Customer and Product Data Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Customer and Product Data Bill. This bill was considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and, as the chair of that select committee, I want to, firstly, thank all individuals and organisations who submitted on this bill. We received 40 submissions, and we were fortunate to hear from 15 submitters. I also want to thank the staff on the committee. I also want to thank the advisers for their help, and of course all of the committee members.

As we know, this bill is about providing that overarching, economy-wide framework to allow greater access to and sharing of consumer and product data with businesses. The ultimate goal of this bill is to promote innovation and competition. When we talk about data, there were certain things that we wanted to keep in mind when we were considering this bill in the select committee process. We wanted to see that there was certainty given to consumers—because it’s their data—for their rights, and also that there are enough obligations on data holders. We wanted to see that the bill was balanced in terms of providing the protections for consumers, but, on the other hand, that it was not putting in too many restrictions and liabilities which would make it impossible for this framework to work in a practical manner, or would create too many legal or other kind of implications.

In the select committee, we considered a lot of things. We wanted to see that this bill was focused on benefiting customers. When the bill was sent to the select committee, one of the clauses—that is, clause 3(1)(a), which sets out that the bill’s purpose is to establish a consumer data rights framework—stated that one purpose was to “realise the value of certain data for the benefit of individuals, organisations, and society;”, and the select committee recommended that it should be referring to benefiting “customers”. That was clarifying that the focus is actually the customer. Of course they control the data, but they should be the party that is benefiting from sharing that data.

Data holders are when the consumer request is to share that data with third parties, and here, when we talked about third parties, it was really important for us to see that there is that right kind of balance so that the third parties have the obligation to keep that data secure, and also the application process to become those approved third parties is actually going to be practically workable. As an example, one of the requirements in the bill was that a company or business led by a director and senior managers should be of good character. We made an amendment that would require the applicants’ director and senior managers to be of good character, and also that the applicant must have adequate security safeguards in relation to data that may be provided to them.

When we talk about data, sometimes data is not used in the form that it is provided in—the raw form—and sometimes the data is extracted and data is transformed, and we wanted to see how regulations around derived data are going to work. Changes were made to ensure that it’s not too restrictive. We do want people to have confidence when they share their data, but, on the other hand, we also want to make sure that it’s not too restrictive—that would actually not lead to the innovation or competition that we are hoping to see once this economy-wide framework is put in place.

There are liabilities, of course, for data holders in there, but there were certain circumstances discussed in the select committee where we thought that the liability of data holders was not fair. The example was if a hacker poses themselves as an approved third party, and in that situation, because they have stolen the credentials of that third party, the data holder is, apparently, complying, and in that situation, we in the select committee thought it would be unfair for the data holder to be liable. That was quite a good discussion in the select committee process, and we concluded that the data holder in that kind of situation should not be liable under the Privacy Act contract, or other obligations for disclosing customer data.

Now, when we talk about data or when we talk about benefit because of the data, or any of those things, there can be situations where people are actually forced to take that action, and we wanted to see that people are covered for that kind of situation where people are forced to provide their data. In that kind of situation, it is quite possible that the person who actually owns the data—the consumer—will not benefit, but someone else is going to benefit, and they might be authorising transfer of that data because of some kind of threat. We wanted to see that the duty of care—the customer care—is not just sitting with the data holder but is also sitting with the third party, because the third parties, if they’re interacting with the consumer, would know somehow the situation of the requester, and if they feel that there is some kind of threat or if there is some kind of pressure and it’s because of that pressure that they are providing that authorisation, then the responsibility should sit with that third party, as well.

Overall, we can say that the select committee worked really hard to improve this bill, and the bill has been reported back in a much improved way—this version looks much, much improved. There were some other recommendations made by the advisers which were discussed by the select committee and which the select committee could not agree to, because it’s a split committee—some members agreed; some members didn’t agree. I just wanted to note that all recommendations made by the advisers were not included in the version that has been reported back to the House. With that, we support the second reading of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the bill. I want to also thank the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I was also part of that committee, and I’d like to compliment her on the very structured way in which she chairs our select committee. Thank you for that; we always seem to be doing everything on time.

