Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have two issues that I would like to canvass. The first relates to new section 43 in clause 18 of the bill which deals with allowing auditors to report suspicious activities to the Commissioner of Police. I am not too concerned with new section 43(1)(a) (b) (c) and (d)—I will read out the first part to make this clear. Despite any enactment or any rule of law this section applies to a person who in the course of carrying out the duties of that person's occupation as an auditor has reasonable grounds to [believe] in relation to any activity that the activity is relevant to—" and then there is a list of things that it could be relevant to. And if you fall within that list the auditor can report the activity to the commissioner.Paragraph (a) says that that would apply in the situation of it being relevant to the investigation or prosecution of a person for money-laundering—clear enough. Paragraph (b) is the enforcement of the Misuse of Drugs Act—could be quite wide. I mean enforcement of the Misuse of Drugs Act could be someone being prosecuted for smoking a marijuana cigarette so that is pretty broad. I do not know why that needs to be that broad. Enforcement of the Terrorism Suppression Act is probably fair enough. Enforcement of the Proceeds of Crime Act or the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009—seems fair enough.The one I have got a question about in particular is paragraph (e) which says where it is relevant to "the investigation or prosecution of an offence (within the meaning of section 243(1) of the Crimes Act 1961)." I go to section 243(1) of the Crimes Act and it says that "offence means an offence (or any offence described as a crime) that is punishable under New Zealand law including any act wherever committed that would be an offence in New Zealand if committed in New Zealand." That is an incredibly broad definition—incredibly broad definition.I would like the Minister in the chair Amy Adams to explain why it is necessary in new section 43(1)(e) to have such a broad definition of "offence". That seems to me to be saying effectively that even the most minor of offences is something that allows an auditor to say: "Oh well I am going to be a policeman here and I am going to pass that information on." So that is my first question.The second one is just referring to the Minister's statement to the Committee just a few minutes ago recognising that these laws need to be practical. It deals with a situation that was recently brought to my attention by a lawyer I know well which goes to the identification of people. My understanding—and the Minister will know more about this than me and can correct me if I am wrong—is that one of the ways in which this legislation is operationalised is that people who are caught within its ambit have to verify the identity of people. Even if they do not think this is a suspicious transaction they have to go through the hoops to verify the identity of people these days. I experienced this recently for myself in respect of going into a sharebroker that I have dealt with for decades with people who know me by face and yet they still had to tick off and—you know these people were in a position to certify they knew me but they still had to get a copy of a passport or of a current driver's licence from me. So I was talking to this lawyer about the same situation for him and he said that with some elderly people it is just about impossible because if you have not got a driver's licence because you are too old to drive and you have not got a current passport because you have stopped travelling—Hon Ruth Dyson: What about your SuperGold card?Hon DAVID PARKER: I do not think the SuperGold card qualifies you. I would like to have some assurance from the Minister Amy Adams that there are practical means for identification of people where the professional person who was dealing with them who knows them well can certify who they are—they might have had their will for the last 30 years and they have got someone who comes into their place—and that we are actually not creating an undue burden for that person to have to prove who they are. I think that if that is the bureaucratic tangle we have got ourselves into then this regulation goes too far. So I would be pleased if the Minister could provide answers to those questions."