Dalziel Lianne: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7758. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
:  
I too rise to speak in the second reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill a bill that had its first reading 1 year and 4 days ago. It was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee which I serve on 6 months later on 8 June 2012. In fact our select committee ably chaired by my colleague across the House Tim Macindoe—well at that time. Unfortunately he has not been able to see the bill’s conclusion and he probably felt that he would have seen it traverse its full passage through the House given how prompt we were in actually reporting back within the time frame set by the Minister of Justice when it had its first reading just over a year ago. So the question that I have got is why the bill has taken so long to come up the Order Paper given the degree of urgency that was expressed in the first reading contribution from the Minister herself. In fact she spoke at some length about the need to progress this element of the Law Commission review on privacy legislation rather than await the detailed analysis of that report and all of the recommendations that would flow from that. So I sort of thought that maybe I would give it a go because she did not mention it in her contribution and I guess I did not expect her to. 
But maybe the Government does not want privacy or matters of information sharing particularly to be debated in Parliament and I am not surprised that this debate is occurring at half past 8 on a Tuesday evening. I suspect that has something to do with the Government’s not wanting to have a debate around these matters. I just thought of a few cases that I thought I might address. How about ACC? I think ACC would be a really really good example. The particular ACC example that I was going to use was Michelle Boag. Michelle Boag made this statement— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Oh I remember her. Former president of the National Party. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Michelle Boag as a former president as my colleague points out of the National Party stated this and I just think this is a very helpful contribution to this debate: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached that’s very very dangerous.” To which Minister do you think Michelle Boag— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Anne Tolley? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —ex-president of the National Party was referring when she said: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to breached that’s very very dangerous.”? Whom was she talking about? 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Paula Bennett? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Tony Ryall? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No it was not Paula Bennett and it was not Tony Ryall. It was not Anne Tolley. Have we got any advances on those particular Ministers? It was Judith Collins. I have to actually declare the fact that she was in fact referring to Judith Collins. Michelle Boag was very clear about whom she was referring to. 
Then there is another set of particular organisations or another Minister who might not like to have the question of privacy breaches and information sharing brought up in this House. Let me consider the role of one Paula Bennett in releasing the private details of two women receiving a benefit after they spoke out against cuts to the training incentive allowance a benefit that she herself benefited from when she herself was in that situation. She was so concerned that these women were daring to suggest that they were finding it difficult to get through tertiary education without the benefit of the training incentive allowance which the Minister for Social Development got the benefit of that she in fact decided that that gave her the right to expose all of their private information about what benefits they were receiving through the State system through Work and Income. 
Of course the privacy complaints system upheld that this was a breach of the individuals’ privacy but as Paula Bennett herself said in response to that “I do not accept that view.” That was what she said: “I do not accept that view.” Then she was asked the question as to whether she would rule out releasing other people’s information. What do you think the Minister said in response to that? “Well depending on the circumstances yeah I’d make a call on what I did at the time. I’m four years in the job now I’d make another look at it and make a decision based on what the recommendations are and the rules are around privacy.” [ 
Interruption 
] She is just absolutely unclear about it and I think that is why we are debating this bill over 6 months—6 months—after it was reported back from the select committee. They wanted to sort of shuffle it out of the way and try to get it through without any particular focus being brought to bear. 
And of course we had the blogger Keith Ng who discovered that there was a little problem in Work and Income again with some problems that we had in that particular area. And of course well there is Novopay. Shall we mention Novopay as well? The breaches of privacy with Novopay are actually legendary. They actually outweigh a number of the other—[ 
Interruption 
] They actually set new very low standards Ms Dyson I think it would be. They have sunk to new levels of incompetence with the Novopay system. 
But the point is that I think that this Government has been rather unfortunate in trying to actually put to one side a piece of legislation that yes we have put up a minority report on but we are supporting through the House because as the Minister quite rightly said there were 20 submissions 18 of the submissions supported the bill in part or full and of course the Privacy Commissioner supports the bill as well. So we are supporting the bill through the House. But I think that if the Government was actually sincere about the urgency with which it wanted to attend to this particular matter rather than dealing with the entire Law Commission report which is what it told this House then we would have had this dealt with before the end of last year. 
I just want to put on record our minority view with the reporting back of this bill: “Labour believes in an effective and efficient public sector.”—we agree that that is an important motivation in terms of this legislation—“The swift sharing of information between public sector agencies accompanied by appropriate safeguards is an important component of this. But”—and I think this is the important “but”—“this bill takes a piecemeal approach to dealing with information sharing and may not stand the claims that have been made as to the need for it.” I think the fact that we have had it delayed for 6 months shows that that was an accurate assessment of our position. “In particular it is unlikely to do much to enhance the protection of vulnerable children.”—and again that was something that was brought up by the Minister in her original speech in the House when she introduced the bill 12 months and 4 days ago. 
“We agree with the New Zealand Law Society and with other submitters that there are better approaches than simply enacting some cherry-picked aspects of the Law Commission’s review of privacy law. A standalone statute dealing with the welfare of vulnerable children when they are most at risk is a preferable approach. We would have preferred to see a standalone statute for the protection of at-risk children accompanied by the complete enactment of the recommendations arising out of the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act.” I have to say that that stand-alone statute concept was actually supported by the Children’s Commissioner so it does have quite widespread support throughout the sector. 
“This would have ensured that our privacy legislation—now nearly two decades old—is up to date with technological developments changing social mores and the barriers to ensuring safety of the most vulnerable in society. A comprehensive rewrite of the Act on the basis of all of the Law Commission’s work is essential. In particular we are concerned that some of the Law Commission’s key suggestions such as those regarding the Privacy Commissioner’s power to investigate and enforce may not be taken up by the government. Given the ever-widening powers of agencies to share information let alone the implications of new technologies it is important that the Commissioner’s role allows her to ensure compliance with up-to-date legislation. We will support the bill because we do not think it is likely to actively cause harm. However we think there are alternative approaches that could have done much good.” I believe that that really sums up the Opposition’s position which is why we will support this bill through its remaining stages.