O'Rourke Denis: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7765. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does support the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill and it supports the changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. But we do have some concerns still about the protection of personal privacy. Having said that though we do consider that this bill has done just sufficient about that for us to be able to continue to support it. I have a Supplementary Order Paper to propose at the appropriate time concerning consultation requirements in new section 96L(1)(a). 
In general New Zealand First accepts the need for a statutory regime for the sharing of information between Government and non-Government agencies that are authorised. It is needed to provide certainty for agencies to lawfully share information about individuals to protect the privacy of those individuals and to define the role of the Privacy Commissioner. 
 New Zealand First agrees that the prohibition in the Privacy Act as it now is is too restrictive. It requires the existence of a serious and imminent threat before an agency can share information. Part 1 of this bill replaces the definition of “serious and imminent threat” with just “serious threat” but the Justice and Electoral Committee’s amendments will make it clear that all three of the specified aspects of “serious threat” must be present before such a threat will exist for the purposes of the amended Act. The agency must now reasonably believe that the threat is a serious threat based on “the likelihood of the threat being realised … the severity of the consequences if the threat is realised; and … the time at which the threat may be realised”. Thus the circumstances allowing information sharing remain restricted but any threat need not be imminent so a proper balance between the need for privacy protection on the one hand and the need for agencies to share information has been achieved. 
There are many circumstances where such sharing is beneficial to the community and the proper use of information within the Public Service to make it more effective is in the public interest. This will include the sharing of taxation information by amendment to the Tax Administration Act 1994. At present there are only ad hoc agreements by the Inland Revenue Department for this. This amendment will bring that situation up to date by coverage under the Act as amended by these new provisions. 
Another important amendment in the bill is the new provision for information-sharing agreements in new Part 9A inserted by clause 8. It provides a mechanism for the approval of information-sharing agreements between agencies which can be non-governmental private sector agencies local authorities Government departments or parts of any of them but not overseas agencies and a Government department must be one of the parties or part of one. The lead agency must be a Government department. 
The agreements must be specific about the purpose of information sharing and require due particularity about the purpose. The agreements must specify safeguards for the protection of personal information provide for complaints to a Government department identify which agencies will be eligible for getting the information and be provided for approval by Order in Council. Any exemptions must also be approved in that way. There are specified requirements for what an Order in Council must state. 
But an important section is the new section 96K(2) which provides that only the necessary information can be shared and no more the agreement must not unreasonably impinge on the privacy of an individual and the benefits must outweigh both the financial and other costs of it. Another important section is new section 96L which requires consultation by participating agencies with the Privacy Commissioner and any person or organisation representing a class of persons affected and anyone else the agency thinks should be consulted. 
But there is a glaring omission and that is that the Children’s Commissioner is not specified. It may come under one of the four provisions I mentioned but it really needs to be specifically stated. The Children’s Commissioner did make submissions on the bill and said: “I would also expect that my Office would be party to any consultation process under s96L regarding information sharing arrangements that affect the rights and interests of children pursuant to my statutory role to monitor the application of UNCROC by departments of state under s12(1)(f) of the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.” I will therefore propose a Supplementary Order Paper at the appropriate time that will insert the Children’s Commissioner as a fifth and mandatory consultee. The interests of children are a significant issue that must be well provided for because they cannot be expected to provide for their own interests. 
The role of the Privacy Commissioner is a vital part of these new proposals to ensure protection of the privacy of individuals. New section 96M provides for the right of the commissioner to report to the Minister on approved information-sharing agreements and the commissioner may publish the report. New section 96OC empowers the commissioner to require regular reporting by the lead agency and new section 96P empowers the commissioner to review an approved agreement after 12 months and at any time thereafter. 
Under new section 96Q there may be a report to the Minister if an agreement is not operating properly or is impinging on individual privacy. The commissioner may recommend amendment or cancellation. New Zealand First especially approves of new section 96R which requires the Minister to present a copy of the commissioner’s report to the House within 5 days or as soon as possible and the Minister must report to the House with a response to the commissioner’s concerns. 
I also note with approval the requirements of section 96N which requires the giving of notice to anyone against whom any adverse action is to be taken as a result of the information sharing under the Act. The individual can then dispute any information and can take action to show cause why no such action should be taken because of inaccurate information. 
New Zealand First therefore supports the bill because it believes it has achieved a proper balance between information sharing and personal privacy. I note the Labour Party will also support the bill but it has said that the bill would do little for the protection of vulnerable children so I trust it will support my Supplementary Order Paper. I also note that the Greens will not support the bill without enforcement provisions which the Labour Party also wishes to see. I doubt however whether those provisions are really required. I think the bill as it is is in fact adequate to protect personal privacy for all of the reasons I have canvassed and if that does not prove to be the case then a future Government can add these additional powers if they are then shown to be needed. In the meantime I believe this bill as it is should pass.