Dalziel Lianne: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2338] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I do not know why I feel as if I have nothing left to say before I have even begun but never mind let me try my best. I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak in the first reading of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. I just said to one of my colleagues that perhaps I could spend a few minutes explaining why the Minister Simon Power says “priv-acy” and why I say “pry-vacy” but we would just call the whole thing off I think! 
The reality is that this legislation had its genesis way back when I first entered Parliament actually—in 1993 when the original legislation was passed. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Surely not; the member looks too young to have been here in 1993. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I was here even before 1993 as the member knows. I sat on the select committee that dealt with the original Privacy Bill. In fact I think the Hon Peter Dunne who was my colleague in those days introduced a member’s bill but it was superseded by a Government bill which the select committee considered at the same time. 
A lot of people get hung up on the whole issue of privacy. Quite a lot of people use that expression “political correctness” when the Privacy Act is used to protect people’s right to privacy. But in fact a lot of the legislation we already have in this country with its many flow-on effects in terms of our economy comes from the fact that it is about protecting private information. It is data protection that drives the European Union in terms of its response to other countries and their mechanisms that are in place to protect data that is collected. Given the period of time that I have been in Parliament the ability to gather information with the surveillance systems we have in place now has increased enormously since the Act was passed. Even when we travel a large amount of information is held by airline databases and customs organisations in various countries. All of that information is held in huge databases that enable a lot of searching to be undertaken in terms of people’s movements. 
So what we do today is monitored in quite a significant way. What we do with information when we gather it is very very important and this bill is so important because it is about data protection in terms of how we are seen to be dealing with other nations. The Minister quite rightly said that this bill is not purely Eurocentric but it does stem from European Union requirements and the fact that if we want to have trade relationships with other countries then we must have data protection provisions that are up to scratch and are accepted by those countries as providing sufficient protection—or adequacy to use the correct word. 
I will go back to quote a speech that I gave on 28 March 2003—that was not so long ago was it? Only 6 years ago almost to the day I stated: “My appointment as Minister of Commerce has meant that I have taken a particular interest in trade matters. Most recently my officials have been working on the Privacy Commissioner’s proposals to make changes so that we can advance our request to be granted a ruling that our data protection laws are ‘adequate’ for the purposes of the European Data Protection Directive. The EU Directive is likely to prove highly influential outside the EU because of the data flow controls that it instigates. Our trading partners from Europe will obtain a measure of satisfaction from knowing that our data protection laws meet their standards for data protection. Accordingly a ruling of ‘adequacy’ will enhance New Zealand’s position in world trade.” Well we have been a little bit slow in getting that up and running but finally the day has come when I can stand in Parliament to talk about this bill. Tragically I do not stand as the Minister introducing the bill; otherwise I would have had a very very good speech to deliver. But I thought that the Minister delivered the introduction speech very well instead. 
The point is that this legislation has been on the agenda for quite some time. We can be flippant about the fact that it has taken a number of years but I think it is important to realise that it is hard to get relatively minor amendments to controversial legislation on to the agenda at any time. 
I will spend just a minute explaining why I think the Privacy Act comes out of this as controversial legislation when it ought not to be. I have heard members in this House talk about privacy laws as if somehow we are firstly protecting the politically correct attitudes that we might have—nanny State—and secondly acting so that people cannot pass on information about other people without their consent. But I think people need to realise that important trade implications come from our not allowing overseas nationals to apply for information held by New Zealand databases and from our not having security around what happens to information that is transferred out of New Zealand and perhaps into the hands of those without adequate data protection laws. This legislation is designed to address those two features of our privacy law. 
I will use an example I used back in 2003 when I was talking about why it was important to have privacy legislation in place. I talked about how easy it was to make flippant comments about giving up the right to privacy and to argue that somehow the legislation is something that is imposed on people by Governments. The example that I always used was the sign that appeared on airline counters after the law was originally passed in 1993. I remember seeing this sign on the stand outside the Air New Zealand counter as I went up to buy my airline ticket or to confirm my booking. The sign said that the airline would not give out information about passengers due to the operation of the Government’s Privacy Act 1993. The airline made it very clear that the reason it would not give out passenger information was the Government’s requirements under the Privacy Act which had just been passed. My view is that the sign if it was honest would have read: “Because we value our passengers’ right to privacy we do not give out information about our passengers to anyone without their permission.” By saying that the airline would have said what it had always said before the Privacy Act was passed. Members would have noticed that Air New Zealand never gave out information about its passengers but hey it was really convenient for it to blame nanny State and the Government for imposing this requirement on it to the inconvenience of all. 
I want my privacy protected. I do not want people to be told information about when I am travelling where I am travelling or what I am up to. What is on the public record is on the public record but for private matters I believe that it is important that we maintain privacy. I am prepared to stand up in this House to defend the principles that lie behind the Privacy Act and to say that I support these amendments to it because they will advance New Zealand’s interests at the same time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the first reading of this bill. I hope people realise that it is not worth making flippant asides in respect of privacy and that privacy is an important human right that Parliament should protect. 
In protecting privacy we are motivated by different reasons. On my own side I believe that it is a valuable human right. It is my right to privacy and I am the one who gets to decide what private information about me is put on the public record. If others are collecting private information about me I have the right to request to see that information and I have the right to correct that information if it is incorrect. Our law allows that to happen. This bill is an extension of that. It makes it a commercial right as well. If we do not have adequate data protection laws in this country we will not be able to enter into trade negotiations with countries that require our exporters to have that security. If we leave it up to individual companies to negotiate it then that will add an unreasonable compliance cost on to their businesses. 
I support this bill. I am glad that after 6 years we are finally able to get to it and I look forward to its progress through the House.