Sepuloni CarmelCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. We are here considering and debating urgently today the inquiry that has been undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner on the Ministry of Social Development's collection of individual client - level data from NGOs because of the fact that there are damning recommendations in the Privacy Commissioner's report against the Government and because the Government a year ago despite being warned—despite having all the social services out there telling the Minister that this was not going to work telling the Minister that collecting this data would deter people from accessing their services or from going there for support telling the Minister that this was not the right thing to do—the Minister ignored all of those voices. The Minister ignored all of the experts in the field not only the social services but academics advising against it and people who were accessing the social services for support saying that they would not go to those social services if this went ahead. The Minister ignored all of that and now here we are and she is trying to fix it after the fact. The biggest issue that comes out of the Privacy Commissioner's report I think is that even though the Minister has said that this client-level data collection will be all about making social services more effective it will not make it more effective; it will deter the most vulnerable people from accessing support. The Minister has gone ahead and said: No people won't be put off." She has even said publicly that this is not sensitive data that is being collected. She said that on Radio New Zealand this morning. Well actually if a woman goes to a women's refuge with her children and all of their names their addresses and their dates of birth are then passed across different ministries in association with having gone to the women's refuge for support then that is sensitive information.The Minister has said that it is not sensitive information and that it will not deter people from accessing these services and yet we see in the report that a provider who deals with male survivors of sexual abuse had 17 of its clients say that if this data was to be collected and shared in the way the Minister is proposing then they would not go to that service for support. How can she say that it will not deter them from accessing support when we have got all the evidence to show that it actually will?I think one big statement in this report that we have to take on board is that the Privacy Commissioner has said that the Government's agenda of collection of individual client - level data from NGOs is actually not in the public interest. I think that is a really important note to keep in mind because actually everything we do in this House should be in the public interest. So when the Privacy Commissioner tells us it is not then we need to hold up and check ourselves and think whether actually we should go ahead with this.The problem is that the Minister did not think this through carefully from the start. There was no privacy impact assessment. So here we have the Privacy Commissioner having to undertake an inquiry after the Minister has already started it. Now she has said that she is going to hold up with regard to the portal—that she has shut it down because there have been security breaches. But she went ahead with this already. It is not like the information is going to be collected from July. There are budgeting services and other services that were already expected to collect this information as of last year.We see in this report too which was timely that the Privacy Commissioner has pointed out the fact that if the ministry is to do this then we need to make sure that whatever portal—however we hold this information we need to be assured that it will be secure. The report came out yesterday and just the day before we saw that the portal is not secure. The Minister is now trying to tell us that it is not her fault that she is annoyed at whoever created the portal and gave her the assurances that it was safe. But actually the buck stops with the Minister. She cannot blame it on the people who created the portal because she is responsible for it. She should not have gone ahead with pushing ahead with this agenda if she did not know that she had the systems in place to protect the information. We saw in the last couple of days that there have already been breaches.The problem is that the Minister has given us assurances in the House time after time after time that the ministry has all those measures in place to assure the public that their data will be protected. But how can anyone in here let alone out there in the public believe that when we have seen privacy breach after privacy breach under this Government's watch?It is not just through the IT systems where we see breaches. We have seen people being able to access other people's information through Work and Income kiosks. We have even seen the former Minister for Social Development purposely—on purpose—leak the information of two solo mothers in this House. So how can we trust that Government with any client-level information? The Minister is trying to say here that she can assure us that there will be no level of matching the data collected here with anything else like Work and Income. No one believes her. We do not believe her at all. It is about the fact that people will be deterred from accessing the services. It is also about the fact that they do not have the systems in place to be able to provide an assurance that they can protect people's confidentiality and privacy.It is also really interesting to see that the Privacy Commissioner has said that the data they are looking to collect will not actually assist them with being able to provide any better services than what they could do if that data was anonymised. So he has actually said that it does not need to be collected in the way that they have asked. He has made it really clear that it could be anonymised information that is run through Statistics New Zealand through the Integrated