Consultation submission on amendment to information sharing agreement between MSD and Inland Revenue

Written by

Privacy Foundation NZ

Published on

Policy and OIAs

Email request for consultation from Inland Revenue to the Foundation

Tēnā koe

Please find attached a letter asking for your views on a proposal to amend the existing information sharing agreement between MSD and Inland Revenue.

The objective of this amendment would be to provide better policy advice to improve services.

To assist with your consideration, a draft of the possible amendment to the AISA is included.

Submissions will need to be made to this email ([email protected]) by 13 August 2021 with “AISA amendment” in the subject line.

If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Ngā mihi

Policy Webmaster

Policy and Regulatory Stewardship
Inland Revenue

AISA consultation letter

Response from the Foundation

Tēnā koutou,

Thank you for consulting with the Privacy Foundation on this matter. The Privacy Foundation provides free, fair and expert Privacy commentary in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

We are unable to provide comment. The consultation lacks sufficient detail to understand what is proposed, what alternatives have been considered, or its potential adverse privacy impacts. While we acknowledge that this has been perceived to be a minor amendment, a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) was required. A PIA is an essential stage in any significant privacy impacting proposal, let alone a modification of an Approved Information Sharing Agreement. An AISA has significant repercussions, it modifies law.

The PIA can be brief, but it is none-the-less essential. In this instance, generally, it should have covered:

  • What is proposed,
  • The benefit of the proposal,
  • The risks, and
  • What is being proposed to address these risk.

In this instance, we would have also expected it to have considered the implications of a carve out from the traditional default of tax secrecy. It would also have been useful to receive some documentation of what alternatives have been considered. This would justify that the proposal was not only a proportional approach, but that it is a justified approach, in this particular instance. Only with that can a proper assessment of proportionality be undertaken.

As such, the information provided was insufficient for consultation.

If you wish to discuss this feedback we are available.

Best wishes,


Kent Newman

Privacy Foundation New Zealand