Curran Clare: Privacy Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: 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:8109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the Law Commission’s report on privacy—which was undertaken I think from around 2006 or 2007 to 2011—and the enormous issues underlying it and the need for reform. I would just like to draw attention to some of the benefits and risks that were drawn out in that report which was ultimately provided to the Minister specifically around information sharing. It said that “Information sharing has obvious benefits.” that “Individuals are relieved of the need to supply the same information to several agencies.” and that “The agencies can work together to see and understand the individual’s problems in their whole context instead of each agency seeing only through its own narrowly focused lens.” 
It also said in that advice: “However the risks of sharing can be considerable and need to be carefully managed. There are significant implications for individual privacy. Sharing in fact runs counter to two fundamental principles of the Privacy Act: that personal information should only be collected from the individual concerned and that information collected for one purpose should not be used for another. Moreover if information is inaccurate the error will appear in multiple databases making it more difficult to correct. It may be difficult for individuals to find out exactly where their information is held so that they can take steps to ensure that it is corrected.” And it also said that “Some of the information shared can be particularly sensitive … Failures of security the use of inaccurate information and the use of information in ways which are not anticipated by the individual can lead to loss of trust in government.” 
 When the Law Commission made its report to the Minister it said: “we are of the view that reform is required … Our aim is to identify a way to facilitate appropriate public sector information sharing within a framework of openness transparency and accountability which accords appropriate weight to privacy values.” That report contained 136 recommendations—136 recommendations—and some of them extremely important recommendations. They included giving the Privacy Commissioner a binding power of decision on complaints about people’s rights to access their own information. Anybody who has made a complaint knows that it is very difficult it takes a long time and in the end the commissioner herself does not have the power of decision. The other thing that it recommended was that people should be notified when their personal information held by an agency was lost or otherwise compromised—for example through computer hacking—if the breach is sufficiently serious. 
There is nothing in this bill today on either of those two seriously important and very current issues. Instead what we saw was two recommendations of the Law Commission taken up—two. There were 136 recommendations made; two have been taken up. The concern is what will happen to the rest of them. Will they languish? It is so important when discussing this legislation that is before the House today which is about to be passed that the question is asked of the Minister: what will happen to the rest of those recommendations? In her first reading speech the Minister of Justice said quite clearly that “the Government will respond in due course.” This legislation was first read in the House some time last year. We are now at the third reading and there has been no report back to the House on how the Minister plans to treat the rest of these recommendations. That is a critically important point. 
Another important point to make in this third reading is about the cherry-picking that has been undertaken around these few recommendations that have been brought in this legislation to the House—how the Government has chosen to deal with that Law Commission report. The concern is that it may do the same and it appears it will do the same with another report by the Law Commission around the reforms that are required and needed to the Official Information Act. That is another point that I want to make extremely seriously to the House today. Cherry-picking from a serious piece of work undertaken by the Law Commission—to pick out just a few things that suit the Government of the day—is just simply not good enough by a Government that is supposedly serious about openness transparency accountability and building public trust. That is what this piece of legislation before us today on privacy and information sharing is ultimately about. It is about bringing up to date an Act that needed to be brought up to date the Privacy Act but also it is about seriously reforming the practices of Government agencies about how information is shared and about how the right to privacy of individual citizens is treated in this country. Unfortunately the opportunity to undertake a seriously important piece of reform has been dropped and lost and we have to ask what is going to happen in the future. With the Official Information Act reform we have equal concerns about how that may be dealt with. 
These issues are current. They are absolutely current and they are absolutely important. We are seeing thousands of breaches of people’s privacy every day particularly through electronic means. We are not seeing in this piece of legislation a comprehensive measure—or really any kind of measure—to address that to take it seriously and to look at the underlying reasons why those data breaches are occurring and why so many people’s information is being shared in ways that are inappropriate damaging and deeply distressing to them. We have heard example after example after example with the Ministry of Social Development through Work and Income and the information that was made available through hacking into the kiosks; through ACC; through the Inland Revenue Department; through the Department of Immigration; and through countless other agencies and departments across our land. It is absolutely critical that the people of New Zealand who currently do not feel assured that their data is secure can be reassured that this Government takes it seriously. There is before this House a member’s bill that calls for a special inquiry into these breaches. Given the failure of this bill to address this issue despite the fact that it could have—there was the opportunity to do it—given that lack and given the ongoing seriousness of this issue I hope that this House will treat that bill with the seriousness it deserves.