children. Compounding these two areas could lead to children ending up in compromised situations. The committee has identified mentoring programmes as a solution for at-risk children. However the Government will need to look at the effectiveness of such programmes as this will be very much dependent on the mentors themselves. I would also like to raise the question of parent accountability when it comes to child offenders. In most serious offences the child has been brought up within a dysfunctional and often abusive family situation which potentially leads to behavioural problems. I do question whether a lack of accountability at family group conferences needs to be addressed. Often these sessions are clouded with political correctness which then blurs the lines of accountability when addressing the real issues. It has been recommended that educational programmes promoting good parenting are positive and effective ways to address these issues. Most programmes need to be established in terms of early parenting. There are not enough avenues nor sufficient programmes and support during the early maternal stages especially for first-time parents. This begs the question why parents are not being held responsible as their actions could very well be a leading factor in the circumstances of their child’s offending. Thank you. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this report on the Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders. Before I begin I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a young woman—this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so—Lydia Ko a Korean-born 15-year-old Auckland schoolgirl who has done wonderfully well in the United States a couple of weeks ago and also in Canada becoming the youngest-ever LPGA winner as an amateur. Although she did not win the $300000 prize she was very happy with the trophy. I do know that she worked really really hard to achieve that result and I would like to congratulate her in this opportunity that I have got. 
Earlier speakers have talked about the purpose of this report. It does have merit. National is committed to reducing child offending and youth crime. This is reflected in the policy changes we are making to build a safer New Zealand. How we deal with child offenders and the balance that is involved is an important part of ensuring that today’s child offenders do not become tomorrow’s career criminals. The Government is engaging with the child and youth justice sector in the coming months as it develops its response to these recommendations. I will be welcoming that as a mother of a 13-year-old. 
When you look at the child offending age child offenders are over the age of 10 and under the age of 14—and my son fits right into that; he is 13. As a mother you do worry. The kind of stuff that I am actually worried about is whether he is going to be naughty in school and be called to the principal’s office. But we are talking about more serious issues here. When you look at the statistics from 2010-11 there were 7896 apprehensions of children aged between 10 and 13 with crimes like theft and related offences comprising 37 percent of these. 
I would like to commend the Social Services Committee in the previous Parliament which actually began and almost completed this inquiry because it is a serious issue. Children are the future of this country and we need to make sure that we protect them that they are on the right path and that they are on the right side of the law but often we do find that a lot of children are not. 
There are concerns around the delays in process to deal with child offenders as my colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has alluded to. We know that some child offenders continue offending after they are caught simply because we lack the tools to address their offending before the case is actually resolved. Where we cannot treat children as adults the interim offending needs to be addressed. 
As a woman of Korean heritage what Asenati Lole-Taylor talked about in terms of cultural sensitivity and the way we deal with children of different ethnicities went straight to my heart because as a child growing up the neighbourhood the community actually dealt with child offending. I remember when one of my friends got into trouble and an old man came and clipped him around the ear dragged him by the ear took him to the house where his parents were and told the parents off. That kind of community involvement does not seem to exist in today’s society and perhaps it is a shame that we do not have that. 
I am not in any way supporting the idea that we should actually clip kids around the ear of course but what I am saying in terms of community involvement in children’s offending is that perhaps we should care more about what our children are doing. And if our neighbours’ children are offending perhaps we should care about what we are doing to get them on the right track. 
New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their own homes and communities. Our focus is on building a safer New Zealand and we have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities prevent crime and put victims first. We know that many young offenders have no self-esteem have uncertainty in their lives and lack any sense of purpose or direction. It falls on us to ensure that we put in the right systems to prevent further offending. I look forward to the Government’s response. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Just a couple of corrections: the chair of the last Social Services Committee was Katrina Shanks and I want to acknowledge her work in the last select committee. She actually worked very inclusively with us. This Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders was essentially a Government inquiry proposed by Government members and we went along with it. 
The second point I want to make is that this inquiry was essentially finished and ready to be presented to this House at the end of the last Parliament but for some strange reason it was not. There was no work to be done and there was no explanation given. So the current select committee has simply kept it boiling for a little bit and now we are presenting it. But this was an inquiry into three aspects of child offending: identification rehabilitation and care. Everything we know from research and from experience tells us that unless we have a comprehensive system and an integrated approach to each aspect of that system and unless each aspect is well designed and well integrated and unless the care and protection needs of children are met well—unless we have all of those pieces together—the system will not work. 
If we look at the recommendations of this inquiry there are 25 recommendations and they are quite serious and far-reaching recommendations. What that points to is the fact that this inquiry did not find such a system. We did not find an integrated system or a system that is actually working well. At each stage of the process around child offenders there is much more to be done and our recommendations actually point to that. My suspicion is that if we went at the moment into any other aspect of care and protection or the child welfare system and shone a torch on it we would find similar kinds of shortcomings. There is something that is quite wrong quite broken with the system that needs a major review. I suspect that what this inquiry has shown to me is that it has identified some of that. 
If we look at identification what we found was that there were many many opportunities for cases to be identified early whether it was in our schools or even our preschools but somehow that was not done. The system was not tight enough was not integrated enough to say that we could take advantage of all of the opportunities that we have that the system has and that many systems have to identify these kids. So the first recommendation under that one recommended that the Government require “government agencies to focus on the risk and protective factors identified in this report”—and we do not do that. We do not bring together the knowledge base around what the key indicators are and actually use them in everyday interaction with our young people. What we do is we wait until something really blows over. That notion of early intervention is really really important and it is an important aspect of this report. We need to also ensure that we identify the accountabilities of Government agencies—so who is going to do what and to what extent that will be done. 
When we go to the current rehabilitation system that was another aspect of what the committee was asked to look at. Again a really quite serious shortcoming is that the bulk of the programmes are not evaluated so how do we know that these things are actually working? There are a number of recommendations here around that. When we also look at the care and protection system it was really quite a worrying experience for us as a committee when the Family Court actually did a mock-up of a number of cases and we found out how the system prevaricates. It can keep a case going for months and months and months a year and even beyond. That has to be fixed because the system is not integrated. I am sure that Charles Chauvel my colleague will talk about that. In the end we did not have time to really look at the effectiveness of the care and protection system well enough. 
What this report presents is that the system is good in parts there are lots of things that need to be done with it the recommendations are quite serious and they ought to be addressed. Now that Katrina Shanks is here I did acknowledge your work as chair of the last select committee where all of the work of this committee was done and completed but not presented for some strange reason. Thank you. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Dr Prasad has just stolen my thunder because I too wanted to begin by acknowledging in particular the leadership of Katrina Shanks as the chair of the Social Services Committee in the last Parliament and also the very important work that was done by our colleague the Hon Chester Borrows whose knowledge in these areas is perhaps as great as any in this Parliament and who brings a huge amount of life and professional experience to it. 
As my colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga the new chair of the committee has acknowledged the report of the Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders straddled two Parliaments and two Social Services Committees and I think all of us who have had the opportunity to be a part of it have found it both a challenging but also a very rewarding exercise. So I want to acknowledge the fact that there are some members—Dr Prasad is one and Su’a William Sio Jacinda Ardern and me—who worked on the report in the previous committee. We were able to do the work that went into it and I want to thank the members of this current committee in the 50th Parliament for picking it up and bringing it through to the point where it can be presented to the House discussed here this morning and most important the lessons that we can draw from it are made available to all the agencies in order for it to be implemented wherever possible. 
It is a very important topic. It is one of the issues that really pushes all the buttons for me as a member of Parliament. It is one of the main reasons why I felt it was so purposeful to come here in order to try to assist our society to intervene effectively with young people who are at risk not only of going off the rails but in many cases of getting into a serious lifetime of crime drug addiction and all sorts of other terrible social evils that are so devastating for them but always devastating for the wider communities in which they live. Children in the bracket we are talking about—the ages 10 to 14 years—are probably at greater risk in our society today than ever before. That is simply because we are seeing more and more family breakdowns more and more intergenerational welfare dependency and more and more children struggling with literacy and numeracy which means that they do not achieve what they need to in education in order to be able to set their sights on a pathway forward. Many of them have known no other sort of lifestyle than the one that is leading them on the path to ruin. So a report of this type is very timely and is very important and I am hopeful that it will lead to some really effective forms of intervention because as Dr Prasad has just said the notion of early intervention is a really important one from the report. We all know I am sure that the earlier we can intervene in the lives of these youth at risk the greater the likelihood is that we will be able to help them turn their lives round. 
Others have spoken in this debate this morning about the need to identify the youth at risk of becoming child offenders. That of course is absolutely critical. But I do also want to acknowledge that there are many people out in our communities doing great work in this area. We have outstanding teachers many of whom would be able to tell you very quickly what the problems are and who those at risk are. Equally we have social workers up and down the country doing outstanding work and in both of those particular professions the challenges are often considerable. I think it is appropriate that we acknowledge them this morning and thank them all for the vital work they are doing. But it is the interventions and in particular the rehabilitative programmes that are most significant if we are going to turn things round. So I do just want to highlight chapter 3 of the report which commences on page 21 to say that as a committee we acknowledge that to some extent the jury is still out about the definitive view of the effectiveness of the programmes that are on offer. To be valid each assessment would require comprehensive evaluation over an extended period. There are people doing that work and we will be monitoring them closely. 
I want to acknowledge Child Youth and Family which is a vital part of this package. It stressed the need for agencies to work together which is another theme that I am really very keen on and we saw some good examples of the way things are moving in this direction. We had an opportunity to visit a number of remand centres youth offending teams and the like both in Australia during our trip and also around the country. I would just like to finish by praising the efforts of one very close to home on my own doorstep of Hamilton—the Kauri Centre. It is an outstanding facility working with some young people who are outside the mainstream education system. For various reasons they are not able to be in our usual State schools. The Kauri Centre is working with these young people and every time I go there I am really inspired by the work that it is doing. I am hugely impressed by the commitment of the teachers and the adults who are working there. I have to say they are delightful young people. Their lives are in many cases in a bit of a mess but there is hope there for them. 
I want to conclude by saying that every one of those young lives that we can turn round and turn back from the path to ruin and on to a path of hope aspiration and achievement is good for them good for their families and good for our country. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I too am very pleased to speak to this report on the inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders 
 
 from the Social Services Committee 
. 
 I think right across this House we would all acknowledge the very important work that was done in this report and the difficulties that are confronted by all of the professionals as well as indeed the young people at the centre of this inquiry. It is a very very challenging area and I just want to commend the Social Services Committee for commissioning this report and the Hon Chester Borrows for his involvement in that. I think it is work that is worthwhile doing and is very much a moving environment in terms of addressing the challenges. 
One of the most challenging features—certainly as a former policeman I can speak to this with some degree of understanding—is the multitude of risk factors and protective factors that are faced by these young people. I would just like to turn to the report and read some specific information related to that on page 13 under the heading “Risk and protective factors”. It states: “We understand that a number of widely recognised factors put children at risk of offending. They include antisocial behaviour or conduct disorders mental health problems suicidal behaviour drug and alcohol use poor academic performance and truancy poor health poor attachment to family and low self-esteem.” The report goes on to outline a number of environmental factors that are also at play here such as a dysfunctional family situation abuse and family violence parents with a history of mental health problems or drug and alcohol abuse and poor parenting. 
The report also goes on to outline what the committee has learnt about protective factors that reduce the likelihood of children offending. Some of these key factors were “supervision and monitoring by parents with reasonable and consistent rules and consequences”. A common thread within youth offending is that a lack of engagement and a lack of parental oversight often see children aged 10 to 13 wandering the streets in trouble and this is something that I have endeavoured to address by way of a member’s bill that looks at the importance of the relationship between a child offender and their parents. This member’s bill which is currently in the ballot would actually provide Youth Court judges with the ability to put a parent or guardian who is entrusted with the custody of that young person under conditions such as a curfew such as a residence clause such as a requirement not to use drugs and alcohol and so on and so forth so that as the Youth Court is endeavouring to deal with these young people it can also be assured that it can get engagement with the parents where the circumstances are appropriate. 
The report goes to make recommendations of a similar nature right through to the Family Court where we are indeed dealing with the 10 to 13-year-old child offenders who will be in front of a judge in only about 10 percent of the cases. Indeed they will proceed through to the Youth Court only where they are involved in a murder manslaughter or an offence carrying a penalty of 14 years or more which is the very very significant sharp end of the offending. 
 Indeed the fact that this report identifies that the Family Court would be well placed to have additional tools to help keep parents engaged I think is a very important part that I have gleaned from the report and I can only hope that today I am lucky enough to have my bill pulled from the ballot. That would be gratifying because I think it would go to support exactly the sorts of recommendations made in this document. 
