Lee Melissa: Electronic Data Safety Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Electronic Data Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2387. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MELISSA LEE (National): I would like to begin my contribution on the first reading of the Electronic Data Safety Bill in the name of the Labour Opposition member Clare Curran by congratulating her on actually having her bill drawn. However I have to start by saying that I do not support this bill.This bill proposes to establish a special commission of inquiry. Clare Curran often talks in this House about technology and how fast technology is actually moving but this bill refers to privacy breaches in 2012. I guess that is the nature of members’ bills. When she actually wrote the bill it was related to the privacy breach in the Ministry of Social Development back in 2012. This is also about privacy breaches within Government agencies the capacity of Government agencies to manage and hold personal information and also how significant privacy breaches can be avoided in future and any other related matter.National is definitely committed to Better Public Services and to increasing the use of Government services online. Ensuring that the public actually have confidence in the information and communications system forms a crucial part of the work that we do. When the breaches happened in 2012 let me say that there were individual departments that had their own reviews which cost the Government departments money and they are working to fix those things by even appointing a Government Chief Privacy Officer a function that was established in 2014.If we were to have a commission of inquiry as this bill proposes there would be three members and it would be chaired by a lawyer. The commission would be required to report to the Prime Minister within 12 months. It would also investigate various privacy breaches that have occurred in the past within various Government agencies. The commission would also examine the agencies’ capacity to respond to breaches in the future.To me this bill is all about having a talkfest once again. I mean Metiria Turei in an earlier bill talked about the Government not putting money into children who are not having breakfast and lunches. I was not actually here to listen to her speak so I am not sure exactly what she was talking about but I just heard a little bit about children going hungry in schools which is a very very important issue. But Clare Curran is willing to spend $4.4 million—or even $11.5 million which a commission of inquiry would in fact cost—to do this. A talkfest to do what? I am totally at a loss as to what she thinks she can actually achieve.It is as if the Government is not already doing something. The Government is in fact doing something about privacy breaches. A commission of inquiry should also be considered only when the situation is so unusual that no other approach will fix the problem. There are other reviews under way as I said earlier. For example the Ministry of Social Development contracted Deloitte to undertake a review of the privacy breach that it had had. ACC contracted KPMG and Information Integrity Solutions to report into the privacy breach that it had had.Privacy breaches—we all want to protect our privacy. I mean as the mother of a teenage son I want to protect his privacy. I do not even have my son’s photograph on my campaign material. I try to protect my privacy by not including him in the material that I send out to the electorate when I am campaigning.The Government Chief Information Officer also has the ability to assist agencies in addressing issues as happened with the Earthquake Commission and that was back in 2013 when that breach actually happened. The Government Chief Information Officer was asked by the head of the State Services Commission to look into information and communications technology security and privacy. The Privacy Commissioner already has the ability to investigate privacy breaches and report to the Prime Minister any matter affecting the privacy of the individual including the need to or the desirability of taking legislative or administrative or other actions to give better protection to the privacy of the individual. So would the commission of inquiry that Clare Curran wants to establish do more than what we are already doing? A commission of inquiry would cost even more money. For me this bill is not something that I would support.Going back to 2012 the review of the publicly accessible information system by the Government Chief Information Officer was commissioned by the State Services Commissioner and it has resulted in a range of measures to strengthen the security of New Zealanders’ personal information including the establishment of the Government Chief Privacy Officer’s functions.Recently there was the story of Sony. It is a huge conglomerate and it will have spent so much money on trying to protect its data and trying to protect its copyright of material like the movies that it is developing and the shows that it is working on. If somebody wants to filter that organisation and it is attacked—in terms of cyber-attacking which Clare talked about—they will do it. Sony was attacked. All that work it has done working in privacy was released to the public.If somebody is intentionally trying to break into something they will do it. That does not mean that I do not support the work that the Privacy Commissioner is doing—I really support that. What I am actually saying is that if somebody intentionally wants to attack then they will do so and they can possibly breach that security wall that we might put up.The Privacy Maturity Assessment Framework has also been developed to help agencies assess their existing capability and implement appropriate improvements as well. There is an expectation and the Privacy Maturity Assessment Framework was developed and tested in collaboration with privacy practitioners from across Government. There are best-practice models around. Having a commission of inquiry is certainly not one of them and I am not prepared to support the member spending millions of dollars on a talkfest. I do not support this bill.