Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations, and State Enterprises — Privacy Commissioner

I am pleased to take a call in this Crown entities debate in my capacity as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Justice and Electoral Committee has attempted this year to review all the Crown entities for which we have oversight. That is a fairly tall order. Some, such as the Abortion Supervisory Committee and the Law Commission, are reviewed quite rarely, so I want to thank members of the committee, one of whom is right behind me at the moment, for their attention to this most important aspect of our function of scrutiny this year.

Another of those entities, which is also reviewed only periodically and which I wish to focus on here, is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner—

💬 Sue Moroney: “Pry-vacy”.

Well, it depends, Miss Moroney, on which of your parents you listen to. My mother always said “pri-vacy”; my father always said “pry-vacy”. Dad is dead, so I tend to stick with Mum in case she might be listening. But I am confident that all members of this Chamber would agree that we are fortunate to have a commissioner of the calibre and experience of Marie Shroff. She has a very proud record of public service in New Zealand.

As is the case with many Crown entities in the current fiscal environment, demand for their services is often increasing while funding necessarily remains static. That is certainly true of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which is an independent Crown entity established under the Privacy Act 1993. Just for the benefit of the many people who are listening in the gallery at the moment or who may be watching on their television sets at home, it may be useful to explain that the commissioner has wide-ranging functions, including, but not limited to, investigating complaints about breaches of privacy, running privacy education programmes, examining the privacy implications of bills, maintaining the Privacy Act’s information privacy principles, safeguarding human rights, ensuring that New Zealand meets its international privacy obligations and adheres to general international guidelines, and protecting social interests that compete with privacy, such as freedom of information.

That last function, in particular, requires particular wisdom, discernment, and constant vigilance. The commissioner’s work has to adapt rapidly to emerging trends and technologies, and demand for it is ever-increasing. In spite of budgetary constraints and growing demand, the commissioner has improved productivity and service quality. We were very pleased, as a committee, to hear that, and to be able to commend the commissioner for that achievement.

We were advised that over the last 5 years there has been a substantial increase in public complaints lodged with the commissioner. Media inquiries have doubled, and telephone and email inquiries have also increased by about 50 percent. We were told that about 10,000 calls are made to the commissioner’s inquiries line every year. There is no Minister responsible for privacy issues, so the Privacy Commissioner is the only legitimate source for media information on matters pertaining to privacy.

The commissioner expects the number of inquiries to continue to increase as privacy accidents are increasing because of the large databases of personal information held by public agencies. We had an interesting discussion with the commissioner about the implications of ever-evolving technology, especially social media. The commissioner is concerned at evidence that employers in the United States are increasingly requesting access to, or passwords for, prospective employees’ social media accounts. That is a really worrying trend, and it is, apparently, quite common now in the United States. Fortunately, it is not yet thought to be a problem here in New Zealand, but the commissioner is aware of the possibility of it, and will remain vigilant.

We also discussed the very real and growing problem of cyber-bullying, especially among young people. We all know that this can lead, and, indeed, has led, to some considerable distress and tragic outcomes. So we were very pleased to hear that information kits for teachers on protecting online privacy were distributed to secondary schools several years ago, and that the commissioner has recently received funding from Unesco for a similar initiative for primary schools.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is a Crown entity that is performing a very valuable public service. It has sensible priorities and a very realistic understanding of the current fiscal environment. So I am confident, as indeed were all of the committee as we met with the commissioner and conducted this financial review, that New Zealanders are well served by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Report noted.

Electricity Corporation of New Zealand

Report noted.

New Zealand Post

Report noted.