SpeechPart 5 Access to data for researchCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 48 to 56 Access to data for research" and the question is that Part 5 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. This is a really substantive part of this bill. We've been debating in the committee at length about the powers to collect data for research and the Government's agreed to disagree that it is a mandatory requirement on request. What Part 5 does is set out the circumstances where the Statistician can authorise access to the data for research to whom that can be provided including people who are not New Zealanders overseas individuals or organisations be satisfied that the research is in the public interest and that there are appropriate measures to protect privacy confidentiality and security.Now most colleagues who are interested in this bill will have heard from the Council for Civil Liberties. While I don't agree with all of their conclusions about what this bill will do I was minded in their briefing in advance of the committee of the whole House at the top of page 11 where it says Part 5 of the bill creates a new regime governing access to data for research. So it would be helpful for the committee I think if the Minister could advise the committee on the degree to which if at all the regime that we're considering under Part 5 differs from the Statistics Act 1975. I think it's important that we understand how we are broadening the access to research and whether or not that is going to lead to any greater risk of harm to individuals or organisations if the research part of the Statistician's role is broadened in the degree that the civil liberty organisation believes.I would also note that they note in their submission that the Chief Ombudsman also recommended as they did the removal of Part 5 entirely. That was really the issue that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendment would do. I don't support that. I think actually research is really important in this context but we've got to have a very very robust framework for being able to protect data and protect individuals' identity. So noting that as eminent an Officer of Parliament as the Chief Ombudsman was concerned enough to recommend the removal of Part 5 and also noting that there hasn't been actually that much change to Part 5 since the bill was introduced can the Minister provide the committee with reassurance—well firstly a commentary about the degree to which this is a new regime and how it differs from the Statistics Act 1975 and a commentary also perhaps if he feels inclined on calls for the removal of Part 5 entirely.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I thank the member Michael Woodhouse for his question. Part 5 is where we see a modernisation of the framework in the 1975 Act. The current Statistics Act does enable access to data for research; that's in section 37C. Earlier in the debate I waved this report around which I believe to be a really important report recently released about Māori business that has come about as a result of useful research. We do need to be able to have research for the betterment of our decision making.Now in saying it's a modernisation of the 1975 Act it does so in allowing bona fide researchers to safely access data held by Stats NZ for research in the public interest. However the 1975 Act's framework provided no guidance on the matters that the Statistician must consider before authorising access to data. It also did not reflect Māori interests or require transparency around research access. And indeed this part of the bill takes the research access framework from one clause to a whole part in the bill. It is I think quite clearly a strengthening of the research access framework and an appropriate strengthening of that access framework. The research access framework incorporates in this bill domestic and international best practice frameworks for appropriate and safe access such as Ngā Tikanga Paihere and the Five Safes framework. It requires the Government Statistician to publish information about who is accessing data how the data is being accessed and for what purposes. It requires researchers to publish research results and methodologies. Now just to be clear—and we've canvassed this before but I think it's worth putting on record again—access does not mean that researchers can hold and store the data themselves. Access occurs through a secure portal and researchers can only access data that is relevant to their research.Perhaps I'll just also relate the comments the Privacy Commissioner made. The Privacy Commissioner in their submission to the committee noted that they were satisfied that the bill contains adequate protections around the inappropriate use of personal information. They noted that the protections have included "a clear framework for access to data held by Stats NZ for research purposes (Part 5)"—this is a quote from them—"including that the Statistician before authorising access to data for research must: be satisfied the research is in the public interest (cl 49); be satisfied the research is to be carried out by an appropriate researcher who will protect the privacy confidentiality and security of the data (cl 50 especially cl 50(a)(iii)); be satisfied access to data is subject to appropriate measures to protect the privacy confidentiality and security of data (cl 51); consider whether if the researcher is an overseas person the data will be protected by comparable safeguards to those in the bill (cl 52); and that the Statistician must publish information about access to data by researchers (cl 53); [and] a requirement that researchers must comply with obligations in relation to data accessed for research including to take all reasonable steps to ensure that data is only disclosed in a form that could not reasonably be expected to identify individuals (cl 54 especially cl 54(1)(c))."So I do think this represents a substantial strengthening of the Act and an appropriate one and I think it's important to spell that out. I thank the committee for its indulgence. Obviously it's in the part but I think it's worth putting on the record both the Privacy Commissioner's view that they're satisfied with this improved regime. I think the transparency is important and obviously the safe dealing with the data that's provided sometimes sensitive data is imperative."