O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to say first of all that New Zealand First is very satisfied indeed with this part which we believe does—more than adequately actually—protect the privacy of individual information and the privacy of business information as well. I wanted to make that statement first of all.I did want to raise with the Minister one quite minor point about clause 115. That clause is a particularly important clause in this part because that is the clause that provides for further criteria for permitting access to restricted information. Obviously restricted information is the most sensitive information that can be authorised to be accessed under the provisions of this part. Clause 115 has a very important role in governing that. We must be very careful about what it says. What it does say is that that information can be accessed but that under paragraph (a) it must be necessary for the purpose of enabling" the agency to perform one of the functions that are very comprehensively set out in clauses 13 and 14. Under paragraph (c) it says: "the restricted information cannot be accessed by any other means."I am happy about those two things but it is actually paragraph (b) that I have a little difficulty with which I wanted to ask the Minister a question about. That provides that "the privacy impact of permitting access is proportionate to that purpose"—and the purpose of course is the purpose set out in (a). It is the term "proportionate" that could cause some difficulty. Bear in mind that clause 115 is mandatory and that it must be complied with on every occasion. The risk I see is that if a person is aggrieved about having their information accessed they are likely to go straight to this clause to see whether they can get some reason to challenge the decisions made under it.I would have thought that there is a bit of a risk with using paragraph (b)—and in particular using the term "proportionate"—because it would be subject to judicial interpretation. The term "proportionate" is a pretty difficult term to understand in this context because it says: "What is the value of the private information as against the purpose?". Of course the individual would say: "Any restricted information is of huge importance to me on a subjective basis." It would be difficult to displace that. It is a very high bar that we are setting ourselves by having subclause (b) in there at all. The first option would be simply to eliminate it because I would be satisfied with (a) and (c). But if (b) is going to stay there I would have thought it would be advisable to replace the term "proportionate" with at least "reasonably proportionate" or perhaps "not disproportionate" in an attempt to lower that bar a little bit and to assist the court to make sense of this particular clause.Could the Minister have a look at that and perhaps advise us all whether he believes this clause may be problematic whether it would be better to delete it altogether—I am talking about clause 115(b)—or if that is perhaps going too far then at least to replace the word "proportionate" with "reasonably proportionate" or preferably "not disproportionate". I would like to hear his views on that."