<I>

  <&>Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English Version One</&>
  <&>Copyright 1998 School of Linguistics & Applied Language Studies</&>
  <&>Victoria University of Wellington</&>

  <&>side two</&>
  <&>5:23</&>
  

  <WSC#DGI071:0005:IK>
      what's it about

  <WSC#DGI071:0010:IK>
      what's the guts of this bill

  <WSC#DGI071:0015:EL>
      <O>tut</O> kathryn it's it's about the regulation and <.>the</.>
      the regulation <.>and</.> of the collection use storage and
      disclosure of personal information and as such it applies to
      both the public sector and the private sector but it's about er
      personal information or information about an individual <,> not
      companies

  <WSC#DGI071:0020:IK>
      is that a problem

  <WSC#DGI071:0025:IK>
      do you think it should <.>incl</.> er cover companies as well

  <WSC#DGI071:0030:EL>
      <,,>

  <WSC#DGI071:0035:EL>
      i don't think that's er that is appropriate

  <WSC#DGI071:0040:EL>
      <?>i mean</?> data protection er legislation is aimed at the um
      the so called right of privacy <&>6:00</&> that individuals um
      believe they have and er as such um internationally it has only
      been <,> for er natural persons and that the right to
      information about companies is <O>voc</O> dealt with er
      elsewhere in er other legislation

  <WSC#DGI071:0045:IK>
      who does this bill who does it constrain

  <WSC#DGI071:0050:EL>
      <.>wes</.> well as i said it's not only er government but in new
      zealand they've er taken a reasonably bold step compared to some
      of the trends overseas and they've also sought to incorporate
      the private sector

  <WSC#DGI071:0055:EL>
      it's not that <?>er</?> <O>voc</O> there's no legislation
      elsewhere covering private sector

  <WSC#DGI071:0060:EL>
      some countries have um tried to regulate um er companies and
      private organisations but <O>voc</O> usually data protection is
      thought of in the context <.>of</.> of governments holding
      information about say you and i so <.>i</.> <&>7:00</&> it will
      constrain er absolutely every <,> er organisation in new zealand
      that er uses data collects it in um compares data matches it um
      <O>tut</O> <,> processes it <,> whatever

  <WSC#DGI071:0065:IK>
      and this is what every other country in the world is doing

  <WSC#DGI071:0070:IK>
      this is something everyone else is doing as well as us

  <WSC#DGI071:0075:EL>
      the <.>wes</.> the western countries are <,>

  <WSC#DGI071:0080:EL>
      we've got er australia um canada <,> the united states

  <WSC#DGI071:0085:EL>
      the united states as early as nineteen seventy four had a type
      of privacy legislation

  <WSC#DGI071:0090:EL>
      er the europeans definitely er right throughout the european
      community and the scandinavians as well

  <WSC#DGI071:0095:EL>
      um i believe er <O>voc</O> that the japanese have also um
      addressed the issue

  <WSC#DGI071:0100:IK>
      now what does it say

  <WSC#DGI071:0105:IK>
      <.>it</.> <.>it's</.> it's got fourteen major principles hasn't
      it

  <WSC#DGI071:0110:EL>
      <.>th</.> that's correct

  <WSC#DGI071:0115:EL>
      <.>it</.> <.>the</.> the approach that's been taken um if i just
      <O>voc</O> mention that there are there are many different
      privacy regimes and and ways that you can approach the
      <&>8:00</&> problem er from er <.>ha</.> registering er data
      banks or anybody who processes um <O>tut</O> er automatically
      processes information through to er the approach that's been
      taken in new zealand to have a set of principles or or
      guidelines and to then try and enshrine those in legislation but
      in a way that they're not um they're not directly enforceable at
      law but they are still er rather than just being voluntary codes
      they're actually in the statute

  <WSC#DGI071:0120:EL>
      so these principles are <O>voc</O> there are fourteen of them
      but er if i just <O>voc</O> recap briefly what they are <,>

  <WSC#DGI071:0125:EL>
      the first of all <O>voc</O> the collection of information <,> er
      about individuals should be kept to a minimum <,> and that
      minimum is what is necessary for the purpose for which you want
      the information <,> <O>tut</O>

  <WSC#DGI071:0130:EL>
      the other principles er concern <,> er most importantly that the
      collection of personal information has to be done with the
      knowledge and consent of <.>the</.> of the individual concerned
      <&>9:00</&> <,>

  <WSC#DGI071:0135:EL>
      the information must be stored in a secure manner <O>voc</O> so
      there are rules about er the security and and and safeguard of
      the storage of the information

  <WSC#DGI071:0140:EL>
      the <.>in</.> individual about whom the information is being
      collected must have a right to knock on the door and say what do
      you hold about me so they must have a right of access and of
      course if they find out that that er information is incorrect
      then they have a right to try and correct the <.>err</.>
      erroneous information

  <WSC#DGI071:0145:EL>
      the personal information that's used must be accurate and
      relevant

  <WSC#DGI071:0150:EL>
      er you must try and if you're going to use information there's
      an obligation on you to go back and check that it is up to date
      and accurate and so on

