Privacy Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 10 to 14, “Other amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 is a very, very short part. It makes other amendments to the principal Act which are technical in nature and address minor issues that have arisen since the Act came into force. For example, the amendment in, I think, clause 12 allows an agency to respond only once to a requestor when it has grounds to transfer an access request to another agency but does not because it has good cause to believe that the requestor does not want the request transferred. At the moment, an agency must respond to the requestor twice: first, to notify the requestor that the request has not been transferred, and then, subsequently, to respond with a substantive decision about whether it grants the access request. So requiring only one response is a sensible change which will improve alignment with other comparable sections of the Act. Members can see that there are five clauses in this part. They are relatively brief and straightforward, and so I would very much commend them to the committee of the whole House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Hunting and Fishing regarding section 13 of Part 2, which is “Section 49 amended (Protection, etc., of individual as reason for refusing access to personal information)”, and it specifies, interestingly, replacing section 49(1)(c), which is around disclosure of information for those under the age of 16. I’m curious about this, both in terms of the context of this bill and the wider context of the primary legislation. Whereas we don’t seem to have protection, and, for example, Minister, you mentioned before, in terms of social media, we don’t seem to have the same degree of protection of agencies who collect information or personal information for those under the age of 16, yet we have a provision for the refusal for someone under the age of 16 to access their personal information. Am I interpreting that correctly?

If that is the case, I do genuinely have concerns that I would assume that for an under-16-year-old to have their data collected without understanding the legal rights and protections that they have for their data, particularly in light of the Privacy Act, would be of a higher order than the rejection or the protection against them from accessing their own information if they are under 16. Would the Minister mind clarifying if I have interpreted that correctly, where there is no protection for the collection in the first place? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No one’s taking the call?

I can, Mr Chair—I can keep going while the Minister is seeking some clarifications. I guess particularly the reason I want to mention this point—and I’m happy to sit down the minute that the Minister receives that clarification—is because, again, in the age of social media and particularly in terms of the accessibility and availability of social media to young people, and this is, again, a very important topic. We’ve seen Australia is now doing something interesting in terms of social media. We won’t get into that, but I would like to know their protection under the Privacy Act. Thank you.

Thank you for the brief interlude. I’m advised that this is actually an expansion of protection for people under 16. It changes protections to the individual involved, who the information might be collected from, to any individual under the age of 16. So if the information collected relates to any individual under 16, that could be a reason not to disclose. So it widens the protection for minors.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I have just a very short question. I understand what the Minister for Hunting and Fishing is saying, but section 49 says that an agency may refuse access to any personal information requested. I understood it as: if an under-16-year-old requested information, they may be refused access. That’s not the correct interpretation?

No, my understanding is that it’s a protection provided to both the individual and any other individual who is under 16 who might be prejudiced or affected by the collection of information, because to request information, it must be relevant or related to you in the first instance anyway.

I move, That debate on this question now close.