Mr Young, of Dunedin, was commenting on a proposed amendment to the Credit Reporting Privacy Code being introduced through the office of the Privacy Commissioner.
The privacy code did not allow "positive" credit reports, he said.
If a credit reporting company sought information on someone seeking hire purchase finance, it would typically include negative information referring to a payment default.
Even though those payments could have been missed in 2007, they were still included on the report and the customer could be seen as a risk although he or she had never missed another payment with other hire-purchase providers.
Mr Young said there needed to be safeguards over supplying positive data.
He did not want it sent to credit reporting agencies by right and he did not want any clause identifying that possibility buried in the fine print.
Consumers should decide whether or not they wanted that information passed on.
There were also some strange exceptions to who could access the information.
Only in some strictly defined situations would the information be available to prospective landlords, employers, insurers or debt collectors.
It seemed illogical landlords could not access the positive data, he said.
Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said the proposed amendment represented a major change to regulating credit reporting.
Benefits were expected to include more accurate and complete credit reporting.
She urged the public and the industry to submit their views on the amendment.
"Let's be clear - more comprehensive reporting brings new levels of intrusiveness into people's lives when they seek credit."
Given the substantial increase in sensitive financial information that would be available to third parties on credit databases, the amendment proposed strong controls protecting privacy, she said.
Controls were necessary to protect individuals and ensure the credit reporting system was trustworthy and accountable