Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill, as I hear it does not have much work in front of it.

This Government has played fast and loose with the privacy of New Zealanders. From ACC and EQC to MSD, right through to the GCSB, and every acronym in between, this Government has demonstrated that it has absolutely no regard for the privacy of everyday New Zealanders yet, it would have us believe that the litany—the litany—of privacy breaches is the result of human error performed by some inept, faceless public servants. But what could we expect when the first shocking privacy breach was a deliberate breach by a Minister?

I am a bit old-fashioned when it comes to the role of Ministers. I believe that they should lead by example. So what example was Minister Paula Bennett setting when she released to the media the private details of two sole parents in retribution for them daring to speak out against her cuts to the tertiary incentive allowance? Did she stop to consider the impact on them or their children when she launched her spiteful attack on their private information? Well, perhaps she did, but then she must have decided that using the power and information held by a Minister against two women with much less power and fewer resources than her was the ministerial thing to do. Even the Prime Minister, John Key, was quoted in the Dominion Post as saying that he was “comfortable” with the women’s information being released. He was pretty relaxed about it. We are kind of used to John Key being relaxed, but I thought it was really quite a low blow for the Prime Minister to not even stand up for the privacy of those women.

However, the Office of Human Rights Proceedings was not comfortable with the women’s information being released by that Minister. The director of that office told the Minister that she had breached their privacy. That Minister responded by writing to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, saying “I do not accept that view.” Well, how very arrogant. How very arrogant of that Minister to decide that she knows better than the Director of Human Rights Proceedings about whether or not those women’s privacy had been breached.

So if I am correct, and if Ministers do lead by example, then what happened next is no surprise. In that Minister’s own department, there were many privacy breaches that followed. In 2011 there were 10 Work and Income staff who were sacked after two inquiries into breaches of privacy. Seven staff were dismissed for appalling breaches, including sharing information with family members, but the allegation that personal details were sold to a debt collection agency was not proven. Three people were sacked from that Minister’s own department for breaching the zero-tolerance policy. One of them was sacked for emailing their partner about a client. Another one of them was sacked for emailing someone in another Government department. And the third of them was sacked for accessing and processing records of people they knew. But when they had a Minister who went out and deliberately, as an act of retribution, breached the privacy of two women who dared to complain about her cuts, then why should we be surprised that that was the next thing that happened?

Of course, it was also at the Ministry of Social Development where the infamous privacy breach happened with the new system that it had in place, where people could go and access their own information on a computer screen. Of course, what happened was that the ministry had taken such a lax approach to it that other people were actually able to get sensitive information about other clients of Work and Income and their private information. The rest of that is history.

She is not the only Minister under this Government who has led by example in breaching people’s privacy. The Minister of Justice, Judith Collins—in fact, in her role as Minister for ACC—was also embroiled in a privacy scandal. This was the ACC information that related to a complaint by Bronwyn Pullar. We would never have known Bronwyn Pullar’s name except that somehow her name, as the complainant in this piece, got leaked to the media. By the Minister’s own admission, there were only four people who had Bronwyn Pullar’s details—the Minister herself, one staff member, the then chairman of ACC, John Judge, and ACC’s chief executive. There were just four people. We still do not know to this day which of those four people leaked that information. [Interruption] Well, I have not seen it publicly disclosed, but I think we can all guess what the answer would be. Even Michelle Boag, who is closely associated with the National Party—in fact, she is its former president—said: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government Minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached, that’s very, very dangerous.” That was Michelle Boag, a friend of the National Party, and what she had to say when commenting on how Bronwyn Pullar’s information happened to get in front of the media.

While I am speaking about Judith Collins, she promised at a conference that she spoke to during Privacy Awareness Week in 2012 that during the first half of 2013 she would table in this House a privacy bill that would replace the outdated Privacy Act. Well, we are heading into November and we still have not seen hide nor hair of that bill—lazy Minister, lazy Government. Obviously they are not on top of this issue and are not taking privacy issues seriously.

So what does this bill do? Any party that is taking privacy breaches seriously will be supporting this bill tonight. If parties do not support it, they cannot get up and say that they take privacy breaches seriously. So I look forward to the Government’s support on it.

