Mallard Trevor: Privacy Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Privacy Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8118. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It has been pretty rare that I have seen legislation supported with less enthusiasm than by the National Party fourth whip as he has just— 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Can’t you count to three? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I can count a bit better than that member can count and I think that member knows that. I want to support the Privacy Amendment Bill the Tax Administration Amendment Bill and the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill but in doing so I want to say that I regret two things. One is that the full opportunity has been taken to be thorough in the legislation bringing together privacy issues and to do all the things that could be done when we have legislation with such a wide scope as we have now. 
Secondly I make the pretty basic point that the Privacy Commissioner is already overloaded with work. One has only to ask the question about Minister Judith Collins and the report that is being done—for getting on for a year now—by the Privacy Commissioner into leaks of ACC information. It has not yet been reported publicly or to the House. I do not want to go into the detail of that because it would not be appropriate at the third reading of this legislation but it is important that the Privacy Commissioner be properly resourced in order for her to do her job properly and to make the reports for which undertakings were made nearly a year ago that they would be made in a relatively short time. 
This Government does not have a good record in the privacy area. I think the standout one the one that has caused a lot of embarrassment and Ministers to come and go is the sending of private information to Bronwyn Pullar. It is clear that the protocols that sit within some agencies and the software that sits within some agencies are just not good enough. The idea that in this day and age whole massive files involving 6748 people are kept on some spreadsheet that can be attached to a document and sent out is just not acceptable. That clearly has to change. In the Pullar case of course not only was the private information sent to Ms Pullar but her name was then leaked to the media as well as a lot of the information. 
It is not often that I agree with Michelle Boag. In fact Michelle Boag and I have had a history of disagreeing on lots of issues. But I do accept her statement that when you cannot send a communication to a Government Minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached that is very very dangerous. I agree with Ms Boag on that particular comment. 
Paula Bennett is someone who has a very poor history around privacy. She released details of women who were receiving a benefit because they had the temerity to criticise her for pulling up the ladder up which she had already climbed—for denying them the training incentive allowance to further their education. What is worse is that Ms Bennett has not ruled out releasing details again. 
The point that I am trying to make is that this Government does not have a good record around privacy. What is important in these matters is that there be trust. Trust in individual Ministers is very important as well as trust in the institutions that they represent within this Parliament. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee did a good job on this legislation. The legislation in fact does some things that Mr Borrows himself announced yesterday that the Government was going to do. Maybe he was just re-announcing something that had been announced about 3 years ago and brought into legislation. But the question of information sharing between Work and Income and the Inland Revenue Department is very clearly dealt with in this legislation. In fact it is dealt with in such detail that as well as the general changes that affect all Government departments there is a specific third reading that we are dealing with now that goes to the Tax Administration Act 1994. The Tax Administration Amendment Bill does the belt and braces—to borrow the expression from Hekia Parata. What it does is indicate to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue that notwithstanding the normal secrecy provisions there are procedures available under this legislation for the commissioner from time to time to supply information that would normally be kept secret in order to facilitate the stopping of fraud. We had a grandiose announcement yesterday on doing this again. I think what we will find is that when Chester Borrows and his team have a careful look at the legislation that we are passing today they will find that the additional information-sharing legislation vis-à-vis Work and Income and the Inland Revenue Department is totally unnecessary because as a result of this legislation they will have that power. I say to members opposite “Good on you.” This is necessary. No one likes people who cheat on their benefits. 
But what is also important is that we get some decent information-sharing going for example around the contents of trusts and the Inland Revenue Department and also that we get some decent information-sharing going around the location of where people live and the Parliamentary Service for example so we do not have a repeat of the very embarrassing situation that we had involving the Minister of Finance and the lack of clarity as to his place of normal residence. So I think it is important that this information-sharing occurs not only to get people at the bottom of the heap but also—more important—to get some of the individuals who are responsible for the billion dollars a year of estimated tax evasion in New Zealand. 
You know there is a lot of discussion about the $60 million - odd worth of benefit fraud—and that fraud is wrong—but it pales into insignificance when it is put alongside the billion dollars of tax evasion that this Government seems very reluctant to go after. I do not want to go into a lot of details but anyone who has a look at the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament and the trusts that are involved in that will see why some members opposite are reluctant to have proper information-sharing because as a result of that proper information-sharing they would no doubt be required to pay more tax. They would be required to do that. 
So in summary this legislation is OK as far as it goes. It is much better as a result of the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is much improved as a result of the work of the select committee. The Government has missed the boat in doing some more. It has cherry-picked out of the Law Commission recommendations in the privacy area but what we do need to do is to have proper legislation that does help Public Service efficiency much more than this legislation does. Thank you.