Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill

I move, That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, and that the committee report to the House on or before 15 June 2012.

The Government is rethinking the way public services are delivered. We need to make public services better and smarter by finding new ways of doing things, and service delivery is moving towards better cooperation between Government agencies and community, local government, and private sector providers. People can find public services bewildering, and frequently express frustration with a system that can fail to address problems early and protect the most vulnerable people. All too often children in this country pay the price of that failure. This has to change.

Too often after a tragedy we hear that different agencies had different information, which, if it had been shared and acted on, would have saved a child’s life. Information is vital for delivering quality public services. Resources cannot be best used if we do not know anything about the people who will receive them or the problems faced. Information sharing can help agencies to see a more complete picture. Better information-sharing will mean that front-line staff can work together, so that the most vulnerable people in society do not slip through the cracks and they receive the assistance they need when they most need it.

There are already several ways for agencies to share information. The information privacy principles and their exceptions allow information to be shared in a broad range of circumstances. Information can also be shared under specific pieces of legislation or codes of practice developed by the Privacy Commissioner. Still, the Privacy Act is not as clear as it could be about when personal information can be shared, and this creates barriers for agencies trying to identify and assist the neediest people. I know that members have asked whether or not the Privacy Commissioner is supportive of what we are trying to do here, and she has been supportive.

In some cases front-line staff may be uncertain about whether the law allows them to information share. This can lead to an organisational culture or rules that discourage information sharing unless clearly allowed. All this means that information provided to one agency—as simple as an updated home address—will not necessarily be provided to another agency that needs it, and this has to change. New Zealanders need quality public services. Better information-sharing will contribute to and support better, smarter public services.

In 2007 the Law Commission began a comprehensive review of privacy law in New Zealand. The commission released its final report in August, and the Government will respond in due course. I am very grateful to the commission for its hard work, and this bill largely reflects its recommendations. The bill does deal with specific matters recommended, and the reasons, really, are around the life and safety of vulnerable people. This bill will improve the way personal information is collected, stored, and used to help people. It will ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect individuals’ rights to privacy.

The bill does two things. First, it will remove the need for a threat to public health or safety or to the life or health of an individual to be imminent. The information privacy principles will be amended to allow agencies to share information at an earlier stage in cases where there is a serious threat to public health or safety, or to the life or health of an individual. That difference between a serious threat and an imminent threat can be crucial, particularly when we are dealing with vulnerable people. This change is needed because in some cases a person may face a serious threat to their health, safety, or life, but the threat is not going to eventuate immediately. It makes no sense for an agency to keep information about a serious threat secret, simply because that threat is not imminent. This change will allow medical professionals, social workers, police, civil defence, and many other key service providers to share information to help protect the lives and well-being of vulnerable people.

Secondly, the bill sets out a process for drawing up information-sharing agreements to be approved by Orders in Council. The Orders in Council will enable information to be shared in information-sharing agreements outside of the information privacy principles for specified public purposes. Private sector agencies can become parties to information-sharing agreements and share information in the course of delivering public services. This will ensure the existing barriers to information flow and the delivery of public services can be easily removed and unclear information rules can be swiftly clarified. Agencies will be able to decide what information they need and enter into information-sharing agreements to get it.

The bill is careful to strike a balance between the need for information to smoothly flow through the public services and the need to protect individual privacy. When drawing up information-sharing agreements, agencies must consult the Privacy Commissioner. The commissioner may report to the relevant Minister before agreements are approved, and the Minister must take that report into account before any agreement is approved by Order in Council. Orders in Council are regulations, so the Regulations Review Committee will have an important role in ensuring that information-sharing agreements do not exceed the authority provided by Parliament. Also, if the commissioner considers that something is not working in the agreement, he or she will have the power to publish a report. The report must be presented to the House of Representatives, and the Government will be obliged to respond. If a person feels an agency has breached an information-sharing agreement, that person can complain to the Privacy Commissioner, which may result in an investigation under the Privacy Act’s existing complaints process. The bill introduces a principled yet pragmatic case by case approach that will ensure that information does flow, and that privacy is adequately protected. I commend the bill to the House.

We have heard from the Minister of Justice that the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill arises from an exercise that was begun by the Law Commission, I think in October 2006, and completed only in August last year. So it is something that took over 5 years and was required to be done in four different stages, because of the scale of the work. I read the report again today. It contains some sweeping recommendations for reform, and this is no less than we should expect. After all, the original Act dates from 1993, long before social media were in vogue, before smartphones, and even before the widespread use of the internet and email. So reform is overdue. The way in which we deal with information in our society today is vastly different from the way it was in 1993.

The Law Commission recognises this in its full report. One of its recommendations is that the Privacy Commissioner’s powers should be significantly augmented by a new power to issue a compliance notice where there is a clear breach of privacy principles, and, where there is good reason for it, to require an audit of an agency’s information-handling procedures. All we need to do in this House is think about some of the recent controversies around organisations like Google to think about what an important addition to the Privacy Commissioner’s armoury that would be, and what a useful one that would be from a consumer protection point of view.

The commission also recommends that the complaints process under the Act should be streamlined in a number of respects, including giving the Privacy Commissioner a binding power of decision on complaints about people’s rights to access to their own information. Anyone who has been involved in supporting a complainant to the Privacy Commissioner knows that the current procedures are cumbersome. They take a long time, and in the end the commissioner herself does not have a power of decision. All she can do in the event of failing to get the parties to a complaint to agree an outcome is to refer the matter on to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, who can then decide whether or not to take a case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal—and he may not, in which case the only recourse to the complainant is to fund one himself or herself. So that really is something that needs reform.

There are another three significant recommendations that I want to mention tonight. Agencies should be required to notify people when personal information held by the agency is lost or otherwise compromised—for example, through computer hacking—if the breach is sufficiently serious. There is just nothing in the Act or the privacy principles at the moment to equate with that sort of requirement, and it is obvious why: 1993 largely pre-dated hacking. There should be—this is another recommendation—a new framework in the Act to allow the sharing of personal information between Government agencies where it is in the public interest to do so, but with appropriate safeguards. Finally, some exceptions to the privacy principles should be modified—for example, to clarify that people can pass on information to an appropriate person where someone’s health is seriously at risk or can report suspected offending to the police.

It will be apparent from the Minister’s speech and from a reading of the bill that it is just those last two recommendations that are being picked up and dealt with in this legislation. Last year the Government identified information sharing, in particular, as a matter of urgency. The Minister mentioned in her speech first that she thought there were difficulties around information sharing in the Government sector, although she did not specify what those difficulties were, and she mentioned the problem of child abuse. But again I am not sure, with respect to her, that she made a link between that undoubtedly very troublesome phenomenon and the amendments that are proposed in the legislation that we are looking at tonight. None the less, it is clear that the bill is being brought forward to progress those last two recommendations of the commission that I mentioned. We have heard from the Minister that that is the rationale for it, so that is the basis on which we need to evaluate this legislation.