What does the bill do? It does two things. They are two things that were recommended, in fact, by the much-maligned Law Commission—the Law Commission that National has just spent the last hour maligning in this Parliament. The Law Commission does indeed do some very, very good work. The two measures in this bill are the following things. First of all, the bill gives the Privacy Commissioner the ability to investigate any privacy breach without having to have an individual complain to her first. That is very important because often, as with the sole mothers in the example that I gave before, people actually do not want to make complaints, particularly against Ministers and with the power relationship involved in that. It is very difficult for individuals to make complaints.

The second measure that it brings in is that the Privacy Commissioner can actually require agencies to do particular things to fix up their privacy settings within their organisations. Currently, as the law stands, the Privacy Commissioner can make recommendations, but agencies do not have to take any heed of that. This bill will fix it. It is an important step forward for actually getting to the heart of this litany of privacy breaches that have been happening under this Government, and I know that parties that take these privacy breaches seriously will indeed use this opportunity tonight to support this legislation.

I call the honourable member Scott Wilson.

💬 Scott Simpson: Simpson.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Simpson. It escaped me for a minute, Mr Simpson.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It was a Rangitīkei member who used to have that name of Wilson, I understand. However, good evening to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and members. It is a pleasure, remotely, to take a call on the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill, introduced by that member “Sue Moroner”—Sue Moroney, not “Moroner”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

The Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we all know the Speakers’ ruling in this particular area relating to deliberately attempting to mock a member in that way. The member did not stumble. If he had done it once, it would have been a stumble. But he did it twice. He did it deliberately, and my view is that you should at least require him to withdraw and apologise. I will take the next point of order soon. If you are going to take it really seriously, then you would terminate his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, can I just say that it is actually a form of unparliamentary language, and it can probably be seen as a personal reflection under Standing Order 117. I would just like to take the opportunity to remind all members that all members are honourable, and that is it. We refer to each other as honourable, despite what we may think is otherwise. We call the member what we would want them and us all to become. So I caution the House that we see the world as it is, not as it can be. So I just caution the member to please be careful when he addresses the House in the manner that he has done.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The other point that I thought you might have ruled on without me having to draw it to your attention was the interjection during the point of order on the part of the—what is he called? The fourth whip? The National Party junior person—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, he is an assistant deputy whip, or something like that. But when you are sitting in that chair, you are meant to obey the rules, and you are not meant to interject during points of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is perfectly understood, Mr Mallard, and I am sure members have learnt from that, but, unfortunately, there was an interjection on the member’s own side that did not actually help. We are back now with Mr Simpson.

The honourable member opposite, Sue Moroney, who has introduced this bill, the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I know that it is members’ day and it is members’ time, but interjections are not permitted between members who do not have the floor. If they want to interject on the person who is speaking or addressing the House, that is another matter, but not on each other. I call the honourable member Scott Simpson.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was defending you. He was saying you are a grumpy old man.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know it is Wednesday evening, Mr Mallard. I call the honourable member Scott Simpson.

The honourable member who has introduced this bill, the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill, has in her introductory words spent an awful lot of time citing a variety of cases where privacy has been breached by various agencies of the State. It is fair to say that the Government does take privacy issues very seriously, but we live in a time of great change, of speedy change, and of technological change. I think one of the things that we have all done from time to time is make an error when we have pushed a button on an email, or hit the send button when we thought we should not, or copy in people whom we thought we should not. It does happen from time to time. I am not making excuses for other people’s failings; all I am saying is that from time to time human failings do occur to us all, and computer technology glitches can, from time to time, occur.

They are, however, a significant matter of importance when people’s individual privacy is impacted on and when there are matters to do with their interaction with State agencies. So the purpose of this bill that the member has introduced—and it is a short bill—seems to read that it is to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has sufficient investigative and enforcement powers.

The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s recommendations to replace the Privacy Act with a new one, and, indeed, as was mentioned in the mover’s opening speech, already action is being taken for that to occur. I understand that a paper is going to Cabinet later this year, and we expect new legislation to be introduced next year. The National Government actually wants to have legislation that appropriately and fully balances the need and the right of individuals to have their privacy against the need for particular Government agencies to be able to share information and to perform the roles and requirements that the State agencies have to do on behalf of the taxpayer. It is a question of balance and it is a question of ensuring that systems and procedures are in place.

