Simpson Scott: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionSimpson Scott: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14253. Text is subject to correction.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It was aRangitīkeimember who used to have that name of Wilson I understand. However good evening to you Mr Assistant Speaker and members. It is a pleasure remotely to take a call on the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill introduced by that member “SueMoroner”—Sue Moroney not “Moroner”.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!SCOTT SIMPSON: The Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we all know the Speakers’ ruling in this particular area relating to deliberately attempting to mock a member in that way. The member did not stumble. If he had done it once it would have been a stumble. But he did it twice. He did it deliberately and my view is that you should at least require him to withdraw and apologise. I will take the next point of order soon. If you are going to take it really seriously then you would terminate his speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say that it is actually a form of unparliamentary language and it can probably be seen as a personal reflection under Standing Order 117. I would just like to take the opportunity to remind all members that all members are honourable and that is it. We refer to each other as honourable despite what we may think is otherwise. We call the member what we would want them and us all to become. So I caution the House that we see the world as it is not as it can be. So I just caution the member to please be careful when he addresses the House in the manner that he has done.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The other point that I thought you might have ruled on without me having to draw it to your attention was the interjection during the point of order on the part of the—what is he called? The fourth whip? The National Party junior person—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: No he is an assistant deputy whip or something like that. But when you are sitting in that chair you are meant to obey the rules and you are not meant to interject during points of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is perfectly understood Mr Mallard and I am sure members have learnt from that but unfortunately there was an interjection on the member’s own side that did not actually help. We are back now with Mr Simpson.SCOTT SIMPSON: The honourable member opposite Sue Moroney who has introduced this bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I know that it is members’ day and it is members’ time but interjections are not permitted betweenmembers who do not have the floor. If they want to interject on the person who is speaking or addressing the House that is another matter but not on each other. I call the honourable member Scott Simpson.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was defending you. He was saying you are a grumpy old man.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know it is Wednesday evening Mr Mallard. I call the honourable member Scott Simpson.SCOTT SIMPSON: The honourable member who has introduced this bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill has in her introductory words spent an awful lot of time citing a variety of cases where privacy has been breached by various agencies of the State. It is fair to say that the Government does take privacy issues very seriously but we live in a time of great change of speedy change and of technological change. I think one of the things that we have all done from time to time is make an error when we have pushed a button on an email or hit the send button when we thought we should not or copy in people whom we thought we should not. It does happen from time to time. I am not making excuses for other people’s failings; all I am saying is that from time to time human failings do occur to us all and computer technology glitches can from time to time occur.They are however a significant matter of importance when people’s individual privacy is impacted on and when there are matters to do with their interaction with State agencies. So the purpose of this bill that the member has introduced—and it is a short bill—seems to read that it is to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has sufficient investigative and enforcement powers.The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s recommendations to replace the Privacy Act with a new one and indeed as was mentioned in the mover’s opening speech already action is being taken for that to occur. I understand that a paper is going to Cabinet later this year and we expect new legislation to be introduced next year. The National Government actually wants to have legislation that appropriately and fully balances the need and the right of individuals to have their privacy against the need for particular Government agencies to be able to share information and to perform the roles and requirements that the State agencies have to do on behalf of the taxpayer. It is a question of balance and it is a question of ensuring that systems and procedures are in place.I would think that most people in the House would probably agree that ways to improve the protection of personal information and how it is collected and stored and how it is used to help people are positive things and things that this House should be taking note of. Indeed over the last little period of time there have been a number of quite high-profile instances where privacy breaches have occurred through various Government agencies. In order to prevent breaches of that magnitude from happening again it is important that the Privacy Commissioner is able to undertake investigations to identify gaps in process and systems and maintenance and in terms of bringing agencies into a compliance regime. That compliance regime needs to be in terms of the Privacy Act 1993.The honourable member who introduced the bill believes that giving the Privacy Commissioner the ability to issue compliance notices and demand information-handling audits across the public sector and the private sector is indeed the only way to ensure that private information in New Zealand held by agencies is not misused or breached by the public sector or outside entities. I am not sure that that is the only way. I think that there are a number of other options. The concern I have is that although on this side of the House we agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation that the Privacy Commissioner be able to issue compliance notices the point where we differ with themover on this bill is that we do not support an audit power being given to the commissioner. We want to ensure that the commissioner’s role is strengthened and that it is going to be able to have the teeth to ensure that the systems are robust and that maintenance and privacy can be protected.This bill from Sue Moroney takes only a very narrow and small number of the selected recommendations of the work that the Law Commission did. It does not consider for one minute the combined impact of the wide-ranging recommendations by the commission. We actually have to I think take the commission’s recommendations as a whole rather than just sort of picking bits and pieces out of them. I do not think that that will provide the kind of balance and structure and form that is going to provide for good system and good process.Since the 1993 Act was passed of course technology has developed at a scary rate for many of us. As I said earlier there are a number of times when human error can intervene so it is up to agencies of the State to ensure that they do have the robust processes. This piece of legislation introduced by the honourable member is not one that we will be supporting because it does not complete the whole package. It does not address the whole issue and of course we are pursuing our own piece of work on it. For the second time tonight we are presented with a very small piece of work from a member opposite that really does not do justice I think to the process of members’ bills. It is a short six-clause piece. The explanatory note is indeed longer than the proposed piece of legislation. Really I think that the process of members’ bills deserves better and more fulsome analysis and consideration than to have pieces of legislation like this brought to the House. We will not be supporting this bill.