On this side of the House our usual practice is to support the referral of legislation to a select committee, unless the proposals that are contained in it are repugnant or just fatally flawed in some way. As I have said, these are proposals that flow out of a carefully considered Law Commission report. There are significant safeguards contained in the information-sharing powers. So it seems to us that because the work flows out of recommendations of the Law Commission, we should not, at this stage, fail to give it our support to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee to be properly considered. The information-sharing regime that the Government will be subject to under the bill clearly is intended to improve clarity, to ensure that information can be shared with more certainty, and to make it easier for that sharing to be carried out, as I said earlier, with appropriate protections.

Obviously, any increase in Government control over New Zealanders’ personal information needs to be carefully considered and balanced with strong safeguards, but it is apparent that the bill, consistent with the Law Commission’s recommendations, does contain those safeguards. It provides for transparency, accountability, and robust decision-making in the sharing of information by setting out the considerations that must be taken into account before information is shared, including the privacy risks. It requires transparency around this decision making by giving the Privacy Commissioner the right to publish her advice to Ministers, and I hope that it becomes a regular practice and that such advice will be tabled in public as a matter of course. There are requirements on departments to report on their activities, and information-sharing agreements that are reached are always subject to review by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Obviously, there is also the fact that any resulting agreements will be treated as delegated legislation and will be subject to the scrutiny of this House via the Regulations Review Committee, and I can assure the House, as chair of that committee, that we will take a robust approach to scrutiny in respect of these agreements.

It is also important, I think, that the Law Commission has recommended—and the bill has carried this through into the first draft—a strong role for the Privacy Commissioner, including providing flexibility for her to vary requirements, for example, on reporting in accordance with perceived privacy risk. As she is the expert on privacy risk, it is appropriate that she should make that assessment.

Having said all that, I am not left without concerns about this legislation. As I said earlier, I feel there has been an inadequate explanation from the Minister for severing these two recommendations of the Law Commission from the bulk of the rest of its work, and we are going to have to have a better explanation, frankly, at the select committee if support is to continue to be forthcoming. We are going to have to see the evidence for the link between the problems identified and the solutions proposed, such that they are sufficiently urgent to be brought forward in this way.

There is the obvious danger that the rest of the Law Commission’s work will just languish, given that this Government does tend, in the area of justice and law and order, to accord priority politically rather than according to evidential need. This would be a tragedy from a consumer protection point of view, because of the enormously complex environment caused by the new technologies that I referred to earlier. We especially need those enhanced powers on the part of the Privacy Commissioner. If the Government’s agenda is simply to advance these two recommendations and to leave all the others languishing on the Order Paper, or not even to legislate for them, then an absolute disservice will be done to every consumer in this country by the Minister.

I am also concerned that the robust controls and safeguards in the bill as it stands might be weakened as we go through the process, and we will be absolutely vigilant at the select committee to ensure that that does not occur. There are also some concerns in the regulatory impact statement that cannot be ignored. It is noted that there are no resources provided for the commissioner or for agencies to accommodate the requirements on them in the new legislation. So we will be supporting the referral of the legislation to the select committee. I wish the new chair of that committee well in that work.

Just before I begin, may I, as Louise Upston did, acknowledge briefly the contributions of the new members who made their maiden statements this afternoon. It is always quite a challenge for them, but it is interesting for other members to hear a little bit about them, and I thought they acquitted themselves very well. So congratulations and best wishes to them.

The chair of the Regulations Review Committee, Charles Chauvel, has just acknowledged that I am actually standing in this House for the first time in my new capacity as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee. [Interruption] I was not meaning to milk the applause, but thank you very much. You take it when you can get it, I guess. I am certainly very proud and delighted to have been accorded that honour, and I particularly welcome the introduction of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill, because, as the member who has just resumed his seat has indicated, it is the product of 5 years of very detailed work, and, as he mentioned, it includes some very sweeping proposals for reform. I think members will have enjoyed hearing the historical overview that Mr Chauvel has just given us. I also welcome the fact that the Labour Party, at least, has indicated it will support the bill, notwithstanding some concerns that Mr Chauvel has outlined. I have no doubt that the select committee will take time to consider those concerns as they are promoted to us.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that this is a very important measure, so I am very pleased to support our new Minister of Justice in welcoming the introduction of the bill to the House. As she has indicted, it is her intention to refer it to the Justice and Electoral Committee at the end of the first reading. The bill works in very well with a major election plank that National campaigned on and that was clearly endorsed by the electorate, which is our commitment to delivering high-quality, modern public services for all New Zealanders. That is a vitally important aspect of what the country is seeking as we work our way through the current recession, and as we try to ensure that people have opportunities and that we move with the times, particularly given that in this particular bill we are balancing very important factors: people’s right to privacy—is it “pri-vacy” or “pry-vacy”? I never really know how to say that word. My father always said “pry-vacy” and my mother always said “pri-vacy”. They argued about it. My father is now dead, but my mother is still alive. I am tempted to go with mum in case she is listening, but whatever it is—[Interruption] Father is right—and mother is. There is a need to balance that important principle—[Interruption] thank you; the Minister of Corrections has given me an honourable way out—with our need to protect vulnerable New Zealanders.

This type of measure, as I think Mr Chauvel has alluded to, can worry people. They begin to think: “Gee, this is the State bearing down on my private life, my right to operate without the scrutiny of the State.” Therefore it is important, I think, to state at the outset what the purpose of the bill is. This information-sharing bill aims to improve rules around the collection, storage, and use of personal information, while making sure that there are safeguards to protect an individual’s right to privacy—as Mr Simpson is telling me, I should say. In these days of rapidly evolving technology and social media, we do need to reform the current information-sharing regime. It has become significantly out of date, and with each passing year it seems to become more so. In fact, it sometimes baffles me how we can expect our laws to keep up with such rapid change in the technological field. That was clearly the strong recommendation of the Law Commission in its very detailed work as it reviewed the Privacy Act in regard to information sharing.

Information sharing, without doubt, has major benefits in allowing agencies to see all sides of an individual’s case, rather than just through their own narrow lens. Sometimes when we are dealing with really tricky social problems we need to ensure that those different agencies can share information, to ensure they deliver the best service, the best support, to people who are in need of it. By sharing personal information, agencies can work together to examine and understand the needs of a customer or client as a whole, instead of each agency viewing them through its own narrow lens. Though agencies are already able to share a great deal of personal information under the existing Act, the Act itself is unclear and misunderstood around when and how personal information can be shared.

