Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): In the debate on this part I am looking most forward to the contribution from the ACT Party because the ACT Party has got more experience in assumed identities than any other party in this House. I well remember David Garrett having railed against name suppression and discharges without conviction was exposed for his hypocrisy for having had both—actually with assistance from Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust which is not a tag that most people would attach to his views. But David Garrett assumed the identity of dead babies.When he was eventually found out he said he was modelling his behaviour on The Day of the Jackal. Interestingly the real person who lies behind The Day of the Jackal is in court again I think at the moment—in Paris is he not for his involvement in murders back in the 1970s. Anyway David Garrett was one of the people who took the ACT Party from a number of members down to one; it is largely a political irrelevancy that survives as some sort of vestige—a bit like a tail that you no longer need—that the National Government relies upon for one vote. I am looking forward to hearing from David Seymour.Iain Lees-Galloway: If that's his real name.Hon DAVID PARKER: If that is his real name David Seymour—that is right. I have the privilege of standing against him in the general election this year in the Epsom electorate so I am hoping that he is going to take a call here. If he does not I think I might have to raise it on the hustings.Can I mention a more serious matter. This is another area in this part of the bill where the Government because it has been willing to listen to the select committee and to engage with the Opposition has got to a good outcome. The rule made around the requirement to keep a register of assumed identities which is available for scrutiny by the inspector-general and the Minister—but particularly by the inspector-general—is a very good outcome.Can I say Minister that one of the reasons why I am so pleased that the House has got agreement largely across the House on this legislation is actually the protection of public confidence in democracy. I think that in New Zealand we really ought to be taking a bow on this compared with what is happening in other countries where the polemic of debate in democracies has become so extreme that everyone is taking extreme whacks at each other—whether it is the Republicans against the Democrats or Trump against the media or what is happening in Australia where their debates are becoming very polarised. It is actually undermining public confidence in the very institutions that protect democracy.I think we can be thankful that through the more measured approach that we take in this Parliament with the major parties and other parties supporting them as well and also a slightly less polarised media debate than we have from some of the awful websites that are spreading fake news and the like in America we are actually managing to maintain public confidence in our democratic institutions.As someone who believes very strongly in the importance of democracy because it is so much better than autocracy or theocracy or other forms of totalitarianism I really believe that we are doing a service to our people. We are trying to find the appropriate balance between the powers of the State and the protections of the rights of the privacy of citizens against excessive State intrusion. Through this bill which as I have said previously I think is certainly better than our current laws—and I suspect it is probably amongst the best oversight legislation of spy agencies in the world—we are actually showing that our democracy can work to protect the interests of the people and therefore we maintain greater confidence in democracy. People are more likely to vote. They are more likely to participate in civil society. They are less likely to throw things at each other. They are more likely to respect laws. They are more likely to respect the property rights of others and they are more likely to try to reach out to each other across the centre in order to reach the compromises that we need to in society in order to run a prosperous and fair society.With that I think that is all I need to say on this Part 3 of the bill. It has the Labour Party's support. I agree that the changes made to clause 45 are appropriate.