United Future aims high for 2013
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future):
New Zealand has been through some pretty tough years of late. Whether it be the outcome of the Christchurch earthquakes or the international global economic meltdown, Kiwi families have had to face some pretty tough decisions in their lives. A number of their dreams have been overturned, and a number of their plans for the future have had to be completely revisited. As a consequence of all those things, they have become pretty understandably intolerant of mere words being offered as solutions—be it from their insurance companies, their employers, their trade unions, their political leaders, or whoever. What the people of New Zealand, as a result of their experience of recent years, are desperately seeking is a sense of reassurance and a commitment that policies being promoted will be achieved and put in place to their benefit. So although they might have enjoyed some of the comedy associated with the various state of the nation speeches of recent days, there is a sense of bewilderment that no concrete plans have been put forward, no concrete strategies have been delivered, and they still live in the hope that things will happen. So what I want to do this afternoon in the time available to me and on behalf of United Future, as a support party to this Government, is outline the things that we intend to achieve this year. They will not be to the grand scale of things, but they are things that we as a responsible support partner will achieve and deliver for the people of New Zealand. The Leader of the Opposition and, I think, the Prime Minister also made reference earlier to the issue of superannuation. One of the issues that is critical for this country’s future is the structure and affordability of national superannuation. This year, as part of our confidence and supply agreement, there will be a Government discussion paper released on the concept of flexible superannuation—a reduced rate, if one chooses to take it, at the age of 60, or an enhanced rate, if you prefer, to the age of 70, with the base rate still being struck at age 65. In other words, the individual makes the choice about their retirement, not the State making that choice for them, as is the case at the moment.
That is a concept where individual choice on retirement is paramount. It is gathering pace. I know the Leader of the Opposition supports it, I know that other parties in this House support it, and a substantial number of members of the New Zealand public do, as well. So we will have a discussion paper out there to kick off that process of debate. It will coincide with the periodic review that the Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Income undertakes, and I believe it will inevitably lead to a more flexible approach to superannuation in the future that will address all of the concerns that have been expressed by so many over recent years. At the other end of the scale, this year will see establishment of the Families Commission’s Family Status Report . That was part of the legislation that was passed last year. It is built on a concept that that the coalition Government in the United Kingdom has introduced in recent years, where there is an annual report on the impact and effect of Government policies on families to guide policy development for the future. That will be a very practical step forward for a number of families and also for the policy makers and for the decisions that we have to make in respect of those issues, and I welcome that initiative. We will see the Game Animal Council , which has long been something that United Future has campaigned for, passed through legislation in this House, and I give notice also that as part of our confidence-and-supply agreement, the legislation to phase out guided helicopter hunting on the conservation estate will also be prepared and introduced, because that will also have a significant positive impact on recreational opportunities in New Zealand. Although we are making progress in the area of drug and alcohol treatment of prison inmates, there is still a long way to go. As part of our confidence-and-supply agreement, we will be pushing this year for the introduction of the planned pre-release drug and alcohol assessments when prisoners appear before the Parole Board , so that there is information available about the level of their dependency at the time that a decision is made to govern their release and their work back into the community. In the next couple of months, this House will pass the new child support legislation that I have long championed and that has been the biggest change to our child support arrangements since the scheme was introduced in the early 1990s. It will be a fairer scheme. It will provide much greater recognition for shared custody arrangements and a much more flexible approach in terms of the reality of today’s childcare environment, where not all custodial parents are at home—a number of custodial parents, the majority of them, are in the workforce as well—and where the system needs to be balanced out to become much fairer in terms of the contribution that both parents have to make to the upbringing of their children once their relationship has failed. We will also see in place by August of this year the new legislation establishing what has been described by a House of Commons committee in Britain just before Christmas as world class and something to be envied: our psychoactive substances legislation, which will shift the onus of proof