Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Yes I really want to speak on the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. In the first reading I posed a question about whether or not the magnitude of the response matches and is appropriate for the size of the issue and I will come back to that later on. But I do want to make a couple of points about what led up to the situation of needing a response to this issue.As my colleague Stuart Nash has pointed out there was a certain person who decided he was going to go split the country and go off to South America. It occurred to me that if just one of the key agencies had made a phone call—if the Ministry of Justice had made a phone call or if the Department of Corrections or if the Department of Internal Affairs or if the Customs Service had made a phone call—or if someone had called the nominated sponsor then this situation may not have happened. Seriously there has been a communication breakdown in this issue and then we find ourselves here today in the process of passing new legislation to deal with that situation. I think that that is not the best way for us to be developing new legislation.The seriousness of the lack of communication between all of these Government agencies needs to be dealt with. But as I posed in my first reading speech is the magnitude of the response appropriate for the size of the issue? We are supporting this legislation. In my opinion to answer my own question it is something that will need to be reviewed over time to decide whether or not it goes too far. I think it is not a situation where it does not go far enough; I think it fixes up a whole lot of things.Submitters made submissions on this bill and some of them were lengthy and substantial. I am not on the Law and Order Committee but I have read through a few of those submissions. The Law Society submission was really thorough and helpful for me to understand what this bill is about. I see in the select committee's report that it has addressed all of those issues not in the way that the Law Society actually wanted but as I say I do not think we are going to know the full impact of this legislation until it has been around for a few years and has been able to be used and until that biometric information has been shared between the different agencies like Corrections Justice Customs and the Department of Internal Affairs.It is actually quite staggering that the Department of Internal Affairs' births deaths and marriages information was not able to be shared with Corrections so it had no other way of being formally advised that this person had another identity. Actually I am standing here just about to say that it is amazing that this has not happened before but do we actually know that? We possibly do not know that there are not perhaps others who have got away with it. As my colleague Stuart Nash pointed out the person in question was not that bright and that is why he got caught. However we are in the situation where we have had the inquiry. The inquiry has made 39 recommendations and 34 or 35 of those recommendations have been picked up. What I did notice from the submissions I read was that people were most concerned about the sharing of data between the agencies. If I can just refer to one of them by the name of Aaron Livingston he put forward his submission because of his concerns about and the potential for as he saw it—I am not saying this is going to happen—mass surveillance. He had huge issues around privacy of information. I think it is really important that these submissions even if the select committee did not agree with what he was saying are actually valid arguments that the Parliament should note. It is my view that it is important that all voices on this issue are heard.As I said for me it is quite finely balanced around supporting this bill in the way that we are. I remember reading that even some of the basic information that is available to each individual department ministry or agency—there seemed to be no sharing of that information between all of them. I think that is something that really did need to be addressed.To the bill—it clearly inserts a definition of what biometric information is into six Acts where that did not exist. So under this bill that definition will be in all six of those Acts. It amends the Privacy Act. I think that is where the major concerns were for those submitters who made their views known to the select committee. The bill amends the Parole Act the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and the Customs and Excise Act.The part that drew I think the most attention was the new Part 10A going into the Privacy Act which actually is the key Act that authorises agencies to access the use of identity information which includes the biometric information that I talked about. They can use that information that is held by other agencies primarily to verify the identity of an individual. Those individuals are set out in a new schedule within this legislation. As I said I think the jury is out on how effective this will be. I think it will be effective but does it go beyond the issue? Only time will tell. Thank you.