I would think that most people in the House would probably agree that ways to improve the protection of personal information and how it is collected and stored, and how it is used to help people, are positive things and things that this House should be taking note of. Indeed, over the last little period of time there have been a number of quite high-profile instances where privacy breaches have occurred through various Government agencies. In order to prevent breaches of that magnitude from happening again, it is important that the Privacy Commissioner is able to undertake investigations to identify gaps in process and systems, and maintenance, and in terms of bringing agencies into a compliance regime. That compliance regime needs to be in terms of the Privacy Act 1993.

The honourable member who introduced the bill believes that giving the Privacy Commissioner the ability to issue compliance notices and demand information-handling audits across the public sector and the private sector is, indeed, the only way to ensure that private information in New Zealand held by agencies is not misused or breached by the public sector or outside entities. I am not sure that that is the only way. I think that there are a number of other options. The concern I have is that although on this side of the House we agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation that the Privacy Commissioner be able to issue compliance notices, the point where we differ with the mover on this bill is that we do not support an audit power being given to the commissioner. We want to ensure that the commissioner’s role is strengthened and that it is going to be able to have the teeth to ensure that the systems are robust and that maintenance and privacy can be protected.

This bill from Sue Moroney takes only a very narrow and small number of the selected recommendations of the work that the Law Commission did. It does not consider for one minute the combined impact of the wide-ranging recommendations by the commission. We actually have to, I think, take the commission’s recommendations as a whole, rather than just sort of picking bits and pieces out of them. I do not think that that will provide the kind of balance and structure and form that is going to provide for good system and good process.

Since the 1993 Act was passed, of course, technology has developed at a scary rate for many of us. As I said earlier, there are a number of times when human error can intervene, so it is up to agencies of the State to ensure that they do have the robust processes. This piece of legislation introduced by the honourable member is not one that we will be supporting because it does not complete the whole package. It does not address the whole issue, and, of course, we are pursuing our own piece of work on it. For the second time tonight we are presented with a very small piece of work from a member opposite that really does not do justice, I think, to the process of members’ bills. It is a short, six-clause piece. The explanatory note is, indeed, longer than the proposed piece of legislation. Really, I think that the process of members’ bills deserves better and more fulsome analysis and consideration than to have pieces of legislation like this brought to the House. We will not be supporting this bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill and to say how disappointing it is that a member from the Government side should say that the reason they are opposing this very important bill on this very important issue is that it fails to take account of the Law Commission’s recommendations as a whole. The problem with that proposition is that the Law Commission’s recommendations were reported more than 2 years ago—August 2011. Then, more than a year ago, we had the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, saying that there was going to be a bill in the first half of 2013. We are still waiting.

It is not good enough for members on the Government side to say that this bill does not go far enough when they cannot present their own schedule of changes—an upgrading of our privacy laws. “Show us what you’ve got.”, I think is the response to that—“Show us what you’ve got.” In the absence of anything—[Interruption] We have moved on from Len Brown, I think, Mr Mallard. In the absence of anything at all, this bill actually does make some meaningful difference and some meaningful change.

This bill does two things. It allows audits of agencies, and “agency”, of course, is defined in the primary legislation. It is pretty widespread—both public and private organisations. It also allows the Privacy Commissioner to order compliance, to take a coercive approach to those organisations that demonstrate a systemic failure in their privacy management. That is long overdue. We need that. Actually, we need an Office of the Privacy Commissioner that is better resourced than it is at the moment. We have a very good Privacy Commissioner, who does—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Have they finished with that complaint about Judith Collins yet?

Well, we would like to see some complaints actually brought to fruition. One of the most important complaints in the last couple of years was the complaint against the Minister of Justice, who happens to be effectively the “Minister for Privacy” because she is the Minister responsible for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We are still waiting for the conclusion of the investigation into the breach of privacy from her office.