The other important thing is that the bill has some significant cost-saving benefits, and as we streamline our public service delivery that is very important.

I think there are a whole lot of measures in this bill that we welcome. I acknowledge the fact that there will be some significant submissions to be considered at the select committee. I look forward to getting on with that work, and I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill, which in and of itself may not seem to be a highly contentious piece of work, but, taken in conjunction with some of the serious issues of the day that this House and our communities are currently facing, is extremely relevant. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has already pointed out, I think it is really important that we delve a little more deeply into the identification of the problem in order to really establish whether or not this bill is going to resolve issues we currently face, and in that sense I would still like to hear more from Government members in that regard.

These are tricky areas. We are trying to ultimately ensure that we continue to strike that incredibly important balance when it comes to privacy issues. Ultimately that is about preserving the rights of the individual to privacy whilst, at the same time, ensuring that where it is appropriate for that information to be shared—in the individual’s best interest and protection, for example—that is the case. We must make sure we have checks and balances in there, at the same time.

Now, the most obvious example of that is when it comes to the issue of child welfare. I would have liked to hear more from Government members about where the system is currently falling down, so that we could truly test whether or not these new measures will remedy that. In the absence of that, I would like to delve into them a little more, perhaps as an indication to the Justice and Electoral Committee as to where we might like to head. As my colleague has already pointed out, this bill is a consequence of a Law Commission review, and we are still concerned that parts of the recommendations from the commission have been carved off, and that we are dealing with this in a somewhat piecemeal way, particularly given we are still conducting a general process of consultation around child welfare, for instance. So in a way this is a very piecemeal way to address the issue.

One of the first things the bill begins to do is to look at the way that exceptions to information being shared, and privacy principles, have been used in the past. I was recently at a seminar where a lawyer who specialises in public law pointed out that we may be remedying a case of misuse of the Privacy Act in its current form, and that in risk aversion in some cases public servants may, because of lack of clarity around the Privacy Act, have acted in a risk-averse way, not necessarily in line with the expectations of the Privacy Act as it currently stands. In fact, I believe that the commission even created an acronym to refer to when this occurs. It is unfortunate therefore that we have to amend our legislation to deal with practice, rather than with the intent of the law itself. But if it is being misused and not used appropriately, then as a Parliament we cannot ignore that.

One of the exceptions that currently exists within the Privacy Act, which one would have thought could be used in some of the cases we have seen more recently involving high-profile child abuse cases, is that information is able to be shared if there is an imminent threat to public health or safety, or the life or health of an individual. Now, that has been replaced in this bill, due to a view that “imminent” did not give enough clarity to the users as to what was intended. I would contend that any descriptors in this way do have an element of subjectivity attached to them, and therefore I would really implore the select committee to make sure that we test some of these thresholds to ensure we think there is enough clarity around them, and even test whether or not guidance will be required from the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that we do not have the same situation arise that we currently have with the Privacy Act as it stands.

Secondly, this bill will insert a new provision to allow for information-sharing agreements. Now, the regulatory impact statement goes into the detail of the options that were available to the Ministry of Justice when considering such a new mechanism. I think it has taken the option that has more checks and balances attached to it. But one thing I want to test is how would this operate in an everyday situation, in an area of child welfare, for instance, given that this is the area the Government has flagged that this piece of legislation is necessary for? The bill, as I understand it, sets out that one of the signatories to an agreement would have to be a Government department and could then be with another—for instance, a contracted NGO that might be dealing in the area of child welfare.

Now, my question is that we have a number of smaller organisations in our communities that are contracted by Child, Youth and Family to deal in the area of child welfare and well-being, and is it realistic to expect that these kinds of arrangements will be agreed to between Child, Youth and Family and one of these smaller agencies, given the process that must be undertaken? For instance, the explanatory note of the bill states that approval of information-sharing agreements must be done by Order in Council, and that approved information-sharing agreements would then need to go through consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and other interested parties.

Now, of course, I would expect these kinds of checks and balances to be in place, but what are the expectations for the kinds of organisations that would enter into these agreements, and do we think it is realistic that some of these community organisations would go to this extent? What kind of time lines do we expect for each of these individual arrangements to take? Will there be any kind of templated agreements that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is likely to construct? These are the kinds of questions I would like to see discussed at the select committee, otherwise we may not, in fact, see a real, significant change in the way that some of our Government departments are working with agencies in this area, unless we really test that threshold and those expectations.

I want to come back briefly, though, if I may, to the origins of this bill from the perspective of the Government. Obviously this piece of work was instigated earlier than some of the reports that have since endorsed its work—for instance, the report recently released by Mel Smith into the terrible case of a child being tortured by her parents. The report identified that multiple agencies were involved in that child’s case, but information was not adequately shared. I would contend that there are other layers that exist within a situation like that that go beyond information sharing, and we need to ensure that we address them, if this bill is really to have the intended effect.

For instance, once information is shared, we often see in a number of cases a lack of clear pathways as to who is ultimately accountable to that individual family or that child. Does the accountability sit with a Child, Youth and Family social worker? Is it a situation for police intervention? To what degree has a school been involved?

I have seen many cases before where a lack of clarity around who is accountable has in fact led to the ball being dropped, rather than being solely the issue of whether information has adequately been shared. That is an issue that is probably primarily for the Minister for Social Development to address, but I will contend that, in and of themselves, suggestions like these will not work, unless we resolve some of those key issues. Secondly, all of this will be completely redundant unless we ensure that the agencies that are dealing with these difficult cases are well resourced. That is something I think we also need to flag.

One final point I would like to raise is that the green paper talks about information sharing as well, but goes much further than this bill currently intends to go. I would like some clarity from the Government as to whether or not it may go any further in future. The green paper states: “The government could review the current provisions in legislation to ensure professionals at the frontline, such as teachers, social workers, GPs, nurses, psychologists, police officers and therapists are able to freely share information about children they work with for the purpose of accurately assessing the needs of the child, and their family and whānau.” That goes beyond the realms of this bill, and it would be interesting to hear from the Government what its intentions are, once the green paper submissions have all been received, and once the white paper, which the Minister assures me has not yet been written, comes out. Are we going to go beyond the scope of what has been recommended in this bill?

I look forward to there being further debate at select committee. We continue to have a few concerns around the way that this bill has come to the House, and the areas it covers, but I am sure those will be explored further on.

