O'Rourke Denis: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7938. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill as amended with changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. There are of course many positive reasons for better information-sharing amongst our public services to make sure that the information is used to the best effect and to improve the operation of the Public Service. So that has to be acknowledged at the beginning. 
There are of course many potential breaches of privacy that may occur whether this bill proceeds or not. It is those breaches of privacy that we must seek to avoid. Although New Zealand First does have some concerns about the protection of personal privacy we consider that these have been sufficiently addressed in the bill through two means. Firstly section 96N in new Part 9A requires the giving of notice to anyone against whom adverse action is to be taken as a result of information sharing under the bill. The individual may then take action to dispute any information used and may show cause why no such action should be taken because the information is inaccurate. Agencies should however understand very well that they will be on notice to listen to what those who make use of this right have to say about the accuracy of information and where appropriate to correct it. 
Secondly the new provisions for information-sharing agreements under new Part 9A are important. Agreements must specify safeguards for the protection of personal information and they must provide for complaints to a Government department. Again agencies should understand that they will be on notice to ensure that realistic and comprehensive compliance with these requirements will be essential. I note that section 96K(2) says that only the information necessary for an agency’s proper purposes is to be shared and no more. The agreement must not unreasonably impinge on the privacy of an individual and agreements will need to be scrutinised by the commissioner to ensure compliance with all these important caveats. 
New Zealand First therefore supports the bill on the basis of the proper balance between the need for a robust information-sharing regime and the need for protection of personal privacy. In these matters we will be relying heavily on the diligence of the Privacy Commissioner: firstly the commissioner’s oversight of the content of agreements and how they will operate; secondly the commissioner’s reporting functions; and thirdly the commissioner’s consultation responsibilities. The Government must ensure that the commissioner has adequate resources so that the commissioner is able to carry out those functions properly and we will certainly be taking notice as to whether that is the case. 
I note that the Labour Party will also support the bill but seeks more implementation of Law Commission recommendations especially empowering the Privacy Commissioner with more investigation and enforcement powers. But with or without those provisions this bill is a significant improvement on the status quo. 
I note also that the Greens will not support the bill without powers for the commissioner to issue compliance notices and to require an audit of agencies’ practices. I doubt the need for these measures and I do not think they would have avoided most of the worst privacy breaches we have seen in recent times. 
I think the bill as it is would be adequate to protect personal privacy for all the reasons I have canvassed. But as I have said the commissioner’s functions are vital to the good operation of the new information-sharing regime and agencies must always remember that they must take the specified actions to protect personal privacy and not just pursue their own interests. That is why I think new section 96L is so important. Firstly it requires consultation by participating agencies with the Privacy Commissioner and with any person or organisation representing a class of persons affected and anyone else the agencies think should be consulted. But I think there is a glaring omission and that is the Children’s Commissioner not being specified.