Hughes Gareth: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4966. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.