Now, I would also like to thank all of the staffers who helped us to understand this bill, because it’s a very technical bill. When the parliamentary staff came in and explained things to us and would answer our questions, a part of me would think to myself, “Please respond as if I’m an 8-year-old so that I can understand it.”, and they were very, very good. I mean, it was such a technical bill in some parts, and they were so patient and tolerant and explained everything to us very quickly so that we could make informed decisions.

As already mentioned, there were 40 submitters—probably more than I thought there would be; however, as we got into listening to the submissions, I could understand why it was important that they make their submission. One of the areas that was important to look at was privacy, to ensure that privacy wasn’t breached. There were some larger organisations like Xero and banks, and there were also some smaller submitters.

Part of me made the wrong assumption of “Well, how would a small business feel about a bill like this?”, but, actually, the response from small business came back and said, “You know, this is our data. Customers should be able to share their data with whomever they like in a timely manner.” That was really good to hear; that, overall, no matter whether it was an extraordinarily large business or a small business, they were very much in favour of being able to share their information to a third party so that they could then have the information required to make informed decisions.

I think I shared, last week, how the transfer of data over the years has changed. We used to carry things in boxes, and then it was spreadsheets. I don’t mind a spreadsheet, but many people don’t like spreadsheets and numbers, so they want to be able to hand everything over and say to someone else, “Please give me the information that I need so that I can make the decisions I need.”, and this is what this bill does. It’s common sense, but, yes, we did need to take a look at the issue of privacy, for example, to ensure that there was nothing breached there.

It’s a very technical bill. I don’t want to go into the detail of some of those technicalities, but in order to be able to explain to everyone out there who is listening, it is about being able to have your data transferred safely to another organisation so that you can make decisions yourself with the right information. On that note, I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party also in support of the Customer and Product Data Bill. Like many have mentioned already, I think the bill does strengthen the laws that protect against anti-competitive behaviour, it does allow greater customer control over the data, and also potentially allows for innovation of new products.

I think, more broadly speaking, everyone in this House recognises the fact that data, and particularly big data, is currently something that the tech industry and businesses are developing and evolving at a rate that’s much faster than what legislation and what the legislative process sometimes may allow for. We are seeing that both domestically as well as internationally through various trade deals, for example.

In terms of this particular bill, there are a couple of things that I would like to raise in addition to what has already been raised by my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March on this bill. I think I want to get into some of the more technical elements of this bill. Some of these will be discussed further as part of the committee stage, and I will look forward to the opportunity to engage with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs on this bill.

I think the first thing is in terms of the conversation that’s been had between the Economic, Development, Science and Innovation Committee and also the Regulations Review Committee around the understanding of why it is needed for there to be both two separate forms of secondary legislation to do the same thing that is required. For this one—we’re looking at clause 126(1)(f) and (g)—I think the decision that was made as part of the select committee process is that the regulation or the standards—whether it is a regulation or whether it’s a standard, it actually provides different things. Whereas a regulation is made for specific requirements, the standards may allow for other things, such as particular businesses or certain industries may contain standards for a range of matters, and it allows a different level of flexibility, which is sufficient. I think it would also be good to tease out some of those examples as we look at this bill in the committee stage.

One of the key elements of this bill is the privacy provisions that have been given. I think this is where we are looking at greater control over a person’s data that has been granted—I think particularly with the part around the complaints and being able to make those kind of allegations against the use of personal data as part of Parts 5 and 6 of the Privacy Act 2020. I think also when we’re looking at some of these, in terms of the privacy component, it’s also interesting to see that the bill introduces provisions for both civil remedies as well as criminal offences. I think there is also room for scope in looking at how customers’ data is used by businesses both domestically but, honestly, how our data is being used through algorithm, etc., through AI being used by overseas tech companies as well. I think that is a really important part of when we’re looking at data protection and the use of consumer data.

