Dyson Ruth: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6525. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 We seem to have got to this bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill with extraordinary speed this afternoon. I was actually thinking that we might not get to this bill until after the dinner break but I am delighted that we have. 
This is a bill that I was very pleased to have at our select committee the Government Administration Committee and one that although it did not provoke a lot of debate and discussion in terms of the number of submissions we had was certainly of great interest. It posed to our committee the tension that people have—perhaps not so much the younger generation; you know people of the age of my colleague Kris Faafoi would not be as concerned as perhaps older people of my generation and even older than me—that is the anxiety that some people feel about the use of their personal identity in an electronic form. That really was at the heart of our discussions. That tension exists because there is that anxiety but at the same time the use of electronic procedures for people to access information—to have data or information shared for people to gain information for themselves which may be dependent on them providing their personal identification—has huge advantages. 
The balancing trick if you like for our committee was to consider that anxiety: that the improper use of people’s identity information—identity fraud as we are very familiar with in this House—that the possible abuse of people’s identification or that by giving their personal information some other individual being able to access information about them or others by using it could be possible. This is quite a big deal. It is an important thing. We know for example that there are a very large number of scams where people’s credit cards are used inappropriately—about 2000 each day—where there is credit card fraud or identify theft or some spam some virus that is given and people have not been asked. 
 Of course we have had very recent examples raised in this House of privacy breaches. We have seen a large number in Government departments and actually I think we should consider ourselves fortunate that the committee considered this bill prior to the most recent major breaches of Work and Income through its kiosks where just a regular person off the street more or less was able to gain access to totally inappropriate information without doing anything illegally. I think that the committee may have had a large number more submissions had it been considering this legislation at the time that the Work and Income kiosk fiasco was being undertaken. 
Dr David Clark 
: 6300 people affected in the IRD breach. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My colleague Dr David Clark from Dunedin North has just told me there were 6300 people identified in an Inland Revenue Department breach. So as I say the fact that our committee considered this bill some time ago and it is now just getting to this Committee stage is hugely advantageous I think because otherwise we may have been considering it in quite a different environment. 
The principles that are outlined in Part 1 of this bill were agreed to. This had cross-party agreement. They were not difficult issues. We wanted to make sure that people were not obliged to give out their personal details in order to access information but we knew that as people became more confident with the system it would certainly evolve. We had also the absolute understanding of what information was able to be shared between different agencies obviously not for a different purpose than a person who gave that authority agreed to. Also there are other matters that people might not have considered such as the principle of people being able to access their own history: what has their own history been used for in terms of this electronic identity credential? 
There was no debate or division at all in the committee about the principles that were set up. What we were primarily concerned about was the issues I referred to earlier—that tension that exists between people electronically giving authority to access information or to share information against the advantages that are clearly of most benefit to the Government departments and agencies in terms of convenience in terms of lower transaction costs but also just in terms of basic efficiency. But actually it is hugely advantageous to the person themselves. We all know that as things like phone banking and internet banking have evolved no matter how much we said we actually really like the face-to-face exchanges it is also—although face-to-face exchanges are really pleasant—very convenient for people to be able to have electronic access to a wide number of services. 
I omitted earlier in this debate to acknowledge the Minister. Minister Chris Tremain is responsible for this legislation and I just want to put on the record a note of acknowledgment to him for guiding it through to this Committee stage. I also want to acknowledge that the bill was introduced by his predecessor the Hon Nathan Guy and during previous discussions on this bill both have been very helpful in terms of listening to members who have spoken. I also want to acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee. I think over the coming weeks we will look back on this legislation with a considerable amount of fondness because it received only a couple of submissions. To my recollection there were only 12—was it? I thought it was nine perhaps 12. It was not very many anyway compared with legislation that is before our committee at the moment. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is likely to exceed 12 submitters on that particular legislation I would imagine as we hear that bill. 
I know that we have amendments later on in this debate but I do not think there are any Supplementary Order Papers that cover any of Part 1. I hope that is the case because I am about to conclude my contribution. I might have to take another call if there is an amendment to Part 1. But I will just conclude by saying that Labour is very pleased to support this bill. I note that the way we have dealt with it—and I hope the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector is able to answer any questions that are posed to her during the Committee stage of the bill—and considered it at the committee and made a large number of amendments that I understand have got the support of the House should give the rest of the House confidence that the bill can progress without further amendments other than that outlined in Supplementary Order Paper 128. Thank you.