to the suppliers of those products to prove they are safe before they are allowed to be sold or distributed to vulnerable young people in New Zealand. That will be a huge step forward, and it will mean that the temporary regime we have at the moment of banning these substances as we become aware of them can be replaced by a more permanent and long-term arrangement. We will also see in the next couple of months the release of our Suicide Prevention Action Plan . This is an updating of the existing strategy. It is one that will focus much more on today’s realities in terms of where the pressure points are, the most at-risk groups, and also the best way of addressing this awful problem in our community. New Zealanders do not appreciate that more people die by suicide each year, by a considerable number, than are killed on the roads. We rightly place huge concern on the road toll. It is time to elevate that level of concern to those who end their lives through suicide, because the 500-odd people in that situation each year leave families, they leave friends, and they leave workmates. They leave a flow-on effect right through society that we have to address. Just before Christmas when the mental health strategy was released, one of the key elements in that, which will be carried through into the new suicide strategy, is the important role of community agencies working alongside official agencies. The previous strategies relied too much on almost a directive approach from the centre, when in fact we have a huge number of agencies and people active in this field with experience, capability, and skills that we need to be utilising to mobilise, if you like, the community at large to make improvements in the overall status of mental health, but particularly to start to address what is an unacceptable suicide rate in New Zealand, particularly amongst young people. Those moves are about making progressive change that will benefit, fundamentally, New Zealand families in a number of ways: through more certainty about their retirement; through more accurate information about the impact of policies on them as they go through life; through enhancing their opportunities to go out and enjoy New Zealand’s great outdoors; through making sure that people with alcohol and drug problems get access to the treatment that they need at an early enough time; through a fairer child support system; through a more accurate regime in terms of the control of these new psychoactive substances; and, ultimately, through working—and the youth mental health strategy and the Prime Minister’s plan released last year are part of this—to bring together all of our mental health resources to improve the mental health of New Zealanders and to reduce the incidence of suicide. They are the things that United Future as a party, which has always put the well-being of the New Zealand family centre stage, will be campaigning on delivering this year. But, more than that, they are the things pursuant to our confidence-and-supply agreement and pursuant to legislation that is either before the House or about to come before the House that I can say with confidence will be achieved during this particular year. For those families around this country who despair often that politicians talk and talk and talk and talk, and deliver little that is of benefit to them, particularly at stressful times, I say look to that record. Look to those achievements, recognise those benefits as being positive, and then judge the performance of others against that standard, because, as we come together for this year—this difficult year ahead of us—the expectation of New Zealanders is that every single one of the members of this House will work to progress policies that are beneficial to New Zealanders. There might be a little bit of rhetoric along the way, but that will not become the dominant element. The dominant element will be our performance, our policy, our delivery, and, ultimately, the benefit we deliver to the people who we represent in this House, the people of New Zealand.
'Protecting Privacy in an Age of Joined-up Government Services'
The end of the political year 2012 probably cannot come quickly enough for the Government.
Even though it remains comfortably ahead in the opinion polls, it would be the first to concede this has not been its best year.
Flush from its election victory last year – the most substantial by any party under MMP – the Government might reasonably have expected 2012 to be a year of consolidation, in which the economy began a clear recovery, and the start of a second term in which it was able to focus on its policy agenda, while a shell-shocked Opposition came to grips with its worst defeat since the mid 1990s, got used to its new leadership, and started to lay its plans for the future.
Instead, although the Opposition has still been ineffectual with continued unresolved leadership doubts, the Government has found itself bedevilled by the ongoing depth of the Global Financial Crisis, the slower than anticipated domestic recovery, including delays on the rebuilding of Christchurch; and, a series of domestic crises, largely around the issue of information gathering and the protection of individual rights.
First, there was the Bronwyn Pullar ACC affair which led to the resignation of the Minister and the chief executive, and a restructuring of the ACC Board.
Then there were the events surrounding the illegal activities of the GCSB in the Dotcom case, and subsequent allegations about more widespread illegal Police operations in other cases.
