Dyson Ruth: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:140. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Can I begin my contribution on the Electronic Identity Verification Bill by congratulating you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your re-election to the esteemed position of an officer in this House. I say that I look forward to your reminders and support of us adhering to the Standing Orders which you know more diligently I believe than any other officer of the House whom I have known about and also to the engaging way that you respond to members during often quite difficult times. Your persona is appreciated I think by all members in the House.  
I also want to commend the Hon Amy Adams for what I would imagine is her first piece of legislation even though I also want to acknowledge her predecessor Nathan Guy because he actually did a lot of the work—not all of it. I think it is an important occasion when a Minister has her first bill introduced in the House. I can assure you that the select committee to which you alluded and to which you want to refer it the Government Administration Committee will give it rigorous attention and will ensure that it comes back to the House with every single detail considered and every concern not only looked at but also addressed and that the entire House will have confidence in the robustness of the legislation.  
Labour certainly agrees with the point of this legislation and supports its progress. No doubt there will be some issues that arise in the select committee—I do not recall any legislation that has not had that happen—but in terms of the principle I think it is a really good bill. Basically as the Minister outlined it stops people needing to provide often quite frustrating amounts of identification to a variety of different agencies. We all know that to carry numerous amounts of paperwork around with you is a pain in the neck. Actually it is quite dangerous as well. I do not think people should be encouraged to carry their passport with them all the time. Certainly overseas it is a habit that people are strongly advised against doing. You do not walk around the streets of some city with your passport in your pocket but in New Zealand that is what we require of many people—to bring in your passport or get it photocopied and then you have to go through the added tasks of getting a justice of the peace a lawyer or a member of Parliament to witness that that document is a genuine copy of the original. So you have another round of paper filling to do.  
This bill seeks to get rid of that requirement by having a little box that is controlled by the Department of Internal Affairs under the management of New Zealand Post which I am very pleased to hear about and if an individual chooses to put information in that little box they can then—again their choice—have that information shared with the agencies that they have authorised in order to provide the level of identification that is needed. I think it is a great idea. I do hope that it leads us on to further thinking and courage about how better the internet can be used to provide access to information access to services and access to voting and whatever because so often that robust verification of identification has been the barrier.  
I do not know whether it is common in other countries but I think in New Zealand we still have a lot of anxiety about where things go when you put information on the internet. I know a large number of people who still will not buy things online because they are so nervous about putting their credit card numbers into a computer because then they vanish off the screen and they do not know where they go. Someone else might get them and the next minute they will get a huge credit card bill. Actually it happens when you just leave your credit card on the counter by mistake as well. 
Hon Amy Adams 
: That’s just your children. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is right or you leave your wallet somewhere where your children might get access to it. I do think there is an anxiety about where information can go. I particularly noted the point that Minister Adams made during her introductory speech that if the public loses faith in this process then the whole service will fail and I do think that is a very important point. We have to be very careful if this bill is referred to our select committee that we listen to the concerns the public have and make sure that we can provide them with the level of confidence they require because this is not a service that should fail. We need the confidence of the public and therefore we need the robustness of the service.  
We do have the absolute clarity within the legislation—I actually think it is a very well-drafted bill—that consistently throughout the process it is the individual’s choice about what information is stored and which agencies that information can then be shared with. So that is for me a primary point to make known to the public. This is not information that can be gleaned from other documents or other sources and compiled on your behalf; it is only when you have authorised it yourself that you will be able to have that then shared with agencies and then it is only agencies that again you have authorised. You cannot have any unauthorised exchange of information.  
I heard some debate over the dinner hour about this legislation where people thought that it actually allowed for data sharing between agencies which would be of benefit to the particular agencies. For example some Work and Income information may be of use to the Housing New Zealand Corporation the Inland Revenue Department or some debt-collecting agencies. There is information that if it was shared could be of use. And I know from the discussion we had over the dinner hour that some people thought that this would allow that and that is something that I will be seeking absolute clarification of during the select committee process. My reading of the bill says that that is not possible. If that was a sort of side advantage then I think we would have to be very upfront with the public. But the Minister is agreeing with my point; it is not enabled by this legislation and I am very pleased to see her nodding about that point.  
The other advantage in this legislation to me currently—and again it might be just part of the progress of the way we do things in New Zealand—is that this does not replace other ways of providing identification. So if you just do not trust the internet or if you do not want to do it for whatever reason you can still get your passport photocopied and validated and send the photocopy with the signature saying it is the correct copy off to whichever agency you have to provide that verification of identification to. So this is a progressive choice; it is not eliminating the current ways that we do things. I think that is a very good point as well.  
I was delighted to hear the Minister’s enthusiasm for the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner in this work. I do think it is very important that the Privacy Commissioner keeps on top of these issues. The ability to require the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs to report on any aspect of this service to the Privacy Commissioner should again give New Zealanders confidence that the information will not be misused.  
I also noted that New Zealand Post was an exclusive agency for the operation of this service which is—well I think it is fine actually but it does seem to go against the grain somewhat and I wondered whether the Minister had any particular reason. Perhaps the deputy chair of the select committee to which this bill is being referred might be able to glean some words from her about whether having New Zealand Post in that position as the exclusive agency was a considered decision whether it just happened to be that New Zealand Post was the most appropriate or up and able to do it or whether it was because New Zealand Post has been working this system this service since the operational trial began in December 2009.  
I certainly hope that we will be able to get some assurance that New Zealand Post will not be next on the block to be sold off as well because if it was that would cause the public huge concern and would I know be of worry to the Minister because then the public would lose faith if a private agency had all this information stored and perhaps was able to potentially make money out of it. We want to avoid those sorts of things and the best way to do that of course is for the Government to not sell State assets.  
The final point I want to make is that this has been operating since the end of 2009. I agree with the bill and with the comments in the explanatory note and also in the regulatory impact statement which looked at the alternatives: do we need to have a legislative framework are there alternative regulatory processes or could we just have it operating as it has been under trial with a non-regulatory option? I want to commend the regulatory impact statement; I think it is very considered and robust and it is the sort of quality this House needs. I agree with the verdict of the regulatory impact statement that we do need a robust regulatory framework. I look forward to the debate in the select committee and certainly offer Labour’s support for this bill to the next stage.