O'Rourke Denis: Privacy Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Privacy Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8116. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports these three bills the Privacy Amendment Bill the Tax Administration Amendment Bill and the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and in doing so recognises that the privacy of information is one of the most important issues of today. Many people are rightfully worried about their information and that it should be used correctly by agencies of the State. Therefore on their behalf we need to be diligent to make sure that that is the case. New Zealand First supports the legislation because we think it goes just far enough for those purposes. 
The issue of course as expected is the tension between the need for privacy protection and the need for Government agencies to properly share information where that will improve the efficient operation of the Public Service. So it is the propriety of that that is one of the issues and the second one of course is how privacy of information will be adequately protected. 
Although the legislation does not go as far as the Law Commission recommended—and I respect the Green Party’s position that it would not support the legislation unless it went that far—I think that on balance this legislation has gone just far enough. The Privacy Commissioner having the power to issue compliance notices and do audits as the Green Party has suggested—and I think as the Labour Party wanted as well—would have been an improvement to the legislation but even without it it is certainly a big improvement on the current situation. So for those reasons I think it should be supported. 
I am glad to see that there are two really important aspects of the legislation that do mitigate very much in favour of the protection of personal information. The first is the requirement on agencies to give notice to people where their information is going to be shared. The individual can take action to dispute information to ensure its accuracy and provided that agencies listen to what those who make use of this right have to say about the accuracy of information I think that that is a very important right and should work quite well. 
The second provision of course—and it is the big change introduced by this legislation—is the requirement for information-sharing agreements between agencies. Agreements must under the legislation specify safeguards for the protection of personal information and provide for complaints to a Government department. Also only the necessary information is to be shared by agencies for proper purposes and no more. Agreements must not unreasonably impinge on the privacy of an individual and agreements will be scrutinised by the Privacy Commissioner to ensure compliance with these important caveats. I think those are the two really important aspects of the legislation that we can rely upon for the protection of personal privacy and in doing so of course we will be relying heavily upon the effectiveness of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. New Zealand First therefore supports the legislation on the basis of that proper balance between the need for a robust sharing regime on the one hand and the protection of personal privacy on the other. 
I note that the Privacy Commissioner will have three important roles: firstly in the oversight of the content of agreements and how they will operate; secondly the commissioner’s reporting functions to the relevant Minister who in certain circumstances must report to Parliament within 5 days; and thirdly the commissioner’s consultation responsibilities in the formation of the information-sharing agreements. However agencies must always remember that they need to take seriously the specified actions to protect personal privacy not pursue their own interests and not rely solely on the Privacy Commissioner for those purposes. That is why I think the requirements for agencies to consult on agreements are so important. Agencies must of course consult the Privacy Commissioner but they must also consult any person or organisation representing the class of persons affected and anyone else the agencies think should be consulted. 
The Children’s Commissioner is not specified but may still be consulted under the provisions I have mentioned. The interests of children are a very significant issue. Children must be well provided for because those members of our community cannot be expected to look after their own interests and do need special treatment. It is therefore a disappointment that the Government would not support my proposed amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 172 to add the Children’s Commissioner as a mandatory consultee because the legislation as it is effectively means that it will be the agencies that will decide whether there is a need to consult the Children’s Commissioner whereas under my amendment it would have been compulsory to consult the Children’s Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner could then have decided whether consultation was needed. So it is a disappointment that that I think very sensible amendment which would have been harmless and would not have imposed greatly on the agencies concerned was not included in the legislation. 
It is disappointing also that the Government simply does not listen to good ideas and does not consider them properly. On some occasions Ministers have said in this House of me that I did not go and talk to them about bills. Well what is the point when they simply do not listen? If they are not going to listen then I am not going to bother to waste my time with them. If Ministers genuinely do want other people in the House to contribute constructively there is an obligation on them to genuinely listen to what is said and where appropriate to take action. The Minister of Justice did not do so in this case and clearly should have done so and I think she stands indicted for simply not listening. Therefore what we have is a situation where there is a defect in the legislation that could have been completely avoided simply by making the Children’s Commissioner a mandatory consultee. However that was not done. 
Nevertheless even with all the various defects in the legislation—and I concur with many of those that other speakers have mentioned and I too would have liked to see some more action in the enforcement area—with all those defects warts and all this legislation is still a considerable improvement on the current situation. For those reasons New Zealand First will support the legislation.