Little Andrew: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee[Sitting date: 14 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is a great pleasure to talk on the report on the financial review of the Privacy Commissioner. It has been a difficult time for the Privacy Commissioner. When she spoke to the Justice and Electoral Committee she prefaced her remarks with this I think somewhat cryptic but very telling statement: “It’s obvious to a blind bantam hen of course that there is an awful lot going on on the privacy front …”. We did not get around to asking whom she had in mind as the bantam hen but I do not think it takes too much imagination. We think the bantam hen should be called fully to account for her ongoing blindness.The truth is that the Privacy Commissioner’s office has had a funding freeze for 8 years—5 of those years under this Government—and in the same time it has had a 42 percent increase in the number of complaints it has had to process. That is 8 years—5 years under this Government—of a funding freeze and a 42 percent increase in its workload. Of course the telling thing about the workload is that the nature of the complaints is getting more complex and more sophisticated because they are no longer just single and individual breaches; they are multiple breaches. They are systemic failures and systemic problems and as the Privacy Commissioner herself noted in her report to the select committee they are issues of culture in the workplace.The way she described it in terms of her challenges in the future is that “… the moment has come where we’ve got to very much remember that we shouldn’t go for sort of band-aid solutions.” She is saying that just trying to crimp and squeeze a little more blood out of this very difficult stone is no longer good enough. The problems are too challenging the problems are too great and she needs more support and better resourcing. That is a challenge for this Parliament to get to grips with. When she describes an information and data climate that is now a revolution we have to take seriously the risks of data breaches and privacy breaches that that poses and ensure that our last bastion of oversight and assurance for the general public is properly resourced in order for her to do her job. That remains a major challenge for her office and indeed for the Government.She said in her comments to the select committee: “I have to take a measured approach within my resources and capabilities and assess which of those breaches will require more action.” She is basically saying that she now has regular trade-offs to make about which matters she inquires into and which matters she simply has to let go of. It was interesting the way she described it. The metaphor she used—not to be confused with the bantam hen of course—was: “… I feel a little bit like the little red tugboat that hasn’t got enough fuel: we’re there but we can’t always go out into the harbour and do something about it and help. It’s like MSD or ACC are like big ocean liners full of people’s information and there’s only so much the little tugboat can do.” Well I think that is a very telling metaphor that she has used and it is a cry for help. The very professional way that our present Privacy Commissioner conducts herself is something for which this House should be and I know is particularly grateful.We had in the year under review some major privacy breaches in our Government departments not to mention the private sector but certainly the Government departments. The ACC breach is foremost amongst them. Over 6000 ACC claimants had their information improperly disclosed. We had breaches at Work and Income and at the Ministry of Social Development and the very chilling prospect that somebody can go into a Ministry of Social Development kiosk a publicly accessible kiosk and get information that ought to be confidential—likewise at the Inland Revenue Department.Another I think very frightening and chilling experience was with the Ministry of Justice only this year when a member of the public went through a publicly accessible channel and got access to confidential information about legal aid payments made to lawyers. The Government’s response was of course to accuse the good citizen who revealed that of being a hacker. Not only that but it referred the matter to the police and we now have an MP on this side of the House under a police investigation because we have a Minister of Justice who wishes not to deal with a very serious issue.