Clark David: Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a pleasure to follow that well-enunciated speaker Dr Hutchison. I rise to support the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill as my colleagues have done recognising the work of the Customs Service and other border agencies on the frontline. Their contribution is a very important one to New Zealand. Of course this initiative was conceived when Labour was in Government and Labour has continued to support the initiative since that time. We accept and acknowledge the importance of good border management and a single trade window will create a hub for exchanging information.Our real issue with this bill and the concern that lies behind the questions that have been raised in the House today is whether this Government is really up to the task of dealing with the security issues that are implicit in the bill. Dr Hutchison raised the issue of a dated computer system and the need for careful cautious progress. Certainly in many areas his Government has been incredibly cautious particularly in terms of reforms that would see our country better off. This particular instance does warrant further discussion because of course we immediately think of Novopay. The Novopay problem was something that the New Zealand public felt through seeing the teachers of this country who teach their children incredibly distracted and stressed because they could not pay their mortgages when payments did not go through.I want to also credit the teaching profession for the amazing professionalism with which they have handled—for many many many months now—the disaster that the Government inflicted upon them in the Novopay system. Dr Hutchison rightfully says that this new customs system needs to be tested thoroughly for all bugs before it is made live. That was the very mistake that was made with Novopay. That was not done and teachers today are still dealing with the consequences.We also remember the cases of ACC breaches of privacy and there were many. There were many at the ACC. Perhaps members opposite would like to talk a little bit about them because they have not mentioned those breaches in their speeches—if I can get poetic I sound like the Sneetches. This is a serious issue though because it is of concern. The Inland Revenue Department’s computer system which is of course about 24 years old now or thereabouts is the one that I wish to talk a little bit about. Thecomputer system in the Customs Service that is being replaced is 15 years old. There appears to be a National Party member coming close by in the form of this fly.It is important to recognise that the Government has a terrible track record on this. The person now responsible for overseeing data security in the Government is the person who will not deny that he made the Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax journalist and that is Peter Dunne. So these concerns are very real. The Government’s track record on data security is abominable. There is seldom a better word that could more accurately describe its track record on data security than “abominable”. The ACC and Novopay breaches were terrible.I was particularly concerned about the breaches that were revealed in the Inland Revenue Department when I was the Opposition spokesperson on revenue. In 2012 there were 32 separate incidents and over 5000 victims of data breaches in the Inland Revenue Department. The Inland Revenue Department as we know holds our most sensitive information. Taxpayers hand over their bank details their IRD numbers their addresses their names and all other kinds of things that make them vulnerable to digital incidents. The Inland Revenue Department released information on 638 people in 2012 and that was considered so serious that it had to put security measures in place to prevent identity theft. That was 2012.We learnt subsequently via the Official Information Act what the Inland Revenue Department was doing: “The Inland Revenue Department is implementing a system that will detect when an email or its attachment includes one or more IRD numbers or other types of taxpayer personal information. The tool will then prompt the user to determine if the action is intended or block the email being sent if necessary.” This information is contained in some advice to the Minister on how to respond to the bad publicity around the security breaches in 2012.We can only assume that that system was either ineffectually implemented or that it was spin from the Government and that it came out of one of the Minister’s offices. What we now know is that the following year the number of data breaches went up over 400 percent—over 400 percent—at the Inland Revenue Department. This most special and sacred information that we hand over to them—and they said they would implement a system to fix the data breaches—got 400 percent worse the next year.Viewers at home may or may not be able to see this graph—probably it is too small—but it indicates over a period of time month by month how many data breaches there are at the Inland Revenue Department. What it clearly illustrates when one looks at it close up is that the little houses at the bottom of this graph the things that look like single or double-storey buildings represent 2012 and the things that look like skyscrapers represent 2013. These are the breaches at the Inland Revenue Department. Who knows? If it continues at this rate—if it keeps increasing at a 400 percent rate—every New Zealander will have their data live on the internet within a few years. Everybody of course will have their personal information out there and we will all be at risk of security breaches.That is the record of this Government. It is not just ACC. It is not just Novopay. It is the Inland Revenue Department as well. The person who was overseeing the Inland Revenue Department computer rebuild although we confess there has been precious little progress on that is now in charge of data security for the whole Government. That person is Peter Dunne who was sacked as a Minister last year. But Mr Key says that that was last year and it is this year now and all leaks and breaches and so on are forgiven. His Government needs propping up and he is happy to have Mr Dunne back in his Cabinet.So what is the Government doing in that instance—because that will be illustrative. The computer system that is going to be fixed in this bill is 15 years old. The other onein the Inland Revenue Department is 24 years old. Well they have spent $50 million to tell them that in principle it needs to be fixed. That is an outrage in my view. The briefing to the incoming Minister told them that already 5 years ago. Peter Dunne was told 7 years that that system was on its last legs and nothing has happened to fix it. So that is why we have legitimate concerns on this side of the House about whether the Government will be able to implement this kind of sophisticated computer software that will enable border agencies to identify relationships between people and goods by linking travel and trade data. That is proposed in this bill before us now.Labour of course substantially boosted New Zealand’s border security capacity when it was in office. Scientific and operational systems were changed to more effectively investigate eradicate or manage biological threats. Labour set up Biosecurity New Zealand to coordinate the agencies that manage and protect our country against these threats. We developed a comprehensive biosecurity strategy applying to all of New Zealand’s environments—land freshwater and marine and indigenous and introduced flora and fauna. These are important things for New Zealand’s agricultural export industry.We know there have been other breaches this year. Down my way down in Pukeuri inŌāmaru there have been meat processes that have failed to be able to be introduced to China because practices were not followed as accurately and correctly as they should have to comply with the Chinese expectations of biosecurity meat processing and the like. This Government has overseen those poor poor decisions that were made. What it has done in the meantime is not strengthen biosecurity. It has not made the systems changes that would prevent that because we see time and time again things going wrong in our biosecurity system.This Government has a poor track record. We commend the intention to improve our border processing. It is essential that we have efficient and effective systems at our border. It is in our national interest to have effective and efficient systems at our border. We are a trading nation. It is not only desirable it is absolutely essential. So we support this bill. We support the intention. We raise the concerns about whether it will really be able to be implemented. And we welcome also the Government’s consultation on whether GST should be collected at the border in the way that it is currently with the de minimis approach. I have heard personally from many retailers in Dunedin in my neck of the woods who are struggling because the Government has not looked at this issue thoroughly yet.Debate interrupted.