Curran Clare: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7760. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to talk on this bill the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. It has been a long tradition in this country during the summer months for many of us to head into the fruit-growing areas of New Zealand and get a summer job picking fruit. Many of us no doubt have done that during our earlier lives. Fruit picking in reality means picking the good ones and leaving the not-so-good ones behind. It also involves picking the fruit that you can reach. If you have brought your ladder with you then you can get to the top of the tree and get the fruit. But if you have not brought your ladder or if you cannot be bothered climbing up it then it is the low-hanging fruit essentially that you end up picking. 
Cherry-picking is an expression that is apt for this bill—really apt for this bill—and indeed I would say for the attitude of this Government generally to privacy issues and what it describes as openness and transparency. There are a few titbits. I mean there are plenty of other analogies you could use around crumbs and titbits and that sort of thing but I have gone with the fruit-picking and the cherry-picking analogy today because ultimately it has also been described by my colleague Lianne Dalziel as the piecemeal approach—do a little bit and claim that you have done a lot—which really sums up this Government actually around information sharing around privacy protection and certainly around openness and transparency. It is time to put this Government on notice around those issues that it will be challenged and held accountable on secrecy withholding information doing backroom deals and insincerity which is probably one of the worst things that this Government is guilty of. 
This bill as Lianne Dalziel pointed out does take a piecemeal approach to dealing with information sharing. It does not stand up to the claims and may not stand up to the claims that have been made as to the need for it. I know that she talked quite at length about doing something to enhance the protection of vulnerable children. On this issue we agree with the New Zealand Law Society and with a number of other submitters that there are better approaches than simply enacting some of those cherry-picked approaches to the Law Commission’s review of privacy law. We say that a comprehensive review of the legislation on the basis of all of the Law Commission’s work is essential. Unfortunately that is not what we are seeing here today. We question this Government’s veracity and we challenge it on the hypocrisy of its rhetoric and its actions on all of these issues. 
Openness and transparency have the power they truly have the power to transform government. If we had those before us today then they would be something to be celebrating. But unfortunately that is not the case. They can strengthen people’s trust in Government and encourage greater public participation in decision making. Participative democracy is one of the things that across the House no matter what party we are part of we should all be aspiring to. But unfortunately what we see on the other side is window dressing and cherry-picking and picking out the things the low-hanging fruit that are going to give some returns and give the appearance of doing something but actually openness and transparency are the very last things that they are actually meant to be delivering. 
Labour on the other hand and the Greens by their very nature demonstrate commitment to greater openness and transparency. I did not see a policy coming from that side of the House on open government at the last election and I doubt that we will see one this time. That is about providing citizens with mechanisms so that they can feel confident that there are ways that they can truly participate in policy development and Government decision-making. That is what is really important and that is what this bill should really be standing for but unfortunately again it is ultimately about cherry-picking. It is about picking the eyes out of a substantive Law Commission report and providing something to the House that really does not address any big issues at all. 
Alongside this bill goes the recent discussion around the Law Commission’s report on the Official Information Act. I would just like to refer to some of the statements that were made by the Minister of Justice around this that I really believe can be seriously challenged. She said—and it was just very recently—that New Zealand has an open Parliament by international standards and that Parliament currently makes a great deal of information available. She also said that the Government is committed to openness and transparency streamlining processes and reducing red tape for agencies businesses and individuals. 
Well let me refer you to a report that was tabled in this House only today by the Commerce Committee which was the financial review of the Ministry of Economic Development etc. etc. otherwise known as “Mobie” in which there was a Labour Party minority view that said: “Labour members consider that in respect of the ministry’s response to written questions its performance in the hearings and in Official Information Act requests on related issues there has been an unfortunate pattern of denial of legitimate information to members of Parliament and the Commerce Committee by this ministry. In addition Labour members of the committee have been denied timely and accurate information in response to written parliamentary questions and Official Information Act requests by the ministry and Minister on the issues covered by the committee’s questions. On this occasion the Commerce Committee felt the need to recall the ministry”—to recall the ministry—“for a special hearing” which is most unheard-of “to require full and frank responses to written select committee questions. While further information has been provided prior and subsequent to the second hearing Labour members remain very concerned by the difficulty of requiring information that should have been readily provided to the committee in the first instance. Labour members do not wish to see a repeat of this process in next year’s hearing.” Let me say that if there was not an issue they would not have been recalled— 
Katrina Shanks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like the Labour member to add the National view after what was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. That is not a point of order. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: So the relevance of this to the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill ultimately goes back to the point around cherry-picking—cherry-picking the points that it thinks are going to get a bit of attention and make everybody think that it is doing something but ultimately behind the scenes it is not. If this was not a significant issue then that chief executive and his ministry would not have been recalled for a second hearing in that select committee. 
Contrary to this and conversely democracy and public confidence rely utterly on citizens knowing what Government is doing and why being able to take part in decision making and being able to get access to information. One of the most important things the Government could be doing right now so that citizens could be feeling confident is proactively releasing information. Labour policy is to establish as a default practice Ministers and Government agencies releasing all Cabinet papers and other relevant papers on to a dedicated website in line with the Official Information Act once a decision is announced by the Government. If this Government wants the trust of its citizens that would be a good start.