As Sue Moroney said in her opening gambit, we know that there were four people who had access to the information about Bronwyn Pullar—who actually had access to the email from Michelle Boag that had the information about Bronwyn Pullar—and that was the Minister herself, a staff member, and two senior personnel from ACC. I think it is pretty clear that the people from ACC had nothing to do with the disclosure to the media. They were under the hammer. They had no interest in it. But the Minister and her office are well in the frame, and they are still in the frame for that breach of privacy.

There have, of course, been other breaches of privacy for which that same Minister is in the frame. We had the leak of the Kitteridge report. Of course, we had a different person investigating that leak because, of course, you do not want the person who has investigated the first leak to investigate the second leak, because then they start to see the pattern of conduct. So we did not have the Privacy Commissioner investigating the leak of the report on the Government Communications Security Bureau; we had Rebecca Kitteridge. She did a report and the report was leaked. It was pinned on Peter Dunne. I have to say, I do not believe that Peter Dunne leaked that report. I am going to say that I think Judith Collins leaked it because she had the most to gain from that leak.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And she’s got form.

And she has got form. Then, of course, associated with all of this is her relationship with a person called Cameron Slater, otherwise known as Whale Oil. He has been in the news a bit lately for another breach of privacy, not Len Brown’s privacy—he is a public figure—but the breach of the privacy of Bevan Chuang.

I just say that it is no wonder that this Government does not take privacy seriously. It is no wonder that we have a Minister in charge of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner who has no interest in beefing up our privacy laws, because she sits at the centre of some of the most egregious breaches of privacy that we have seen in the last 2 years. She is not going to change them. She has no interest in it. She is the source of the greatest privacy breaches.

We support this bill. It is an important bill. It will do important things. This House should support it.

Thank you to my Opposition colleague Andrew Little. You can always tell when a bill is not quite the way it should be when you hear Andrew speaking noisily—noisily—and he was quite noisy there. He was quite noisy.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the member referred to the member as “Andrew”, and I think that is unparliamentary.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, to be honest, it is not unparliamentary. However, the rules are that when you address someone in this House, it must be by either their title or their full name, so the member is quite right.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was referring, of course, to Andrew Little. We do have a pretty good personal—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is Wednesday night.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I do not want to be a pedant, but I think it is generally at least by their first name and their surname. There are a number of people who have titles, and it is appropriate for them to be used, but I am not sure what Mr Little’s full name is, and I am pretty sure that Mr Auchinvole does not know it. I think for you to require him to use it would be a little unfair.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It may assist the House if I draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 27/7(2). It may not have the definition of what “full name” is, but it certainly does require the member to use “a person’s full name”.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am now, Mr Assistant Speaker, going to invite you to give a ruling to the House that for this purpose “full name” means either “Mr Little”, or in my case the “Hon Trevor Mallard”, or the “Hon Mr Mallard” would suffice—

💬 Clare Curran: What about the surname?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, this is the point. I am inviting you to rule, Mr Assistant Speaker, that the middle name is not necessary, and “full name” means at a minimum “Ms Curran” or “Clare Curran”, but you do not have to say “Clare Mary Curran”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for your help, Mr Mallard. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Mr Mallard has asked me to give a ruling, so I am going to quote my own ruling, actually. It is Speakers’ ruling 28/1, and it says: “Members may not be addressed by nicknames, first names and so on. They should be addressed by their proper name, or by the position or portfolio they hold.” So there you are—done. I call the honourable member Chris Auchinvole.

Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already called the honourable member—it is your time.

I just thought the other members may not have heard you. I would like to thank you for your guidance on this issue, and, of course, I also thank the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard, born on 17 June 1954, for his very precise requirement that he and others be identified in clarity. I do actually have quite a good personal relationship with Andrew Little, and indeed I have been known to refer to Mr Mallard as “Trev” during select committees, not that I would do so in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, and the member should not.

As I would not, let alone should not.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And I’ve only ever called the member “darling” once.

Ha, ha! But perhaps we could start with the bill, the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill. This is, of course, from Sue Moroney.

