Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsayJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): It has been good to listen to the debate on this bill so far. I think from my calculation that there will probably be about 15 members of Parliament who will be voting against this bill. That I think indicates to the House that there is broad cross-party support for this piece of legislation to go through to the select committee after a first reading and I think that is a testament both to the information that was provided to the Government by the Dame Patsy Reddy and Sir Michael Cullen review and to the work that the Attorney-General and Prime Minister have put into this legislation to ensure that there are improvements to the mechanisms in place around intelligence and security in this country—to ensure the agencies can do their jobs but also that there are appropriate protection mechanisms in place. I would like to focus during my contribution to this debate on the information-sharing aspects of this legislation and the privacy protections that it puts in place. I think privacy protections are a fundamental issue of interest for New Zealanders. This bill provides some good news for New Zealanders and it is something that I believe New Zealanders will be happy with. A good starting point on this topic is the comment of the Privacy Commissioner John Edwards. He pointed out recently on Twitter that this bill is a significant improvement in privacy terms. That is quite high praise I think coming from the Privacy Commissioner. I think it is a tribute also to the work that has gone into ensuring that New Zealanders' privacy is protected in the greatest possible way in this legislation which after all deals with the two agencies with the most intrusive powers in the New Zealand Government. The bill also allows information sharing through three broad categories which I will outline here. Firstly it gives the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) direct access to certain Government databases. This follows the recommendation of the reviewers that the agencies should access these databases directly. One of the agencies is the New Zealand Customs Service. Its database has information about border-crossing crafts goods and people. This is to detect for example persons of interest such as suspected terrorists or foreign intelligence officers. It also provides access to the Immigration New Zealand database. This is to help track the movement of persons of interest. The Department of Internal Affairs database Births Deaths and Marriages and the relationships and citizenship registers will also have access to them. This is to help cross-check information to confirm identities or associations between people of interest or to confirm their nationality. As the Minister mentioned earlier in this debate the Labour Party has raised issues about this final database and we will have a good look at that in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The committee has a track record I believe of working quite well with Opposition parties on issues like this and will continue to do that under Mark Mitchell's chairmanship. But it is useful to look at the key protections that are already in the legislation. The access to information must only take place in accordance with an agreement between the relevant Ministers. That agreement must be consulted on with the Privacy Commissioner and the Inspector-General and the Ministers must take account of any comments they make. The agreements must be published and the agreements have to be reviewed every 3 years. There are other protections saying that the access must be necessary and that there are adequate safeguards to protect New Zealanders. The agencies are also going to be made subject to the Privacy Act which will be providing further protection for New Zealanders. The second category of access of information sharing allows the agencies to seek access to restricted information such as driver's licence photographs tax information and national student identification numbers on a case by case basis with significant protections that reflect the sensitivity of this sort of information and the right of every New Zealander to know it will only ever be accessed in the most extraordinary of circumstances. The most significant protection is that permission must be sought from the Attorney-General and the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants to access any such information on a case by case basis. They will need to be satisfied that the request is proportionate and necessary and in line with the requirements of the legislation. Finally the bill clarifies the existing position that the agencies can request other information from other public and private entities as required. This is set out in clause 99 of the bill. I have set out some of the key protections around access to information but there is really no greater overall protection than what the bill does with the Privacy Act 1993. The bill will repeal the general exception provided to the GCSB and NZSIS in the Privacy Act 1993. I want to acknowledge that this is a significant step. It was not something that was recommended by the review nor was it recommended by the Law Commission when it reviewed the Privacy Act. This change in the legislation goes well beyond the privacy protections that the reviewers envisaged would be put in place. But this was something that has been advocated for by the Privacy Commissioner. It is also something that the Government has taken very seriously. For the first time the agencies will be brought under the full umbrella of the Privacy Act with some specialised exceptions in light of their functions. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will have a good look at that area. I look forward to hearing the views of the Privacy Commissioner and other individuals interested in the issues of privacy when they make submissions. The Privacy Commissioner himself has already made some good comments in a piece that he put on The Spinoff website which is available for all to read.Chris Bishop: What a great website.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you Mr Bishop. I want to quickly cover the topic of immunity. The Labour Party has said it is not comfortable with undercover agents getting immunity from prosecution. There are three things that I think should be said in response to that from our reading of the bill and Cabinet papers. The main point is that a person must always be acting in good faith in a reasonable manner and the act must be necessary. If this is not the case there is no immunity. If there is any real fear that someone can act dishonestly or with bad faith and still have the immunity apply that is not the case. The immunities that have been drafted are actually quite targeted also in that they relate specifically to the legal protections that employees need to carry out their jobs. Most of the immunities reflect the existing ones for the police and other public servants. The select committee will be looking at these areas very carefully. I know that privacy questions are areas that many New Zealanders are concerned about. They want to ensure that the Parliament takes them seriously and puts in place appropriate mechanisms to protect New Zealanders. I think this legislation goes a long way towards protecting New Zealanders' rights to privacy whilst also allowing the GCSB and the NZSIS to do their job on behalf of New Zealanders in the public interest.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Metiria Turei—5 minutes.