This also again ties into my next point, and this is more of a mixed bag. On one hand, from a Te Tiriti perspective, you know, we are really heartened to see that, as part of the process that was originally done by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Te Kāhui Raraunga was consulted as part of Mana Raraunga data sovereignty. I think that is something that is really, really important to mention and I think it’s important to have their contribution into it. However, we are a little bit concerned and a little bit perplexed, and we’d love to tease this out more at the committee stage as well, about why upon further discussion the Minister chose not to include the consultation of iwi, hapū, and whānau Māori before making regulation a standard that really affects their data sovereignty in this sort of stage.

Part of the reason that was given was that the consultation will not add anything substantive or would be inconsistent with similar provisions in other Acts, but I think when we’re looking at something like this, there’s actually a real opportunity for us to look at something that is new, that is inclusive, that does actually look at tino rangatiratanga from the position of data, from a Te Tiriti perspective. I think that is something worth looking into as well.

To finish, we do support this bill. We think it does give greater control for the people of Aotearoa, and we look forward to the committee stage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Customer and Product Data Bill. We had a very engaging and interesting discussion about this bill. We had quite a good range of submissions from a variety of stakeholders, and they were very useful contributions that they made, and I’d just like to thank the other members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—hello, everyone over there. It was a very—

💬 Dr Hamish Campbell: What about me?

Well, you weren’t actually there, Dr Campbell. It was actually very engaging, and, all around, we all understood the utility of this for customers.

The idea is that we can improve competition, which helps to drive economic development and growth. By having competition, we can drive down prices and make things more convenient for people, so that’s what it means for people at home. It means better access to information and that they can swap banks more easily and they can understand their electricity bills and how they work. Those are the kinds of outcomes that we’re hoping to see from this for people at home. This bill will introduce across whole sectors a customer data and product right. That means that behind this legislation, there will be secondary legislation that will set out all of the parameters, with all the detailed rules and standards that will enable this to happen, and the people that are writing those standards and preparing all of that will be designated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

During the process, we did actually end up making, as a result of many of the submissions and many of the discussions that we had, a number of changes to the original legislation that I think were actually very useful. As previous speakers have discussed, there was a mention of a topic called derived data. Basically, derived data is where the raw numbers are taken by a company and turned into a story or information, using their intellectual power to change that information and make it a more usable product. If that was not allowed to be exchanged, if there were some prohibitions on that, or if there were some problems caused by having derived data being part of it, people might not want to participate, and it might actually hold things up. We decided to remove that.

We heard some of the experiences that happened in Australia, where there’s been less valuable uptake of a similar kind of approach in their jurisdiction. Part of that was because of a lack of confidence in the system around trust and privacy, and because we have a Privacy Commissioner and we have quite robust privacy law in New Zealand, we were able to make ourselves very comfortable that privacy would not be breached and that all of the elements of privacy law would actually apply and protect people within this framework as well.

However, there were potential fish-hooks that we saw, and that’s why we also decided that it would be very helpful to point out that if there were breaches of privacy that had happened accidentally whilst people were carrying out exchanges of data that they believed to be done in good faith and in accordance with the regulations and rules, but later it transpired that it was some sort of fraud or it was some sort of undetected problem, it shouldn’t be the responsibility or the liability of the person providing that information if they had done so following all the rules, and we thought that that was a very sensible approach. Part of the reason for some of that leniency is that if there are bad actors within this framework, the penalties are actually quite steep. They’re steeper than if you breach the privacy law, for example, because we see that breaches under this would be constructive and quite significant malice, and, therefore, there are very steep penalties associated with it. Therefore, we need to have some flexibility around accidental disclosures when people are acting within the law.

I think that this was a very robust process. I think it underscores the importance of putting consumers in the driver’s seat when it comes to their data, and it creates greater control, it promotes competition, and it is fostering innovation. Actually, it marks a really significant milestone in advancing New Zealand’s economy, and I’m sure that as we see the passage of the bill going through, customers and businesses can reap the benefits of having a more fair and transparent data ecosystem.