Data Infrastructure and that way people's information would still be private information. It would still be protected and the Government could get the information that it wants.My real concern here is that the Minister is trying to say on Radio New Zealand and through the media that it is about coverage. She is trying to say that it is about making sure everyone has access to the services that they need. But I actually think that the truth is that it is about denying people access if the Minister or that Government think they have had too much help from social services. They want to be able to draw a line and say: "Actually you've had your quota of help. Go away. Help yourself."That is not the responsible thing to do given we know that in many situations families do have to seek the support of more than one social service for a range of reasons but usually because they have such complex needs that they cannot get them met by just one social service. The Minister is trying to be a bit sneaky here making out that it is about providing more effective services. But it is not about that; it is about cutbacks.I want to move to that because I think that this is one of the big points that needs to be made from this. The Government not just the Ministry for Social Development but the Government—and this is Bill English's pet project—has been pushing ahead with its social investment approach. We know it is heavily underpinned by the collection of data—data like we are talking about here. This really throws a spanner into the works with regard to the Government's social investment approach. It has been pushing ahead with this social investment approach and if you read anything from Bill Rosenberg or Michael Fletcher or anyone who knows anything who has written about the Government's social investment approach you would see that it is not about long-term outcomes. There is no cost-benefit analysis in terms of social costs or financial costs for us as a country moving down the track. It is about short-term cost-saving measures.This illustrates that social investment approach very clearly. It is not about ensuring that families are better off in the long run; it is about the Government's attempt to save money by cutting funding to the social services and cutting access to social services in the short term so that in 1 or 2 years' time it can say: "Hey look we've saved a couple of million dollars here." Meanwhile down the track we are going to have to spend more money because the families who need support are not getting the support that they need under that National Government.The three things that I have raised so far are firstly the big issue that people will be deterred from accessing social services; secondly that the data the Government is seeking to get through this system is not necessary as the Privacy Commissioner has said that actually it can get just as useful information if it is anonymised; and thirdly that it does not have the security measures in place to be able to collect and store this information. This move from the Government is not in the public's interest at all. That is the most important thing.I want to go back again to the fact that we have seen so many social services come out concerned about this move. They have their backs against the wall because they have basically been held to ransom by that Minister with regard to their funding and have been told "Like it or lump it." with regard to the insertion of these provisions into their contracts. Important services like the Women's Refuge are told: "We don't care if you think this will deter women and children from coming to you for support. You will give us that information regardless or you will not get the funding." What choice do these organisations have but in many instances to just say yes because they know that they provide such important services and that they have to exist despite the fact that they are going to be expected to pass on this information?The final point that I do have to make about the Privacy Commissioner's report is that he has pointed out that because of the conditions in which the Minister and the Government are expecting this information to be collected it actually risks that information being skewed and unreliable. That is because you will have a whole lot of people firstly who do not want to go and seek the support despite needing it. Secondly you will have organisations that are not necessarily going to report on every case because they are worried about the fact that they could share this information and it could be passed on. The information you would want the Government to have be reliable is at risk of not being reliable because of the unreasonable expectations that the Minister has placed on these organisations.She has ignored the budgeting services. They went ahead—they were the first ones to have this put in their contracts last year. She has ignored the Women's Refuge. She has ignored the addiction and mental health organisations that have raised concerns about this and problem gambling services that have an issue about this. She has ignored it to her own detriment because now we have here a report that states really clearly that actually the Government should not be able to push ahead with this given the concerns that have been raised.We had been raising concerns about this as soon as it came to light last year. I will not put all the blame on the Minister for Social Development because we do have to acknowledge that this approach is all part of the bigger social investment approach of the Government and the person behind the bigger social investment approach is actually Bill English. The big data-grab agenda is all about Bill English. So it is not just the Minister who is at fault here; it is the leader of the National Government who is at fault here. That is not leadership—when you do not do the checks and balances before you follow through with an agenda. It is a clear case that not only the Minister for Social Development has failed here. The leader our Prime Minister has actually failed in this regard as well."