One of the other real threads of information that I pulled from this report was that so much of what we are dealing with actually falls outside of the court jurisdiction and is dealt with by family community police and agencies outside of the Youth Court and the Family Court. If there is one thing we can glean from this report it is the need for systemic efficiency the need for stakeholders to collaborate and the need for all partners and all parties involved to be mindful that preventing offending is indeed something that we must be focused on. I could go on. This is an excellent report and we should all take heed of these recommendations. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to commend the work of the Social Services Committee in respect of the inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders that it has conducted and the report that it has produced 
. 
 There have been some excellent contributions in this debate and I particularly in this regard want to mention those of my colleagues Jacinda Ardern and Rajen Prasad but also the contribution of Metiria Turei. I think the point that she made around the need in this area to stop working from a model where as she put it we have to identify them to one where they have a place to come is absolutely apposite. I share her despair when I read that protective parents in a violent relationship need and would welcome parenting programmes. Parenting programmes are not designed to work within the dynamics of domestic violence and they will not keep a victim of domestic violence and her—because it is usually her—children safe. In fact there is a higher chance that they could be put at risk. 
The inquiry clearly got great benefit from having heard from the Family Court. It is obvious from the report at pages 37 to 38 that the evidence given by the court to the committee was very useful in its deliberations. What I want to do is just place on record my gratitude to the outgoing Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier because I have certainly been a member of committees in this House where the judge has as he clearly did here come along to a committee and given very frank and helpful evidence about what it is really like at the cliff-face the coalface—however you want to put it—in respect of dealing with the sorts of issues that confronted the committee. The judge in his time has done his level best to make that court work and to make it an efficient and effective place from which interventions can occur. I think he will be missed in his tenure as a judge but I certainly wish him well in his term at the Law Commission where I know he will provide excellent advice and support in respect of his areas of expertise. 
Having mentioned the Family Court I do need I think to touch on the recent changes that the Government has announced to that court. Some of them are positive: the focus on mediation the attempts to streamline the system and end the requirement to have representation where maybe that is not necessary but to allow the parties to get quickly to the nub of a dispute. All those things are positive and I have said that publicly. What is not positive is the attempt to introduce new charges for accessing the court and the ending of free counselling services. Those counselling services at the moment are a hugely important safety valve and the ability to access six funded counselling sessions I know has been an extraordinarily helpful thing for families who are in trouble including families who face issues around violence care and protection orders and the other sorts of matters that are touched on by this report. It is of real concern that we are changing the rules of access to the Family Court and in the rush to save costs we are going to really have to take great care that we do not simply perpetuate many of the problems that are referred to in the report. 
In this regard I am particularly concerned that although there was evidence given to the committee around the utility of increasing youth advocates we are actually seeing that service being cut. We are seeing as I have said cuts to the free access to the Family Court the elimination of free counselling the new fees that have been brought in and then of course there is the likelihood of a coming announcement about court closures around the country. These are the sorts of services dealt with in the report that are not amenable to videoconferencing so if we do not get all that right we are simply going to be spending more money in the corrections and health budgets. That is certainly not something I want to see. We have to get this area of service right including in the Family Court and the courts budget. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
 I would like to commend the Social Services Committee for its thought-provoking report which raises very important questions around the way we deal with child offenders. National is committed to reducing child offending and youth crime. This is reflected in the policy changes we are making to build a safer New Zealand. Over the past 12 months our youth justice reforms have halved the number of youth needing to be held in secure units but we need to continue this work. We need to ensure that today’s child offenders do not become tomorrow’s career criminals. Therefore how we rehabilitate care for and more important protect these children is of utmost importance. 
There are children in our country who through no fault of their own grow up neglected lacking opportunity and aspiration; many of whom are abused and go on to live a life of crime. It becomes a never-ending cycle one we need to do all we can to break. 
According to the Ministry of Social Development although child offender apprehensions have dropped in the past 15 years there has been an increase in the number of children apprehended for violent offending. In 2010-11 there were 7896 apprehensions of children aged 10 to 13 and 37 percent of them were for theft and related offences. 
The issue of child offending is not new. A study in 1996 found that most child offenders had the marks of inadequate care and/or abuse. In short the consequences that might be expected from ill-treatment were that they were difficult to manage both at home and at school they failed to learn they ran away and they experimented with alcohol and other substances. At least a third came from families with a history of alcohol or substance abuse and/or criminal involvement. 
We know that many young offenders lack self-esteem have uncertainty in their lives and have no sense of purpose or direction. They need help. As lawmakers we believe we can do better. We know that some child offenders continue offending after they are caught. However often this offending is not addressed because we lack effective tools to deal with it. This interim offending needs addressing. 
Child offending is considered to be a protection matter and such offending is currently dealt with by the Youth Court and the Family Court. However the Family Court has limited powers to change the personal situations of these young people in a way that would prevent further youth offending. Currently more than 90 percent of children who offend are dealt with by the police through an alternative action—for example writing an apology letter or paying for damage. Many of them do not enter the justice system. We acknowledge that there is a challenge before us to ensure that the systems we have in place are effectively addressing the issue of child offending so that today’s child offenders do not become tomorrow’s career criminals. 
The focus of this National-led Government is on building a safer New Zealand and we have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities prevent crime and put victims first. We are staying tough on criminals keeping record numbers of police on the beat and ensuring that the justice system focuses on the rights of victims. We are firmly committed to reducing child offending and youth crime. We know that the investments we are making will pay off many times over in reduced costs in both the justice and social sectors as well as in the incalculable gain of preventing future victims of crime. But most of all we will be giving these child offenders an opportunity to have better lives. Thank you. 
Motion agreed to. 
Legislation Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
 on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move  
That the Legislation Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was introduced into Parliament in June 2010 and had its first reading on 3 August that year. The Regulations Review Committee reported the bill back to the House— 
Hon Members 
: 2010? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: —on 1 December 2010. I thank all parties for agreeing to this debate being held in extended hours this morning. I will just correct my first or second sentence—it should have been 2010—and I thank Lianne Dalziel for correcting me on that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was actually Ruth Dyson. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Oh and Ruth Dyson. I thank her as well. The Legislation Bill implements the recommendations of the Law Commission following its report on the presentation of New Zealand statute law and its review of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The bill makes important changes to the law relating to the publication and disallowance of legislation it updates the law underpinning the Parliamentary Counsel Office and it contains new provisions for a 3-yearly programme of statute law revision or consolidation. These latter provisions in particular have the potential to make significant improvements to the presentation and accessibility of our statute law. 
The last major consolidation of New Zealand’s statute law took place in 1908—I will just check that with Lianne Dalziel 1908—when virtually all of New Zealand’s Acts were revised and re-enacted obsolete material was removed and 47 volumes of enactments were reduced down to five. Such a one-off comprehensive revision might not now be possible or even desirable because new Acts are passed so much more frequently these days. Instead the new Legislation Bill envisages a rolling 3-yearly programme of statute law revision. This approach will bring with it some significant advantages. It will enable us for example to rationalise and consolidate heavily amended statutes or to bring together provisions on one topic that are currently spread across different enactments. We will be able to repeal obsolete Acts and to update the language in current enactments to make it consistent with modern drafting style. Over time this will provide for a comprehensive overhaul of the New Zealand statute book making it quicker and easier for New Zealanders to find understand and apply the law that this House has passed. 
The second matter I would like to draw to the House’s attention is Subpart 1 of Part 3 of the bill which replaces the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989—that is 1989. Previous Regulations Review Committee reports have identified problems with the way that the term “regulations” is defined in legislation. The bill addresses those problems by separating the law regulating the publication and disallowance of delegated legislation. There is a new definition of “disallowable instrument”. In effect the bill reverses the current default position. At present when it comes to disallowance what delegated legislation is called matters more than what it does. Because the new definition concentrates on substance over form the bill broadens the scope of disallowance. The bill will increase parliamentary oversight of the use of delegated powers by the executive and make it more difficult to avoid disallowance. 
 The Regulations Review Committee notes that if the bill is enacted amendments to Standing Orders will be required to reflect the new definition of “disallowable instruments” and to confirm the committee’s jurisdiction. I support the committee’s recommendation and I invite the Standing Orders Committee to consider it in due course. 
As I have said the Legislation Bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee in August 2010—2010. The committee’s report on the bill addresses the issue of revision and in particular the important matter of how revision bills should be handled by this House. These bills will not change the substance of the law but rather how it is presented so it is right that they should be capable of being passed by a more streamlined procedure than other bills. The Legislation Bill does not make this provision properly leaving parliamentary procedure to the Standing Orders. The committee supports this approach but in its report it encourages the Standing Orders Committee to consider making provision for a separate streamlined process for passing revision bills into law. Such a process should ensure that these bills will be subjected to the appropriate level of scrutiny by the House but without taking up more parliamentary time than is truly necessary. I agree with and support the committee’s recommendation in this regard. 
Aside from a revision the main focus of the committee’s amendments is in Part 4 which is the part of the bill dealing with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Several of the recommendations are for amendments to make the bill more accessible to the reader. An example is the recommendation for the clause that sets out the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s functions to be broken up into three separate shorter clauses. The committee proposes certain clarifying amendments such as in relation to clauses 60 and 61. These clauses contain the power of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to delegate powers and functions to an employee of the Parliamentary Counsel Office if the office holder is absent or incapacitated. The committee recommends that the power should be expanded to cover a period where the office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel is vacant. The bill contains an important provision that protects the confidentiality of communications between the Parliamentary Counsel Office and its clients. The committee recommends a definition be inserted into the provision to make it easier to identify whether a person is or is not a client of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
Others of the committee’s recommendations are more substantive. By way of an example clause 63 of the bill requires the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to have a legal qualification granted in a common law jurisdiction. The committee has recommended amendments to this provision. The effect of these changes is to require the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to be a New Zealand - qualified lawyer or eligible to practise as a lawyer in a specified country. This will ensure that candidates for the position of Chief Parliamentary Counsel continue to be drawn from New Zealand or similar jurisdictions. However in those cases which I believe will be extremely rare where no suitable candidate can be otherwise found the Attorney-General will retain the discretion to waive the qualification requirement in a particular case. The committee makes similar recommendations in relation to parliamentary counsel and I agree with and support these proposals. 
Should the bill progress to its Committee stage I anticipate publishing a Supplementary Order Paper to improve the clarity of the bill and to bring the amendments of other Acts in the schedule of the bill up to date. I thank the committee for carrying out its work so thoroughly and for making such positive and constructive recommendations to amend the bill. I commend the Legislation Bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As we have heard the Legislation Bill arises out of two Law Commission reports one dating from October 2008 and the other dating from May 2009. It is clear I think that those reports set out a compelling case to update the law relating to the publication of New Zealand legislation. The original Act that is on the books at the moment the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act dates back to 1920 so given the changes that have occurred in our society and in this institution since then it is I think timely to be having a look at those Law Commission reports and implementing their recommendations. The Regulations Review Committee was very happy to be part of that process to hear submissions on the Legislation Bill and to make some recommendations around how that bill could be improved. 
 I want to make a particular reference to some of the evidence that the Regulations Review Committee heard in respect of this bill. I want to note that we were privileged to be addressed in the committee by two former Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I want to pay tribute to each of them because they gave very careful and helpful evidence. The first person whom I want to acknowledge in this regard is Walter Iles QC. Mr Iles reminded the committee that I as chair of the committee would probably believe everything that he had to say to the committee given that his father founded the law firm in Gisborne that my father became a partner in in 1959. He is absolutely right. I did believe everything he had to say but not for that reason. The other former Chief Parliamentary Counsel from whom we heard was the late George Tanner QC. Again I want to place on record in the House my gratitude and the indebtedness of the committee for the evidence of Mr Tanner. Members will know that Mr Tanner passed away from an illness some short time ago and it seems to me that this is an appropriate juncture for me at least and I hope other members to place on record our gratitude for the tremendous service that Mr Tanner gave the House which he repeated in the evidence that he gave to the select committee which directly led to the clarifications and improvements in the bill that we are considering and that the Minister of Energy and Resources has indicated the Government will adopt. 
