Little AndrewANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to continue Labour's support for this bill the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill in this its third reading. As the Minister has just pointed out the origins of this bill relate to the events concerning Phillip John Smith or Phillip John Traynor depending on which identity he wanted to use. It was the latter identity that he used to abscond from the custody of the Department of Corrections and take off and he found himself in Chile before he was eventually detained by the authorities there and returned to New Zealand.But I have to say we have to be honest with ourselves and ask ourselves why it is that an event that happened nearly 3 years ago has had its ultimate conclusion in the House just today—the third reading of this bill—after events that upon review at that time led to a report that said: There are gaps that need to be filled." Here we are 3 years later now finally putting the finishing touches on filling those gaps.I think the Government is open to criticism justifiably—a tired old Government that had this matter that was considerable and that put victims at risk. It was a case of clear gaps in the management of prisoners and in the management of our corrections system and it has taken the Government 3 years to fix it. It did not have to take that long. The primary conclusion of the report on the review of the failures of the system was that somebody from the Department of Corrections needed to phone up the person sponsoring the guy's weekend release and that would have brought the whole thing to an end there and then. He would not have been released.Anyway we had the review. We had that glaring failure pointed out and then we had the other systemic failures that the reviewer recommended be filled. We had all that within weeks of these events and it has taken nearly 3 years to get them filled. So you know it is good that it is being done it is good that the time of this House is being used eventually to remedy this problem but actually a Government that had a sense of urgency and priority about the threat to victims of crime would have acted on this pretty much straight away.We should have passed this bill done its third reading a good 2 years ago. We could have done it if we had had Ministers who were on the job. But they were not. They dragged the chain because they were not interested. They did not think they were under any pressure to do anything meaningful. Mr Deputy Speaker as you will know from your background justice delayed is justice denied.In the time that it has taken us to review the events of Phillip John Smith and do the review and get this legislation up and get to the third reading there have been other crimes committed by people who have absconded and got through the very net that we are in the process of trying to close up. We had the case of Daniel Titcombe a UK citizen who was working here on a working holiday in Queenstown. He ripped off his employer to the tune of $3000 in 2016. He was sentenced in December last year 2016 and the very next day left the country. There was no border control advice. There was no requirement as this legislation provides for for Customs and others to have information about those who owe fines have penalties outstanding and ought to be restrained from leaving the country.So because of the tardiness of this Government and the lackadaisical approach it has taken to this legislation more victims of crime have been created and they have not seen justice done. The case of Daniel Titcombe in 2016 is just the latest of those. You ask Daniel Titcombe's employer Escape Quest in Queenstown how it feels. Well I know how it feels because the newspaper report made it pretty clear. His employer is stunned and gutted that that criminal got away with what he did because this House under this Government's stewardship has been too tardy in filling the gaps and remedying the problem.In legislation of this nature which cuts across the inherent rights to privacy and human rights it is incumbent on this House to get the balance right between ensuring the safety and protection of citizens and victims of crime and ensuring that the powers of the State are such that it can properly do its job of providing safety and security to the community without undue intrusion into innocent citizens' lives. That was an issue that the New Zealand Law Society brought to the attention of the select committee considering this legislation the Law and Order Committee. The New Zealand Law Society was concerned about any erosion of the privacy rights and privacy principles in the legislation. Nevertheless as this House ought to do it considered what the problem was that it was remedying and even though the legislation does entail the erosion of those basic human rights it is possible to contemplate that if there are proper and effective safeguards in place.The reason why the Labour Party will continue to support this bill in its third reading is that we believe that by and large it does get those checks and balances right. One is that Government agencies that will have the right to access information under this legislation will have to report in their annual reports the number of occasions on which they have done that so that there is a level of transparency around that. They will also have to justify their actions for what would otherwise be a breach of privacy under the Privacy Act ensuring that the purpose for which they are seeking information or providing information is for the purposes set out in this particular legislation.So those checks and balances are right. This legislation adds a power that does not currently exist and that is the ability to collect biometric information from prisoners but also from mental health patients. That is about ensuring the safety and security of those patients and so that the authorities are able to track the movement of people as they go through borders or through other places where their identity is required. It means the authorities can track people to make sure that the safety and security of the public is maintained to the best extent possible.I would be remiss if I did not once again record the concern of the Labour Party in relation to new section 109F of the Privacy Act which is provided for in clause 6 of this bill. That allows a schedule to the legislation to be amended or altered and even to be completely replaced. That is a very very large power to have in the hands of the executive without having to come back to this House because of the principle that what this House does this House must be in a position to undo.Giving the executive the power to make those changes to a schedule to the legislation through an Order in Council is a big step to take. I just record once again Labour's ongoing anxiety about that particular provision. We will have to monitor that very carefully because it is not right that legislation passed by this House ought to be altered in form through processes that sit outside this House. We have to be alert to the erosion of that constitutional principle.As I said at the beginning the Labour Party will support this bill in its third reading. I do note also that one of the other changes it makes is in relation to victims' rights. If victims of crime have notified the authorities that they have a representative who can be and ought to be the first recipient of information about the perpetrator of the crime against that victim then the authorities are justified in communicating directly with the victim. If in the case for example of an absconding prisoner there is a real risk to the safety and security of that victim the authorities can go directly to the victim as opposed to the representative if they think that they are justified in doing so. That is probably a sensible provision to have without causing any concern to the victim. In the end it is about doing the utmost to ensure the safety and security of citizens.Labour will support this bill in its third reading. We will monitor it very carefully around how the new provisions operate to make sure that innocent citizens are not victimised by it."