The Green Party will not be supporting the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill today, as we are being asked to sign up to an erosion of a core human right for the nebulous gain of “improving public service delivery”. We do certainly acknowledge that there are instances where information sharing could produce good results. However, this legislation does not put in adequate checks and balances or provide clarity of purpose. We do not believe that the select committee process is enough of a public consultation to justify the erosion, or redefinition, of one of our core rights.

Green Party policy requires us to scrutinise closely any information sharing between different State databases and oppose those that are unwarranted. We are also required to review controls on the exchange of information between Government agencies to ensure consistency with the aims of the Privacy Act. We do not believe that this bill is warranted, or that the controls outlined are adequate to protect against breaches, and neither do we believe that they are consistent with the intent of the Privacy Act.

Just to remind the House of some of our understandings—our common understandings—of what privacy is and why it is important to us and why it is a human right, I would just like to draw your attention to information on the Privacy Commission’s website that says privacy is, basically, about people’s need to protect information about themselves, and, secondly, acknowledging that people need the opportunity to withdraw physically or mentally from society. Privacy as defined by this common understanding is important to ensure that we all feel secure. For instance, we become tense when we are constantly under scrutiny. We also often define our relationships with other people by the information we choose to share with them. So if we are unable to control who knows information about us, we will feel insecure, at least in part because the boundaries of our relationships become uncertain. Human beings need security to be able to function normally in their social environment. So privacy that supports or creates feelings of security is an important human right. If we feel secure we are more likely to play a full part in society.

The Privacy Commission, of course, acknowledged that although privacy is important, it is not absolute. All privacy law already makes allowances for other social interests such as preventing crime, ensuring safety, and ensuring courts get information to make their decisions. Please note that none of those points reference revenue collection or the improvement of public services. They have never been considered as priorities over the basic right to privacy.

The aim of the bill before the House today is to amend the Privacy Act and the Tax Administration Act to facilitate information-sharing between agencies. The key changes as stated in the bill are to allow the use and disclosure of personal information where there is serious threat to public health or safety or the life or health of an individual, and removing the necessity for that threat to be imminent, as is currently required. It also allows information-sharing agreements to be implemented by Order in Council to clarify or modify the application of the privacy principles. It also allows these agreements to be between and within Government agencies as well as private sector organisations, which includes NGOs.

We have several concerns about this, in detail. Removing “imminent” from the legislation, in relation to “threat”, and making it just a “serious threat” to public health or public safety or the life or health of the individual concerned, or another individual, would effectively enable Government agencies to profile people and share information on the basis of profiles. I do not believe that this is consistent with the intent of the original Act, or our shared understanding of privacy rights. It also holds the potential to reinforce racist stereotypes, and I think that is something that as a country we need to be very careful of. The creation of information-sharing agreements by regulation is problematic, as people’s privacy rights could be undermined, and agreements can provide exemptions to privacy principles. The checks and balances that are provided by the Privacy Commissioner’s advice are not binding on Cabinet. This, for us, is not good enough. It gives Cabinet new and significant powers to override privacy rights.

Further, I would like to draw attention to—I come from a community organisation background, and I really would be sad to see us lose the pressure for agencies to engage people in the choice about whether their information was shared. Currently Strengthening Families is an example of information sharing between agencies, and it gives us an insight into how some of the tensions might work in this area. Typically the process goes two ways: one way is where agencies get together, excluding the family, and decide what the family needs to do, or, secondly, when the family is central to the process, they choose that their information is shared, and they are involved all the way along. This latter option is generally acknowledged as the better practice, which is more likely to lead to long-term positive outcomes. However, of course, there is real pressure on agencies to get outcomes and tick boxes, and this pressure often leads to the first approach being taken. We believe that this piece of legislation will provide more justification for that first approach, and will provide many more pathways for excluding people from decisions about the sharing of their personal information.

In the social sector forum briefing to the incoming Minister, it alludes to this bill by noting, for example, that planned amendments to the Privacy Act, if pursued, would enable Government agencies to enter into information-sharing agreements with other Government and non-government agencies. So it is clearly stating that this bill will cover business, community, and iwi organisations, as would Strengthening Families. To give more of a sense of the Government agencies’ impressions of how they might use this Act, I again quote the social sector forum briefing for incoming Ministers, which says that better information-sharing would reduce duplication and help them better provide services to families with multiple issues. Information sharing is also the starting point for developing an investment approach and it supports better assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of the impact of particular programmes and services. However, of course, it is important to remain mindful of privacy and safety considerations. It is the last little addition to make that OK.

As I have mentioned already, I come from the community and voluntary tangata whenua sector, previously known as the third sector. It has been known as the third sector because alongside Government and business, the community sector has a distinct culture and values and helps keep this country running. The third sector is not an arm of the State and should not be treated as such. I believe it will be to the detriment of the country as a whole if this independence is undermined any further than it already has been. To give the Government the potential to pressure community organisations to share information without individual consents and against the codes of practice of those organisations is a threat to the autonomy of the sector. I say this from having managed several health and welfare organisations. I know from experience how important confidentiality of information is to young people accessing health services, and for women escaping domestic violence.

The Government may think that information sharing will improve service delivery, but there may be very significant unintended consequences if we put more pressure on community organisations to share information, or indeed even extend the sharing of information between Government agencies without very strong forethought. I heard today about a pregnant woman on the domestic purposes benefit who is escaping a violent relationship. She told her community-based advocate that she is considering hiding her pregnancy because she is scared that if the Housing New Zealand Corporation or the health system find out, they will tell Work and Income and she will experience incentives to find work more quickly than she could cope with. A nuanced message of responsible information-sharing will not be the message received by our most vulnerable people. The drive to hide information—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.

It is a great pleasure to rise to speak briefly on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. As I see it, this bill is about honouring the trust the Government has in holding information on an individual. It is also about breaking open the silos of information—shattering those silos of information to allow better sharing of information. This is a Government that actually values trust. We delivered on every one of the policies we made in 2008, and we were rewarded with a significant increase in our percentage of the vote as a result. We value the trust of the electorate.

One of our major priorities in the forthcoming electoral cycle is, as we have said, that we want to rebuild Christchurch. We want to get a more competitive and productive economy. We are going to fiscally manage the Government’s finances so as to get out of debt earlier. We are also going to get better value from the public services. Now, the previous speaker could not see the relationship between that and actually delivering services to people who need them, and this is one of our major thrusts.

We have announced a high-powered ministerial team to address poverty. We are aware in this Government that the global financial crisis has impacted more on the disadvantaged in society than on others. It is inevitable. I am walking around the streets of Manurewa, speaking to the people in the Manurewa community, and I am hearing the difficulties they are facing. In our first term, of course, we improved the participation options for them in early childhood education. We gave them greater opportunities to get necessary health care sooner, more conveniently, of course, and we are addressing the Third World rates of rheumatic fever that we inherited in that community. One of the things that we need to make sure is that these most vulnerable kiddies—the ones we are dealing with—are not falling through the cracks.