What are those changes? Well I think it probably is worth mentioning a couple of them. Members will be familiar with the concept of legal privilege. That is the ability to communicate in absolute confidence with one’s client. It is a necessary adjunct to the practice of law because if as a legal adviser it is not possible to know that your communications with your client are utterly secure then you cannot possibly give free and frank advice. One of the problems that we found with the original draft of the bill was that oddly parliamentary counsel did not have any automatic legal professional privilege when they were advising Ministers or members of Parliament in respect of select committee work or members’ bills. So we thought it was important to rectify that and to give parliamentary counsel the sort of protection that every other lawyer and legal adviser has in practice—the ability to ensure that their communications and advice to Ministers members of Parliament and others were utterly confidential and able never to be questioned in legal proceedings or otherwise. That will be accomplished by new clause 58B(3). 
One of the other changes was touched on by the Minister and that relates to the qualifications of parliamentary counsel. Members might be surprised to know that there is no provision in the statute book at the moment around the minimum qualifications that we would expect from those who serve in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We have tried to rectify that by specifying that ordinarily parliamentary counsel will be New Zealand - qualified practitioners but again members will know that we have expanded quite radically in recent times the categories of person who can so practise. We have passed and the Commonwealth of Australia has passed mutual recognition legislation meaning that any person admitted in one of the states or territories of Australia may apply to become a legal practitioner in New Zealand. They have the right to so apply and it is automatic that it will be granted and vice versa. I know that there are legally qualified members of the House who have been accredited to practise in Australian states and I am one of them—I am accredited in New South Wales. That shows that the reality of our deepening trans-Tasman relationship means that we can call on a wider pool of lawyers than we otherwise could have. 
If we have a look at the way in which the Regulations Review Committee has recommended that the statute be amended we have also looked to other common law jurisdictions. Why should we deprive ourselves of the ability to call on a Canadian lawyer a lawyer qualified in the United States a lawyer from Hong Kong or a lawyer from any of the other common law jurisdictions? They might have deep administrative experience or deep law-drafting experience and might well be able to lend that expertise to the New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office. Under this legislation it will be made clear that that is absolutely welcome in New Zealand. 
Another important change is made by clause 71A. In the State Sector Act section 77 of the legislation makes it very clear that provided a public servant is acting within powers and in good faith then the public servant has no liability. The Crown incurs no liability for the acts taken by the public servant. It is a very important constitutional provision. It means that our Public Service can function more effectively without having to worry all the time about whether any piece of advice or policy implementation might give rise to litigation. There was no such provision in the statute book relating to parliamentary counsel and so because parliamentary counsel are not part of the core Public Service we have had to provide for that and that amendment has been added in in clause 71A. 
Finally there are some amendments to the definition of what sorts of instruments can be considered by the Regulations Review Committee and scrutinised on behalf of the House. We have changed the terminology in the original bill from “legislative order” to “legislative instrument” recognising that it is not just Orders in Council that will now come to the Regulations Review Committee but other types of delegated legislation will come for scrutiny as well. 
There are two other quick points before I finish. The Minister noted that the Law Commission recommended that provision be made for a select committee to be created to hear and deal with revision bills. These are bills that are technical in nature that do not need to take up the time of this House through three readings and a Committee stage but can be dealt with through an expedited procedure. I think that would make an enormous difference to the efficiency with which we do our work. I am pleased to hear that the Government intends to progress that through the Standing Orders. I urge that it happen sooner rather than later just from the point of view of being able to do our jobs better. 
Finally listeners and other members might be wondering about the reason for the delay in progressing this legislation. I said that the Law Commission reports came from 2008 and 2009. The Legislation Bill was introduced in 2010. It is only now being read a second time despite the fact that it was reported back from the Regulations Review Committee last year. We were told in the estimates process by the Parliamentary Counsel Office that this was because the Government intended to combine the Legislation Bill with the Regulatory Standards Bill. I made it very clear on behalf of the Opposition that that would not be acceptable if a bipartisan approach to this Legislation Bill was being sought. The Attorney-General abandoned that course of action. I am very pleased to say that having done that I can now commend this bill to the House. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Legislation Bill today. I also would like to acknowledge the recent passing of Mr Tanner and the work that he did in the Regulations Review Committee and in this Parliament and also on this piece of legislation to get it before Parliament today. This Legislation Bill is about modernising and improving the law relating to the publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation in one single piece of legislation. This contributes towards our regulatory reform in terms of reducing the need for technical remedial legislation as a consequence of the enhanced reprinting powers. This will also improve our access to law through a programme of revision of old statutes. 
So as this bill has come from the select committee and has taken a little while to get here to have its second reading it is good to see that the Attorney-General has been working closely with Charles Chauvel in the Opposition to ensure that we do get agreement on this piece of legislation moving forward. It has had two reports by the Law Commission and recommendations on how to improve this bit of legislation and I know that the select committee worked very hard on it. I would like to acknowledge the role that it as well has played in getting it here today. 
It does replace the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and also the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989. It allows for some key changes within this legislation. There will be a 3-yearly programme of systematic revision of these Acts. It will modernise the legislation by providing for the disallowance of subordinate legislation. It allows for the provision of enabling powers and related processes to certain types of subordinate legislation to incorporate material by reference. It also updates aspects of the Statutes Drafting and Compliance Act 1920. These are all quite— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Compilation. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Compilation sorry. These matters are all quite technical if you are not within the law. So I think this is a really good piece of legislation which has been worked on hard to bring it to this House. Obviously it is about clear and accessible law being a fundamental part of the rule of law. People need to be able to understand legislation and courts need to be able to interpret legislation quite easily. 
So this is also about a plain English approach. It has not always been the approach taken in Parliament before and our legislation has been quite complex especially some of our old legislation which is quite hard to read. One real shocker comes from the United Kingdom. It is contained in the Banking Act 1979 Appeals Procedure (England and Wales) Regulations 1979. This is what it says which is an example of how complex legislation can get and it is not plain English at all: “Any reference in these regulations to a regulation is a reference to a regulation contained in these regulations.” I do not know what that means. I have read it about 10 times and I am still not quite sure what it means. But it just shows you how complex we can be when we write as legislators. Really we have got to think about who is reading this legislation and make it as easy as we can for people to pick up a bit of legislation and understand it. 
So this represents a significant step in the process of improving and modernising the New Zealand statute book. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to support the passage of the Legislation Bill. But I do want to comment on the sequence of events because it does seem to me that we have ended up delaying unnecessarily the passage of this particular measure. So we have got two Law Commission reports despite what my colleague Charles Chauvel said before:  
Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law 
 in 2008 and  
Review of the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 
 in 2009. Actually that is a good track record to have Law Commission reports that are so recent in front of the House. When you compare how long other Law Commission reports take to get to the House that actually is quite good progress. 
However this legislation was introduced in mid-2010 and it was reported back from the Regulations Review Committee at the end of 2010 so we actually had 2011 to deal with this particular measure and pass it through all of its stages. It could have been well implemented by now but that did not happen. In fact it has been sitting on the Order Paper now for so long having been reported back from the Regulations Review Committee that I was not on the Regulations Review Committee at the time that this particular bill was considered. I think it is worth mentioning that it is unusual for the Regulations Review Committee to consider legislation. Normally we are considering regulations or we are considering regulation-making powers within statutes but to have a bill referred to us as a committee is actually an unusual step. I think it is worthy of merit and I think that is because of the content. The content of it does not sit very easily with any other subject committees because it is more of a general focus on the nature of the legislation itself. So it is not the content but the parameters of the law which is something that the Regulations Review Committee is very mindful of. 
 I too want to place on record my personal regret at the passing of George Tanner. In the time he was Chief Parliamentary Counsel at Parliament he gave tremendous service. When he moved to the Law Commission I felt that the Law Commission had gained something that the Law Commission really needed which was that quality perception around drafting. That needed to be strengthened within the Law Commission now that it has the responsibility of looking at drafting measures to sit with its reports to Parliament. I really think he was a great loss to New Zealand and certainly a great loss to the whole issue of statutory drafting. The reason I wanted to mention that is that when somebody of that calibre comes and makes submissions to a select committee it does make a real difference. I think it is worthwhile mentioning that our select committee process has enabled people of that calibre to come forward and to submit on legislation that might seem so dry but is actually quite fundamentally important to how accessible the law is going to be. 
I am not going to spend a lot of time on the bill because of course I was not on the Regulations Review Committee when it considered it but I want to just make the point that not only did it pick up on those two Law Commission reports but also it responded to recommendations made by a previous Regulations Review Committee on inquiries relating to incorporating material by reference. I was on the Regulations Review Committee when that particular report was undertaken so I am really pleased to see in the statute a provision that specifically deals with how material incorporated by reference is going to be dealt with in the future. For those who are not familiar with the work of the previous Regulations Review Committee an example of material incorporated by reference would be a standard that is made by a joint standards body—say Food Standards Australia New Zealand. If a joint standards body makes a standard that is then incorporated by reference into legislation you do not need to write in the entire standard and then amend it every time the standard is amended. In fact by making it publicly available it is automatically incorporated by reference with the use of appropriate clauses in the legislation and then with appropriate checks and balances so that people can access the material that is incorporated by reference. It is all about accessibility but also ensuring that our legislation can stay up to date with regulations without necessarily changing the law in order to meet an outside body’s standard-setting process. 
With those few comments in mind as others have said I too am very pleased to see that this bill is progressing. I would have very strongly objected to this legislation going into the Regulatory Standards Bill so I am glad my colleague Charles Chauvel was able to indicate to the Government that that would cause the bill to lose the bipartisan support that it now enjoys because it is kept separate from legislation that does not fit with this particular framework. I am very pleased to support its passage through the House. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to take a very short call on the second reading of the Legislation Bill which the Green Party will be supporting. We supported it at the first reading to the Regulations Review Committee but unfortunately I did not have the honour or pleasure to be on the committee. In fact I do not believe there was a single Green member on the committee so we were not able to watch its progression through the select committee as closely as we would have liked to. 
What the bill is effectively seeking to do is very reasonable and I think it is very important to be able to have regular revision of legislation and to make sure it is able to be made available to be reprinted to be corrected and above all to be accessible because really one tenet I think of a functioning democracy is that what happens at the level of the elected representatives needs to be transparent clear and accessible to the people of New Zealand. One of the four key charter principles of the Green Party is appropriate decision-making and we really cannot have appropriate decision-making if we do not have transparency and the ability of the general public to understand what legislation means for them and to interpret it quite easily. 
The changes that take effect in the form of the revision bills I think will clearly lay out the purpose of revision. They need to be certified by several experts including the president of the Law Commission and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Though it remains for the Standing Orders Committee to decide the specific process we are satisfied that it would be impossible for a revision bill to pass without parliamentary scrutiny. That is really important and is I am happy to say not at all in line with other bills that we have seen pass way too quickly through this House that have given far too much power to the executive in the ability to make regulations and make changes to the law through Orders in Council without parliamentary scrutiny and that is very very problematic. It is a real pattern I think of this Government to try to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and bypass the wider debate that leads to better legislation. I am happy to say that this bill does not do that and that it does not continue in that pattern of taking away power from Parliament from the people and giving it to the executive. 
Keeping legislation modern and accessible is fundamentally important as I have said to our democracy. The law should be something that everyone can engage with. The ability to revise old legislation to make it clear and understandable fulfils the duty that we have to make laws that everyone can comprehend. We also support the bill’s provision that official versions of legislation are able to be made available electronically online. That is extremely useful and I think it encourages us to make better laws having them available to be perused criticised and open to public scrutiny online. This bill is a very small step but the Green Party is very very happy to support it as we do believe that it will shed more light on the activity of Parliament and is a way to make New Zealand more democratic. Thank you. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I must admit that I did not anticipate as a member of the Regulations Review Committee ever standing here speaking on a bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? Oh come on! 
MIKE SABIN 
: Can I firstly commend the chair of the Regulations Review Committee—it is all quite a mystery to me I must say Mr Mallard. Can I firstly commend the chair of the Regulations Review Committee Charles Chauvel for the way in which he does shed light on what does appear to be something of a mystery to me at times and for his leadership of that committee. 
This bill the Legislation Bill is really about clear and accessible law being a fundamental part of the rule of law. People need to be able to understand what it is about and the courts need to be able to interpret legislation. Certainly in my former life as a police officer I saw I guess the other end of that particular spectrum and the importance of it. As has already been mentioned the Law Commission has rightly said that our statute law as a whole currently lacks coherence it is untidy and it can be difficult to understand and use. This bill obviously goes to the heart of that. This Legislation Bill supports the efforts of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Law Commission to address this problem by tidying the statute book and making it easier to understand and I think we have all found consensus on that point. This bill aims to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation and in fact brings together for the first time the law on drafting publication and disallowance of legislation. It ensures that legislation is made available to the public appropriately and conveniently and preserves and enhances the powers of the House to scrutinise and challenge delegated legislation. 
