Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): It is with great delight that I rise to speak on this third reading of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. I know that we spent quite a while traversing it in the committee of the whole House stage and I very much enjoyed that very thorough process in which we with a fine-tooth comb went over every single clause and all of the impacts that we will see in our society as a result. There was a lot of discussion about email—Erica Stanford: And kererū.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and the mighty kererū which I note Erica Stanford should have been the winner of our Forest & Bird Bird of the Year competition for 2017. But we'll be back. We'll be back in 2018. We will win and we will rebuild—we will survive. So all of that talk of emails and all of the different emails that people have accumulated over their lives had me thinking about all of the different forms of technology that I've used growing up as a digital native as they call those of my generation—the likes of—Simeon Brown: I'm a digital native.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yes that's you Simeon Brown. It had me wondering about all of my Neopets and whether they had passed on and whether I should be checking in on them—you know such it is that technology moves along and sometimes we not along with it.In this third reading I'd like to touch on some of those submissions made at the select committee stage. If I'm correct there were eight submissions and there are a few here that I think it's really crucial that we point out some of the more substantive and interesting or salient points that those submissions had to offer.The first one that we'll consider here is the New Zealand Law Society's submission. They noted some concerns about Part 3 with regard to the sending of documents by email particularly around the consent of the recipient. They identified that the use of the terminology at an address used by this person" is a little bit problematic because—as was well traversed in the committee of the whole House stage—it could be interpreted to be very broad and very wide. But the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Tracey Martin made it clear in the committee of the whole House stage that the burden of proof will be on those actually sending those emails so I think that this very much clarifies and hopefully solves those issues that the New Zealand Law Society had.Further there was the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices' Associations which noted their support for the general thrust and intention of the legislation but were concerned about a few things. Perhaps most notably in the context of the debate that we have had so far it is the inequitable connectivity that we have—still—with the digital divide in Aotearoa New Zealand. I'll note that I recently had a meeting with the Hon Clare Curran where she told me that a major priority of this Government is to ensure that we are bridging that digital divide because it is almost as such that access to the internet in the 21st century is akin to or at the very least showing itself to be close to a nigh on human right. My 20-year-old little sister would have to agree.There was also the submission of John Edwards the Privacy Commissioner particularly with regard to Part 2 where he noted a little bit of concern perhaps around electronic identification and its use thereof. However he noted that his office was consulted during the development of the bill and didn't need any additional safeguards to be implemented. He said and I quote that this "will enable the expanded use of electronic identity photographs with the consent of the individual involved without posing an undue risk to personal privacy." This is something that I would like to note in relation to the submission of one individual who for the sake of not needing to mention their name I won't. The rest of the submissions were those of organisations but this individual noted a concern around privacy and with regard to the submission of John Edwards the Privacy Commissioner I hope that her concerns are satisfied.Another incredibly notable submission I believe was made in the name of the Blind Foundation. They noted that the updating of technology has of course improved the access to information and to communications but they still had issues with accessing RealMe which is of course the identification system used by individuals and citizens when accessing Government services online. In response to that concern this bill obviously does not require that all interactions by citizens are made by way of RealMe; it is simply another tool in the tool kit to allow people greater accessibility to the Government.But this submission I believe highlights a bit of an oversight that I think is perhaps all too frequent in this House on the rights of our disabled community in particular in the drafting of legislation. I will remind all in the House that New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 9(2) of that convention on accessibility reads and I quote: "(a) To develop promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public;". I very much think that that is something that all members in this House will continue to have to bear in mind as we hope to make our democracy all the more accessible. If I may deviate slightly I would like to say that this is the very point of my member's bill which I lodged into the ballot just last week. It was originally drafted by the first disabled member of this Parliament the incredible Mojo Mathers a previous Green Party MP.Another submission was made in the name of the Commerce Commission and it broadly just commended those updates regarding email and the ability to provide evidence by audio or audiovisual link. They sought to take it a step further and require that the giving of evidence could be made compulsory. Personally and to communicate the position of the Green Party we don't believe that people should be compelled to provide evidence by such technological means when they may not have access to such technological means so we are glad to see that is not reflected in the final legislation.Another submission made in the name of the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa saw concerns around the serving of notice and wanted some safeguards but supported broadly the intention and thrust of the bill. Again I would like to point out that these concerns were hopefully mitigated by the Minister the Hon Tracey Martin in her noting that the burden of proof lay on those who sent those emails in the first place.The final submission that I would like to touch on is one that I find the most interesting personally. It is that of the New Zealand Fish & Game Council which noted their absolute elation at the opportunity to garner greater public participation in their elections. They noted that—such is the plight of far too many small authorities in this great country—the turnout currently for those elections of theirs averages 24 to 25 percent of those on their electoral rolls which is absolutely abysmal. Absolutely abysmal. So we are hoping to see a growth in turnout for the New Zealand Fish & Game Council and I hope that they are leading by example. The most recent election that I was involved in prior to this general election of 2017 was of course the Auckland Council's local body elections where the turnout was just less than 40 percent which was significantly greater I might add than it was in the previous election of 2013 at 34.7 percent—which was indeed the catalyst for my becoming involved in politics in the first place. In summary I would commend this bill to the House."