In another theatre I might say: “Sue Moroney, you’ve over-egged the cake a little with this one.”, which is such a pity. I am put in mind of the sort of ragbag collection of members’ bills that Charles Chauvel had his legal firm assist with, when they came forward, and this one has got more in the description than in the substance, which is such a pity because it is quite an important subject. And when one compares it with the other bills that you have promoted, this would not be, I expect you would agree, a six-star job, really. No, I did not think so.

💬 Sue Moroney: If you take privacy seriously, it is.

Oh, I take the process very seriously and, indeed, the Government takes the process seriously. That is why we cannot, in spite of the best intentions, support this bill—because we do take this matter seriously. We have spent time citing cases.

I reiterate that the Government takes privacy very, very seriously. Errors occur—errors occur. You know, we have the Green Party members, who believe in catastrophic revelations—everything they touch is a catastrophe. Everything is catastrophic in its proportions. Nothing is human error.

💬 Scott Simpson: The sky is falling!

The sky is not only falling; we are all being absorbed and consumed by it, no matter what it is. So a case of a breach of privacy is a catastrophe. Oil that is yet to be drilled is going to cover New Zealand—it is a catastrophe. It has not happened yet. But the Government takes privacy errors seriously. Errors occur. We are not talking about excuses, but we are talking about the reality with computers and technical information. It is a matter of importance when these errors occur and when omissions occur.

This bill is to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient powers, which is OK. The Law Commission, though, has reported on this matter. National has agreed to bring in legislation to do this, may I say, properly. It is important that the Privacy Commissioner can investigate and bring organisations into the correct code. However, this member believes empowering the commissioner to issue compliance notices will do that. The Government thinks a broader view is required. We want to strengthen—

💬 Clare Curran: What’s your plan then? Where is the plan?

Well, if you listen—you have probably missed half of it already—you will hear. We want to strengthen the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We want to strengthen its role but not to the same narrow extent that this bill does, which would in effect imprison the commissioner to a relatively limited range of activities. We want to take the Law Commission’s report as a whole and reform the 1993 Act, and for that reason, and in spite of the member’s best intentions, we will not support this bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. In 2011 the Law Commission’s landmark report on privacy law in Aotearoa New Zealand made two key recommendations for empowering the Privacy Commissioner to protect against the sorts of breaches that we have been seeing happening in this country. The first of these was that the commissioner should be able to issue compliance notices. The second was the power to require an audit of an agency’s practices and systems for handling private information. These would have brought New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner’s powers into line with the majority of comparable overseas bodies charged with the protection of privacy. This Government did not follow through on either of those recommendations and that is why we have this bill in front of the House tonight. The Government had promised a bill for earlier this year; we have not seen it. We are still waiting. It has promised and it is still promising—next year.

💬 Andrew Williams: Promises, promises.

Well, I think this House does take privacy seriously, so rather than waiting and forcing the Government into the position of breaking more of its promises, the member Sue Moroney is offering this House the opportunity to actually do something, and not have the Government break its promises in the future. I would like to offer my congratulations to the member Sue Moroney on her excellent choice of issues and luck in getting her bills drawn, which I am seriously envious of.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill. This bill enables the Privacy Commissioner to issue compliance notices and demand information-handling audits across the public and private sectors without the need for people to make complaints. The current system, as has been noted, is complaints-driven and the commissioner is very limited in her ability to take initiative. That limits the commissioner’s ability to address underlying systemic problems. It is important that she has the ability to compel action in response to her concerns.

In a lot of the annual round-ups for 2012, privacy was at the top of the list of items of importance for this country. Earlier this year we saw a full town hall in Auckland on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, which was another demonstration that New Zealanders have actually been pushed over their trust threshold with this Government and they want their privacy back.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been significantly underfunded and its funding has remained static for the last 8 years. It has been told that that can be expected to continue for a while longer. It has funding of around $3.5 million a year to fulfil all of its functions, except that it told a select committee earlier this year that it cannot fulfil all those functions within that funding, it does not have the capacity to do everything, and it is having to prioritise.

In that context, this Government has had oversight of multiple, very significant privacy breaches within Government departments, namely the Inland Revenue Department, ACC, Work and Income, Ministry of Justice, Immigration, Novopay, the Earthquake Commission, and the list goes on. That means that potentially every single New Zealander has at some stage in the last few years had their privacy breached.