Thanks. I’d like to compliment the last speaker, Dr Vanessa Weenink, because she has framed up some things and ruined my speech. I think those were very fair portrayals of the issues that we had in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. This is a bill that is really responding to a very changing world, and there will need to be reconsideration. The Labour Party was concerned that perhaps there wasn’t sufficient emphasis on the rights of the consumer at the heart of the bill, so it may be that that proves to be correct, and we would need a little bit of strengthening later.

I want to explain for the public why this is such an important bill. There has been a tendency of our big entities to hold information like this for anti-competitive purpose. The little players that come in and disrupt and do a good job of really challenging that competition and giving us cheaper prices couldn’t actually access the information they needed. While there are really important concerns around privacy, our job was to make sure that those privacy concerns were addressed and we protected the public, but also the consumer got the benefit of a system that was more open.

That’s a really important difference in our society, from one perhaps 50 years ago. Information is flowing, and when it stops flowing and when we have these kinds of anti-competitive actions, we end up in a really—really, it’s the consumer who misses out. It’s very important to things like the price of electricity, and it’s very important to the prices that we pay in our banks, our interest rates, and all the fees we pay, that that information—that is our information; it’s about our experience as a consumer, the rates we pay in the situation we are and what we’re doing—is something that we have free access to and we can pass on to another player in the market.

It’s really good that what has happened here is we’ve had pretty much consensus, I think, across the House that this is an area where we need to update our law and we need to look at the situation in places like Australia, which we have done, and make sure that we’re learning lessons as we go along, getting the balance right where others perhaps have tried earlier and they’ve fallen a little bit short in some ways. We tried to do that on this committee, learn those lessons and do our best to provide a decent law in this area. We still, in the Labour Party, want to make sure that the consumer was more at the heart of this legislation, and so that view has been expressed. Basically, that’s our job in the Opposition: to keep the feet to the fire in that regard.

This has been a piece of work that involved more than one Government, really, because Dr Duncan Webb initiated this work, then we had—and very much associated with the open banking work, I think, that Dr David Clark was involved with—Arena Williams pick up the bill as a member’s bill, and then Minister Bayly pick up the work as well. This is very much recognised by this Parliament as an important empowering Act for customers, and those are everyday New Zealanders. I hope that the work we’ve done means that the prices of these things will come down.

Now, in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we’re also really concerned about building up our economy, and I am very interested in companies like Xero, which have really worked in a new way and have harnessed the information that they’ve been able to get to build really a very new product in New Zealand that has gone international. It’s been an extremely successful operation. We listened to those people in this committee. I learned things from them, and I fully intend to have my ears open to the experiences of those newer companies that have come into the market and have experienced some of this actually quite anti-competitive behaviour by players that want to hold their space and hold their profits to themselves. I was keen to hear from them.

I know there are other players on the market that will be interested in this. In fact, this is, I think—while it’s a bill here now, this area is one that’s incredibly important. We should all have our ears open in this Parliament to the experience that consumers have under this. Also, the experience of players like Xero, of other new start-ups in the industry, because they’re going to be the people that tell us whether this is working well or whether, in fact, we need to tweak the bill.

I’m not going to talk about derived data. It’s one of those things that I think we’ve done our best on to try and liberalise from the place where Australia had got to and slowed things up. But I thought I’d just reassure the public that what we came across—and I think this was said by my colleague across the House—our own, better settings in terms of privacy in New Zealand. It was really clear that the privacy regime that we already run really answered some of that need that we have. If you are giving your data into these situations, you can rest assured there still must be adequate security, there still must be adequate consent, you must know where your data is going. That’s something that’s really important, that you actually aren’t just throwing this information in and not being able to control where it goes, and that there are remedies for that under our Privacy Act.

Now, we were concerned that the levels of penalties might not be high enough. They are not always going to be sufficient. We’ve put that in our report. We’ll be watching that space, because it’s very important that penalties are not worth breaking. I’ve seen that a number of times in the House and in other areas where actually there is an economic calculation that goes on, that it is better to break the law and pay the penalty because they still make a giant profit. That sort of thing, we’re going to have to watch, and that sort of thing I would really ask everyone to consider whether we in fact do a review of penalties across the whole of our institutions with regard to that.