I do not know whether I would go as far as my friend from the Green Party the previous speaker Julie Ann Genter although I would have to say that we do not find consensus in many of our views but I will not dwell on that point. Lastly the bill preserves the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the importance and significance of that is not to be understated. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is also happy to support the Legislation Bill particularly because it improves accessibility and understandability of legislation for the New Zealand public. Before going any further I first want to acknowledge the work of the Regulations Review Committee which I think has done a really good job with this piece of legislation. It is high time of course that there is a modernisation of legislation governing the drafting of legislation and concerning the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. 
As we know the bill principally would replace the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989. Most important I think it provides for a 3-year programme of systematic revision of legislation. That is a very welcome move and something that probably should have been done a long time ago. The bill would also alter the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. In particular the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will be required to publish legislation in electronic as well as printed form and to issue official versions of legislation in electronic and printed form. That will be very welcome to people who these days—and I think it is the majority—find their way through legislation through electronic means. This just brings that situation up to date and is most appropriate. 
I particularly wanted however to make some comments about the part of the bill relating to revision bills. The purpose as we know is stated in clause 29(2) which says: “The purpose of revision is to re-enact in an up-to-date and accessible form the law previously contained in all or part of 1 or more Acts but (except as authorised by this subpart) revision is not intended to change the effect of a law.” That is a very important issue which I think has been well addressed by the committee. 
However the revision programme in clause 31(2) is as I have already said for me the crux of the whole thing. It includes such important things as revision of the whole or part of one or more Acts with the ability to combine or divide them as may be appropriate. Clause 31(2)(c) refers to the omission of redundant and spent provisions which will also be useful. Clause 31(2)(f) refers to the ability to include new or additional purpose provisions which will be helpful for the public as well. Most important I think clause 31(2)(i) refers to the ability to make minor amendments to clarify Parliament’s intent. Of course that word “minor” is open to interpretation but I do believe that it is appropriate to have it there. Clause 31(2)(j) allows the updating of monetary amounts and that kind of thing which is just common-sense stuff. 
It is important however that although clause 31(3) states that “A revision Bill must not change the effect” of any statute that does not mean that there will not be any substantive changes which would still be possible. Therefore great care is going to be needed I believe to preserve the integrity of the Acts that are dealt with under this legislation—something that I think the House will need to be careful of when it looks at revision bills as they come through in the future. In other words we are still going to have to be vigilant. 
Clause 34(2) repeats the requirements not to change the effect of any statute but that is qualified by clause 31(3) which states: “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law except as authorised by subsection (2)(i) or (j).” which I have already referred to. So there is a degree of conflict and some confusion between clauses 31(3) and 34(2) which state that there should be no change to the effect of any statute and clause 34(3) which says that there may be change to the effect of a statute if expressly stated. 
I note that the committee has said that for this purpose it has inserted new clause 33A in relation to minor policy changes to revision bills. The committee considered that the bill as introduced might cause confusion about the relationship between the changes properly made using the revision powers and the changes made by members of Parliament during the passage of a revision bill through the House. That is the dilemma of course. 
The committee goes on to say that it considers that the bill should make the distinction clearer and for that reason it has put in new clause 33A. New clause 33A(1) says: “A revision Bill as introduced must not contain any proposed change to the effect of the law unless the amendment is authorised by section 31.” It goes on to say in subclause (2): “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” To me that new provision clause 33A(1) does not improve the problem; it simply restates the dilemma without actually improving anything. So although I appreciate that the committee did want to clarify the situation I do not think it did it with that particular provision. 
I believe that it would actually have been better if clause 34(3) and new clause 33A(1) were deleted altogether and we were left only with new clause 33A(2) which I repeat simply says: “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” It would be quite sufficient for that to be there and those other clauses I referred to need not be there at all. However that is a relatively minor matter. I would have preferred it that way but it is not something that I think would cause New Zealand First to vote against the bill or at this late stage attempt to change it further. I just think that it would have been a better way of going about it. 
I want to go on and just briefly mention now the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and to note with approval that clause 58 of the bill is now being divided into the three new clauses: 58 58A and 58B. That is very wise. It does make things much clearer to do that. We also welcome new subclause (1)(h) of clause 58 which refers expressly to the rights of the public. It does say in that clause that one of the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office is “to examine all local Bills and private Bills and to examine the Members’ Bills that the Attorney-General directs be examined and to report to the Attorney-General on the effect of Bills examined in particular on whether they affect the rights of the Crown or the public and on their relationship to other legislation:”. I think that is a very good provision indeed. Advice on that has often been absent in the past and I think that is a very good provision which New Zealand First supports wholeheartedly. With regard to the appointment of the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel we completely agree with the need for that person to be legally qualified in New Zealand or in a similar jurisdiction and the same provision for other parliamentary counsel as well. 
New Zealand First has no issues with any of the other provisions of the bill or with the select committee amendments that are being proposed and will therefore be very happy indeed—with the reservations that I have made—to vote in favour of the bill as amended. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Anyone who listened to the last speaker Denis O’Rourke would realise what a complicated task Mike Sabin and I have had getting to grips with the work of the Regulations Review Committee because he totally confused me. But I also want to just thank both of our team leaders in Katrina Shanks and certainly Charles Chauvel for enlightening us as to what this bill the Legislation Bill is all about as we clearly were not part of that select committee at the time this bill came into the House. 
I want to comment on the time that this bill has taken to come through the House because I think we have to realise as a House of Representatives that we are here for ever. We come and go as individuals very quickly but time is here for ever. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not necessarily. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: No some of you have been around a fair while actually. But it is worth remembering that this legislation was last reviewed in 1908 so I do not have great difficulty with the 104 years it has taken to come back to the House. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I remember it well. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: I am not surprised given the last speech we just heard. I think the key really is to improve the public’s understanding of legislation. I think that one of our great tasks as parliamentarians and as lawmakers is to ensure that people understand the laws we make. I think it is also important that we put laws in plain English—in other words they are easy for people to get a grasp of. I think this bill from that perspective is really important. 
I was amused to find mentioned in the commentary on this bill talk about thematically going through things. I had to look up the meaning of “thematically” because I did not know what it meant. I found out what it meant in the end and actually when you think about going through things thematically it is probably a better way than going through them in order of clauses. My understanding of a lot of the legislation that we put through this House is that it is very difficult to follow clause by clause because the clauses are not necessarily done thematically. I think there is some sense in going through things thematically so I was a bit intrigued with that. 
I suspect that there are nearly 1200 different laws governing our country and we need to know those laws and we need to understand them. If we do not understand them as people in our communities we have great difficulty fitting into society. So for this to happen as I have said already we need to ensure that they are well written and clearly espoused by our lawmakers. Our lawmakers are of course us. 
I am going to read one line—or a bit more than one line—from some notes I have got here because I think they espouse the whole reason for this Regulations Review Committee and the reason for this law. It says that it preserves the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel Office which is responsible for ensuring so far as it can that the primary legislation enacted by Parliament and secondary legislation made by the executive reflect the fundamental concepts inherent in the rule of law and that legislation passed based on legal principle is effective and clear and can be accessed easily by the public. I think that really captures the basis of what this Legislation Bill is all about. That is really important. 
The bill also does away with three of those nearly 1200 current Acts and merges them into one. I think that is positive as well. So without going any further into the Legislation Bill’s parameters because they have been well covered this morning I have great pleasure in supporting the movement of this bill through the House. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 It is my intention to take a very short call on this bill the Legislation Bill because members have gone into a lot of the detail that is contained in this bill. I would like to commend the Regulations Review Committee for the work it has put into this bill and to commend the chair of that committee Charles Chauvel for his work. 
This may seem like a very technical bill and in many ways it is but it is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It really cuts to the heart of how it is that people understand the laws that we make in this House—that they are accessible that they are written in plain English that people can understand and that we get rid of some of the archaic language. So modernising and making our legislation more accessible is something that Labour is all in favour of. 
The ability of people to engage with what we do here and understand the laws we are making that govern their lives is incredibly important. There is plenty of scope for us to reform how it is that we make laws as legislators in this country. This piece of legislation that we have before us is a start. It is certainly not the end of the reform agenda in terms of legislation and where we could go but there are certainly some very good starts in here. For this reason Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the House. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a very brief call today on the Legislation Bill. I commend the work of Charles Chauvel and also the work he does on the Justice and Electoral Committee which I am on with him. As the Hon Chris Finlayson observed in his opening introductory remarks legislation not case law is the major source of law in the land today and this legislation has assumed increasing importance for Governments and thereby the people ruled by those Governments over the last 200 years. It is exceptionally important as many speakers have pointed out that this legislation is easily understood and is easily accessible. 
This Legislation Bill is the Government’s main response to two Law Commission reports. The first Law Commission report focused on these very issues of how to make our Acts of Parliament more up to date more accessible and more user-friendly so people can find the legislation appropriate to them and understand the law appropriate to them. The other report looked at the status and function of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. All members of the House sitting in select committees appreciate the work done by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
The Legislation Bill will modernise and improve the law relating to the publication of legislation which is an essential function of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. As we have heard the bill brings together for the first time the law on drafting on publication and on disallowance of legislation. It ensures that legislation is made available to the public appropriately and conveniently. So basically we come back to this major theme of clearer easier access to appropriate law for the people of this country. I commend the bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Raymond Huo. I understand it is a 5-minute call. I will ring a bell at 4 minutes. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 That is my understanding. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It had better not be that long. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Indeed indeed. I would like to follow the good spirit of my parliamentary colleagues this morning and take a short call to support this Legislation Bill. 
Hon Member 
: Not any point speaking if you’re not going to vote. Just abstain. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Thank you that honourable member. The purpose of this bill is to modernise and improve the laws relating to publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation and bring them together in a single piece of legislation. The Law Commission put it very well when it stated in its report that “The state has an obligation to make law accessible to citizens. People have to obey the law; ignorance of it is no excuse. So they need to be able to find it and understand it. They will not respect the law if they cannot. Moreover law which is not accessible is expensive in terms of both time and money.” So the objects of this legislation are to make sure that the law is accessible to people and that the content of what is printed is reliable in terms of what this House has passed. 
At the Regulations Review Committee the bill was carefully considered because it deals with important constitutional matters. The bill reflects the serious work that has gone into modernising the rules around legislation. The bill provides unelected officials greater power to change the words agreed on by Parliament as the law of New Zealand. These provisions are carefully constructed to ensure that the powers are limited to only obvious errors. 
 One concern shared by a number of parliamentary colleagues as expressed by the Hon Maryan Street at the bill’s first reading is about any proposed changes to the disallowance mechanisms. At the select committee we looked closely at the regulations and disallowance changes proposed in this bill. The provisions in the bill that separate the publication and the disallowance of delegated legislation and the broad definition of “disallowable instrument” ensure that there will be parliamentary oversight of the use of delegated powers by the executive and this will make it more difficult to avoid disallowance. 
This bill establishes the practice of having revision bills which will be overseen by the Attorney-General and the bill will provide for the revision of the wording numbering title etc. of Acts of Parliament. The aim of such bills will be to simplify New Zealand legislation and make it easier to access and understand. The bill establishes a 3-yearly programme of systematic revisions of Acts. One of the other changes being proposed under this bill is to modernise drafting style or plain English drafting. They are good initiatives and as the Law Commission said in its report the State has an obligation to make law accessible to its citizens. Thank you 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am proud to support the Legislation Bill in the second reading. It has been well canvassed this morning and I do not intend to say anything further than to commend it. 
Bill read a second time. 
Electronic Identity Verification Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electronic Identity Verification Bill be now read a second time 
. Firstly I would like to thank the Hon Nathan Guy for introducing the Electronic Identity Verification Bill when he was the Minister of Internal Affairs. Can I also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee led by Ruth Dyson for its work on this particular bill. This is one of two important bills before the House today that support one of the Government’s key priorities. Our priorities as a Government as you will all be aware are firstly to responsibly manage the Government’s finances; secondly to build a more productive and competitive economy; thirdly to rebuild Christchurch; and fourthly to provide better public services. 
This bill and the Identity Information Confirmation Bill go to the heart of Better Public Services. The Government is striving to achieve better services within tight financial constraints. To do this we have set 10 key result targets. One of these for which the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible is to enable New Zealanders to transact with Government easily in an online environment— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not the time for this sort of speech. If you’re going to have stuff by leave you’re not going to make speeches like this again. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Just for the member across the House I would just like to point out again that this bill enables New Zealanders to transact with Government easily in an online environment. These two bills enable Government departments businesses and other agencies to easily confirm the identity of the people they transact with. This will speed up transactions and reduce paperwork enabling individuals to obtain services more quickly and easily. The two bills are similar but different and later this morning we will consider the Identity Information Confirmation Bill which establishes the igovt identity service. 