We need to be focusing now as a Parliament on how we can increase people’s confidence in their information, rather than increase the risk that potentially undermines that confidence. This bill is something that we can do as a House to help rebuild people’s trust in the State’s ability to handle their information and in their ability to get redress without having to make a complaint personally. This initiative is not covering everything. It is a member’s bill, and members’ bills are not supposed to supposed to cover everything, but it is one action that we can do to help rebuild trust, and the Green Party is happy to support that.

Firstly, I might take a moment to congratulate Sue Moroney on drawing yet another lucky number. She has been busy on members’ day ever since I have been in this House.

💬 Sue Moroney: Come to the races with me.

Yes, we might get a bit of luck there too, Sue, might we not? We are not far out from the Melbourne Cup now. This bill, the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill, does touch on some areas that are of great importance and interest to all New Zealanders. Like in many countries worldwide, the new age of technology has led to some issues with security breaches that were not previously experienced and are certainly not desirable. Some of the discussion, of course, has taken place during the recent discussions on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, introduced to enable our law enforcement agencies to operate in the new era, which is an increasingly complex and testing area to understand, as members opposite have demonstrated in the past few weeks. Mr Scott Simpson has spoken at length on the reasons we are not able to offer support for this bill, so I will merely agree with everything he has said and get on with matters of interest to us all.

Andrew Little then said “Show us what you’ve got.” Well, I went and got a copy of this bill, and if that is all we have got, we ain’t got much—it is a page. It is a page. He then went on to talk about some other nefarious stuff with respect to “Show us what you’ve got.” I did not believe any of it. He then got muddled to some extent and started talking about the Minister of Justice and, in fact, what a wonderful job she has done with that portfolio in her time with it. So I thought, really, that Andrew Little did a great job.

Trevor Mallard’s performance tonight, on the other hand, has me wishing that the America’s Cup was still running. We certainly got a lot more done during the running of those cup finals, and I did quite enjoy the House in that couple of weeks. Mr Auchinvole then got up, made an outstanding speech about this bill, and then started talking about the black gold. I really thought for a minute that he had joined the Greens, but we were saved from that because they then got up and started talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation. They told us that the Privacy Commissioner is underfunded. Well, I understand that the Government raised another $1.8 billion today. That should alleviate some of the problem with our funding of issues throughout New Zealand.

So, with those few words, I am afraid that I cannot support this bill, and I will resume my seat.

New Zealand First supports the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill to the appropriate select committee, the Justice and Electoral Committee. It has a very long name, but it is an appropriate name because it describes serious issues with our Privacy Commissioner. One of those issues is about resources, another issue is about status with regard to an initiating power for investigations, and a third issue is about enforcement. Those are very important issues that certainly do need to be considered, so New Zealand First welcomes the bill for that reason.

The bill amends the Privacy Act 1993 in two ways, as recommended by the Law Commission in 2011. It is amazing, of course, that the Government has not acted on this itself, and I hear that it has probably just forgotten to do so, because there is apparently no other good reason given for that. In any event, the first thing the bill does is empower the commissioner to carry out an investigation or an audit into any Government agency’s privacy practices. It says: “for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the information is maintained according to the information privacy principles.” There are 12 such principles set out in detail in section 6 of the principal Act, the Privacy Act. Under this proposed amendment the commissioner would be able to investigate without first receiving a complaint. We in New Zealand First believe that is, in fact, what is now needed.

It is a natural evolution for New Zealand’s privacy laws, and it is needed because State agencies have demonstrated that it is needed by their repeated failures—in some cases—to ensure even basic compliance with the privacy principles set out in section 6. Indeed, in the last 2 years we have seen some very gross breaches of personal privacy—in fact, far too many of them. This is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg. Most people will never know about the breaches that agencies successfully cover up. They do not have the expertise or resources to know, and they do not have the ability, in many cases, to do anything about it even if they did know. Many people are also unwilling to make a formal complaint and have to face up to the procedures required to do that.

