Chauvel Charles: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13660] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The bill that is under consideration in this session was introduced by the previous Labour Government and as a result members on this side of the House intend to continue their support for the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. 
The bill will address two problems that currently exist in the Privacy Act. The current Act does not allow foreign nationals who are resident overseas to make information privacy requests for information that is held in New Zealand and the Act does nothing to prevent data received from overseas being transferred out of New Zealand to another jurisdiction without there being adequate privacy protection. They are two obvious flaws which have come about as a result of the increased flow of both people across borders and information across borders since the enactment of the original legislation. They are a perfect example of the sort of problem that arises over time that this Parliament needs to update and address so that the commercial and the human rights concerns that arise out of those flaws can be properly addressed. There is a real business benefit as well as a personal benefit from the closure of loopholes by this legislation. Once it is passed we will be able to better demonstrate in international negotiations that information stored in New Zealand or in respect of persons and business with which New Zealand has a connection is secure. That has to be a good thing for New Zealand business. 
The bill complements the Law Commission’s review of privacy laws. The commission has recommended enacting surveillance devices legislation which would make New Zealand privacy laws more consistent and make it an offence to secretly film or track people. There is work to do in that area but we are starting at least to fulfil some of the recommendations of the commission by getting on with this legislation today. 
It is important to see the legislation in the context of much of the law that this Parliament has dealt with in the past couple of days under urgency. This legislation is an important part of the continuation of the business-friendly programme that the previous Labour Government was enacting to ensure that there was not excessive red tape and that our laws were up to date so that businesses and individuals could feel confident about that level of sophistication in our legal system. So it is good to see Parliament finally progress the international privacy legislation through its final stages. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee’s main concern was apparent from its report related to the OECD guidelines concerning privacy. Those guidelines are of extreme importance to New Zealand given our membership of the OECD. Due to the way that the guidelines had originally been incorporated into the bill any changes by the OECD to the guidelines would have been automatically incorporated into the legislation—that is changes made by a foreign organisation an organisation comprising other countries as well would have simply resulted in an automatic change to New Zealand law without any examination by this Parliament. The committee looked at that matter and took some advice from the Regulations Review Committee as I recall. The committee in the end recommended that the basic principles of national application should be set out in a schedule to the Act that the Governor-General be given the power to make regulations to amend the new schedule in the event that the OECD made new guidelines and that any changes to the schedule as a result of that OECD activity would be subject to the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and thereby scrutinised by Parliament in the event that it was necessary. So there was a proper framework put in place on an incorporation by reference clause to ensure that parliamentary oversight of any amendments would be proper and in keeping with our constitutional traditions. It is good to see that the committee’s report is being incorporated as far as those recommendations are concerned in the bill. 
The committee also recommended that it be made absolutely explicit in the legislation that when determining whether to prohibit any transfer of personal information the Privacy Commissioner should use the investigative powers in the Privacy Act if he or she felt the need to just as he or she can when conducting an inquiry under the Act. So the commissioner will be able to hear information from any person that he or she considers necessary in the event that that seems the right thing to do. The select committee process has clearly improved the legislation. We have proper scrutiny by Parliament of any changes incorporated from the OECD and we have an enhancement of the Privacy Commissioner’s authority consistent with her general jurisdiction. 
Members on this side of the House support the legislation. It is good to see the rest of Lianne Dalziel’s programme as the former Minister of Commerce and the former Associate Minister of Justice being implemented by this House. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Note “the former”. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: We have just had an interjection from a Minister who has no respect for anybody’s privacy in this country so it is rather ironic that she decides to speak out about an international privacy matter but we will let that one go. 
The other issue that needs to be pointed to is that the select committee reported back on 30 September 2009. It is a shame that the Government does not think that this sort of red tape - cutting good pro-business legislation is important enough to progress more quickly. We have had to wait since September last year since the committee reported back to see the legislation come back to the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why are they so anti-business? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I do not know why as David Cunliffe says members opposite are so anti-business or why we have to put up with the symbolism tokenism and dog-whistle laws such as the “fire-at-will” bill which was trumpeted as pro-business legislation when in reality this bill is the sort of thing that will make New Zealand businesses more productive and competitive. On that basis despite the lamentable delay in progressing it I commend the bill to the House.