💬 Asenati Lole-Taylor: They are.

You are right—you are absolutely right. They are, they have been, and what we wish to do is reduce the chances of that happening, so the Ministers of Education, Social Development, Health, and Housing—I have the privilege of sitting right next to the Minister of Housing from the Government—and their agencies will be able to share information more readily. How will they do this? The bill amends the Privacy Act to improve public service delivery by introducing two new mechanisms for better, smarter information-sharing. These can lead to more integrated services, reduced duplication, and lower information-handling costs.

What are the two key improvements? We have heard them mentioned in the past by some of the previous speakers. I think it is valid. It is about widening the definition or the exception to allow the use and disclosure of personal information when there is a serious threat to public health or safety, or the life or health of an individual. Currently, that threat must be imminent. Who is a clairvoyant? Who can tell when the threat is going to occur? I think the reality is that moving to the definition of “serious threat” actually means that the damage to the vulnerable is less likely to occur. The second innovation is that a new mechanism will be inserted to make provision for the approval of information-sharing agreements by Order in Council so, if there is a problem, it can be dealt with expeditiously.

I did talk about honouring trust, of course, and if you are holding information on somebody and there is a failure of security in sharing that information, there is inaccurate information, or there is use of that information in ways that are not anticipated by the individual, that is a betrayal of that trust. So in order to honour that trust, to make sure that does not happen, and to ensure that any resulting intrusions into personal privacy are minimised, the bill sets out the required content for information-sharing agreements and the process for their approval, which will include consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and other interested parties.

The bill sets out safeguards to ensure that approved information-sharing agreements operate transparently and consistently with their intent. This bill—and we have heard from Charles Chauvel that it draws upon a lot of in-depth work by the Law Commission—addresses a very serious issue in our community. It will lead to better outcomes. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to take this call on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First members support the intent and substance of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. There has long been a need to make certain whether, when, and how agencies can share information about an individual. In fact it is common sense that this should be possible, provided, of course, that there are adequate controls in favour of personal privacy. Those are the provisions that New Zealand First will wish to ensure are robust, and that is something that we will be looking at closely in the Committee stage.

The benefits of information sharing are significant, and there are a couple of good examples of this given in the regulatory impact statement. They include these two: that the ability of agencies to take a coordinated approach to support individuals and families with complex needs is not as effective as it could be if information were shared more easily; and that the violent abuse of a young child is sometimes blamed on inadequate coordination, which draws attention to a lack of information sharing.

So we should not always see that there is some dark purpose behind this. There do need to be controls, of course, but let us look at the positives that can come out of information sharing. After all, if one agency of Government has got information for valid purposes, then it is perfectly normal for another arm of Government to require and make good use of that information as well. The detailed provisions of the bill do create the certainty required for agencies to lawfully share information, and also protect the rights of individuals concerned. They also empower the Privacy Commissioner appropriately in his or her role to oversee the operation of these new provisions.

The concept of the bill, we think, is good. First, it allows sharing as appropriate and necessary for the efficient operation of the Public Service. An agency that holds personal information may use the information for another purpose or disclose it to another person if the agency believes on reasonable grounds that the use or disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to public health or public safety, or the life or health of the individual concerned, or of another individual. So the purposes are perfectly proper, and provide a significant benefit to the community as a whole, provided, again, that there are adequate provisions in favour of personal privacy. We think that the removal of the word “imminent” is also sensible and necessary. It is easy to see the problems that the word “imminent” would impose. The word is unnecessary, and it is unduly limiting.

The second thing that the bill does is to provide for a new mechanism using a procedure culminating in an Order in Council to improve information-sharing agreements, and it is the best of the two options that were available. In particular, it sets out the functions of the Privacy Commissioner by adding further provisions to section 13, including: the making of submissions on an information-sharing agreement, in new subsection (1AA)(a); in new subsection (1AA)(b), reporting to a relevant Minister on any matter relating to privacy that arises; in new subsection (1AA)(d), receiving and investigating complaints about alleged interference with privacy; in new subsection (1AA)(f), conducting a review on the operation of an approved information-sharing agreement; in new subsection (1AA)(g), reporting to a relevant Minister on the findings of a review conducted; and, in new subsection (1AA)(h), requiring a public sector agency to report on the operation of each approved information-sharing agreement.

These provisions will give confidence that the rights of the individual will be protected appropriately, that privacy principles and codes of conduct will be preserved, and that there will be transparency and reporting requirements in respect of the operation of agreements.

The requirements for the Order in Council in the new section 96H are also comprehensive. I note than in proposed new section 96H(e), an Order in Council must “for every party to the agreement,—(i) describe the personal information or type of personal information that the party may share with each of the other parties; and (ii) state how the party may use the personal information; and (iii) state the adverse actions that the party can reasonably be expected to take as a result of sharing personal information under the agreement; and (iv) specify the procedure that the party must follow before taking adverse action against an individual as a result of sharing personal information under the agreement”. In proposed new section 96K(2)(a) the Minister must be satisfied that the “agreement will facilitate the provision of any public service or public services:”, in section 96K(2)(b) the Minister must be satisfied “that the type and quantity of personal information to be shared under the agreement are no more than is necessary to facilitate the provision of that public service”, in section 96K(2)(c) the Minister must be satisfied “that the agreement does not unreasonably impinge on the privacy of individuals and contains adequate safeguards to protect their privacy:”, in section 96K(2)(d) the Minister must be satisfied “that the benefits of sharing personal information under the agreement are likely to outweigh the costs of sharing it:”, and, lastly, in section 96K(2)(e) the Minister must be satisfied “that any potential conflicts or inconsistencies … under the agreement and any other enactment or rule of law have been identified and appropriately addressed.”

These requirements are also comprehensive and we think adequately balance the needs of departments and agencies against the rights of individuals for personal privacy. After all, it is for the benefit of the community as a whole that such information should be available, provided that the necessary protections are in place. Otherwise, the provisions relating to giving notice of adverse action, review and amendments of agreements, and reporting requirements are all satisfactory.

