Woods MeganDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this important part of this legislation. I have some reasonably specific questions for the Minister in the chair Chris Finlayson. First of all I want to direct my attention to clause 100 in subpart 1 of Part 5 of this bill. I note that this is a clause that has been strengthened through the select committee process and it has some extra words that have been added. As a general statement I would like to say that it is very pleasing given that this is such an important part of this legislation to see that so many changes have been made at the select committee stage.But I note in clause 100 the words believes on reasonable grounds" have been added into this clause. I am aware that the reasonable grounds test is something that appears commonly within the criminal statute. My question for the Minister which I would like him to answer is whether "believes on reasonable grounds" is the same as or different from "reasonable grounds to believe" which is used in other parts of the criminal statute. I ask the Minister in the chair to give the Committee some direction around whether there are any specific circumstances relating to this legislation that are different from what occurs commonly across the criminal statute in terms of that use and whether there is differentiation in terms of the wording that is contained in clause 100. Likewise with clause 100(2)(b) where the word "necessary" is used. What is meant in the context of this legislation by "necessary"? I think it would be useful for the Committee to have some clarity from the Minister in the chair around what is meant by those words.The other clauses that I would like to refer to in this part—I would like to congratulate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the removal of clause 109. I think it was rightly noted by members of the select committee that this was going to be creating law by regulation. In such an important piece of legislation as this I think removing it was a prudent move and one that I certainly applaud and I thank the committee for removing that ability to do that. I think one of the things that have allowed for this piece of legislation to achieve the support across the Committee that it has is that there are layers of transparency and there are clear rules. So I am very pleased to see the removal of the ability to make those rules by regulation rather than in the body of the statute.The other clause that I would just like to turn the Committee's attention to is clause 111. This of course is in the subpart around restricted information and the meaning of restricted information in terms of the Act. In subpart 3 of Part 5 "restricted information" means—the bill specifies some particular circumstances and meanings of restricted information—"(a) information that an Inland Revenue officer must maintain and must assist in maintaining the secrecy of under section 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994; (b) information relating to national student numbers assigned by the Secretary of Education under section 343 of the Education Act 1989 to students enrolled with a tertiary education provider;". Then there is the inclusion in here that the select committee did and this was one of the changes that Labour pushed for at the select committee and was very pleased to see included clause 111(ba): "information relating to an adoption held by the Registrar-General appointed under section 79(1) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995;". Then under clause 111(c) the definition of restricted information also includes "photographic images used for driver licences that are stored under … the Land Transport Act 1998."What I would like to know as this legislation progresses is whether or not there is an ability to add to this or whether this is an absolutely exhaustive list that is contained within the legislation. As we saw at the select committee—as the Labour members of that committee identified—information that is collected under the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act is information that should be restricted but I think as the passage of this legislation is put into play it could well be that other sets of information may also be seen as desirable to restrict. My question for the Minister is whether it is by amending the legislation and coming back to the House and doing an amendment on the floor of this House that we will have to do that. These are questions that would—"