That was followed by the issues relating to the improper accessing of client data held by the Ministry of Social Development, and the recent highly critical report on the Ministry’s performance in that regard, leading even the Minister to describe her department’s kiosk operation as “atrocious”.
Now it appears the Education Ministry’s new teacher pay management system Novopay may also have fallen prey to privacy lapses.
And, finally, there have been the privacy lapses by my own department, Inland Revenue, which are in the realm of human error, rather than system failure.
While these are all separate cases, which even the most ardent conspiracy theorist would have difficulty linking, there are some common themes that I wish to explore this evening.
I do so, not in my Ministerial capacity, but as the leader of UnitedFuture, because of our clear liberal democratic commitment to upholding and protecting the rights of the individual, and also as someone who has had a long interest in individual privacy issues.
My starting point is a simple one: free societies like ours operate on the basis of mutual consent.
As citizens, we tolerate the authority of the state because we believe it will be exercised in our best interests.
When confidence in our institutions is diminished by their own actions, the cohesion of our society is eroded.
There has been an erosion of public confidence as a result of each of the cases I have referred to a Colmar Brunton poll released last weekend showed 60% of New Zealanders were uncomfortable with the way the Government handled their information.
The risk is that in a time of already heightened uncertainty, principally because of the international economic situation, such erosion could easily escalate into a general crisis of public confidence, unless the Government is extremely careful.
I spoke earlier of my long interest in the protection of individual privacy.
It goes back to the time when, amongst other portfolios, I held the position of Associate Justice Minister in the Palmer Labour Government.
In that role, I did a lot of work on privacy issues, and in Opposition after 1990 developed and introduced to Parliament what is apparently still the largest private member’s Bill – the Information Privacy Bill – which eventually became the Privacy Act we have today.
At the time, I described the Bill’s essential purposes as providing for the “better protection of the privacy of natural persons in relation to personal information collected, held or used by any agency,” and that there be “proper access by each person to official information relating to that purpose".
In the current context, those themes are as relevant today as they were over 20 years ago, even though the ways in which we gather, hold and use personal information have changed dramatically.
The growth, development and constant use of the Internet, and on-line technologies generally have changed our world completely in the last 20 years, and those trends will only accelerate.
Cyber-crime, identity theft, and the newspaper hacking of personal telephone accounts elements of the Murdoch press engaged in in Britain could not have been accurately quantified or imagined in the early 1990s.
At that time, our focus was much more on ensuring people’s personal details were not sold or passed on indiscriminately to direct mail agencies like Reader’s Digest!
The mainline computer systems of state agencies like the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development were in their infancy, and the nightmare that was to become the ill-fated Police INCIS system was yet to be developed.
Government computer services in the main referred to the Wanganui Computer Centre.
But while the world might have been simpler then, the principles that underpinned my original Privacy Bill and the government legislation that was to follow endure, and are actually more relevant in today’s environment than they were in 1991.
Every New Zealand resident – whether they be a Kim Dotcom , or even a convicted sex offender, let alone just an ordinary person going about their daily lives – has an absolute right to expect that the information held about them by government agencies will above all else, be accurate, and not misrepresented.
They further have a right to expect that such information will be used solely for the purposes for which it was originally collected, and that the agencies responsible will at all times act in a lawful and proper way regarding both the collection of personal information, and the uses to which it is put.
At the same time, people have a right to expect that the information held about them is secure, and, even allowing for human errors, that it will not generally be disseminated more broadly without their knowledge and consent.
But, there is another important aspect to this latter point.
The way in which people provide their information to the government has changed, as have public expectations.
Much information is now provided on-line, and there seems to be an implied acceptance that this often basic personal information – name, address, contact details, and the like – will be shared across government agencies.
Indeed, I find constituents are frequently frustrated when asked by a government agency for their personal details “because I have already provided those to such and such a department.”
They tend to see government as an already joined-up entity, and assume that when information is provided to one branch, it is available to all.
