O'Rourke Denis: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4979. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill to attack online fraud the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. I note from the commentary on the bill itself that it states that the bill “seeks to facilitate the use of an electronic service that allows agencies to confirm identity information provided to them by individuals with information held by the Department of Internal Affairs under the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Passports Act 1992.” The purpose overall however is stated in clause 4 as being “to facilitate the use of an electronic service that allows agencies to confirm identity information about individuals so as to (a) contribute to the prevention of crime … and (b) ensure that agencies can use and if necessary record confirmed identity information.” It is limited in those ways which New Zealand First believes is appropriate. 
I note however that in terms of the definition of the word “agency” it means any corporation which of course under the Interpretation Act the word “person” includes anyway whether in the public sector or in the private sector. In other words it actually means anybody or any corporation at all and I do not really know why the bill does not just say that instead of using the word “agency”. However that is not a big issue. 
I note also in relation to the definition of “identity information” that it includes information about a person’s full name gender date of birth place of birth other recorded information—for example in a passport or a photograph on a passport—and the status of any other recorded information. It is good that the kind of information that is covered is so specifically stated so that it does not go any further than that. I note also the use of intermediaries and that an intermediary is a person who “is a party to a confirmation agreement with the responsible officials”. So it is limited in that way as well. I approve very much of the way that the bill is drafted so that it provides those limitations and is very understandable in that respect. 
Similarly I think the purpose of Part 2 “to allow an agency or intermediary to check whether an individual’s identity information is consistent with any recorded information.” is well stated. That itself provides a very significant limitation as well but there are others. In clause 8 there is a list of conditions for using the confirmation service which most particularly of course requires the individual to consent whether in writing or electronically. It requires the agency or intermediary applying to give an assurance that that consent has been obtained and of course that they have entered into the required confirmation agreement. All of that seems fine to me and also the ability for an individual to consent on a one-off basis or an ongoing basis and the ability to withdraw that consent as well. Those are all important safeguards. 
I approve also of clause 9(4) which states: “The confirmation service must not at any stage supply to the agency or intermediary any recorded information about the individual who is the subject of the search.” It is confirmation information that we are concerned with here. Clause 9(5) however does go on to say that subclause (4) does not limit or prevent the disclosure of information relating to the fact that a person is dead that there is name change information existing or the status of recorded information. These are good provisions and good drafting I believe. 
Clause 10 gives a long list of requirements in respect of the responsible officials requiring a need to be demonstrated by an intermediary before they can enter into an agreement and also they must have policies and practices in respect of the security of information and relating to the privacy of individuals. Again these are very appropriate and good ways of limiting the scope of the bill to make sure that it is focused on what it is intended to do. 
New clause 11 and new clauses 11A and 11B contain very comprehensive provisions concerning what must be in a confirmation agreement and in addition how those agreements are to be used. I note the addition of new clause 11A concerning how the agency must obtain an individual’s consent and how he or she may withdraw that consent. Again those are the sorts of things that I would wish to see in legislation of this kind. 
For all the reasons I have indicated New Zealand First approves of the bill all the remaining provisions that I have not mentioned those that have been put in by the Government Administration Committee and also those relating to the role of the Privacy Commissioner. For all of those reasons and noting all of those limitations it is very happy indeed to support the bill as it stands. 
Bill read a second time.