There is, however, one matter of apparent misdrafting that I would like to raise with the committee with a suggestion for rectification. It is a relatively minor matter. It relates to the amendment to section 2(1) and concerns the definition of “serious threat”, which refers to an agency in assessing whether a threat is serious to have regard to “ ‘(a) the likelihood that the threat will occur: ‘(b) the severity of the consequences if the threat occurs: ‘(c) the time at which the threat may occur’.” I believe that these subsections should, instead of referring to the threat itself, refer to the events or conduct threatened, as follows, for example: (a) the likelihood that the event or conduct threatened will occur, (b) the severity of the consequences if the event or conduct threatened occur, and (c) the time at which the event or conduct threatened may occur.

Finally, it is obvious that the bill if enacted will place much more pressure on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I trust that despite current budgetary constraints, the necessary additional resources will be made available so that the commissioner can carry out the important role defined in the bill. Subject to these comments, and for the reasons mentioned, New Zealand First members support the bill going to the select committee.

I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. This bill is about improving rules around the collection, storage, and use of personal information, while making sure that there are safeguards to protect an individual’s right to privacy. It is a very important bill, and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice on bringing this bill to the House.

This bill is in part a response to the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act with regard to information sharing. The report showed—it was a very comprehensive report—that agencies here and now can actually share quite a great deal of information but that that was not the reality and was not the practice; rather, there was confusion and misunderstanding. This bill will certainly aim to clear that up and provide other measures to help protect vulnerable people, particularly children.

It is vital that this bill is fast-tracked in order that vulnerable people and children are protected. Every year an average of 10 children die at the hands of people closest to them and the people they love and trust. Between 2008 and 2009, over 13,000 children under 5 were admitted to hospital for conditions that could have been avoided, and almost 1,300 were admitted because of assault, neglect, or maltreatment. Quite frankly, too many are being hurt and abused. We must ensure that no vulnerable child slips through the cracks because departments cannot or will not talk to each other and share information. And I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development, Minister Paula Bennett, on her green paper. It has been very well received. In the forum that I attended there were many constructive comments made. The green paper is about testing ideas and opening up the discussion on child abuse and neglect.

There is no doubt that the current information-sharing regime needs to be urgently reformed. We must ensure that vulnerable people and children are protected, and ensure that information is linked across departments. That will be one way that we can ensure that no one falls through the cracks. Of course, there will be many other spin-offs and benefits. There will be a team approach, rather than a siloed approach, across departments, which can only benefit the clients and the staff. It is about taking an all-inclusive and a holistic approach, and inevitably there will be better service delivery as duplication and double-handling are avoided. This bill strikes the right balance, ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect a person’s right to privacy, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Can I say first of all that it is a pleasure for me to speak on the first reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. I want to start my contribution by acknowledging the member who has just resumed her seat, Dr Jackie Blue, and welcome her back to the House, but more particularly to acknowledge her courage towards the end of last year in speaking out about her personal involvement with domestic violence. I think that is a leadership role that is very seldom played by women members of Parliament. It is not an easy thing to do. You do not need to do it—one does not need to do it; you clearly could not do it, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. But I just want to acknowledge and thank Dr Jackie Blue for that bit of work.

Having said that, I think the contribution that Dr Blue made omitted to reference any of the concerns that we may have, whether because of reality or perception, and the subsequent downsides that are possible in this bill. And in my view her proposal that it needs to be fast-tracked should be viewed with some concern, because the devil is in the detail of this legislation.

My colleague Charles Chauvel has already clearly outlined that in his contribution at the primary part of this debate. The new member for New Zealand First Denis O’Rourke, in just a matter of days here, has already found some issues of concern in the detail, not in the principle. In fact, if you read the explanatory note, it is motherhood and apple pie. Well, that is not the way that legislation works, particularly when it is legislation that often impacts on people’s perception of what happens to information, particularly information that is gathered by Government departments, and the potential harm that could be done. Jan Logie’s contribution earlier on raised similar concerns.

I do not agree that we should therefore say: “Well, we shouldn’t do this. We don’t want to improve information sharing.” Of course we do, but the concerns need to be considered and robustly addressed. Privacy, protection, but, most of all, ensuring that when information is shared it can do no harm to individuals should be the most important criteria, and I am not sure that that contribution has been made strongly enough throughout the debate. So I would urge the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the genuine concerns that people have and not say: “Well, that won’t happen.” but say: “How can we ensure beyond doubt that it won’t happen?”, because it is not the intention of this legislation to do any harm.

This bill has been around, in one form or another, for a long time. Originally it came out of the Law Commission’s review of the privacy legislation, and the privacy legislation certainly needed that sort of comprehensive review. The original Act was from 1993. That is a long time ago. It was before many of the tools that we currently use, without even giving them a moment’s thought, when we gather and share information. It was before the widespread use of emails, before we used the internet, as we do now, and certainly before social media and before Smartphones. So the original privacy legislation was written long before we had many of the things that we need to consider and cover.

The Law Commission started this comprehensive review in October 2006 and finished it only last year. It had a lot on, and it did a big job. So, you know, it appropriately and understandably took them that length of time. The Law Commission’s report back was to the then Minister, the Hon Simon Power, who is now the chief executive of Westpac Private Bank, and I congratulate him on that new role, but also on the considerable amount of work he did on this legislation.

The Law Commission made a number of recommendations to the Hon Simon Power. It said that the Privacy Commissioner’s powers needed to be augmented, that the Privacy Commissioner needed specifically a new power to issue compliance notices, and, where there was a good reason for it, to require—not just request but require—an audit of an agency’s information-handling process. That is quite a big extension of the Privacy Commissioner’s powers.

The Law Commission recommended a streamlining of the complaints process under the legislation, so that the Privacy Commissioner would have the ability to make binding decisions on people’s complaints where those complaints were about access to their own personal information, and it made another significant recommendation about agencies being required to notify people when personal information about them, which was held by an agency, was lost or compromised. At the moment there is no requirement to do that. So if we had computer hacking, if somebody’s emails had been hacked into and personal information held by an agency was lost or compromised as a result of that or some other action, then the agency would be required to notify that person.

They are big issues. They were strong and clear recommendations from the Law Commission, and when I look through the legislation I cannot find them. I would really like to know why. I would like to know why both the Hon Simon Power and the Hon Judith Collins looked—presumably, carefully—at the Law Commission report and said: “This is a comprehensive review that they’ve done over 5 years. They’ve made all these recommendations, some of which focus on the protection end of the information-sharing spectrum, and others focus on the information-sharing end of the spectrum, but we just need to go ahead with these two recommendations.”

Well, I do not understand that. And I think the select committee will be very keen to know why, when you get not just a little bitsy look at it but a comprehensive review by an independent organisation like the Law Commission, we just pick the bits that make the information sharing easier and do not address the issues that protect people’s privacy, do not have a streamlined complaints process, and do not have a requirement for the agency to tell people if their information held has been compromised or lost. Why do we not do that? I do not think it makes sense and I am really disappointed in both Ministers in that regard.