I think it’s time to look at whether we’ve got the settings right because of that kind of practice of calculation that goes on. Those are the sorts of things that undermine the law and really hurt the New Zealand consumer and the ordinary New Zealander. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

It’s my honour to rise and speak in support of the Customer and Product Data Bill in this second reading.

It is always good to see that there’s agreement across the House when it comes to an issue of data, because we live in a world obsessed with data. Let’s be honest, we’re not just passive observers of data; we’re actually walking, talking, breathing data generators. Every step we take, every purchase we make, every word we type, every heart palpitation—it all creates data, so it is very important that we have rules and regulations that we can then use our data.

This data, which is actually our data and it fuels a whole range of algorithms that actually shape our everyday lives, dictates what we see online, what products we’re offered, and what opportunities are presented to us. Yet how much control do we truly have over this? Too often our data is locked away in corporate silos, used to predict our behaviour to sell us things that we may not need, but how many times can we actually use the data for our benefit? We’ve heard from the other side about how we need to open it up so we can actually stop some anti-competitive behaviour.

I think a prime example is if we look at Consumer New Zealand, recently they found that Kiwis saved an average of $524 per year by changing their electricity, but despite the acute cost of living pressure, only 10 percent of households actually changed their provider in the last 12 months. This tells us there’s actually barriers when it comes to comparing plans and switching providers and suggests those barriers and the friction is literally just too high.

Under the existing rules, consumers can request access to their electricity consumption data for free, up to four times a year, and retailers must provide that information within five working days, but in a modern, digital, on-demand economy, this is a cumbersome process which is totally out of touch. Of course, we want to make sure that our consumers can get the best deal, whether it be in electricity, where every time we hop in the hot shower, the electricity retailers probably know there’s a spike in electricity. We need to be able to make sure that we can be able to actually utilise that data when we go to a competitor retailer and say, “Well, actually, this plan works for us best.” It’s either that or with our cellular providers. Of course, there’s a lot of confusion with the different plans, so it’s very important that we can actually do that.

Of course, there is the kind of cliché that data is the new oil, but I actually think that’s a little bit overused, because data is not like oil. It’s not finite; it can be reused. There’s no harm for some of these companies to give us, the consumer, some of this information or access to our data so we can make really informed choices. That’s what it’s about, so the customer can make informed choices.

I do want to acknowledge the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. At that stage, I wasn’t a member of that select committee. I am now. They’ve done a good job—

💬 Tim Costley: They’re lucky to have you.

Thank you—thank you. They are lucky to have me! They had 40 submitters come. As we’ve heard, there were issues around privacy. There were issues around derived data. These things are all very important. I actually have, in my past, worked in the data-science field as well, and I think it’s really important—the insights we can actually get from data, whether it be from our phones, whether it be from some of our behaviours. It’s all very important.

I think we deserve better. We deserve access to our data. We deserve to understand how we can use it. We want to be able to control it. We want to be able to leverage it for our own benefits. This is what this bill is really about. It’s not about paranoia; it’s about empowerment. Of course, making sure that we have a competitive industry—especially in Christchurch, we have some amazing start-ups that are just eager to get their hands on some of this data so they can really, really make some good products, whether it be in fintech, whether it be in the health space. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House, and let’s champion data portability.

Labour is supporting this bill, with reservations. I will detail some of those reservations, but I just want to start by saying something about competition policy.

One of the really painful things in this country for so long has been the economy too often looks like it’s a company town; it’s run by duopolies and oligopolies. One of the most egregious is the banking sector. Every year, they funnel away multiple billions of dollars that get shipped across the Tasman at the expense of New Zealand homeowners and businesses. We need to do something about it. It is so past time that we tackle it. The two big ideas that are out there are: trying to find a properly capitalised disruptor in the banking sector that can hold the others to account, but the other really powerful idea in this space is open banking. A lot of us have pinned our hopes that open banking will finally inject enough competitive tension into the banking market that Kiwis will start to get a better deal from particularly the big Aussie banks.

