O'Rourke Denis: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
O'Rourke Denis: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:469] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports all parts of the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. However we do have some concerns and reservations especially in relation to the privacy of personal information notwithstanding however the important role of the Privacy Commissioner as set out in the bill. The important part I think is new section 282B inserted by clause 24 which empowers the sharing of border information between what are called accessing agencies and holder agencies. However the only definition of “accessing agency” or “holder agency” is whatever is to be set out in the regulations and we do not at this stage know what that would be. New section 286A inserted by clause 25 allows regulations to specify “any agency or any class of agencies as an accessing agency:”. So that is very wide. It can include companies such as airport companies as well as Government departments port companies and so on. We do not really know how wide that is so that is something of a concern for us.  
Nevertheless New Zealand First does support the new provisions in the bill in so far as they allow appropriate agencies to share border information and we accept that that will better and more efficiently and effectively allow those agencies to carry out their duties. We think the provisions in the bill for those purposes are sensible and necessary and make good use of new technologies. The reservation we have however is that the provisions really contain no clear limitation on the types of agencies that can access the information and we think no adequate control on what the information may ultimately be used for. All this relies on ministerial discretion and on what ultimately goes into those regulations.  
So the concern in particular that we have is that information may reach the wrong hands and be misused may be passed on to others—perhaps unofficially—and may not be shared for border security or related reasons. I note that the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand did suggest a limitation along the lines that information sharing should be limited only to those agencies that have a border security function. That may be appropriate but it may be a little too restrictive because there will be related functions that are important as well.  
But of more particular concern to me is that the accessing agency may access and use information for private commercial reasons. To deal with this what New Zealand First would have liked to see in the bill is an addition to new section 286A(2)(c) relating to matters to be considered by the Minister in respect of those regulations. We would like to see something like: “whether the personal information accessed might be commercially sensitive” or “might confer a commercial advantage on the accessing agency”. There is nothing of that nature in the bill which we think is something of a disappointment because it does impinge we think on that principle of private personal information requiring adequate protection.  
I also note that the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee refers to new section 286A(1)(e) which refers to regulations made for border information sharing that may prescribe “the conditions under which an accessing agency may access border information …”. But this differs from the committee’s advice which says “provide a means for Government agencies to place controls on the way information provided to commercial interests could be used;”. So the new section 286A(1)(e) does not do this. It does not provide a means for the holder agencies to place controls on use for commercial purposes. It only allows regulations by way of Order in Council to prescribe conditions under which accessing agencies can gain access. So it is uncertain whether that provision would be effective to control use for commercial purposes. Again the broadness of amendments allowing access and the lack of specific controls on the use of commercial purposes are a concern for New Zealand First. There was a need we think for section 286A(1)(e) to be further tightened up in the ways that I have mentioned.  
I would like to turn now to the new provisions relating to biofuels. Again New Zealand First supports the amendments especially to section 74(2)(c) which exempts home production of biofuels and biofuel blends from licensing requirements if for personal use if not for sale and if manufactured on land on which the manufacturer’s house is located. The amendment also exempts home-produced biofuels from excise duty which we also think is appropriate and consistent with exemptions for home-produced tobacco and alcohol.  
However I do have a concern about the amendment to section 2 relating to the definition of biofuel. This refers to fuel production from biomass but there is no definition of biomass. So there is a risk that fossil fuels could be included as a fuel produced from biomass thus beating the meaning of the Act in relation to exemptions for biofuels. The dictionaries of are no assistance on the term “biomass”. They refer to biomasses as “organic matter that can be converted into fuel”. So that could let fossil fuels in we think. However if we look a little bit wider for example at Wikipedia it says: “Biofuel is a type of fuel whose energy is derived from biological carbon fixation. Biofuels include fuels derived from biomass conversion as well as solid biomass liquid fuels and various biogases. Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient carbon fixation they are not considered biofuels by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been ‘out’ of the carbon cycle for a very long time.” So for that reason I think the definition as it is will just survive and be workable. However it would have been preferable to see a better definition in the bill. With those reservations New Zealand First will support the bill as it is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Chariman—