I think it is going to be a very interesting debate. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has already noted, Labour will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. That is our usual practice. We usually oppose bills going to a select committee if we are strongly opposed to the principle of that legislation, if it just does not fit in with any values that we can share. But if we think the bill has got some merit and can be improved, or it does not go far enough, or it has some deficiencies, we will certainly want it to progress to a select committee so we can have the benefit of hearing perhaps from the Law Commission what it thinks of its comprehensive report being short-changed in this way and little bits of it being taken out. It will be very interesting to hear the commission’s view on that.

I would also be very interested in hearing from the practitioners who work closely with families who are dysfunctional and abuse their children. In respect of the information that is gathered by various agencies about those families and vulnerable children, what is the best way to ensure not that the information is shared but that something is done about the information once it is shared? That was the very point that my colleague Jacinda Ardern was making in relation to the green paper. It is all very well having lots and lots of discussion about things, but I actually recall the Minister herself, Judith Collins, saying when she was in Opposition that it is really important that something be done about it, and I have not seen any of that action yet.

The other concerns I have are in relation to the points that Jan Logie made, that we may have young or vulnerable people, people who desperately need access to support of some sort or other, generally through a Government department or agency. They might need access to the health system, they might need access to income support, they might need access to some sort of social service or support, Housing New Zealand Corporation support—any number of types of support services—and they might be too afraid to approach that agency for support because of a fear, justified or otherwise, about personal information being shared. We cannot have that as an acceptable situation in New Zealand.

I just want to conclude by saying the idea that is in the explanatory note, that this is going to lead to better, smarter services, nobody could argue with. It is motherhood and apple pie. Our primary concern must be for the privacy and support of individual New Zealanders.

I am glad to speak on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill, and I am even more glad that it is coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where, as Ruth Dyson has encouraged us to, we will take a very good look at it. We will hear from the people who know a lot about this.

I have spoken in this House now a number of times on privacy, and I would not take this too far, but in some ways it is a relatively new value, certainly when compared with freedom of expression and information, which have been talked about and written about for literally centuries. Of course, privacy rubs up against freedom of expression, and we see that at the moment very graphically with the Leveson Inquiry in the United Kingdom, where Lord Leveson is looking into the really reprehensible conduct by British media—the phone tapping, the bugging, and so on of actors, royalty, politicians, you name it.

There are different views, I think, about where legitimately we should fall as a society on privacy as opposed to freedom of information and expression. My view, although I would always basically tend towards freedom of expression, is that I think we should not be absolutist about this. But if there is one area where we should come close, I think, to being absolutist, it is in relation to the most vulnerable in society, particularly children.

I agree with the comments from this side of the House about the maiden speeches given today from the New Zealand First members. It was very good to be here to hear them, to get a flavour of the individuals, and to hear my fellow Tauranga MP Brendan Horan, who talked about—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: He’s a list MP.

Yes, he is a list MP; that is a low blow. Brendan Horan talked about what made him passionate about the issues of child abuse and the death of children from really serious abuse. And he is right to get angry, and to get angry about the fact that in this country there are too many of those deaths and far too much serious abuse against children. Let us be very clear: the responsibility for those deaths, first and foremost, goes to the individual—some would say the scumbag—who has committed that violence. Let us be very clear about that. But, nevertheless, the Government and governmental agencies have a real role in being protective of those children and doing everything they can to share information and to make sure they can act as a bulwark, as a protective agency, against that abuse when information comes to them. We do not want privacy rules, I do not think, to get in the way unnecessarily of things like that, where, as I anticipate, doctors find something out or the social worker finds something out and they are in a quandary about what to do with that information, particularly where health and safety and sometimes life are at stake.

I accept that this bill is about many more things than that, but that is one aspect of what this bill seeks to address. As I say, and as I said at the start of this contribution, I look forward to discussing those issues at the select committee and hopefully hearing from a number of experts in the field in regard to privacy issues. I do not think Ruth Dyson need have any fear. Under Tim Macindoe, as the new chair, we have got someone who is very thoughtful and who really will want to grapple with these issues, and we will do that to the best of our ability.

Privacy seems to be a bit of a theme for the week in the House at the moment. We were dealing with another bill that related to privacy issues last night. The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is in fact part of a series of bills that appear to be coming before the House at the moment to do with the storage of personal information by Government agencies, and the sharing and use of it. It is a debate that is well overdue. It is interesting.

As a constituency member of Parliament, I can tell members that there are two very clearly defined sides of this debate. There are those who believe that nobody should ever store any information about anybody and nobody should ever share any information about anybody with anyone. Then there is the other side of the debate that cannot believe that the Government does not actually share information with itself and gets really, really frustrated by it, and, as a result, loses confidence in public services because of that.

One of the risks that is highlighted in the regulatory impact statement and right in the general policy statement of this bill is that the misuse of information stored by Government agencies can result in a loss of confidence in those public services. But I also put it that the opposite of that is also true—that the not sharing of that information can equally lead to a loss of confidence in public services, no more so than in the case of very vulnerable citizens, particularly children, as many members have talked about. I think every member of the public finds it absolutely appalling when there is a case of child abuse or a case of neglect where agencies collectively have had enough information to have been able to identify and deal with it, but, because of a lack of information sharing between them, seem to be unable to do so. I think that does lead to a lack of confidence in the process of government, and it is something that we on all sides of the House need to take very seriously and take action to address.

We live in an age where people are perhaps a little bit less concerned about privacy—some people are a little bit less concerned about privacy than others would have been. Younger generations of New Zealanders share a phenomenal amount of information about themselves in very publicly available forums—social media, for example—far more so than would have been available about people’s lives in the past, and they do so freely. The question really becomes around the control of information and the control of personal information—so, who holds my personal information, can I get it, who are they sharing it with, how will I know? Those are all very legitimate questions for any citizen to be able to ask, and they are things that we need to keep in mind when we are considering any law change around privacy.

I think it is really important that the Government takes a quite coordinated approach to all of the different strands of work that are being done in this area. That is one of the reasons why I think the Law Commission’s involvement in this process provides some assurance to the public that in fact this is not just going to be a knee-jerk reaction. It is not going to be something that is ad hoc or piecemeal, but, in fact, there is a wider consideration of the underlying principles and values around privacy that are being considered, and it is not just being dealt with as a one off.