For my part, I really hope that this bill that we’re debating today achieves that, and that the Customer and Product Data Bill will have the effect through allowing customers to have much better transparency and direct access to interest-rate information and their own data, held by the banks, with sufficient portability that they can pick up their accounts and take it to another bank quickly, simply, and easily, and that that applied en masse across the whole market will make it much more competitive. That’s my personal wish: that the bill that we’re debating today succeeds in that respect. I think that the same dynamics we can see so clearly in the banking sector really can be observed in many other industries and sectors.

I want to acknowledge the work that was done. Really, the initial, kind of, heavy lifting and policy work that supported this bill was done by the Hon David Clark and the Hon Duncan Webb as Ministers in the last Government. My colleague Arena Williams had a bill similar to this, and very close in the intent and the direction, as a member’s bill in this Parliament. We’re really glad that the recently former Minister Andrew Bayly has picked it up and brought this bill to the House.

Two really important main ideas here. One is the right of consumers to have access to and to control the data that is held on them by businesses. Colleagues around the House have commented on just how extensive that data is in the modern economy. There’s a rights question about the consumers having control of and access to the data that their business, their custom generates. Secondly, it’s the economic development potential of spurring competition in multiple industries by allowing consumers to have their data and, if they’re not happy with the business that they’re currently with, to pick up the data and walk down the road to another business and send a message that way. Those two things are really tightly linked together. I hope that we’ll see some positive effects.

I want to just touch, briefly, in the time remaining, on the reservations that Labour has. I know that my colleagues will have a lot to say at the committee stage when the House gets to it. We feel that there was missed opportunity, that the bill could have been much tougher and clearer on focusing on the consumer benefit, and that’s spelt out in the purpose clause of the bill. Colleagues have mentioned this question of derived data and how there are restrictions associated with derived data like those in the Australian regime. We think that this bill, the version that’s come back to the House, could have gone further in clearing out those restrictions. It doesn’t go far enough. Thirdly, penalties and dispute resolution. We think there could have been stronger penalties in favour of consumers.

I’m very supportive of this bill. Great to see it moving through. Great to see some progress, and we just heard about the importance of things like open banking and open electricity markets. We want to see more competition in the market. That’s one of those underlying values that is driving a lot of the policy of this Government, and it’s been great to see colleagues like Cameron Brewer, like Ryan Hamilton, really holding the feet to the fire of those big four Australian banks, to see a better result for Kiwis who deserve it.

This is another piece of the puzzle. This is another important piece of the puzzle as we move towards things like open banking markets. If we think back to December, when this bill was introduced to the House, New Zealand had nothing in this way, no mandatory data standards, unlike Australia, unlike the UK, and unlike the EU, who all had or were on short finals to having—sorry, were very close to having, to use normal language—data standards. That’s an important step, that we take this.

I did just want to touch on some of those things because I think that, often, when we hear about this, we think, “Do we want more companies to have access to our data?” But, of course, this is entirely opt-in. There are some great benefits that have been identified of what a consumer data right could have—for example, tools like access to budgeting, access to payments by third party providers on your behalf, making it easier for consumers, for customers to shop around or to switch between companies. I think they’re really important tools that we want to have people able to opt into.

Of course, this is the second reading, and it’d be worth reflecting on some of the points that came out of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. There were relatively minor changes. It’s great to see unanimous support across the House for the bill. I do note a couple of provisions that have been removed around concerns that it might have made the tool a little harder. It could have added some unnecessary costs around compliance and ultimately reduce the adoption of this regime, because we want to see more adoption.

It’s pleasing to see signals that this might not just apply, for example, in the banking sector, to just to the big four, but it could be broader than that and enable other players into the market. I think that’s good for consumers and a good step forward.

