Identity Information Confirmation Bill

I will continue my speech on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill, which was interrupted in its first reading. This bill is sponsored by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Nathan Guy. Its intention is to help combat identity fraud. As we know, that is a very important issue for us all. The bill helps to prevent the use of fake identities that somebody has created. It extends the use of the web-based data validation service to public and private sector agencies, but on a strictly need-to-know basis. This allows agencies to check whether the identity information presented by a customer is consistent with that held by the Department of Internal Affairs through the citizenship registers, the passport database, and the various registers of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Importantly, this bill will help ensure compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, which was put through the House in 2009. It requires banks and other financial institutions to undertake more comprehensive checks on customer identity, so they are now really compelled to know their customers to a greater level. The bill is also an important tool in preventing identity fraud and in reducing compliance costs.

At the same time, the Government is mindful of privacy concerns. Any agency using this tool must have the consent of the customers. It is up to individuals whether to give permission. Agencies must also have an alternative process for dealing with people who do not consent to a check via this service. This means that they are effectively not being forced into consenting. This is a point I make because I think it is important to note. The service is designed to protect the privacy of personal information. The tool confirms only whether the information provided by customers is accurate, and does not give out any additional information about the person. The data validation service will be available only to organisations that meet strict security, privacy, and integrity criteria. The Government has also agreed that the Privacy Commissioner will monitor this service. With those few comments, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora tātou. Nō reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Firstly, I acknowledge the author of the Identity Information Confirmation Bill, the Hon Nathan Guy, and thank him for the work he has put in. But that acknowledgment extends also to my own colleague the honourable member Chris Hipkins, who will steer this bill through the Government Administration Committee on behalf of the Labour Party.

With identity fraud and related crime on the increase, and a growing problem not just here in New Zealand but also internationally, this bill is an idea whose time has come and, one would say, it is not before time. We want to see the Government and business have an enhanced ability to combat identity fraud. But of course the question that has to go with that is one of privacy. That is an issue that we on this side of the House are most concerned about.

We have already had identity fraud in New Zealand on a number of occasions, and there have been a few high-profile ones at that. I draw the House’s attention to the Bay of Plenty Times in August of this year: “The dishonesty of an alcoholic Te Puna man jailed yesterday for using his brother’s name to dodge criminal charges struck at ‘the very heart of the justice system’, a court has been told. Brent Baxter, 37, was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for attempting to defeat the course of justice and received a further three months’ imprisonment for drink driving.”, and the article goes on to give further details. There is also the case of innocent youngsters using Facebook, which is concerning principals in some schools. I quote: “Norfolk School principal Jason Elder had to investigate an identity theft this week after reports one of his students was being impersonated online. An older boy had allegedly been posing as a girl from the school, upsetting her and her family …”. Those are just a few of the cases.

This is an interesting one, headed “Robin Hood charged with identity theft”. I quote: “Authorities said a 34-year-old named Robin Joshua Hood found someone’s wallet in downtown Denver and apparently began using the man’s name in a ploy to avoid being caught on a warrant. Hood told investigators he was being investigated for drug charges. Hood was charged … with identity theft and impersonation.”

There are many other cases that one could draw to the House’s attention, but I do not want to take too much time in doing that, because this is very important legislation. We live in a multi-ethnic society—nowhere more so than my own area of Manukau. In Manukau at the last census we had 184 different ethnic groups residing within its boundaries. That is exciting. The diversity enriches our society, it helps us to grow as a nation, and it also brings a new round of expertise to our nation. But even though it is vibrant and exciting—I love being there, and I am passionate about the area—diversity brings challenges to the bureaucracy and officials. I understand the need for them to combat identity fraud. So in complying with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009, one is mindful about the cost of compliance. That is the issue that we have here.

I will never forget that while campaigning in the South Island some years ago—and this is to do with compliance—I walked into a small business and talked about the issue of compliance. I said we were going to do something about compliance costs. The guy there was sitting at his desk, and he had all of his papers in front of him. He said “Hallelujah!”, and he threw them all in the air. So compliance is a real concern, and it is inherent when one looks at this legislation. The regulatory impact statement prepared by the Department of Internal Affairs describes how this bill benefits businesses by cutting the cost of complying with this Act. That has to be a good thing. It is a positive that comes out of this bill.

I want to outline what is required. There are a number of things. The first is that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act passed in 2009 provided that reporting entities, such as banks and other financial institutions, must undertake customer due diligence in order to verify the identity of their customers. That is an important consideration. I am sure we know that when we go into a bank, one of the first things that the staff want to know is that the person whose account they are dealing with is in fact the person who is in front of them. Another important part of this bill is that one of the aims of this requirement is to reduce identity fraud, which, in turn, will reduce money-laundering and the financing of terrorism, as well as other criminal activity. That is an important consideration, as well. There are substantial business compliance costs associated with these requirements.

This bill, which proposes the establishment of a consent-based service whereby public and private agencies can check identity information, is important.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.