So, on the one hand, there is an expectation that government agencies will share basic personal information, but, on the other, there is a perfectly reasonable belief that adequate personal privacy protections will be in place and observed to prevent the misuse of such information.
A couple of issues arise from this.
First, while the principle of information sharing is accepted as a general rule, there are legitimate concerns about its scope and exercise in practice, and government agencies therefore have to be cautious in how they go about information sharing.
To just assume the public’s broad acceptance justifies broad approaches is simplistic and wrong, and clearly, as extreme examples like the Dotcom case show, can lead to an “ends justify the means” culture developing, which would be as dangerous for personal liberty, as it would be improper practice.
Arising from this is the question of accountability.
A political journalist writing in the Sunday Star Times recently observed sagely and tersely that “our law enforcement agencies have become more concerned with the enforcement and less about the law”.
While she was commenting about a particular case, the point she was making has wider relevance.
It is the perennial question of who guards the guardians.
In a democracy, protecting the public interest does not justify carte blanche.
What are the sanctions, and how are they applied, when information sharing goes bad?
In a recent speech I quoted Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote in 1930s Germany, and its powerful ending that: “… then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak for me.”
There has to be someone left to speak for all of us when it comes to the protection of our rights and privacy, otherwise they will be diminished.
If the public do not see major breaches of their privacy, or their rights in respect of their privacy, being taken seriously, then we should not be at all surprised if their willingness to provide their personal details to government agencies reduces accordingly.
Because information sharing and personal data protection are increasingly core elements of many government agencies’ business, they all need to have in place robust, clear specific and enforceable processes for its management, and an equal awareness of the potential security risks, and how these can be mitigated.
It goes back to my point about the retention of respect for the public institutions we entrust our information to, and the level of confidence we are entitled to as to how that information will be used.
I said before that the ways we access our information these days will continue to proliferate, as will the pressures associated with that.
Look at the news media – on-line services and social media are rapidly supplanting the print media and arguably even the electronic media as our primary source of news.
Facebook and Twitter are the far more immediate sources of information these days.
Mainstream media’s new role seems to be back up or explain in depth what we already know in headline form from social media.
But here is another twist.
Just as we get our information instantly, we increasingly expect to be able to provide our information equally quickly, which is another potential complication for governments.
I highlighted before the potential contradiction between people being frustrated that they have to keep providing information they have already provided to another agency, while at the same time being concerned about its potential misuse.
I would add to that the concurrent expectation that they can provide their information in the same way as they now provide their information to, or interact with their bank, insurance company or travel agent.
It is this latter expectation that probably has the biggest implications for governments of the future, as the recent MSD kiosks case shows.
In my view, we are moving inevitably towards joined-up government services, where people will conduct their business with government on-line, probably from home, at a time which suits them.
They will expect single portal entry to a range of government services, and to manage their business with the government, pretty much the way they manage their banking right now.
That obviously has implications for old current operating systems – like Inland Revenue’s for example.
While that is not the focus of my particular remarks today, I will say that following the receipt of our consultant’s report in July on the future role and direction of Inland Revenue, I have been working very closely with the Commissioner and her team, and my Ministerial colleagues on what has been previously estimated could be a $1.5 billion upgrade project.
Consistent with everything I have been saying this evening , I am determined that we get this right and that we are not harried into rushed or inadequate solutions because of ignorant political clamour from people who do not know what they are talking about.
We have made a good deal of progress, and I will be taking a programme business case to Cabinet early next year to set the broad direction for how Inland Revenue’s systems will develop over the next 10 years.
Overall, the important point to remember is that these issues go far beyond just replacing computer systems – to think otherwise is pretty naïve.
While the issue has to be treated on a whole of government basis, both in terms of the way government services are provided, across a range of specific government agencies, my focus tonight is on the more generic issue of how, whatever systems we develop for the future, we protect individual privacy, now and into the future.
Let me return to the theme of who guards the guardians.
I am not speaking here of cases which occur as the result of genuine human error.
