Huo Raymond: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Huo Raymond: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2347] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill another bill introduced by the Labour Government and it was introduced in July 2008. Speaking on this bill at its first reading I want to emphasise two points. The first one is in an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce how can privacy law in New Zealand be better adapted to enhance our trade opportunities and assist our businesses in gaining access to international markets? The second is how can our privacy law be better drafted to reflect the notions “privacy is your business” and “good privacy is good business”? 
The Privacy Act 1993 currently does not allow foreign nationals living overseas to make information privacy requests. What is an information privacy request? It is a request made to obtain confirmation of whether an agency holds personal information to be given access to personal information and/or for the correction of personal information. There is also nothing in the Act to prevent data received from overseas being transferred to a jurisdiction without adequate privacy protection outside of New Zealand. That means New Zealand is unable to provide the level of assurance requested by overseas trade partners that it can fully protect their privacy and their customers’ privacy. In today’s world of increasing globalisation and e-commerce our inability to give that assurance is a potential impediment to trade. 
In that regard this bill is primarily designed to address two main issues: firstly to ensure that New Zealand’s privacy law meets the expectations of New Zealand’s trading partners by assuring them that their privacy will be protected; and secondly to enable people living overseas who are not citizens or permanent residents of New Zealand to access their personal information held in New Zealand. Currently the Privacy Act provides that an individual must be a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand or be in New Zealand to make such a request. 
There are four main provisions in this bill. The first concerns the transfer of personal information outside of New Zealand. One purpose of the bill is to establish a mechanism for controlling the transfer of information outside of New Zealand where the information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country where the information originated. The bill provides the Privacy Commissioner with a discretion to prohibit on reasonable grounds the transfer of personal information from New Zealand to another country. Secondly the bill removes the residency restriction from persons who may make an information privacy request. Thirdly the commissioner may authorise a public sector agency to impose a charge. Fourthly the bill provides for complaints about breaches of the Act to be referred to overseas privacy enforcement authorities. 
The changes proposed by this bill reflect the fact that the movement of personal information increasingly transcends national borders. The current Privacy Act 1993 like the privacy laws in many other jurisdictions was formulated in the 1990s. At that time most personal information was stored manually and it was not easy to copy or disseminate written information. Things have changed dramatically. Individuals may be perceived in a millisecond as a piece of information in an email or on a website such as YouTube or Facebook. Participants in a transaction may be on the other side of the world from each other. In my own case for example my maiden speech was broadcast live via the Internet as far away as Beijing Hong Kong and Taipei. 
Tim Macindoe 
: To an internationally wonderful welcome. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Thank you. My subsequent speeches in this House as I have learnt were also watched reviewed and reported overseas on Chinese language websites. 
With the extensive use of technology it is much easier to collect copy or distribute information than it was in the 1990s. By extending the scope of persons who may request access to personal information in New Zealand the bill is especially relevant to the growing number of New Zealand businesses that trade offshore. 
An aim of this bill is of course to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other States’ privacy laws. The changes in that regard are considered necessary because many States will not allow personal information held within their borders to be transferred to a jurisdiction where the personal information will not receive equivalent protection. One might infer that entities might have been locating operations and computer servers in New Zealand to benefit from a more flexible regulatory regime. Having said that and with some trepidation I suddenly had a feeling that we may need to get this bill passed with some sense of urgency. 
I tell members to look at other jurisdictions; regulators seem to be seeking enhanced powers. In European Union countries we see signs of more stringent laws sought and enhanced enforcement penalties planned. Across the Ditch the Australian Law Reform Commission initiated in August 2008 a comprehensive review of its privacy and confidentiality laws. Similar measures have also been implemented in Hong Kong. This bill is therefore necessary and is expected to provide a timely boost to our businesses trading offshore. The history of New Zealand’s privacy legislation lies in part in the desire to be consistent with the OECD guidelines. I recall that our Privacy Commissioner once said that good privacy is good business. Indeed businesses can help themselves by developing top-down privacy-conscious cultures. 
To conclude I support this bill because it will help ensure New Zealand law meets the expectations of our trading partners and it will remove an anomaly so that people living overseas can access their personal information held in New Zealand. The bill also complements the privacy review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. 
Overall business is global and politics is local. I am pleased indeed to see that this bill originally introduced by the previous Labour Government seems to have received bipartisan support. I am sure that it is only the first part of a more extensive modernisation of our privacy laws. Thank you.