So for those reasons it is now clear to us that the commissioner must in the future be empowered to initiate their own inquiries. This will change the Office of the Privacy Commissioner into an investigations entity, not just one with reactive powers following a complaint. So it is a fundamental change, and it is one that should come. New Zealand First supports it. It is clearly time for this change. It will get a very large degree of public support. The Government should, in fact, embrace it and adopt this bill as a Government bill forthwith—otherwise, why has it done nothing?

The other thing that the bill does is to empower the commissioner to issue a notice requiring compliance with the Act. That is what is needed following an investigation. It would add a discretionary enforcement power to the current power to simply make recommendations. There is significant public dissatisfaction with the toothless Privacy Commissioner, and agencies too often do not take full notice of recommendations.

There is another issue also not dealt with by this bill, and that is the issue of resources. The Privacy Commissioner is getting more and more work, mostly generated by the public through complaints, but some generated by recent Government legislation such as the recent Government Communications Security Bureau Act amendments. If this bill is passed, there will be significantly more work if the Privacy Commissioner begins to initiate their own investigations. So I call on the Government to avoid its usual penny-pinching as far as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is concerned and to improve the resources of the office to enable it to cope with the current increase in complaints and also the additional work that the bill is bound to generate.

Finally, the bill is one that, as I have said, I would have expected the Government to have brought forward. It has not done so. It should now support the bill. New Zealand First will do so. We want to see it go to the select committee, with a view to it proceeding to a successful final reading.

I call the honourable member Dr Paul Hutchison.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. You did, indeed, get my name right. It is an unexpected pleasure to speak on this Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill. The title is a bit tortuous, but, then again, might I too congratulate Sue Moroney on having it plucked out of the ballot.

But what I do think that Sue Moroney does need is a small lesson on how to win friends and influence people. I was a little concerned when she said that it would go to the Justice and Electoral Committee because it had nothing much to do. Well, I think that is a deep insult to the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee, so ably led by Scott Wilson. [Interruption] Mr Assistant Speaker, you can help me with that. His name is Scott Simpson—so ably led by Scott Simpson.

I was deeply worried that I was not going to get the chance to speak because of the time taken during the numerous liberal interjections by none other than the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard, born 17 June 1954, schooled at that illustrious—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Where did he go to school?

Yes. That illustrious institution, Onslow College.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who else went there?

Well, I must say several other very eminent parliamentarians went to that great school as well, and benefited from it. Just to add some other information, the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard was born in 1954, first elected in 1984—a different millennium than we are in—to the seat of Hamilton West, and then slid southward to his present occupancy.

This bill, indeed, covers a very, very important issue, and sadly—sadly—the bill that Sue Moroney has presented to the House takes only a very, very small section of the Law Commission’s recommendations. As we know, the Law Commission always takes these things very thoroughly. I am hugely aware from my professional background, of the importance of privacy in this country, having lived through the unfortunate experiment at National Women’s Hospital, which was then compounded by the Gisborne cervical cancer scandal some decades later, and then followed by the Green Lane Hospital heart issue, all of which involved deeply, profoundly personal privacy issues. The point to be made is that any legislation covering this issue of privacy must, indeed, be a thorough and appropriate response to the Law Commission. Sadly, this bill is woefully scant in that respect.

The Government, in the meantime, is working hard and appropriately to make sure it introduces a bill that is appropriate to the complexity of the issues required. Of course, one of the issues that we are all aware of, and I know that all members of the House support, is the vulnerable children’s legislation. There information sharing is absolutely necessary between various Government departments and agencies, and to have that right and correct has required a lot of thought. I understand Sir Anand Satyanand is leading the committee looking at that because it does require the balancing of all sorts of personal—[Bell rung] Oh, thank you. One more minute to go? How excellent—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s what he was indicating. Don’t worry.

I am delighted once again that the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard has leapt in to try to assist the House. Sometimes it does not quite happen that his interventions are all that helpful, but we do give him marks for his frequent interventions. But the point is that National wants legislation that balances the rights and needs of privacy for individuals against the need for particular Government agencies to be able to share information to deliver better public services for New Zealand. It is indeed one of our priorities, but to get it right is absolutely vital.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.