Smith Nick: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7942. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Can I compliment Mr Little on his thoughtful contribution and other members who have contributed to this debate on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Amendment Bill and make a few remarks in terms of the context of this legislation. The first is that I would draw members’ attention to the annual report of the Privacy Commissioner that is tabled in this Parliament and would look at the track of statistics over privacy breaches in recent years. 
Some of the Opposition members have attempted to present the argument that there has been this sudden big burst of privacy breaches. In fact the annual report of the Privacy Commissioner for agencies such as the likes of the Department of Corrections the Inland Revenue Department and even ACC—the number of breaches has actually been reasonably consistent over the last 10 years albeit there is a very honest acceptance by the Government that new information systems whether they be those of Work and Income or the Inland Revenue Department or other agencies do pose an extra challenge for Government agencies to do their job effectively and efficiently around the protection of privacy. I do want to— 
Clare Curran 
: Table it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it is tabled. It is required by law actually Clare Curran for the Privacy Commissioner to table the report every year and I would draw Clare Curran’s attention to the actual numbers in that report. For instance some people would say that there have been— 
Clare Curran 
: Thousands of breaches—thousands of breaches. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She alleges a thousand breaches. No that is not what the Privacy Commissioner’s report says. In fact actually the number of privacy breaches in an area like ACC was not that different last year from what it had been for the previous 10 years. 
The second remark is that this Government takes a very practical approach. How many New Zealanders do you know who get really frustrated that when they change address they write off to one agency and say that their address has changed and then they get a bit of paper from another six agencies and they say: “Hang on a moment. I’ve told the Government once where my new address is. Do I really have to fill out 10 different forms to tell them?” Sometimes if we let the Clare Currans of the world run Government that is exactly what they would do because they do not take a fair-minded and practical view of these issues. 
Members opposite have also put questions about the experience of Paula Bennett and I have to respond in this regard. As a Minister the public is done a disservice when someone puts their personal circumstances into the public arena and wants to argue a matter of whether it is fair and does not put all that information there. I have been in that situation often as a Minister. The moment—and you will have members of the Opposition crying from the benches that this is grossly unfair—the Minister puts any information into the arena that provides some balance there are cries of “foul” and that this is a privacy breach. Well what about the right of the public to know the full story? That is equally valid in these debates and I think that is very important. 
It is interesting to note that with this bill at the select committee every one of the submitters supported it. Is that not an endorsement of the sensible approach that the Government is taking about information sharing and in respect of the protection of privacy? 
The last remark is that I want to commend this bill for taking a practical view around questions—for instance in the area of mental health—in respect of privacy information because there are examples that the coroners’ reports have drawn attention to this Parliament of cases where people have inadvertently made decisions about the protection of privacy of information that have actually resulted in people being put at risk and people being hurt inappropriately. It is proper that this bill changes that legal threshold and makes it plain that while there is a proper respect for privacy that needs to be balanced with other public interests and public goods such as the protection of safety and that we do not want the Privacy Act getting in the way of ensuring people get the proper health care and that people are protected from risk to their safety as a consequence of inappropriate ways in which the Privacy Act can be interpreted and administered. 
This is a good bill and a balanced bill. It builds on the work of the Privacy Commissioner. It also builds on the work of the Law Commission and provides us with the sort of sensible law that this Government favours law that protects people’s privacy but also allows information sharing and also allows the public safety to be properly protected. It is the sort of law that this Parliament should support.