A couple of minor additions have come through at the select committee. Particularly, I’m thinking around new clauses 96A to 96H around the development of standards. When the bill was introduced, requiring standards to set the technical rules for making, receiving, and responding to requests for data, there was a lack of, maybe, clarity around the detail about how the contents of those standards would be set, and so these additional new clauses in that section 96 just bring some clarity to that. It says how the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment can do that. It also reinforces what we always wanted, which was that stakeholder-led approach. These are relatively minor standards. It maintains that unanimous support.

This is good for consumers. We are really conscious of the pressure on the cost of living for Kiwis. It’s been a tough few years with high inflation, with high cost of living, and with a struggling economy, but we are focused as a Government on rebuilding that economy, on going for growth, and on making life a little better for consumers, for everyday Kiwis. This bill is just one piece in that strategy of going for growth, and I’m pleased to commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Customer and Product Data Bill here, at its second reading. I’m also lucky enough to be a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and it’s been good to hear from a number of former members and current members of that select committee as we have discussed this bill today. The Labour Party are giving our broad support to the bill, but also acknowledging that it does fall short and that there are opportunities that have been missed in its current form. Now, when we empower consumers, there are three things that can happen: we can increase competition, we can drive innovation, and we can create fairer outcomes for consumers.

It’s probably good to start with a little bit of bill history. Under Labour, this was the Consumer Data Rights Bill, and it’s shifted to become the Customer and Product Data Bill. One of the important changes that we see in there we’ll find in the purpose clause, where it’s detailed as being “individuals, organisations, and society;”. It feels very broad—too broad—and it doesn’t actually prioritise consumers, which was the original intent of the bill. We really need to focus on consumers if we’re going to ensure that the bill achieves its stated goals, and those goals—I’ll state again—are increasing competition, driving innovation, and creating fairer outcomes for consumers.

I thought it would be good to look at an element of the ministerial statement that was released at the time that the then Minister Bayly started work in this space. It reads, “Every New Zealander relies on banking and electricity. These are foundational services for our lives and our wellbeing but also for our economy. However, at the moment, banks and electricity companies are operating inside a walled garden, with both sectors dominated by a handful of large, profitable companies that face little competition. New entrants face high barriers to entry and, as a result, consumers do not benefit from innovative new products and services. As part of the Government’s ambitious agenda”—I’m not sure I agree with that—“to drive better competition, we are supporting the roll-out of open banking and open electricity, which will better level the playing field between established companies and start-ups.”, and the portion I’m reading finishes by saying that “The first step was the introduction of the Customer and Product Data Bill, which establishes an economy-wide legislative framework for secure data sharing. The next step, which we are progressing at pace, is the development of regulations which will create the rules for how a consumer data regime will work for different sectors.”

What should we expect to get from increased competition? That’s a good question, and a member who spoke just earlier talked about the potential for lowering power bills and better pricing for consumers. The average New Zealander, if they look to switch power companies—and the member stated the figure correctly—can save up to $524 per year. Now, that’s a significant amount of money that would be of advantage to a consumer.

I will just take a moment to talk a little bit about derived data. What I wanted to talk about in the derived data space was a watermelon, which may seem like a very strange example of derived data, but bear with me.

On 5 February—so the beginning of last month, the day before Waitangi Day—I was very lucky to be in Waitangi and to purchase a very large watermelon from a vendor on the side of the road. The watermelon weighed 11.3 kilograms, and I transported that watermelon on an ATR aircraft from Kerikeri Airport to Auckland, where I then transitioned through the airport and on to a larger Air New Zealand aircraft and flew from Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—to Ōtautahi.

Once I arrived there, I was able to transfer the watermelon, which hadn’t reduced in weight, into my private motor vehicle and travel to Akaroa to attend Waitangi Day events at Ōnuku Marae. Once those were completed, myself and the watermelon—still in my possession—travelled to Ōrua Paeroa, also known as New Brighton, to meet a hīkoi of more than 2,500 people, who had walked, from the central city of Christchurch, the 9.9 kilometres to the New Brighton Pier. The watermelon did not come out of my vehicle at that point in time, but it did, in fact, come out of my vehicle on 10 February, where it was presented at a birthday celebration for my mother, at a picnic.