The Electronic Identity Verification Bill regulates the igovt identity verification service. This service enables individuals to prove who they are online. Individuals prove who they are once when applying to use the service. Those individuals can then use the service to prove who they are to other agencies that are authorised to use the service. The bill supports the wide use of this service to better enable agencies to check individuals’ identity. Most important it does so in a manner that protects and enhances New Zealand’s ability to control how information is used. As I have said this bill is at the heart of the Government’s reforms to achieve Better Public Services. In particular it supports Better Public Services result area 10: that New Zealanders can complete their transactions with Government easily in a digital environment. 
The service makes it easier for New Zealanders to complete their transactions with Government as I have said online and at a lower cost. The bill enables both Government and the private sector agencies to use the service to reduce their investment and processing costs. Individuals find the service convenient as it will reduce the amount of paperwork and supporting identity documents they must provide when dealing with Government and importantly with businesses. Result area 10 is based around a number of key transactions such as applying for motor vehicle licences or renewing a passport. We are aiming to have 70 percent of these commonly used transactions completed online in a digital environment by 2017. The igovt service will contribute significantly to this by streamlining processes for online log-ins when people access services online. By making it easier for people to access online services we will encourage uptake and get closer to that 70 percent mark. 
As I have said the bill is similar to but different from another bill that we have coming forward this afternoon. Both bills also ensure that individuals remain in control of their information. People have the choice to join the igovt service and to use it. One of the principles of this bill stresses that agencies using this service should where practicable maintain alternative means for individuals to interact with them. This protects both individuals who cannot or do not wish to use the services for various reasons. Submissions to the Government Administration Committee led by the Hon Ruth Dyson strongly supported the opt-in nature of this service as a safeguard for individuals. The bill is not about creating a digital national identity card scheme and that is an important fact to note. 
Like the Identity Information Confirmation Bill this bill has other safeguards to ensure that the service operates securely to protect the privacy of individuals. These include provisions that allow the Privacy Commissioner to review the operation of the service. The Privacy Commissioner can ask for reports on any matter that she considers relevant. This enables the Privacy Commissioner to monitor the service proactively rather than being able to deal with the complaints only when a problem has occurred. 
For businesses I anticipate that the bill will be central to help meet customer due diligence requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. From mid-2013 banks and other financial institutions will be required to undertake more extensive checks to know who their customers are. This bill provides a new innovative tool for businesses to use subject to their being authorised to use the service. 
While the bill enhances customer and business convenience contributing significantly to better public services it will also help to combat identify fraud and crime in New Zealand. The bill does this by requiring individuals to be subject to a passport-strength verification process supported by information-matching processes and checks against authoritative records. Agencies can therefore rely on the fact that the identity a person is claiming is indeed his or her identity. The bill makes it harder for identity fraudsters and will help Government agencies and businesses fight this increasing problem. These policy underpinnings reinforce the Government’s objectives. The bill enables an individual’s identity information to be used in a manner that is good for the Government good for business and most important good for New Zealanders. 
I want to highlight some of the significant changes that the Hon Ruth Dyson has led through the committee and which the Government supports. The changes include providing higher penalties for organisations that commit offences under the legislation. I understand that the committee considered that this change was necessary to create a sufficient deterrent for organisations from committing offences and to provide appropriate punishment to those that do so. The committee has recommended creating a regulation-making power to specify the duration for which the Department of Internal Affairs can retain personal information if an individual no longer uses the service. Setting periods under regulation will involve a careful balancing act. On one hand the service has legitimate needs to store information even if an individual no longer uses the services. For instance the photograph of an individual could be used to detect someone trying to use the service in the future using a fake or stolen identity. On the other hand individuals have a right to privacy including the ability to be forgotten when they opt out of services. 
Another significant proposed change from the committee was to limit law enforcement access to an individual’s record of usage history. This is a record of an individual’s interactions with agencies using the service but it does not contain any information about the transactions that the individual has undertaken. A law enforcement agency may require access to an individual’s usage history record to investigate and prosecute offences under the legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is pathetic. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The committee decided it was appropriate to more tightly control law enforcement access to this information—that is the committee Mr Mallard not the Government and we are supporting that. Law enforcement agencies will require a search warrant to initiate a request for access or the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs may provide access to law enforcement agencies in reporting a suspected offence against the legislation. The committee recommended a number of other important changes. The changes would clarify the legal effect of using the services. Other new provisions will enhance transparency of the service by requiring the proactive publication of reports and technical standards. The publication of those reports would be subject to information being withheld in line with the Official Information Act and to protect the security or integrity of the service. 
I appreciate the consideration that members of the Government Administration Committee gave to the bill and I appreciate the useful submissions made by members of the public. Once again I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson’s leadership. I was particularly pleased to see that the Privacy Commissioner was strongly in favour of the bill. I intend to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper when the bill is considered by the Committee of the whole House to address a minor technical matter. Clause 61 protects officials and their agents from liability in certain circumstances. Under clauses 46 and 47 other people may undertake functions under delegation or agreement with the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. They should also be protected from liability when legitimately performing that work. At present the wording of clause 61 does not expressly refer to the people performing functions under clauses 46 and 47. The Supplementary Order Paper will make this clear. This bill represents a significant shift in supporting the way New Zealanders can complete their online transactions and enables individuals’ information to be better used by the Government and the private sector. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Can I first of all thank the member who has just resumed his seat the Minister of Internal Affairs Chris Tremain in whose name the Electronic Identity Verification Bill is before the House and say that I appreciate the comments he made in relation to our select committee work. The Government Administration Committee worked pretty rigorously on what is quite a small bill but one that we thought was really important. 
But I am disappointed that he chose to politicise this bill given the fact that our select committee worked so hard together regardless of which of the three parties we represented on that bill. 
Hon Chris Tremain 
: I didn’t politicise it. I just said that it was one of the key priorities of the Government. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Well the Minister just got up and read his speech. Perhaps he might have considered reading it prior to that because then I am sure that he would have detected how overly political he had made an issue that was not politicised at all throughout the select committee process. 
I want to also acknowledge the leadership of our entire select committee which broke new ground in the processing of this bill. We decided that we would not just put an ad in the major dailies calling for submissions; we would leap forward into the current century—well ahead of the rest of Parliament I have to say. Despite the best efforts of some of our advisers to the committee and even to the concern of the Clerk’s Office we decided we would advertise this bill electronically so that people could go on the internet and find out that we were calling for submissions. It was great to break new ground in that way. We did it within the existing budget and we thought that it was a good process for Parliament to go through. 
So it was with some excitement that I saw that InternetNZ was appearing before the select committee as one of the 12 submitters who put in a submission on this bill. I asked InternetNZ where it had heard about the calling for submissions on this bill and I expected it to say that it had read it through this groundbreaking measure we had made when calling for submissions. InternetNZ said that it had read it on the regular Clerk’s page of the Parliament website. So it was a great disappointment to me because— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s a start. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Well it was a great disappointment to me that despite this huge leap forward no submitters had responded to it in the way that we had hoped. InternetNZ gave us a very very helpful submission actually as did the Privacy Commissioner as the Minister mentioned in his speech. We got only 12 submissions but it is a fairly specific bill and it does achieve a lot. It allows people to verify their identity online and across different Government departments and agencies and clearly that is important. 
 The primary concern of course is that of identity theft. We do not want people to be able to use that access to represent themselves as another person but the reality is that that was possible prior to internet access being available. We have seen some pretty distressing cases of that in recent times where people have represented themselves as being somebody else. People are actually more anxious about an increased ability of identity fraud to occur under this system than they were under our traditional systems. The reality is that that is not the case but I think it was important that through this process we also tried to deal with that perception and made sure that the process of protecting the system was rigorous. 
The Minister went through the number of changes that we made. I am sorry that I had not been alerted in advance to the change that the Minister noted as a Supplementary Order Paper. I had not picked that up. I have been at a select committee this morning. I will have a look at that but I am sure that if it is exactly as he outlined it should not be a problem for us to support it. 
We also considered in our select committee the changes that are outlined in the bill. It caused me some reflection as to why in such a small bill that was quite straightforward and one that has quite a lot of overlap with the Identity Information Confirmation Bill which will be considered later in the day and which was looked at by the previous Government Administration Committee there were still so many areas that needed amendment. I would recommend to the Minister that he give further reflection to this. I do not think that for a small bill—one that does not have any political edge to it at all particularly—we should have had to make so many changes before we were confident that it met the standards that we considered appropriate as a select committee. I will just leave that with the Minister for further reflection because I do not think it actually should be the case. 
I look forward to the progress of this bill. It has been a pleasure for the select committee to work on and I want to acknowledge all the members of the select committee who put a lot of effort into it—nobody dozed off at any time at all during the select committee which was very fortunate because it did require some rigour—Mr Auchinvole who kept us all on our toes from the National Party side Gareth Hughes representing the Green Party and my colleague Trevor Mallard. The other thanks that I would like to give before I conclude are to the officials. We did have as I say a number of amendments that were made and they worked really hard and really diligently and they paid close attention to the points that the committee members made. We have reported the bill back and I think we are now happy to progress it in a much better state than it came to us in. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I too would like to express support for this particular bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill but also comment on the progress of the Government Administration Committee which handled this particular bill. It was a pleasure to be part of that but I think the chair of the committee the Hon Ruth Dyson who has just spoken is being a little coy and a little modest over her part in the whole process. It was inspired chairmanship. Indeed I would concur with her remarks that there was full involvement on the part of all members of the committee. I have always enjoyed committee work but particularly where you get a mix of youth and vigour and experience and wisdom and a fair amount of opinion. Trevor Mallard provided considerable guidance I suppose in the way these processes can emerge and be corrected and Gareth Hughes indeed pursued the point of regulations not impacting on private privilege and that sort of thing. 
I think one of the most interesting parts of all was the response of the officials who took our work very seriously and provided information very thoroughly. The only disagreement I really have with the Hon Ruth Dyson was to suggest that we should have less to do. The whole purpose of a committee to my mind is to shape a bill to give it flavour and to get it right and we certainly had that opportunity. But from the very beginning—and the bill has had quite an extended life to get it to where it is at the moment—it has been well thought of. 
I was just reading the regulatory impact statement which is quite an interesting piece of work and it says: “The enactment of the legislation will preserve the ongoing integrity of the service and will maximise the efficiencies that are expected from its full implementation and use both for the government and for the public.” I think that is one of the principal parts of this particular bill. It is not for the Government in isolation it is for the public to use in conjunction with Government services. 
The regulatory impact statement continues and says: “This is a classic instance of regulation providing certainty for the provision and operation of a government service therefore maximising the benefits that are expected to result both for the public and for government.” So it is a really good match—it is a really good match. 
I know one of the things that particularly appealed to me was that much of our lives from a regulatory point of view are paper-driven. As a JP as well as an MP I am familiar with phone calls from people who have to get documents ready be it for passport applications immigration purposes or any of the myriad of things where we connect with Government. Very often particularly in the case of immigration—I know we are working on that as part of the improvements to the Public Service system—it is a paper-driven policy arrangement so you have a need to verify documents. 
People in a rural situation—and when I talk about a rural situation I often mean people who live say at Otira and have a long way to come before they can get to Greymouth or a centre of government—have to come and have documents copied and this can put them to considerable expense and considerable time constraints. So it is quite good to have a system where we will be able to have an identity verification system through electronic means. 
One of the features that we did take particular note of at the select committee is that we have introduced higher penalties for organisations that commit offences under the bill in order to create a sufficient deterrent and appropriate punishment. I would commend those changes to Parliament because I have been in a situation where my own identity information as a corporate person a company has been sold by the agency that held that information. It just sold the whole file to people who were peddling shares. I used to get calls from New York very persistent people who would say that I was one of the biggest dealers in New Zealand. I would say: “Honestly you have got the wrong guy.” There had been confusion in the records—the records that the agency sold were not even correct. But it resulted in a huge invasion of privacy. 
So when we looked at the costs associated with abusing that information or selling it it really was not going to be a very expensive exercise. The penalties were not very severe. And so we got advice on that and we have certainly lifted the penalties so that people would have to think several times before they engaged. That I think has closed it off and certainly it will make it a very expensive exercise if people do try to commit offences. 
