Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16434] 
2.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have any concerns about New Zealand - based subsidiaries of United States companies conveying New Zealanders’ personal information to United States Government agencies without the consent of the New Zealanders involved? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Companies operating in New Zealand must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1993 and with any contractual obligations they have entered into with their clients with regard to confidentiality. If they fail to do so they would be liable under New Zealand law. 
Keith Locke 
: Was it then acceptable under the Privacy Act and other New Zealand legislation for Western Union when processing New Zealander Mohammad Abbas’s money transfer from New Zealand to India for a sick relative to vet him through the US Office of Foreign Assets Control—that is to apply US law to him in contradiction of New Zealand law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am very familiar with the case of Mohammad Abbas because he is my constituent and I have taken up his case with Western Union. Under the Financial Transactions Reporting Act in New Zealand which dates back to 1996 there is an obligation on financial institutions to report suspicious transactions. Unfortunately Mr Abbas shares his name with at least two other individuals who are designated as terrorists under the UN list. What I object to is not the fact that the company checked him out—that was valid—but the fact that it took so long over an urgent transaction when its own internal procedures state it should have taken only 3 days. 
Tim Barnett 
: Are there valid grounds upon which private information about an individual held by a company can be disclosed legitimately? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. Under the Privacy Act there are valid grounds for non-compliance with the Act. That is set out in particular under principle 11. It includes information that may help with the prevention detection investigation prosecution and punishment of offences or the use of any information that may be necessary to prevent a serious threat to public health safety or human life. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister saying in his response to my supplementary question that it is OK for someone like Mr Abbas to be checked against the US watch-list of 20000 or so names—that is to apply US law—rather than as he referred to under the financial transactions system to check that person against the New Zealand list which is basically the UN list; that is is it acceptable to apply US law to Mr Abbas and not New Zealand law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If people want to find out whether a transaction is suspicious I guess they go to whatever information they can find. There are designated lists of people who have been involved with terrorist financing. The UN has such a list. The US also has a list. Western Union like many financial institutions operates across a number of countries and it operates in compliance with the Financial Action Task Force’s recommendations with regard to terrorist financing. I think it acted in line with those recommendations. I do not object to what it did but rather to the time it spent to check Mr Abbas out. That should have been done much more quickly. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister take heed of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s report of last Friday which proposes legislation that would impose heavy fines and terms of imprisonment on companies like EDS (New Zealand) to use a New Zealand parallel were they to disclose private information to US Government agencies under the Patriot Act; and why would he oppose such a measure? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has used EDS as an example so I will focus on that case. The member may be aware that EDS has a specific agreement with the Privacy Commissioner signed back in 2003 in which it has undertaken not to transfer any identified information out of New Zealand without appropriate approvals or safeguards. That is important. It is also bound by the confidentiality agreements it has for example with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Development so I think the ground is well covered already. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Minister square that answer with the fact that under the US Patriot Act US companies operating in New Zealand like EDS are first obliged to provide personal information to the FBI when requested by the US Government and second are prohibited by that Act from telling the New Zealand Government they have provided the information? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: EDS when it operates in other countries—for example in Australia and Canada—has given specific assurances that it is not transferring information out of those countries under the Patriot Act or any other Act. Regardless of what the United States may pass in its legislation if a New Zealand - based company breaches our laws it is liable under our laws here in New Zealand and it would be prosecuted accordingly. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister accept that there is here a conflict between the two jurisdictions and does he not think that it is important to follow the British Columbia privacy commissioner’s recommendation and pass specific legislation to make sure that any US company operating in New Zealand has to abide by New Zealand laws or otherwise suffer the consequences? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We do not need a New Zealand law to state that people have to abide by New Zealand law. New Zealand law is binding on everybody that operates out of this country. If people breach that law or if they breach their confidentiality agreements they will suffer accordingly.