Now, there’s a lot of numbers and a lot of data that can be derived from that story, but I think the most important part of that story is that a watermelon is able to attend more events for Waitangi Day than the Prime Minister of this country, and I think that that is something that we should reflect on and wonder about at length.

I allowed a small amount of time there for you to do that; you’re welcome to do the rest on your own. But I—

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: I thought that was for applause!

It was definitely not for applause—just to clarify for that member who asked that question.

Getting back to the bill—and thank you for indulging me, Mr Speaker—I think it’s also important to hear from some experts, one of those being Digital Identity New Zealand. They make some really valid points in their submission, and I’m just going to step through some of them here.

Digital Identity New Zealand fully support the bill’s goals to unlock the value of customer data that fosters competition and innovation. However, their submission highlighted specific areas where the proposed rules could and, in my opinion, should be enhanced to better achieve these objectives. Digital Identity New Zealand appreciates the bill’s focus on giving customers control over their data, which can drive a more dynamic and competitive marketplace. However, they raise concerns around the prioritisation of the banking and electricity sectors, believing that a much broader scope of competitive third-party providers is essential for success. Additionally, affordability is crucial as the cost of third-party services could hinder widespread adoption.

A further point they raise is around data security and privacy. Maintaining data security is a key focus for Digital Identity New Zealand. While the bill requires a transparency from data holders and accredited requesters, the important point here is that they recommend aligning with the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 to safeguard consumers’ data without unnecessarily disclosing sensitive information. That is a point I think everybody would agree with. The last thing we want to see here is significant breaches of data. This recommendation from Digital Identity New Zealand would ensure that robust protection and, really importantly, that trust that New Zealanders deserve to have.

Now, a number of members have also spoken about learning from Australia’s open banking journey, and Digital Identity New Zealand go into that as well, speaking about the slow uptake of open banking and cautioning against an overreliance on the Digital Identity Services Trust framework as being a singular solution, recommending instead a more holistic approach. Whilst Digital Identity New Zealand supported the general direction indicated in the discussion paper, it did consider that not enough attention is being directed to the reasons behind the slow take-up in Australia, nor to the unintended consequences which may arise from its seemingly overreliance on the Digital Identity Services Trust framework as the magic bullet to resolve all the digital identity verification, attribute exchange, and consent.

In finishing, I had stated at the beginning that Labour has broad support for this bill but believes that it does fall short. I’ll conclude by saying that companies know a lot about us from our consumption of their services, and the point of this bill should be that consumers should benefit from that knowledge. This bill does not go far enough. It could and it should, but it doesn’t. Thank you.

Thank you to the member. I’m now hungry for watermelon.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Credit to the previous speaker, Reuben Davidson: he has an artform of being able to turn really interesting and fascinating legislation into the most bland, boring 10 minutes of monotone drivel—absolute drivel.

💬 Reuben Davidson: The Ayes have it!

Well, the Ayes do have it. I would point out to the member that 10 minutes is not a target; you don’t have to hit it. You just have to contribute and then sit down and we’ll get on with our legislation. That’s all you’ve got to do. It’s the only target—it’s the only target. They weren’t particularly good in Government with hitting targets, but they could learn something in Opposition.

It has been interesting to listen through the debate. I wasn’t part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this legislation. But just speaking quickly to my colleague Vanessa Weenink, she said that, actually, during the select committee process it was really fascinating. The different conversations, the different submissions, the conversations had around the select committee table on this piece of legislation were interesting. It did pique my interest. I had a look through some of the information provided by the Parliamentary Library. I could see that if people and consumers in New Zealand looked for alternative energy or electricity providers, there were significant savings that they could make, but it was so difficult for them to do so, or so many weren’t interested in doing it, that they just took the “couldn’t be bothered” task.

Actually, if you look, if you were to change your electricity provider and to shop around, you would, on average, save $524 a year. But only about 10 percent of people in New Zealand take up that option. So this legislation enables Kiwis to have the ability to do that a lot more easily by the sharing of their data and greater access to their customer and product data, and therefore I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.