In addition the regulation-making power to specify the duration for which the Department of Internal Affairs can retain personal information if an individual no longer uses the service was another recommendation that we put forward. If people have ceased to use that service we do not want the information at risk. By the same token you do not want to get rid of it too quickly otherwise fraud can continue and you have not got the records to check it back. So we have made tighter controls as a suggestion on that. 
There is an amount of other information that I am sure other members of the committee will bring to the attention of Parliament but it was a very pleasantly non-partisan non-political bill with a lot of involvement on the part of all members of the committee. It is a ripper of a little bill a good one and it will be useful. Thank you very much. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I did not sit on the Government Administration Committee for this bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill so I cannot comment on the amount of discussion that went on and no doubt my colleague who has yet to speak will have some things to say about that. I have got a few things to say about the issues that surround what this bill represents. We exist in a digital age in the era of the internet; almost everything that people are doing in their lives has something to do with the internet. Usage of the internet in our country as in every other country is going up. It is absolutely critical that we get legislation and regulation in place to enable transactions and to enable all kinds of manners of things to happen via the internet in a way that takes into account privacy issues but also enables people to have access to the things that they need to have access to. 
We all support this bill. I do not know if I would describe it as a “little ripper of a bill” as Chris Auchinvole did but it does seem to me I have to say that going through it there have been an awful lot of changes made to it since it went to the select committee. I want to make a couple of comments. This is essentially about a balance. It is about getting the balance right between as InternetNZ said in its submission efficient administration and the protection of privacy information. If we cannot get this stuff right then how can we expect the rest of the country the rest of the population and the private sector to get it right? It seems to me that we are a bit behind the eight ball in much of our approach to legislation to the regulatory environment to the reality of how the private sector is operating out there and to the behaviours of people in their daily lives how they access the internet and what they are doing on the internet. It really concerns me that probably the vast majority of members of Parliament in the New Zealand Parliament really do not have a clue about the importance of the internet in our lives. We pay lip-service to it but we really do not have a clue. This was evidenced in the last couple of years with all the debate around copyright and people’s general ignorance of what copyright actually means on the internet what the actual behaviours of people are in the population and why there is such a degree of illegal online downloading going on. 
The two things that I want to say are that it is absolutely critical that this remains an optional system. Although this is the age of the internet and I think something like 86 percent of New Zealanders are on the internet there is still a proportion of New Zealanders who do not and cannot access the internet. There is a growing digital divide in this country. I certainly note that one of the submitters—I think it was actually the Dunedin community law centre—gave a very good submission around how important it was that the individual’s use of this service remains optional because of the fact that there are still people who cannot access the internet. It makes reference to the digital divide. For a Government that is putting in place as one of its flagship programmes broadband and making a great big song and dance about how it is all going to give us all faster cheaper access to the internet there is no doubt—and there is actually an inquiry going on at this very moment into this issue and submitter after submitter is telling us—that we have to be concerned about the digital divide. The fact is that the lower socio-economic parts of New Zealand are going to receive faster cheaper broadband at some point way out in the future and that these people—kids growing up in New Zealand—are not getting the same kind of access that other parts of New Zealand are. 
Here we are putting in place a piece of legislation that is essentially about trying to make things more efficient. I think the regulatory impact statement certainly makes reference to the millions of dollars—between $385 million and $527 million—that are going to be saved through this. That is a good thing. But what about the other side of the equation and the number of children who are starting school today and who will be going through school and maybe even coming out of school without having had access to this faster cheaper broadband at school and also in their homes? This is a critical issue for New Zealand and members on that side of the House have not got their heads around copyright issues. They have not got their heads around the fact that there is a growing digital divide in this country. Ultimately although there might be a little ripper of a piece of legislation being put in place to try to make it more efficient for people to actually be identified online so that they can do their business online the big issue is how many New Zealanders will have the means to access it. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I just want to share the love we have seen in the debating chamber this morning about the select committee process. I have got to say that the Government Administration Committee is probably one of the best select committees I have sat on. I want to acknowledge the chair and all the members. I think it was a non-partisan approach to all the issues in a constructive honest open and transparent manner. I would like to acknowledge all the submitters. I know there were only 12 of them but they did a pretty good job. I also acknowledge the fact that we were able to break a bit of new ground. Advertising online for submissions is not exactly a revolutionary step but it is one I hope we can see more select committees adopt. 
We have heard what the bill does. Essentially it creates this online passport—a unique online identifier to verify someone’s identity. This is the single log in and we have had around 400 people using the igovt service. What this bill does is allow that igovt system to take off. It removes the legislative barriers to further adoption and hopefully we will see more Kiwis using it which is a good thing. 
I want to acknowledge the major concern that people in my caucus and some submitters had which was around privacy. But it was good to see the Government approach and also I understand Labour had a big role in formulating the policy process before 2008 and towards this so I acknowledge the role that both parties have played in getting the Privacy Commissioner involved from the get-go. She describes the drafting of the bill as privacy by design. That is the right way to go when you are drafting something as significant and forward-thinking—a bill that is going to have such a big impact over the next 5 10 or maybe 20 years. So it was good to see the privacy principles at the heart of the bill and I think we have strengthened that even further. 
I would like to acknowledge the changes we saw in the select committee because I think the members did take an open and constructive approach. We have seen three big changes. The first was around clause 58 and increasing the fines. The bill as drafted took the approach from the passport legislation. I do not know what Act that actually comes under but the original fines were modelled on the fines for the equivalent passport legislation. What it saw was that an organisation faced a penalty of up to only $250000. That was not going to act as a deterrent or a disincentive for corporates or organisations abusing this legislation and the powers that this legislation enacts. It is good that the committee has raised it to $1 million. The example I used in the committee was Thompson and Clark Investigations Ltd the private spy company that was used by Solid Energy a State-owned enterprise to spy on protesters and people who disagreed with its plans. Had this system been operating back in the mid-2000s I am sure a company such as that could be using the igovt system or the Electronic Identity Verification Service legislative framework to get information and to abuse the system so it is good that we have increased the penalty to $1 million. I think it will act as a disincentive. 
The second big change we saw in the select committee was the requirement for a search warrant to access information. As the bill was originally drafted pretty much anyone I guess you could assume but presumably staff members with the chief executive’s permission could access people’s files. I do not think that is appropriate. We did hear a number of submissions from InternetNZ and others which said it should be done with a search warrant. We strongly pushed for that and it is good to see the select committee adopt that. It is going to strengthen the privacy inherent in the bill. 
Lastly we saw with clause 65A the changes to what happens with the data when someone wants to cancel their account. Someone might want to cancel their account for a variety of reasons and you have also got the challenge that what if that person a week a year or 2 years later wants to reopen their account? What do you do with that data? Do you delete it permanently? Do you keep it on ice not able to access it in case they restart it or in case you need to go through and do say a fraud investigation or look for any criminal acts used in the account? A bit of a balance was struck. Basically the ball has been kicked up to the Minister of Internal Affairs’ office and those decisions are going to be made in regulations. I was pushing and would have preferred the approach adopted by InternetNZ which would have had a hard limit on when that data was deleted. But again it is a balance as Clare Curran said between flexibility and practicality. We look forward to seeing what the Minister is going to decide to do in regulations but we note that the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a large role. I guess the fourth change which was not of the magnitude of those three changes was for the Privacy Commissioner to have a greater role in reporting. 
I just want to touch on the points raised by the member Clare Curran around the importance for members of Parliament to get it—maybe I was the token young MP on the committee who knows what Facebook and to Google is. It is critical that we understand— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Trevor Mallard was not the token youth MP on the committee for sure. What we know is that in 2012 we cannot not get this stuff. We have seen MPs make embarrassing gaffes in the past. We have seen US congressmen make even more embarrassing gaffes I would say with recent legislation debates there. What is crucial is that we get this stuff. The debates we are having now are going to increase in importance over the coming decades. We are facing a huge number of issues that we need to grapple with. It is not just privacy. For example one concern that I am hearing a lot of anecdotal reports on is potential employers in a job interview scenario requiring a Facebook log on from the applicant. It is not just to look at their account to see what pictures are or are not on there; they are actually requiring the personal log in so the potential employer can go behind the scenes as it were behind the privacy conditions and see all the photos or comments. I think that is absolutely outrageous egregious and a fundamental breach. But there is no legislation on it and there are no requirements. 
We are seeing it with the track wire system which we have recently seen out of the WikiLeaks cables—the strap four cables—where a private company has been employed by American Canadian and British Governments to use public surveillance cameras and facial recognition software to identify people going to regular tourism sites in case they could be terrorists. It is good to say that I have just got a whole bunch of questions for written answers back from various Government Ministers in New Zealand and it is likely that it has never been used in New Zealand which is very good news. 
We have seen with the copyright debate which Clare Curran touched on this massive debate going round the world. We are seeing laws thrown out of the US House of Representatives and the Senate—the Protect IP Act and Stop Online Piracy Act laws—because of the massive online protest. It is the first time I believe the internet has actually woken up to its political power and what it has found is that it is significant. Laws to do with the internet cannot just be made top-down from places like this by members many of whom do not even understand what they are legislating or regulating. In fact we have got to bring the internet with us. We see that with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement which was recently thrown out of the European Parliament. It is absolutely astounding that this law was thrown out. I was there recently talking to UK conservatives and asking them why even they were voting against it. I think this is a significant issue for New Zealand because New Zealand seems quite ready to sign up to this deal which essentially has been drafted by the US for the US for its personal interests. 
We see it most graphically in New Zealand with the Megaupload case. It was a copyright allegation and we have seen how the Government responded. In the  
New Zealand Herald  
today we see that there was US foreign policy thinking behind the New Zealand Government’s actions. We saw the Government in response to a copyright allegation bring in 70 policemen—flying them in with helicopters—to arrest someone for a copyright allegation. There is a noted speaker Cory Doctorow who calls it “The war on general purpose computing.” This is what we are in the midst of and it is going to only increase in velocity over the next few years. These are massive debates whether it is privacy spying or copyright or the legislation to do with it. 
So in summary we support the intent of this Electronic Identity Verification Bill. We support the drafting. We think it has been significantly improved in the select committee. We note there is going to be economic benefits. One estimate is that $300 million will result from this bill and the igovt system. The crucial thing—the crucial thing—that everyone in this House needs to remember is that this is not an only/or situation. This is not a panacea. This is not about the Government saving money by shutting down offices or providing only telephone services. It is not working for Housing New Zealand Corporation and it has not worked for the Inland Revenue Department. We need to give people in New Zealand a real option to go to a real office to talk to a real person. I think this legislation will benefit the majority of Kiwis. We know that the majority of us are online but still when you look at the Computer Clubhouse estimate 100000 families with school-aged kids just do not have computers or the internet at home. There is a digital divide in New Zealand and especially with our elderly. They will not be using this system. It is important that those services are still provided. 
So we look forward to seeing the growth of the system. I think it is going to be pretty powerful in terms of petitions. I think it is outrageous that in 2012 you can get more than 200000 signatures which is what the Green Party and the Labour Party have on the State assets bill but you cannot do it online because there is no unique identifier. This bill I think will be the facilitator of that in the future. Good news all around. Kia ora. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal Mr Speaker. Before I start my contribution on this bill I would like to acknowledge and thank all the volunteers who are doing the fund-raising for the Cancer Society. 
I stand to speak on the second reading of the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. The main aim of the bill is to simplify interaction between individuals and agencies. Any process where identification information is exchanged or shared raises inherent questions about the privacy and security of personal information. When that process includes multiple Government agencies the stakes are higher. It has been and continues to be important to get all the fundamentals of this project right. 
The bill ensures that the participating agencies can achieve a high degree of confidence in an individual’s identity by providing the individual with the option of verifying his or her identity by electronic means. The ID is electronic and is made up of up to four pieces of information about the person which can be used by logging into the service and giving consent for the use of your ID. Instead of providing a document that contains a lot of other information such as a passport it reduces the amount of detail about yourself. In order to deter abuse of the service the bill also creates a specific offence and penalties regime relating to the improper use of individual identity information. 
The bill allows an individual person’s personal information to be checked against information held on a specified Government register and database or against the information held by the public sector or private sector agencies that are listed in the regulations. The following details should be given to provide a person’s core uniqueness and to validate personal information: full name the individual’s sex and the person’s date of birth. The electronic identity is personal to the individual and cannot be transferred. I fully support the bill and believe it will be a vast improvement in the streamlining of our electronic identities. 
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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the member who has just spoken on the Electronic Identity Verification Bill Denis O’Rourke. I think in regard to the attempting question it is a serious point. I cannot remember it being properly considered at the Government Administration Committee. It sounds like it is worth a look between now and the time the bill reaches the Committee stage because as all members have indicated other than the first part of the introductory second reading speech on the part of the Minister of Internal Affairs this has been handled on a multipartisan non-political basis. 