  <WSC#DGI071:0155:EL>
      er very significantly especially in the private sector is the
      principle that you only use information for the purpose for
      which it is collected so if i obtain information <.>d</.> say to
      do with a credit application and then i want to <&>10:00</&> use
      it for some other er aspect of my business then i must go back
      to the individual concerned and say er you know do you consent
      to that use <O>tut</O> and of course there are limits on the
      disclosure of personal information and those limits have certain
      exceptions to them so you've got the in the bill you've got
      these principles and then you'll have a whole um infrastructure
      as to er setting up a privacy commissioner to er monitor and
      promote those principles and then to investigate complaints er
      through to a remedy section with the human rights tribunal um
      <O>voc</O>

  <WSC#DGI071:0160:EL>
      significantly the matching of government <O>voc</O> er data by
      government um has a very <.>ho</.> high profile in the bill

  <WSC#DGI071:0165:EL>
      er data matching <O>voc</O> as a general rule is is not
      permitted <O>tut</O> under this legislation but what government
      has done <O>voc</O> er in the context of the the budget and the
      need to um er <,> <O>voc</O> to try and cut down on er
      <&>11:00</&> fraud and social welfare abuse <O>voc</O>
      government has sought to legitimise the matching or comparing of
      inland revenue data with information held by social welfare and
      the a c c and so on

  <WSC#DGI071:0170:IK>
      <O>tut</O> so this legislation enables the government to match
      data

  <WSC#DGI071:0175:EL>
      yes certain within certain constraints

  <WSC#DGI071:0180:EL>
      for example um generally speaking you can't match and if you
      want to match data then er you would <.>have</.> it's what's
      called an information matching programme and you would have to
      go to the privacy commissioner and er seek approval for that
      programme and there are certain um <.>h</.> hoops that you'd
      have to jump through <.>t</.> to prove that that programme er
      was er justifiable and was <.>si</.> significantly important to
      <.>s</.> society to to justify it and so on

  <WSC#DGI071:0185:EL>
      er however <.>in</.> in the context of social welfare um there
      are specific er um provisions to amend the i r <&>12:00</&> d um
      legislation the income tax act and er um social welfare and a c
      c er legislation to <.>al</.> to <.>l</.> allow government to
      <,> carry out that function

  <WSC#DGI071:0190:IK>
      so this bill is doing quite the opposite to what <.>most</.>
      many people would think

  <WSC#DGI071:0195:IK>
      i mean you'd think on the face of it there we here we have a
      bill that's going to STOP agencies from <.>ma</.> matching
      information about you

  <WSC#DGI071:0200:EL>
      that's <{><[>correct</[>

  <WSC#DGI071:0205:IK>
      <[>and yet it</[></{> expressly <laughs>allows it</laughs>

  <WSC#DGI071:0210:EL>
      yes there is <.>a</.> there's a contradiction in there but um
      <O>tut</O> <O>voc</O> it <.>s</.> <,> <.>that</.> that
      contradiction is because er the right to um <,> the right to
      control er information er for the so called public good um <O>voc</O>
      <,> namely trying to reduce the amount of fraud and so on has to
      be balanced against um the right of you and i not to have um
      information held in data banks and er er accumulated and and the
      <.>big</.> the big <&>13:00</&> brother concept but i should
      also add that um it's not just a carte blanche on the part of
      government

  <WSC#DGI071:0215:EL>
      er <.>i</.> <.>in</.> in those areas of social welfare and and
      tax records there are a number of um mechanisms and and rules
      that have been put in place to try and <.>g</.> um <,> exert
      some control over that <,> process

  <WSC#DGI071:0220:IK>
      now these fourteen principles you say they're NOT enforceable in
      LAW

  <WSC#DGI071:0225:IK>
      what's the POINT of them then

  <WSC#DGI071:0230:EL>
      they're not DIRECTLY enforceable

  <WSC#DGI071:0235:EL>
      er what is required er if <.>you</.> <,> what they've done is
      they've taken this er set of guidelines and put it into the
      statute and then um they've said <,> if you breach one of those
      guidelines that's an interference with privacy with an
      individual's privacy but that interference would not allow you
      to jump into court and sue

  <WSC#DGI071:0240:EL>
      what you'd have to do is you have to take that event that
      intervention and put it with um <O>tut</O> a um a <&>14:00</&>
      TYPE of injury test

  <WSC#DGI071:0245:EL>
      it's not quite but <.>it</.> the statute says you have to take
      the interference and <.>it</.> that interference has to be er
      either wrong or um oppressive unjustified contrary to law and
      there are a number of those <{><[>er</[>

  <WSC#DGI071:0250:IK>
      <[>has to</[></{> be harmful in some way <latch>

  <WSC#DGI071:0255:EL>
      yes there are a number of those tests <O>voc</O> er written into
      the legislature in into the legislation and <O>voc</O> once
      you've got that then you can make a complaint to the
      commissioner and the <.>com</.> commissioner if he upholds that
      complaint you will then have recourse to the human rights
      tribunal and um er er they can make er an order that will um er
      basically prevent the interference um by issuing a restraining
      order

