Mallard Trevor: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It is not very often that I agree with the Hon Nathan Guy but I think in respect of the amendment in the name of Jan Logie I do take that position. I think it is fair to say that the operative part of this Identity Information Confirmation Bill was after two types of problems. One was people who take people’s identity for the purpose of getting money and the other was the sort of person who takes someone’s identity often for even more nefarious purposes than that. I referred earlier to the case of Te Rito Henry Miki who has appeared before the courts as a result of shifting from school to school and changing his identity as he went. I as a former Minister of Education had a lot to do with the Teachers Council as it was set up and saw reports on absolutely awful cases of abuse—absolutely awful cases of abuse. What made it worse in some cases was that the individual when they were close to being caught used what are legal methods of deed poll and other arrangements to change their name to move on in identity and then they repeated their offences. That is something that this particular character did and my hope is that having a proper identity verification service will stop an individual doing that because it will supply a continuity of record of an individual’s name. 
I accept that that will result in some prejudice against some individuals getting jobs because of their previous records but my view is that when it comes to areas such as education and health there is the trust that we put in people and the risks that we face with people who are not who they say they are—and we have had recent cases of medical practitioners who have pretended to be other people and students who have pretended to be other people and have had access to things that they should not have access to. This will not be the total solution but a major part of the purpose is to have the continuity of identification of the individuals. 
I understand what the member is saying. She is concerned that by giving an age it means that it will result in prejudice against someone because of their age. Well if that is the case it is already and quite separately an offence—you are not allowed to do that—but at the moment date of birth along with name is actually a pretty good unique identifier. It is a way of checking that people are who they say they are and having that continuity. 
 Although I have got sympathy for the views of the member and I share her concerns at misuse especially of age information if it results in prejudice against the old or the young because it can happen both ways—especially in these days when you have you know 2000 people applying for five jobs and it can be used as a screening method like that—and that is a danger. But I also say that for a lot of jobs it is important to identify the individual and to verify them. Therefore we will not be supporting that amendment. 
As we indicated before this part of the bill has had substantial amendment. The introduction of the intermediaries is something that was particularly important and it has reshaped the bill as we worked through but it is a piece of legislation with all of that work that we now support. In fact we support it so much that we have agreed that the third reading be part of the extended sittings that we are looking forward to in December to ensure that we can get the bill through and get it operative as soon as possible in the new year.