I do want to say that I thank those who were in charge of the bill—I think it might have been Nathan Guy at the time—for their positive approach for the work of the officials with the select committee and I think for the view that we should try to get things moving forward. 
I do want to say to Chris Tremain that when we do have these sessions in the House around legislation that is unanimous—and that is the basis that we have here—and the select committee keeps going because we are all at one on the legislation it is not helpful to read from Steven Joyce’s prompt sheet the particular Government lines of the day and thereby politicise a bill around which there is unanimity. I think that if the Government members want to continue with this approach which does require the support of members opposite then the Ministers should be briefed that they should talk to the bill and leave in their offices the sheets that Steven Joyce gives them. Thank you very much. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am going to take just a very short call on this Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I was intrigued to hear that the Government Administration Committee worked so well together and that there was indeed unanimity amongst its members. I hope that Mr Mallard will continue with a constructive tone towards this particular bill which I understand the select committee made some very good progress on. 
The changes made by the select committee included higher penalties for organisations that commit offences under the bill in order to create a sufficient deterrent and appropriate punishment the addition of a regulation-making power to specify the duration for which the Department of Internal Affairs can retain personal information if an individual no longer uses the services tighter control of law enforcement access to identity information clarification of the legal effect of using the services and finally enhancements to the transparency of the service by requiring proactive publication of reports and technical standards. Indeed the select committee did make its deliberations worthwhile and its contribution is well appreciated by the Parliament. 
I did hear earlier on some discussion about the fact that now that we are in the digital age there is concern that some of those who are not so well off are not able to access it. But I would make the point that it was only the National Party that campaigned in 2008 on bringing out ultra-fast broadband and that is happening today for all our schools and for all our hospitals. That will be benefiting our children right across the board. This is a good bill. I am glad the committee worked so well. I commend the bill to the House. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I endorse my colleague Paul Hutchison’s comments. Of course what he was really trying to say was that this bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill reflects one of this Government’s four priorities in terms of delivering better public services and that this bill is another very good example of that. 
This bill provides the necessary legislative parameters for the igovt identity verification service in that it provides easier and more secure access to online Government services which is very pragmatic and very helpful. It allows individuals to verify their identification to Government service providers via the internet and avoid what most of us will have been through—the need to provide endless screeds of hard-copy documentation to prove one’s identity. 
This has been operating successfully in a limited capacity since December 2009 in that one can order birth certificates death certificates and marriage certificates online which I think has proven to be very helpful. This bill really is an expansion of that so that we can all reap the benefits of online technology. Although that may not be open to all I think it is fair to say that that is where the world is going. Increasingly communities demand to have a greater online presence in terms of their interaction and this bill brings their ability to interact with Government departments more into line. 
I will make just a couple of important points. This legislation is supported by the Privacy Commissioner and again I find myself agreeing with colleagues from the Green Party which does not happen too often. I see the member Jan Logie raising her eyelids in agreement with me there. But the contribution from Mr Hughes and the fact that privacy is at the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is not helping the Greens. This is a very subtle attack. 
MIKE SABIN 
: Surely not Mr Mallard. I would not do such a thing. The fact that privacy has been at the centre of this legislation is important and I think it is important to note the comments of the Privacy Commissioner on that. There are appropriate and stringent safeguards in place in terms of security and there is a degree of flexibility that ensures that people have the option to join in and use the service or use it in part and in fact agencies will have to ensure that individuals can still provide identification in the traditional fashion. So the bill provides an adequate degree of flexibility in that regard. It is a pragmatic bill something that I am sure enjoys wide support not only here but across New Zealand and I commend it to the House. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I am going to take just a short call on this bill and again reinforce the Green Party’s support for the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I echo my colleague Gareth Hughes’ comments in terms of how constructive I hear the process has been. You know I will just enjoy for a moment that sense of unanimity and agreement in the House. 
Mike Sabin 
: Bring it in! 
JAN LOGIE 
: Feeling the love. It does not happen that often and it is good to work constructively together whenever there is a chance. 
We are supporting this bill for many reasons and we are very keen on the improvements that have happened in the select committee process. As somebody who hears many stories from people about going into Work and Income offices and the dramas around presentation of materials and the need to verify and have the right paperwork I say that I am a fan of anything that reduces that demand for paperwork. I really hope that that will relieve some of the pressure and the need for return visits for many beneficiaries while obviously acknowledging that quite a few of them will not have access to the internet so will not have access to this service. 
I would also just like to highlight something that probably is not at the top of most people’s minds but that I think also is a real benefit of this and that is that it will provide a potential bonus for transgender people. This will give them the ability to have the passport which has a lower threshold for gender identification as their form of identity. That will go across all departments and will relieve them of that quite traumatic experience of having to deal with departments that may demand a birth certificate which has an unacceptably high threshold for defining gender. So this is a really positive initiative for trans people in New Zealand. On that level alone I am really supportive of this bill. 
Just to reiterate the changes inherent in it increasing fines for illegally accessing and using the information to $1 million for companies is a good thing. To require a search warrant for the access of information is a good thing. Although we would have preferred the hard limit in terms of the time the information is kept when somebody cancels their account for example we will accept it going to the Minister and being decided by regulation. 
We also are happy about the increased role for the Privacy Commissioner. But I will definitely note my concern about the pressure on the Privacy Commissioner that we are seeing in the number of bills coming to this House that are requiring an increased oversight by the Privacy Commissioner without the corresponding increased support for that very very critical role. I would urge the Government to look at that carefully because if we are going to put so much responsibility in the hands of the Privacy Commissioner we need to resource that because privacy is critical. 
Also I reinforce that final message about this being an option and it is a really positive option. It is not something to transplant the face-to-face interactions or to push everyone online when we know that not everyone can get online. With all those comments the Green Party will be supporting the bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Identity Information Confirmation Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Identity Information Confirmation Bill be now read a second time 
. Can I start by thanking the Hon Nathan Guy for introducing the Identity Information Confirmation Bill during his time as Minister of Internal Affairs. Can I also thank the Government Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill which goes back a year or so to the point when David Parker was the chair of that committee and can I thank him for that guidance through that period. Can I also thank the 13 submitters on the bill particularly the three who made oral submissions. 
This bill goes to the heart of one of the Government’s key priorities which is Better Public Services. In regard to that—in regard to Better Public Services—we have set 10 key result targets. One of these for which the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible is to enable New Zealanders to transact with Government agencies easily and in an online environment. This bill goes to the heart of that result. The two bills—the Identity Information Confirmation Bill and the Electronic Identity Verification Bill—enable Government departments businesses and other agencies to easily confirm the identity of the people they transact with. This will speed up transactions and reduce paperwork enabling individuals to obtain services more quickly and easily. 
The two bills are similar but different. Earlier this morning we considered the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. That bill regulates the use of the igovt Electronic Identity Verification Service to verify individuals’ identity over the internet when they are transacting directly with Government agencies or with businesses. The bill being debated now the Identity Information Confirmation Bill establishes an automated electronic service to be available for agencies and businesses and to confirm the accuracy of individuals’ identity information such as their name and date of birth. This service will confirm whether this information is consistent with the citizenship passports and births deaths and marriages information held by the Department of Internal Affairs. Individuals will need to provide their consent before their information is checked. This service can be used for a wide range of purposes including meeting new anti - money-laundering requirements. 
The select committee recommended amendments to the bill in response to some of the issues raised in submissions. The Government supports these amendments as they will improve the operation of the service. The bill originally envisaged each agency having a direct relationship with the service. However submitters indicated that it could be more convenient and cost-effective for some businesses to have another agency check identity information on their behalf. For instance a credit reporter could wish to check identity information on behalf of an appliance store that was about to enter into a hire purchase agreement with a customer. The bill now allows this to happen by committing intermediary agencies to use this service on behalf of other agencies. 
Using intermediaries can create additional privacy risks and the select committee has recommended that this bill provide some additional safeguards to mitigate those risks. Intermediaries will be able to check identity information only on behalf of agencies that the service has approved. Before approving an agency’s use of the service a number of factors must be considered. These include the agency’s practices relating to the security of information and the privacy of individuals. Intermediaries are prohibited from using or retaining the results of checks performed on behalf of other agencies although they can undertake separate checks for their own purposes. Agencies using an intermediary to undertake a check will be subject to a range of requirements that provide protection for members of the public as will those agencies that directly undertake a check for their own purpose. For example one of the important protections for members of the public is that agencies must obtain consent before this service can be used to check identity information. The bill also requires agencies to assure the service that consent has been given. In response to one submission the bill now requires that consent and the assurance of consent be provided in either written or electronic form. 
The service generally confirms only whether identity information is consistent or not with that recorded by the Department of Internal Affairs—in other words a yes or no response. However a check can result in some exception messages in situations where there is other specified information about an individual. This includes information that a person has registered a name change or has died. There will also be an exception message response when there is an issue with the status of a document that the individual has presented to an agency such as when a passport has been reported as lost or stolen. In these cases the bill previously required agencies to contact the service to find out which of these exceptions applied. The select committee recommended that this information be provided automatically by the service. So this will make the service more user-friendly and efficient for agencies which is a good thing and shows the benefit of that select committee process in addressing the initial bill and making substantive changes to improve its efficiency. 
Important protections for members of the public must be included in agreements between the service and the agency. Agreements must be entered into before identity information is checked. The select committee has clarified and improved a number of the protections that these agreements must contain. For instance they must now specify how members of the public can withdraw their consent for an agency to check their information if they decide to do so. The agreements with agencies can be developed by the service on a case by case basis. Agreements may also include standard terms and conditions designed to apply to certain classes of agencies such as banks. The Privacy Commissioner must be consulted on both kinds of agreements. 
The select committee has made some minor amendments including clarifying when the Privacy Commissioner must be consulted about agreements that allow photographs to be checked. For instance photographs can be checked only where the photograph provided by the agency is the same photograph as that recorded by the Department of Internal Affairs—for example in the passports database. Agencies will not be able to take photographs of individuals and submit them to the service for checking. 
I understand that Labour Party members of the select committee would have preferred that the Crown Ministers and officials not be protected from liability as a result of the service being used to check identity information. However the bill provides protection from liability as this is an opt-in service. The bill also contains numerous protections for members of the public including the consent-based nature of the service which will reduce the likelihood of liability arising. The bill also excludes protection from liability when there has been an act that has been carried out in bad faith or was grossly negligent. 
This bill makes it much simpler and easier for Government agencies and businesses to confirm the identity of individuals who transact with them. Knowing whom you are dealing with is vital to any transactional service and this bill vastly improves identity confirmation services and speeds up other services that rely on confirming customers’ identity. Once again I thank the Hon Nathan Guy for introducing the bill and the Government Administration Committee led by David Parker at the time that this bill was before the select committee. The Identity Information Confirmation Bill will provide a real benefit to businesses to assist them in confirming the identity of their customers while also balancing an individual’s right to privacy. This bill goes to the heart of enabling result area 10: enabling New Zealanders to transact easily with Government in a digital environment. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to commend the Minister of Internal Affairs on the progress he has made in approach between the last bill and this bill the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. The purpose of this bill is to provide a consent-based service to allow both private sector and public sector agencies to check identity information. It extends the use of the Data Validation Service to public sector and private sector agencies on a strictly need-to-know basis. Labour members are supporting the bill because it allows Government agencies and the private sector to use identity information in the fight against fraud. We are mindful of the privacy concerns around the sharing of identity information and the Government Administration Committee sought the Privacy Commissioner’s assurances during that process. 
Identity fraud is a serious problem. It is a growing problem in New Zealand. It costs New Zealanders and the Government millions of dollars every year. Of course we are all very familiar with the bizarre saga of David Garrett also known as “Dave the Jackal”. It shows how easy it is in New Zealand to commit identity fraud. I know that although certainly the previous people from the ACT Party and in fact the Prime Minister were not uncomfortable with that approach New Zealanders expect higher standards of members of Parliament and also in fact we expect higher standards of systems in order to avoid that sort of thing happening. 
There has been a very recent case of the employment of a known child sex offender in six schools around New Zealand. The Ombudsman’s review of that case found systemic failures by Government agencies primarily around the sharing of information by those agencies which allowed Te Rito Henry Miki to carry on teaching. That is a scandal. It is something that this bill will not totally solve but will make some progress towards solving. 