  <WSC#DGI071:0260:EL>
      um they may award damages and there's a <?>cap</?> in the in the
      bill of fifty thousand dollars er <,> then the other of course
      <.>more</.> very importantly for people <.>who</.> who are
      alleging <&>15:00</&> that they've been harmed by the
      interference is the ability of the court <.>to</.> of the
      tribunal rather to er order rectification of the problem

  <WSC#DGI071:0265:IK>
      what do you mean by that

  <WSC#DGI071:0270:IK>
      what would be an example <,,><&>3</&>

  <WSC#DGI071:0275:EL>
      er well perhaps there's an information practice that um er some
      aspect that is not being complied with in the procedure of the
      organisation gathering the information um that has led to it
      then i would imagine that the tribunal would be able to say um
      <O>voc</O> you know smarten up <{><[>your act</[>

  <WSC#DGI071:0280:IK>
      <[>from NOW</[></{> on don't do that <{><[>again</[>

  <WSC#DGI071:0285:EL>
      <[>don't</[></{> do that and perhaps there's been a decision
      that er has gone <.>a</.> against the individual that um the
      tribunal could um seek um a review of that or <O>voc</O> you
      know it's all it's a bit nebulous in <.>a</.> in a vacuum

  <WSC#DGI071:0290:IK>
      but it stops it from happening again

  <WSC#DGI071:0295:IK>
      that's the <.>p</.> point of it

  <WSC#DGI071:0300:EL>
      well there is some there is redress in there but your original
      question is <O>voc</O> you know <&>16:00</&> what's the purpose
      of that and why how is it er you know why is it not enforceable

  <WSC#DGI071:0305:EL>
      well what the what the bill actually says is that these
      principles are not direct rights so there there is um an
      enforcement mechanism there but it's an indirect mechanism

  <WSC#DGI071:0310:EL>
      you've got to follow through this this train of events to get to
      your remedy and the the reason for that i think is because of
      the dilemma the draft has had between er enshrining these
      principles as absolute rights of privacy that that you and i
      could go and sue on

  <WSC#DGI071:0315:EL>
      er that would you know <.>p</.> be the basis of a course of
      action er and that could be QUITE draconian and quite unworkable

  <WSC#DGI071:0320:EL>
      on the other hand if it's just held up there as nothing more
      than a guideline which is what we've already had for some time
      now we've had the o e c d guidelines <,> <O>tut</O> on er the
      control and the regulation of er the use of personal information
      then um <O>voc</O> people can ignore it of course so by trying
      to walk this <&>17:00</&> middle road the er the the the
      drafters have tried to get some kind of balance but that in turn
      has brings other problems

  <WSC#DGI071:0325:IK>
      we've been hearing about privacy legislation for YEARS now

  <WSC#DGI071:0330:IK>
      how long has it sort of been <.>ha</.> around

  <WSC#DGI071:0335:EL>
      it's been around an awful long time

  <WSC#DGI071:0340:EL>
      um there's a er a united nations um <,> er covenant which goes
      back to nineteen sixty six

  <WSC#DGI071:0345:EL>
      er it really became um <,> <O>tut</O> er the thing of the moment
      internationally in nineteen eighty with the er o e c d er
      members signing guidelines that dealt with the um the protection
      of personal information

  <WSC#DGI071:0350:EL>
      overseas er as early as er nineteen eighty two the canadians
      brought in a er a privacy law

  <WSC#DGI071:0355:EL>
      before that er the americans were there almost a decade earlier
      nineteen seventy four with their legislation

  <WSC#DGI071:0360:EL>
      um the er the australians the united kingdom all in the
      <&>18:00</&> last decade but in new zealand er it really it the
      <.>the</.> the interest in the consciousness raising about the
      the power of information started with the freedom of information
      movement which was in the late seventies <,> and privacy wasn't
      really talked about too much because you have certain common law
      um remedies if if you felt that you've been aggrieved with
      breach of confidence actions and and so on <,> so it's really
      the er the midnineteen eighties the the new zealanders'
      consciousness has been raised and er the government er became
      active in about nineteen eighty seven with the commissioning of
      a very good paper by tim mcbride looking at er <,> <O>voc</O>
      privacy regimes and what might be appropriate for new zealand

  <WSC#DGI071:0365:EL>
      er then it has sat with government for um all those years until
      now we have the introduction and i <O>voc</O> think <.>that</.>
      <.>that</.> the introduction <&>19:00</&> of this bill is er <,>
      its impetus is because of the government desire to er in the
      context of our most recent budget to um crack down on social
      welfare benefits and tax fraud and so on so it's been there
      hanging about <.>an</.> and every now and <.>en</.> then it <.>w</.>
      um would be trotted out in the minister's er minister of
      justice's speeches er in the previous government and in this
      government and er it's one of those things which it's very
      convenient to have in the background because er i think <O>voc</O>
      the threat of privacy legislation hanging over people who really
      do need to get their act together um in er <,> <O>voc</O> did
      have a good side effect er in that or a good spinoff because <.>it</.>
      it got people focusing <.>and</.> and worrying about how
      draconian this legislation could be if it wanted to be and that
      they'd better start trying to do something to preempt it
      <&>19:57</&>
</I>
