Ardern Jacinda: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:233. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill which in and of itself may not seem to be a highly contentious piece of work but taken in conjunction with some of the serious issues of the day that this House and our communities are currently facing is extremely relevant. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has already pointed out I think it is really important that we delve a little more deeply into the identification of the problem in order to really establish whether or not this bill is going to resolve issues we currently face and in that sense I would still like to hear more from Government members in that regard. 
 These are tricky areas. We are trying to ultimately ensure that we continue to strike that incredibly important balance when it comes to privacy issues. Ultimately that is about preserving the rights of the individual to privacy whilst at the same time ensuring that where it is appropriate for that information to be shared—in the individual’s best interest and protection for example—that is the case. We must make sure we have checks and balances in there at the same time.  
Now the most obvious example of that is when it comes to the issue of child welfare. I would have liked to hear more from Government members about where the system is currently falling down so that we could truly test whether or not these new measures will remedy that. In the absence of that I would like to delve into them a little more perhaps as an indication to the Justice and Electoral Committee as to where we might like to head. As my colleague has already pointed out this bill is a consequence of a Law Commission review and we are still concerned that parts of the recommendations from the commission have been carved off and that we are dealing with this in a somewhat piecemeal way particularly given we are still conducting a general process of consultation around child welfare for instance. So in a way this is a very piecemeal way to address the issue.  
One of the first things the bill begins to do is to look at the way that exceptions to information being shared and privacy principles have been used in the past. I was recently at a seminar where a lawyer who specialises in public law pointed out that we may be remedying a case of misuse of the Privacy Act in its current form and that in risk aversion in some cases public servants may because of lack of clarity around the Privacy Act have acted in a risk-averse way not necessarily in line with the expectations of the Privacy Act as it currently stands. In fact I believe that the commission even created an acronym to refer to when this occurs. It is unfortunate therefore that we have to amend our legislation to deal with practice rather than with the intent of the law itself. But if it is being misused and not used appropriately then as a Parliament we cannot ignore that.  
One of the exceptions that currently exists within the Privacy Act which one would have thought could be used in some of the cases we have seen more recently involving high-profile child abuse cases is that information is able to be shared if there is an imminent threat to public health or safety or the life or health of an individual. Now that has been replaced in this bill due to a view that “imminent” did not give enough clarity to the users as to what was intended. I would contend that any descriptors in this way do have an element of subjectivity attached to them and therefore I would really implore the select committee to make sure that we test some of these thresholds to ensure we think there is enough clarity around them and even test whether or not guidance will be required from the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that we do not have the same situation arise that we currently have with the Privacy Act as it stands.  
Secondly this bill will insert a new provision to allow for information-sharing agreements. Now the regulatory impact statement goes into the detail of the options that were available to the Ministry of Justice when considering such a new mechanism. I think it has taken the option that has more checks and balances attached to it. But one thing I want to test is how would this operate in an everyday situation in an area of child welfare for instance given that this is the area the Government has flagged that this piece of legislation is necessary for? The bill as I understand it sets out that one of the signatories to an agreement would have to be a Government department and could then be with another—for instance a contracted NGO that might be dealing in the area of child welfare.  
Now my question is that we have a number of smaller organisations in our communities that are contracted by Child Youth and Family to deal in the area of child welfare and well-being and is it realistic to expect that these kinds of arrangements will be agreed to between Child Youth and Family and one of these smaller agencies given the process that must be undertaken? For instance the explanatory note of the bill states that approval of information-sharing agreements must be done by Order in Council and that approved information-sharing agreements would then need to go through consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and other interested parties.  
Now of course I would expect these kinds of checks and balances to be in place but what are the expectations for the kinds of organisations that would enter into these agreements and do we think it is realistic that some of these community organisations would go to this extent? What kind of time lines do we expect for each of these individual arrangements to take? Will there be any kind of templated agreements that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is likely to construct? These are the kinds of questions I would like to see discussed at the select committee otherwise we may not in fact see a real significant change in the way that some of our Government departments are working with agencies in this area unless we really test that threshold and those expectations.  
I want to come back briefly though if I may to the origins of this bill from the perspective of the Government. Obviously this piece of work was instigated earlier than some of the reports that have since endorsed its work—for instance the report recently released by Mel Smith into the terrible case of a child being tortured by her parents. The report identified that multiple agencies were involved in that child’s case but information was not adequately shared. I would contend that there are other layers that exist within a situation like that that go beyond information sharing and we need to ensure that we address them if this bill is really to have the intended effect.  
For instance once information is shared we often see in a number of cases a lack of clear pathways as to who is ultimately accountable to that individual family or that child. Does the accountability sit with a Child Youth and Family social worker? Is it a situation for police intervention? To what degree has a school been involved?  
I have seen many cases before where a lack of clarity around who is accountable has in fact led to the ball being dropped rather than being solely the issue of whether information has adequately been shared. That is an issue that is probably primarily for the Minister for Social Development to address but I will contend that in and of themselves suggestions like these will not work unless we resolve some of those key issues. Secondly all of this will be completely redundant unless we ensure that the agencies that are dealing with these difficult cases are well resourced. That is something I think we also need to flag.  
One final point I would like to raise is that the green paper talks about information sharing as well but goes much further than this bill currently intends to go. I would like some clarity from the Government as to whether or not it may go any further in future. The green paper states: “The government could review the current provisions in legislation to ensure professionals at the frontline such as teachers social workers GPs nurses psychologists police officers and therapists are able to freely share information about children they work with for the purpose of accurately assessing the needs of the child and their family and whanau.” That goes beyond the realms of this bill and it would be interesting to hear from the Government what its intentions are once the green paper submissions have all been received and once the white paper which the Minister assures me has not yet been written comes out. Are we going to go beyond the scope of what has been recommended in this bill?  
I look forward to there being further debate at select committee. We continue to have a few concerns around the way that this bill has come to the House and the areas it covers but I am sure those will be explored further on.