Dyson Ruth: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7770. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 You understand correctly Mr Speaker and thank you for allowing me the pleasure of speaking in this debate. Could I make it clear to National Party members who seem a bit puzzled judging by the contribution made by the member who has just resumed her seat Katrina Shanks that Labour is supporting this legislation the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill and we have said that consistently throughout our contribution to this part of the debate. 
The member mentioned the fact that it would be very puzzling if anybody was opposed to the intention of the bill which is to get more data sharing from ACC Work and Income and other private agencies. I thought “I wonder where she’s been for the last little while.” because there has been a lot of data sharing from ACC and Work and Income particularly and actually it was not appropriate data sharing. It was data sharing of private information of people who had no idea that their personal files were going to be sent to entirely the wrong person. So there is a degree of anxiety. There is a lack of trust in the integrity of the systems that this legislation is proposing to expand to allow for better data sharing. That is the first point I want to make. 
The other point is even more serious in that we have had a Minister who has actually deliberately and in a considered way openly released the private information of Work and Income clients. I think that is an abuse of the privilege that Ministers have. Ministers get all sorts of information across their desks as all the Ministers in the Government would know. A Minister a Work and Income Minister Paula Bennett heard criticism of her attack on the training incentive allowance which had previously allowed particularly women on the domestic purposes benefit to go to university get a degree and have a much better chance of a stronger career with better income in the future—the training incentive allowance was the support for those women on the DPB. Paula Bennett herself had benefited from it. She scrapped it. When some women complained about that she released their private details to the media and saw no problem with that. 
That is an example of why there has been considerable caution expressed and acted on by the Justice and Electoral Committee because of abuses and breaches of privacy considerations in the past. We heard from the Green Party member Jan Logie that her party’s concerns are so great that it is unable to support the bill. I know that it supports the intent of this bill which is to give better responses from Government agencies where a number of agencies are dealing with one person or one family. 
In the short time I have remaining the other concern that I want to address is one of disappointment in the Minister of Justice in whose name this bill is standing before the House. That is because her reputation in the past has been that she is quite rigorous and takes a particularly broad perspective on issues to make sure that every detail is considered and attended to but this is actually a piecemeal approach to a comprehensive problem and I am disappointed that the Minister chose to take that. 
We have a Law Commission report. We know that we have issues in New Zealand with vulnerable children. The Law Commission proposed a comprehensive stand-alone piece of legislation to deal with that issue. This legislation that we are considering falls short of the mark. 
I know that the select committee worked very hard on this and I want to commend Tim Macindoe as the chair of that committee. I am sorry he is no longer in that position because he came to be very well regarded by the other members of the select committee. I have not served on that committee myself but that is certainly the reputation that he has got. 
I know that with a bill like this you have to weigh up the benefits that can be gained from one agency being able to access information quickly and in a secure way about a person with whom it is dealing. We know that the Housing New Zealand Corporation might have information as might ACC Work and Income and the health system let alone other non-government organisations. The theory behind the legislation is sound. It does not address the problem that Minister Judith Collins paraded before the public. It does not address the issues with vulnerable children. It is a piecemeal approach. But it is a step in the right direction and as such we will be supporting it.