The last point I want to make is that we are not putting this bill through under urgency but we are using the extended sitting procedures which we do for legislation that has widespread support in the House. I am pleased that we are doing that but what I am hoping—and I am looking in particular at the Minister and the Government whip—is that we do not need to wait another 2 years before we make more progress on it. Thank you very much. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 This bill the Identity Information Confirmation Bill fits the same description I have used before. It is a grunty little bill and it has a purpose. I join with the other speakers on both sides of the House in encouraging Parliament to adopt this bill in fast order. It is not always when you are speaking on a bill that you suddenly realise the relevance of it to your own situation but with this particular bill should members of the public be listening and wondering how it would work I can actually give an illustration. 
The illustration was some years ago. I was in Auckland. I had been to a pay-as-you-go gymnasium a well known gymnasium in Auckland. Unfortunately at that particular time there was a gentleman operating in the building which resulted in theft. He did things fairly quickly. He did not just steal your wallet; he stole a pair of your trousers. It was quick—you simply go in to the changing room and see who is there. As soon as they have gone out you go to their locker spring the locker grab the trousers put them in your bag and walk out. 
So picture this if you will. I come back I have my shower I go to get dressed I put my shirt on and suddenly I have got no strides. So I go up to the reception centre and say: “I’ve lost my breeks.” or you do if you are a Scottish person. And they say: “How do you mean?”. So you say: “Well my trousers have been nicked.” And they say: “Oh God not again. We think we know who did it.” So I said: “Well would you mind asking them if I could have my trousers back.” It was a brand new suit bought from a department store in Auckland— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hang on I lost the beginning of the story. Where did the member lose his trousers? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: In a gymnasium. All right? This guy was operating— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s better. That’s better. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yeah yeah. Oh it gets— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hearing the story mid-point didn’t sound that good. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It gets worse. It gets worse. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Never heard them called gymnasiums. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: He says he has never heard them called gymnasiums. Even though we are in a privileged place I will not give the name of it. It would give the place a bad name. But it was a big commercial— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not a very successful gymnasium obviously. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: A big commercial gymnasium yes. Anyway I lost my breeks. This guy was operating. A young guy was there and he said: “Oh yeah he does it all the time. He comes in waits to see who’s got wallets and things in their pockets and then as soon as you go out he’ll jemmy the locker”. The guy who stole the trousers was a member of a gang. He had his tattoos and everything. I had actually I thought befriended him. But anyway he nicked my breeks. 
So I was standing there at the counter and they said: “We’ll call the police. We know who it was. We will call the police. We’ve had enough of this.” So I said “Righty-o. I don’t mind seeing the police.” So while I waited for the police I phoned the bank—standing in my shorts trainer shoes a shirt and tie and looking ridiculous. So I phone the bank and I say: “I’d like to cancel my credit cards.” They say: “What are the numbers?” and I say: “I don’t know. I haven’t got them. They’ve been stolen.” So I had a protracted conversation. Then the police arrive and they know the individual: “OK but your chances of getting of your stuff back are very limited. What was in your wallet?” I said that he really had not got much really because it was only credit cards a little bit of money— 
Shane Ardern 
: A Scotsman’s wallet. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —a Scotsman’s wallet. I said I had cancelled all the cards so they would be no use to him. The policeman looked at me with old world wonder and said: “Oh I think they’ve already been sold Mr Auchinvole. I think they’ve already been sold.” So I said: “Well they’ll be no use to anyone. They’re cancelled.” And he said: “Yeah well we’ll come and see you in a few months and you can tell us how useful they were.” So I gave a light laugh. 
There was one other amusing part. I went to Smith and Caughey’s where I had bought the suit went to the tailor gentlemen’s outfitter very professional people and I said: “I need a certificate.” They said: “Yes sir. What for sir?” So I said: “The suit I bought.” “Oh we remember it it was a—” whatever it was. So I said: “Well the trousers were stolen.” And the guy did not change his expression. He looked straight at me and said: “Were we in them at the time sir?”. 
Anyway I got the insurance for them and then I started to get demands for payment from other department stores which I had never been to in South Auckland. So I phoned up the financial controllers and said: “I have never been to your store and I have got a bill here for thousands.” And they said: “But you opened an account and we sighted your credit card.” They would not relinquish the demands. So I went to see my solicitor and one thing and another and eventually they did relinquish the demands because the age that the guy had given was not in any way related to my age but they would not take my name off the debtor’s list because someone in that name— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s blackmail. That’s blackmail actually. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well yes but with a name like mine—there are not too many Auchinvoles around. It affects your credit rating and all those sorts of things or it could potentially. The point of the story is that had we had this verification system that would not have occurred and the cards would indeed have been valueless. And that is why I think this bill is—I try to give it a practical rendition—a very very useful piece of legislation which in fact in my case would have worked. They did apprehend the person who nicked the trousers. They said he was one of the very very few people they have arrested who actually said nothing. So I wrote him a nice letter hoping that he had a nice time where they sent him. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on this bill the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. Once again I say that I did not sit on the Government Administration Committee which examined this bill so I have been poring over the submissions in great detail and understanding all the important issues. I would like to commend this committee for the work that has been done on this bill and the previous bill before it the Electronic Identity Verification Bill because they both address important issues and as I said in the previous speech they are dragging us into the internet age. Whether I would describe it as a grunty little bill as opposed to a little ripper of a bill I am not sure. It must be great fun on that select committee I think. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What did the member call it? A bifurcated bill? 
CLARE CURRAN 
: It is more the “David Garrett ( 
The Day of the Jackal 
) Bill” really. But the fact is that there are some significant issues behind this bill and I think that it is important to put them on the record in the House today. I do hope that the Privacy Commissioner is paying attention to the debate—as I am sure the office is—and paying attention to the importance of these issues. 
The key thing about this bill is that it is a consent-based service. My antennae wave when I hear the phrase because although it a good thing that it is consent-based service the issues will be in the implementation and how the consent actually is gained whether there is any coercion around gaining that consent and whether that consent is freely given. So I think this is an important bill. 
There is no doubt that we have to take a responsible position on this as a House and therefore although I have read what the Greens in the first reading debate said about their concerns around the privacy issues and the surveillance issues I think that the most important thing is for us to be responsible about ensuring that identity fraud is not happening and that as much as possible we are doing what we can through legislation to ensure that it does not happen. That is the responsible position because there is identify fraud happening and there will continue to be identity fraud happening through other means that this legislation cannot protect against. I think that the TradeMe submission which was quite a good submission pointed that out. For instance on many social networking sites there is identify fraud happening and this legislation does not cover that. People’s identities and information is being taken and used in all sorts of different ways across the internet and we must be mindful of what we can put in place to protect people. 
But we must also be mindful on the other side of the equation of the importance of people being able to go about their business and not feel as if they are under surveillance. This Parliament has the role to be responsible around this issue and it also has the role to be responsible about any measures that involve any regulation of the internet. I want to repeat here today what I said in the debate on the previous bill and that is a plea to every member in this House particularly on the Government benches that you pay attention to the issues that lie behind any legislative measures around the internet and that freedom of expression and the ability to provide information out there are just as important as trying to prevent people from accessing and using information inappropriately. 
There is an important report that has come out from the Law Commission. It deals with a whole lot of issues that could have regulatory impacts on how the internet is used in New Zealand and there are recommendations that all publicly funded agencies should be subject to the Official Information Act. That debate is yet to be properly had in our country and in this House. So I would ask every member to seriously do the research on these pieces of legislation and not just read the notes provided to them. I ask them to do the research and think about the issues because they do have implications for all of us. There are implications around protecting the rights of individuals to not have their identities used and abused protecting individuals so they are not bullied and harassed but also ensuring that we are not trying to control what people are doing and saying in this most important medium. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a very brief call on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. We support the intent of the bill which is to help prevent fraudulent activity online. This bill helps with the confirmation and verification service between third parties and the igovt system relates to the bill. We have just voted on the second reading of the Electronic Identify Verification Bill. 
What we have seen is a growth of fraudulent identities online. I think of some of the parody Twitter accounts of some members of Parliament—I think of the Hon Dr Brash and “Big Gerry B” as he is known and sometimes funnier— 
Chris Hipkins 
: How do you know they’re parodies? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: That is a good point from the member Chris Hipkins. How do we know they are parodies? That is a good question. I think they are a lot more entertaining than the real Twitter accounts anyway. 
We support the intent of this bill. We have got some concerns. Reading Keith Locke’s first reading speech on this bill I see that he raised a number of concerns which he championed over the 12 years he was in Parliament. We note that the bill has been improved in the Government Administration Committee. It is important that we take note of what the member Clare Curran has raised about the need for all MPs to be up to speed with these issues because they are going to get more and more important as the years go on. The laws we write now are going to impact decisions and events in 10 years. 
The key thing when you look at issues like this one is that we do not rush headlong as we could do and as other countries have done into a compulsory system going down the path of electronic identity cards. I do not think it is the Kiwi way. I do not think it is desirable and I do not think it is actually going to benefit us to a large measure in New Zealand. 
We support the idea of a confirmation service. We do have some privacy concerns. We note that the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a role in this and that is fantastic. I think we should also have a debate obviously in the appropriate forums about adequately resourcing the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Her role is becoming more and more important I believe and we need to— 
Clare Curran 
: And the Ombudsman. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: And the Ombudsman. 
Clare Curran 
: And the Auditor-General. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: And the Auditor-General. I may as well add the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in there for good measure as well. 
I do not want to overly politicise this but we have got to raise the point that I think the public and Parliament should have concerns about how this Government has been addressing the privacy issue. We have seen thousands of New Zealanders’ files handed out to the public. We have seen a Minister make some pretty egregious comments around privacy breaching privacy and intending to continue to breach privacy which I think is terrible. We should not countenance it. It raises serious questions in the public as to whether they have confidence that the Government takes privacy seriously. It has got to be at the core of the system. When you design new systems such as this I think the Government has to demonstrate that it takes privacy seriously and we will have that debate down the line. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill to attack online fraud the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. I note from the commentary on the bill itself that it states that the bill “seeks 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.” The purpose overall however is stated in clause 4 as being “to facilitate the use of an electronic service that allows agencies to confirm identity information about individuals so as to (a) contribute to the prevention of crime … and (b) ensure that agencies can use and if necessary record confirmed identity information.” It is limited in those ways which New Zealand First believes is appropriate. 
I note however that in terms of the definition of the word “agency” it means any corporation which of course under the Interpretation Act the word “person” includes anyway whether in the public sector or in the private sector. In other words it actually means anybody or any corporation at all and I do not really know why the bill does not just say that instead of using the word “agency”. However that is not a big issue. 
I note also in relation to the definition of “identity information” that it 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 on a passport—and the status of any other recorded information. It is good that the kind of information that is covered is so specifically stated so that it does not go any further than that. I note also the use of intermediaries and that an intermediary is a person who “is a party to a confirmation agreement with the responsible officials”. So it is limited in that way as well. I approve very much of the way that the bill is drafted so that it provides those limitations and is very understandable in that respect. 
Similarly I think the purpose of Part 2 “to allow an agency or intermediary to check whether an individual’s identity information is consistent with any recorded information.” is well stated. That itself provides a very significant limitation as well but there are others. In clause 8 there is a list of conditions for using the confirmation service which most particularly of course requires the individual to consent whether in writing or electronically. It requires the agency or intermediary applying to give an assurance that that consent has been obtained and of course that they have entered into the required confirmation agreement. All of that seems fine to me and also the ability for an individual to consent on a one-off basis or an ongoing basis and the ability to withdraw that consent as well. Those are all important safeguards. 
I approve also 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 confirmation information that we are concerned with here. Clause 9(5) however does go on to say that subclause (4) does not limit or prevent the disclosure of information relating to the fact that a person is dead that there is name change information existing or the status of recorded information. These are good provisions and good drafting I believe. 
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 and also they must have policies and practices in respect of the security of information and relating to the privacy of individuals. Again these are very appropriate and good ways of limiting the scope of the bill to make sure that it is focused on what it is intended to do. 
New clause 11 and new clauses 11A and 11B contain very comprehensive provisions concerning what must be in a confirmation agreement and in addition how those agreements are to be used. I note the addition of new clause 11A concerning how the agency must obtain an individual’s consent and how he or she may withdraw that consent. Again those are the sorts of things that I would wish to see in legislation of this kind. 
For all the reasons I have indicated New Zealand First approves of the bill all the remaining provisions that I have not mentioned those that have been put in by the Government Administration Committee and also those relating to the role of the Privacy Commissioner. For all of those reasons and noting all of those limitations it is very happy indeed to support the bill as it stands. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 12.22 p.m. (Thursday)