Hutchison Paul: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15102] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill and as my colleague Katrina Shanks said this part amends two specific areas: the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. 
I think that the points made about the huge changes in technology are absolutely relevant. For those familiar with Schumpeter’s curve the logarithmic increase in knowledge that is happening on a minute-by-minute basis is an example of where data matching is likely to go over the next 5 or 10 years. I did notice in the regulatory impact statement that the most significant change proposed is the amendment to the Social Security Act to override section 103(1) of the Privacy Act. It was felt that this proposal carried some risks including the low risk of a beneficiary being incorrectly identified as being in prison. However strategies will be put in place to minimise such impacts. 
Again I would like to make the point that Katrina Shanks made which was that the ministry was very helpful in collating its notes in this area and in summating the Privacy Commissioner’s views on this issue. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner said that it does not oppose this proposal to override section 103 of the Privacy Act but it notes that this section provides a basic protection of the principles of natural justice when Government agencies operate automated information-matching programmes. The regulatory impact statement went on to say that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner recognises the social policy goals behind the proposed changes but it is concerned that an amendment that overrides this fundamental protection is proposed. The ministry is introducing measures to mitigate these adverse effects but the Office of the Privacy Commissioner believes that these can only reduce but not eliminate adverse effects from the proposed amendment with some individuals having their benefits unjustifiably withdrawn. 
As we know whatever the data-matching system is there will always be fallibility associated with it whether it is a human failing or as we all know whether from time to time the computer crashes. I think that every one of us is familiar with that scenario and I am sure that this will happen from time to time with this data-matching system but we would also hope that within the next 5 to 10 years the technology will improve significantly. 
I recall Russell Fairbrother the chairman of the Social Services Committee talking for a moment or two about the efficiency of this Government. I will read out a little bit of a letter that I received just a couple of days ago from a young lady who said: “Back in January of this year I decided that because of certain incentives created by the Government I would be able to come off the DPB.” She said that she had been running a small website design business on a part-time basis to make ends meet and felt the time was ripe to pursue this full time and leave the benefit behind. She had calculated: “With a $60 a week in-work payment the family support the accommodation supplement and the child support coming directly to me”—all very complicated—“I would be in a similar position to what I was currently in being on the DPB. I would then be able to build up the business and start to move ahead.” But then she said that this was where things started to go drastically wrong. She said: “I had decided to put my trust in a Government department only to be treated with absolutely no regard. My financial situation was of no concern to the many people I spoke to at IRD. Sure they spoke to me reassured me that all was well then sat on their backsides and did nothing.” 
I think it is important and relevant that although the chairman of the select committee suggests that the Government is efficient we are getting letters like this on a daily basis as constituent MPs. It really is worrying when the departments that are involved in this bill—the Ministry of Social Development the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Inland Revenue Department—are all associated with huge inefficiencies and concerns expressed by people out there all over New Zealand. 
Part 2 agreed to.