Auchinvole Chris: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionAuchinvole Chris: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14256. Text is subject to correction.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Thank you to my Opposition colleague Andrew Little. You can always tell when a bill is not quite the way it should be when you hear Andrew speaking noisily—noisily—and he was quite noisy there. He was quite noisy.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the member referred to the member as “Andrew” and I think that is unparliamentary.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well to be honest it is not unparliamentary. However the rules are that when you address someone in this House it must be by either their title or their full name so the member is quite right.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you Mr Speaker. I was referring of course to Andrew Little. We do have a pretty good personal—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is Wednesday night.Hon Trevor Mallard: I do not want to be a pedant but I think it is generally at least by their first name and their surname. There are a number of people who have titles and it is appropriate for them to be used but I am not sure what MrLittle’s full name is and I am pretty sure that Mr Auchinvole does not know it. I think for you to require him to use it would be a little unfair.Hon Michael Woodhouse: It may assist the House if I draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 27/7(2). It may not have the definition of what “full name” is but it certainly does require the member to use “a person’s full name”.Hon Trevor Mallard: I am now Mr Assistant Speaker going to invite you to give a ruling to the House that for this purpose “full name” means either “Mr Little” or in my case the “Hon Trevor Mallard” or the “Hon Mr Mallard” would suffice—Clare Curran: What about the surname?Hon Trevor Mallard: Well this is the point. I am inviting you to rule Mr Assistant Speaker that the middle name is not necessary and “full name” means at a minimum “Ms Curran” or “Clare Curran” but you do not have to say “Clare Mary Curran”.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for your help Mr Mallard. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Mr Mallard has asked me to give a ruling so I am going to quote my own ruling actually. It is Speakers’ ruling 28/1 and it says: “Members may not be addressed by nicknames first names and so on. They should be addressed by their proper name or by the position or portfolio they hold.” So there you are—done. I call the honourable member Chris Auchinvole.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already called the honourable member—it is your time.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I just thought the other members may not have heard you. I would like to thank you for your guidance on this issue and of course I also thank the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard born on 17 June 1954 for his very precise requirement that he and others be identified in clarity. I do actually have quite a good personal relationship with Andrew Little and indeed I have been known to refer to Mr Mallard as “Trev” during select committees not that I would do so in the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No and the member should not.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: As I would not let alone should not.Hon Trevor Mallard: And I’ve only ever called the member “darling” once.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Ha ha! But perhaps we could start with the bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill. This is of course from Sue Moroney.In another theatre I might say: “Sue Moroney you’ve over-egged the cake a little with this one.” which is such a pity. I am put in mind of the sort of ragbag collection of members’ bills that Charles Chauvel had his legal firm assist with when they came forward and this one has got more in the description than in the substance which is such a pity because it is quite an important subject. And when one compares it with the other bills that you have promoted this would not be I expect you would agree a six-star job really. No I did not think so.Sue Moroney: If you take privacy seriously it is.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh I take the process very seriously and indeed the Government takes the process seriously. That is why we cannot in spite of the best intentions support this bill—because we do take this matter seriously. We have spent time citing cases.I reiterate that the Government takes privacy very very seriously. Errors occur—errors occur. You know we have the Green Party members who believe in catastrophic revelations—everything they touch is a catastrophe. Everything is catastrophic in its proportions. Nothing is human error.Scott Simpson: The sky is falling!CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The sky is not only falling; we are all being absorbed and consumed by it no matter what it is. So a case of a breach of privacy is a catastrophe.Oil that is yet to be drilled is going to cover New Zealand—it is a catastrophe. It has not happened yet. But the Government takes privacy errors seriously. Errors occur. We are not talking about excuses but we are talking about the reality with computers and technical information. It is a matter of importance when these errors occur and when omissions occur.This bill is to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient powers which is OK. The Law Commission though has reported on this matter. National has agreed to bring in legislation to do this may I say properly. It is important that the Privacy Commissioner can investigate and bring organisations into the correct code. However this member believes empowering the commissioner to issue compliance notices will do that. The Government thinks a broader view is required. We want to strengthen—Clare Curran: What’s your plan then? Where is the plan?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well if you listen—you have probably missed half of it already—you will hear. We want to strengthen the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We want to strengthen its role but not to the same narrow extent that this bill does which would in effect imprison the commissioner to a relatively limited range of activities. We want to take the Law Commission’s report as a whole and reform the 1993 Act and for that reason and in spite of the member’s best intentions we will not support this bill.