While I am not diminishing the impact of these, I would expect that in such situations the chief executive of the organisation concerned would investigate the circumstances to determine what further action, including disciplinary and procedural steps, may be necessary to prevent recurrences in the future.
Rather, I am thinking about situations where the breaches go far beyond genuine error, and enter the realm of potential illegality with an adverse impact on the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders.
Effective accountability for failing to uphold the law is an important way of assuring the public on whose consent the law is founded that the law is being upheld.
On the face of it, current practice appears inconsistent.
In this regard, the Privacy Commissioner summed it up very well recently when she said, “There's been far too little focus on the fact that there are real people behind the information that government agencies hold.”
My own view is clear – whether it be an agency with a law enforcement function, like, for example, the Police, or any other government agency for that matter, which breaches the law with regard to individual privacy, they must be held to account for their actions.
Attempting to justify such incidents on the basis the agency thought they were complying with the law, or sweeping them under the carpet, or just leaving the issue to internal procedures to resolve is not good enough.
There need to be clear, external, enforceable, and consistently applied standards of conduct in these circumstances.
This is not a witch-hunt mentality, but recognition of the precious nature of personal information and the vital importance of, to quote my original legislation, providing for the “better protection of the privacy of natural persons in relation to personal information collected, held or used by any agency.”
It is interesting to note that the Australian Federal Government has just released a formal discussion paper on how privacy breaches should be handled, including the possible introduction of a mandatory breach notification scheme, although as their Attorney-General notes, that may not be as simple or practical as it first sounds.
She raises the valid point – consistent with the tenor of my remarks this evening – that, “If
there is to be a mandatory data breach notification scheme, how do we make sure it gets the balance right between the public interest in mitigating the adverse effects of data breaches while ensuring we do not create an overly burdensome compliance requirement on entities that make their business from collecting, storing and using personal information?”
My own view is that the balance has to err on the side of the individual, for the following reason.
I am a supporter of the institutions of the state – like the Police and the security services – and recognise their role to protect the public interest.
Their task is often a thankless one, which I would not want to undertake, but it is not an unfettered one.
I believe very strongly that, when exercising their responsibilities, those agencies of the state must at all times not only act, but be seen to act, within the law they are pledged to uphold, especially so far as the rights of individuals are concerned.
That is a high test, but in a free state, it cannot logically be otherwise.
After all, one of the fundamental responsibilities of any government in a free society is to uphold the rights and liberties of its citizens.
Protecting their personal information from abuse or misuse by the agencies of the state is an important part of meeting that responsibility, and ultimately of retaining confidence in our system.
Dunne: legal highs regime costs and penalties announced
Legal high manufacturers will face estimated $180,000 application fees plus $1 million to $2 million in testing costs for each product they want to sell, and up to eight years in prison for selling banned substances, Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said today in announcing details of the permanent psychoactive substances regime.
“I make no apologies for setting the bar high on public safety and putting in place a regime with the process costs squarely on the legal highs industry, and not the taxpayer,” Mr Dunne said of the regime which should be in place by the middle of next year.
“I have said all along that this regime will be fundamentally based on reversing the onus of proof so those who profit from these products will have to prove they are as safe as is possible for psychoactive substances.
“We will no longer play the cat-and-mouse game of constantly chasing down substances after they are on the market.
Penalties under the new regime will include up to eight years in prison for importing, manufacturing, supplying or possession with intent to supply analogues of controlled drugs that come under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and up to two years for import, manufacture, supply or possession with intent to supply unapproved substances.
Other key features of the new regime that have been approved by Cabinet include:
- Personal possession of an unapproved product will incur a $300 fine.
- There will be a minimum purchase age of 18.
- No advertising except at point of sale.
- Restrictions on outlets, including barring dairies from selling such products, and labelling and packaging requirements.
Mr Dunne said the $300 personal possession fine is deliberately not being legislated as a criminal offence.
“What we are trying to do is actually protect young people, not criminalise them and thereby jeopardise their job and travel prospects. The approach we are taking is similar to that used with alcohol infringements,” he said.
