Swarbrick Chlöe; Rurawhe AdrianCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'll stand and begin my contribution late this Tuesday evening by reflecting on the comments of one Hon Judith Collins when her statements were around how this will not be the last kind of piece of legislation that deals with the internet and identity and the challenges that we begin to unpack by grappling with this issue.And on that I'd just reflect while we're talking about great select committees that the great select committee of the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been looking into a briefing that the Greens instigated on scams particularly in the space of online scams. We've been learning a lot about the differences between authorised and non-authorised about the kind of relationships that obviously people can formulate through these technological means particularly in the context of the likes of a global pandemic where our relationships become all the more strained and people become all the more isolated.Obviously coming back to the substance of the legislation this Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill as Naisi Chen alluded to there were nearly 4500 submissions made to the select committee. However a vast majority of those I understand around 4000 of them arrived in the final two days and were assessed as being in response to some of the—I believe it wouldn't be inappropriate to call—misinformation campaigns. The bill closed for submissions the night before the red traffic light framework came into effect.However among those submissions there were a number of deeply substantive ones. However obviously many did not necessarily relate to or misunderstood the content of the bill. So in response to those submissions the select committee has added a new clause clarifying the Crown's responsibility to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti and explicitly outlining where throughout the legislation. Of course I'd note here on the record as the Greens always do that we believe that you should give effect to Te Tiriti not just to those watered down principles.The select committee has also included new provisions requiring that the trust framework board and its Māori advisory group set how and when they will consult with iwi and hapū giving more specifics to the substance of the legislation there. They've renamed the trust mark" the "accreditation mark" and only allowed issue for services rather than for providers for when an organisation offers multiple services only some of which can end up being accredited. They've clarified that regulations must be made by Order in Council regarding setting rules for what can be accredited such as the types of services and reporting requirements. This is of course just cleaning up what that process looks like. They have also ensured tikanga Māori as part of the complaints process from inception. It's unique to design a system from inception that includes these things and removing some of the complexity and processes for individuals in making complaints which of course is critically important in streamlining that process.They have increased transparency via removal of a secrecy clause and increased accountability of providers by removing immunity from proceedings under the Privacy Act. They've also expanded the existing two-year review clause to require consideration of privacy and security outcomes and Māori engagement.Now reflecting on the earlier comments of the Hon Judith Collins and to the effect of how this stuff will be used in practice only time really will tell. We're starting to see that with some of the other legislation that we have in place around for example the digital and harmful communications legislation. And here I'd just give a shout out to Councillor Sara Templeton down in Christchurch who obviously used that process and that relatively new and relatively untested piece of law to unmask those who had been harassing and bullying her online.The department in their recommendations to the select committee pay particular attention to the submissions of the Data Iwi Leaders Group; many of their proposals obviously regarded strengthening recognition of Te Tiriti within the bill and Māori engagement. However some of the proposals that were made by submitters that would have been supported by the Greens were unfortunately not implemented. So here I will foreshadow some of the things that we'll be putting forward at the committee as a whole House. But here are some of those changes firstly that key submitters put forward which were not progressed but reflected on by the select committee and in their report. Both Internet New Zealand and the Council of Civil Liberties suggested that the TFB or the trust framework board and the authority should be established as an independent Crown entity rather than run within the Department of Internal Affairs. They were contending that there is an inherent conflict of interest in Government agencies both administering and in regulating digital identity services such as such as the infamous RealMe—for anybody who has ever gone through the process of getting a student allowance.Internet New Zealand and the Council of Civil Liberties also suggested that the failure of the TFB or the trust framework board be required to consult with or appoint a member with expertise on accessibility for disabled people. Here I'd also shout out to another piece of associated legislation that is of course the Election Access Fund Act coming into effect which members of the public can submit on and make sure it's shaped up as best as possible so that we get a more diverse Parliament in the next election.Internet New Zealand also suggested a longer list of required entities for consultation on rules including the likes of the Human Rights Commission. The PSA similarly suggested workers' representatives be consulted. Internet New Zealand also suggested limitation of non-accredited activity a five-year transition period which amounts to the full regulation of the sector rather than a more watered down opt-in approach to accreditation the department is taking initially.Some of the submitters were also concerned that the bill does not prescribe security requirements such as information access restrictions and data storage locations in the primary legislation. That of course relates to the point that I was making before about Order in Council and leaving these things to regulations and rules can of course mean that it is not afforded the adequate parliamentary scrutiny. However the department rebuts that this allows flexibility for changing technologies and of course as many in this House who've been around for a while would note that it often has trouble grappling particularly at pace with developing technologies. I'd allude to an earlier transport select committee where Uber had to be explained to members of the committee.Many submitters including Internet New Zealand suggested broader consultation with the public be undertaken on the bill. Again in principle this is something that the Greens would support. But the point remains that the underlying intention of this legislation to regulate the increasing prevalence of digital identity services here in Aotearoa and providing a secure framework to do so that is trustworthy and accountable is important and a policy principle that the Green Party wholeheartedly supports. We also wholeheartedly support those improvements that have been made throughout that select committee process on notably stronger mechanisms for Māori engagement through the process of designing rules. I said that I would make points about those Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that will be coming everybody's way in the committee of the whole House although I can see that my colleague across there—Tāmati Coffey—is looking ready and raring to go in his contribution so I hope that they will be substantive Mr Coffey. But those SOPs—feel free. Feel free to reflect on them in your speech if we'd like to all take a moment and reflect on the pace of the House the fastest lawmakers in the West here. Those SOPs—and I'd invite members who will speak after me to indicate maybe whether they'd contemplate them within their caucuses and maybe support them—are threefold. The first is to include rainbow issues expertise on the trust framework board—surely something that Mr Coffey and other members of the rainbow Labour caucus could agree with. The second is to include accessibility for disabled people expertise on that trust framework board. And the third is to include a requirement to consider whether the trust framework board authority should be an independent Crown entity as part of the existing two-year review of the legislation. So just to clarify on that final point it's not about prescribing that that is the format that it should take. But per the submissions that I have alluded to throughout my contribution in this debate tonight of course this is about reflecting at that two-year mark—they've already baked into the legislation review—whether the format is appropriate to sit within the Department of Internal Affairs or whether it should be an independent Crown entity as of course was recommended by both Internet New Zealand and the Council for Civil Liberties. So with that the Greens are proud to see this progressing but of course we'd like to see all the more improvements as is obviously the job of this place. And I hope to see other members of Parliament making points about exactly these things in their contributions to come.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't want to interrupt the member but just regarding mentioning Supplementary Order Papers still to be debated that have not yet been seen the strict rule around mentioning them in second readings is that you can mention them in passing but they are not to be debated. So the invitation to other members to debate them it's not on the table. We'll go to the next speaker—Dr James McDowall."