I want to turn to some of the problems with the status quo—the problems with not dealing with this. Obviously there is duplication of information collection and storage amongst Government agencies if we do not have an effective means for sharing of the information. All members, I think, around the House would like to see our public services operate more efficiently and provide a far more citizen-centric public service. So this is not one where our citizens are shunted from one department to the next to the next, but one where that whole “no wrong door” concept should apply to the public service. So it does not matter where you go, you are never going to the wrong place. They will make sure you end up in the place that you need to end up. Information sharing is going to be really important in that and it will become increasingly more so.

I think one of the other problems with our current regime is it prevents some personal information being used in a way that would speed up the detection of fraud or deter fraudulent behaviour. People know they can get away with it, so they do. Better information sharing will result in people knowing that they cannot get away with it because they will get caught. I think that is also really important. Therefore, better coordination in those situations will be very beneficial. But I think by and large that the major benefit is around dealing with vulnerable people and making sure that people do not fall through the cracks. In that regard, I think this bill is a very welcome move. We will be supporting its referral to a select committee so that it can have a full hearing and people can have their say on it.

I am pleased to add a few comments to those made by my colleague Jan Logie. The Greens are not supporting the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill for reasons that Jan has partly outlined—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that he must use the member’s full name in the House, or their title.

My apologies; indeed, yes. This legislation that is being debated to be amended is 20-year-old legislation. It was enacted in 1993—not a terribly long time ago for some of us, but, nevertheless, a very different world. Computers were relatively scarce. The idea of home computing was much less commonplace than it is now. Mobile phones were still relatively novel. They were used for making and receiving telephone calls, and that was about the extent of it. We are in a very different context in terms of technology. To some extent, at that time and prior to that our privacy was largely protected, or considerably protected, by the limitations of the storage mechanisms available—paper, index cards, and filing cabinets. There was not the ability, or there was much less of an ability, to share information, to steal it, to take it either rightly or wrongly. Given that this legislation is 20 years old, there has been a remarkable increase in technology around information data-sharing. We do not deny the need for change. We are not resistant to change in itself; we simply do not see that the proposals in this amendment bill are those that will move us to where we want to be.

The available technology clearly is a two-edged sword. We can acquire information, we can store it, we can analyse it, and we can share it. Massive amounts of information can be moved around almost in a heartbeat, virtually with no time delay. Mechanisms for managing that data, for protecting it, and for monitoring its use in an ethical and appropriate way are arguably considerably behind our technical ability to work with it. That is, I think, the dilemma that we are confronting here.

The second dilemma, in a sense, has been perhaps referred to by the previous speaker as something of a cultural split in terms of electronic data and making it available. I would suspect that those of my generation guard our privacy, our information, quite jealously. We want to know why and for what purpose people might want information from us. At the other end of the spectrum I think the younger generation—what you might casually or perhaps in a very generalist way call the “Facebook generation”—think nothing of putting very large amounts of personal data into the public domain. But I think, personally, a healthy dose of cynicism injected into that generation might do some good in that sense. Clearly, it is much easier to put information out there than it is to retrieve it.

To return to the bill, the purpose of the bill in a sense is not the core problem for the Greens. We have difficulty with it, because we recognise the shortcomings. One example that has been pointed out to me is the inability of the Family Court to retrieve or to have information shared that might be available at the District Court. This can create difficulties and we could improve that situation arguably. We do see that there are situations where data sharing—information sharing—could enable better outcomes, could be appropriate, ethical, and serve public good.

However the mechanism chosen, this proposed amendment legislation, we do not see as the appropriate one. It is largely, as my colleague spoke to earlier, that there is a lack of checks and balances within this legislation. I think much has been made of the fact that the Privacy Commissioner would need to be involved in the preparation and the process of delivering the Orders in Council. But the commissioner’s report or feedback would have no binding effect on anything that was produced. It is purely a consultative mechanism; it is not one that gives us any confidence that the executive—any executive—might not overstretch the mark and use these mechanisms in a way that would not be appropriate, that would not be suitably cognisant of the absolute right of people to maintain their privacy. So we are not persuaded by this bill. We will oppose it. We look forward to the select committee. Thank you.

Kia ora. Can I start by saying it is a pleasure to stand and speak on such an important bill, the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. I think it is a very important bill for this House. The implications of it, as and when it enters into law, will be important for many of the vulnerable children in New Zealand who, until now, we read about in our newspapers and who become statistics—and very sad statistics they are.

Can I start, though, by recognising the New Zealand First members who gave their maiden speeches today and saying that I enjoyed all of them. In particular, I remember 3 years ago when I and some of my colleagues were here making our maiden speeches. Interestingly, not everybody on our side of the House was able to make their maiden speeches then. I note it is the same with New Zealand First; some made theirs 40 or 50 years ago. But it is good to see the new members who are coming here, and I look forward to working closely and productively with them in the coming 3 years. [Interruption] Yes, I will be in trouble for that one.

Can I say that the debate so far in this House has been a very worthwhile one, because it has not focused just on the issue of privacy or on the concern people have about their private information; it has been about how we protect vulnerable New Zealanders and vulnerable children. Actually, for me that is really what the important part of this bill is about. Now we have legislation in place, but we need to reform the current information-sharing regime. We need to do that because, importantly, Government departments and Government agencies need to share this important information more efficiently and, in turn, need to provide a better service to those whom they serve, to make people safer. We need these agencies to focus on vulnerable people and vulnerable children and to make sure that those who can be provided with greater protection and assistance are provided with that assistance.

Our hard-working Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett is in other parts of the country talking about the green paper on vulnerable children. She is in Dunedin today, is she? Good for her, but can I say she was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member should not refer to the absence of members from the House. All of us at one time or another are away.

Good, Mr Assistant Speaker. So before the House came back into session the honourable Minister was in Rotorua. We held a meeting in the Plunket tearooms there, where actors from the community involved with helping vulnerable children came together, and with almost a single voice they asked for greater information-sharing. They said that the more information that is shared the better they can do their job, and the more young people they will protect. Now although this bill maybe does not go to the length that they were asking for—and I know that the Minister has taken their requests as part of that consultation seriously—what this bill will do is allow important agencies to share information when they believe it is critical and will protect our children.

I want to conclude here just by saying this is a balance, and I recognise the position of the Greens. This is a balance between the right to privacy of personal information against the need to protect vulnerable people. Now I am personally probably willing to give up some of my privacy or protection of private information if it saves even one young person’s life. But the very good news in this legislation is that there are safeguards built in. I do not believe that people will be giving up information that they would not want to otherwise, and the focus—as other members have spoken of earlier in the debate—is about how we can better use information that is available to protect these New Zealanders, so our agencies can do a better job so we can protect our vulnerable children. I look forward to the committee working diligently through this process. Thank you.

I move, That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be reported back to the House by 15 June 2012.

Motion agreed to.