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:6539. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. This is one of two bills that the Committee will be considering during the course of the evening relating to very similar activities. 
I want to just draw your attention to the fact that over the dinner break—there are always interesting conversations are there not that occur over the dinner break—this evening there were several conversations happening at the table that I was at. My friend and colleague Kris Faafoi was talking about his children and referred to one of them by his nickname Freddie. At the other side of the table Annette King who was listening misunderstood the conversation thinking we were talking about Freddie Mercury and started talking about how fabulous Queen was. Then somebody else at another part of the table thought we were talking about the royal visit. It actually was quite confusing. I can see that the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment is very intrigued by it. It brought us to the point of saying how important clarity of identification is which is actually the very point of this legislation—to ensure that— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: It’s a long way round. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Well you know elaboration can sometimes be of assistance. I look forward to my neighbour from Canterbury the Hon Amy Adams taking a call. I am sure she will make a fine contribution in this debate. 
I had the pleasure of chairing the Government Administration Committee. As the Committee will notice in Part 3 “Miscellaneous provisions”—sometimes when you get to miscellaneous provisions you think “Well there’s not a lot left in this bill.”—there are a few quite significant amendments that have been made by the select committee. Perhaps more important and I will speak on this in a later call Supplementary Order Paper 128 which is the only Supplementary Order Paper that I have yet seen tabled in the name of the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Chris Tremain who has not yet taken a call—I am sure the Hon Amy Adams who is standing in for him in the meantime will do a fine job—actually amends this part of the bill. 
In clause 54 which is the first clause in this part the select committee removed the entire original drafting and replaced it. It is pretty important to note the specificity of that given that the clause is dealing with the Official Information Act. We obviously had concerns about information obtained under the Official Information Act and we wanted to make sure that the relevant sections that are described in clause 54 are in fact adhered to and to ensure that there is clarity in the relationship between this bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill and the Official Information Act. The select committee clarified in paragraph (a) that “sections 20A to 21A are given precedence by section 52(3)(a) and (b)” of the Official Information Act. Paragraph (b) of the new clause 54 states that “section 39(3)(b)(i) incorporates by reference provisions” of the Official Information Act. Paragraph (c) of the new clause 54 says that “section 48(2) extends the application” of the Official Information Act. That was quite a significant change. As I said often when you get to miscellaneous provisions in a bill you think they are not going to arouse much of a debate but we did have a lot of discussion about this clause at the select committee and as I say the Minister’s only Supplementary Order Paper is referenced through this part. 
Likewise with regard to the next clause clause 55 we replaced subclauses (1) and (2) to ensure that the relationship was really clear between this current bill—soon to be an Act I hope—and the privacy legislation. Of course we had a lot of discussion about the privacy legislation. It was discussed much more than the Official Information Act. There have been a lot of concerns expressed in the House about use and abuse or potential abuse of the privacy legislation. I remember that the Minister for Social Development some time ago was attacked—well her policy was attacked—in the paper by two women who were on the domestic purposes benefit who had been in receipt of the training incentive allowance and were undertaking university qualifications. That is a jolly fine thing for anyone to aspire to but particularly women who are trying to raise a child on their own. For them to be able to take that additional leap is a big thing and we as a Parliament and as a society should support it. They dared to criticise the Minister’s policy to reduce the application of the training incentive allowance so that it did not cover the very qualifications that they were going for. 
At that time Paula Bennett released their private details. It was not a leak. She was very open about the fact that she had released their private details. But what was of concern to me and I know many others was whether it was actually a breach of the particular women’s privacy when those details were released—whether it had application under the Privacy Act. So a proceeding was taken under the human rights legislation. Paula Bennett wrote to that office about this issue and said “I acknowledge that you consider that I was wrong to do so and that this resulted in a breach of Ms Fuller’s privacy. As you also know I don’t accept that view.” So you can see in that example of actions in relation to one’s individual privacy that people have very different views about what is acceptable and what is not. 
In a previous contribution prior to the dinner adjournment I heard my colleague Dr David Clark from Dunedin North talk about breaches of privacy through mistakes made by staff often because of electronic transfer of information. With the Inland Revenue Department mistakes thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have had their personal information transferred electronically to the wrong person by the Inland Revenue Department. In the last year the Inland Revenue Department has sent the personal information of 6300 people to the wrong people. That is a huge number of people. When we are talking about people under this legislation giving authority for their information to be accessed by that department or by other departments to perhaps be shared these are the sorts of concerns that we have to be really aware of. We as a Parliament have to be very rigorous to ensure that the concerns that have been expressed in relation to Work and Income breaches—not only when the Minister so boldly defied the Office of Human Rights Proceedings deliberation but also of course more recently with the Work and Income kiosk shambles where despite repeated warnings Work and Income continued to leave vulnerable people at risk of having their personal information accessed—are addressed. The incidents I have just referred to in terms of the Inland Revenue Department and its releasing personal information are the issues that have to be paramount in our consideration as we work through Part 3 of this legislation. 
The final point I want to make is in relation to offences and penalties. It is really clear that our select committee from its consideration considered that there should be no tolerance of breaches of the provisions here. Of course if people are a little anxious about an electronic transfer system but see a conviction made under it and some appropriate penalties dealt out then their confidence in the system will increase. I would prefer that there were no breaches of access to identification at all but if there are whether they are by accident or done willingly then we must certainly have appropriate provisions. Clauses 56 through to 61 cover those offences and there were very few alterations that the select committee made to them. 
The next section of Part 3 deals with liability and once again you will see that the select committee made some significant changes. They were more technical than policy-driven in that area. Subclause (1) under clause 61 “Protection from liability” has been replaced but that was not a significant policy area at all. The remaining clauses of Part 3 deal with regulations. 
I look forward as I said to the Minister in the chair making a contribution to this debate. There has been a bit of work that the select committee undertook. First of all we were a bit puzzled about why we had two bills with such similar names that appeared on the face of it to do quite—