Labelling and packaging requirements will require all products to have a label listing their active ingredients, the phone number for the National Poisons Centre and contact details for the product’s New Zealand manufacturer or supplier.
‘To date, there has been no ingredient information, so no one who buys these products has the first clue what is in them, which is as ridiculous as it is dangerous and irresponsible,” Mr Dunne said.
“We have had considerable success with the Temporary Class Drug Notices that we instituted in August last year. They have taken 28 substances and more than 50 synthetic cannabis products off the market, but that was always a temporary measure until we could get this regime in place,” Mr Dunne said.
He said he will introduce the required legislation later this year and it is expected to be in place by the middle of next year. In the meantime, all existing temporary notices will be rolled over so they remain in place until the permanent regime is in place.
The Cabinet paper and Regulatory Impact Statement can be found at www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/new-regulatory-regime-psychoactive-substances
Psychoactive Substances Regime Questions and Answers
What are low risk psychoactive substances?
This refers to new psychoactive substances for which the risks are low enough that they meet the approval criteria set by the regulatory. We say 'low-risk' to avoid implying that they will be entirely safe, as there will always be some risk. This is because different people have different reactions to pharmacologically active substances.
Why is the Government bringing in a psychoactive substances regime?
We are doing this because the current situation is untenable. Current legislation is ineffective in dealing with the rapid growth in synthetic psychoactive substances which can be tweaked to be one step ahead of controls. Products are being sold without any controls over their ingredients, without testing requirements, or controls over where they can be sold. The government must prove a risk of harm before controlling a substance. The new regime will require a supplier or manufacturer to apply to a regulator for a safety assessment before any product can be sold.
Are we legalising drugs?
No. The regime will provide stronger controls over psychoactive substances. At the moment, these products are unregulated, with no control over ingredients, place of sale, or who they can be sold to. Because they are synthetic substances, there are a huge number of potential ingredients, which makes it unfeasible to deal with them individually.
It will be illegal to sell any product which has not been through an assessment. There will be strict restrictions on where products can be sold, the purchase age, and marketing restrictions.
What will the implications of the new regime be for cannabis?
The legal status of cannabis will not change. This is because the regime will only cover new psychoactive substances that are not already classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Why don’t you just ban everything?
Legislation should not be used to restrict behaviour that cannot be proved to be harmful. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved. However, our position will still be that not using these products is the safest option.
Is this a stealthy way of banning everything and never approving any product?
No. Clear testing requirements are being established to determine the risks of psychoactive products. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved.
How will risk/safety be determined?
Consistent toxicological and behavioural testing will be required for every product seeking approval. A new regulator will be established to consider the data from this testing for each product. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved.
What do you mean by the regulator?
A regulator will need to be established for psychoactive substances. This regulator will oversee the approval of products, monitor for compliance with post market restrictions, and reassess products in light of any new evidence of harm that might arise.
How many drugs will get approved?
We don’t know this yet. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved. This will require toxicological and behavioural testing.
Who will do the risk assessments?
The new regulator will consider toxicological and clinical data for each product.
Does this mean the Government is endorsing drugs?
No. At the moment these products are available without any information regarding their risks to health. We are changing the system to require industry to prove they do not pose a greater than a low risk of health before they may be sold.
Will there be controls to stop children buying these drugs from dairies?
Yes, it is intended that there will be restrictions on where substances can be sold and a minimum purchase age which will be set in due course.
What happens when the legislation comes into force? Will everything be pulled from the shelves?
A transition period will follow enactment of the new regime. During the transition period, a sponsor will only be able to sell:
- products with an application pending approval by the regulator; and
- that have been legally on the market for at least six months prior to enactment of the new regime; and
- provided that there are no health concerns about the products concerned.
Will this just backfire and create a bigger black market?
No. We expect that having low risk psychoactive products legally available will make it less likely that consumers will resort to a black market.