Logie Jan: Electronic Identity Verification Bill Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Logie Jan: Electronic Identity Verification Bill Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7400. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Electronic Identity Verification Bill and the Identity Information Confirmation Bill cognate. As has already been discussed by my colleague Gareth Hughes the Greens will be voting in support of the Electronic Identity Verification Bill and opposing the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. We would have loved to support both bills actually because we do recognise the importance and the value that they offer. However as I will talk more about later the privacy concerns in terms of protecting people’s human rights in the employment process overrode our ability to support the second bill. 
The Electronic Identity Verification Bill as has already been stated many times in effect creates an online passport—a unique online identifier to verify somebody’s identity. It really opens up our system so that we can extend the current igovt process to further organisations or Government departments. I know that that is going to be a good thing for many people particularly because I hear of so many clients of Work and Income whose access to their entitlements is delayed because they turn up for an appointment to access some service or access an entitlement they find out that they do not have the right ID with them they are sent away and they have to wait until another appointment is available. The hope is that with this bill we will be able to streamline processes which will make it easier for the staff in Work and Income and make it easier for the clients coming in to be able to access the services. That is certainly a very good thing. We note also the projected economic benefits of this bill as stated by my colleague Gareth. There are potentially $300 million of savings from it. 
But we would also like to be that reminder that we have to be always mindful of those who do not have access to online services. I have heard some very angry voices recently particularly from older New Zealanders who feel as if they are getting locked out. They have been into Government departments and they have been sent away to go and look up something online which is completely intimidating for them and not something they feel able to do even if they do have physical access in terms of broadband. So that is something we always need to be mindful of. 
I shall speak a bit more about why we are opposing sadly the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. Although we really do support the intent of the bill and are very aware of identity fraud and the harm that it is causing particularly in terms of financial fraud—and this bill certainly holds out the hope of being able to take action on that and decrease it and that is incredibly important—our concern arises with it being used in the employment process. We have not heard much evidence of how common identity fraud is in terms of people going into employment. The Supplementary Order Paper 148 that we put forward excluded it from being used in the employment process because of our concern for marginalised groups. There is certainly the ability to opt out and that fulfils the technicalities in the Privacy Act as we know it for people to be able to have the choice to opt out. The reality is that for marginalised people who are worried about their ability to get a job to say “No I am not going to provide you with that information.”—people are not going to feel able to make that choice. By not making that choice they will in effect be required to give information that presents their date of birth and their nation—place of birth. Those are two points that we know are common bases for discrimination in this country which is something we need to ensure people’s ability to protect themselves against. That is why we will be voting against this bill.