Data and Statistics Bill

The House is resumed. When the House rose for the dinner break, the members were considering the Data and Statistics Bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in this House to talk to the third reading of the bill amending the Statistics Act of 1975.

Simon O’Connor: Oh, great year.

NAISI CHEN: I wasn’t born before then.

Dr Duncan Webb: You always say that.

NAISI CHEN: Ha, ha! OK, I’ll stop myself from saying that from now on. I did a bit of research especially for the digital exclusion debate last week in the House, which was brought to us by the Citizens Advice Bureau. The bill that we’re trying to amend right now is 1975. In 1983—which makes it eight years after the bill was passed—the internet was invented.

We’ve known from speeches previous to this debate already that this world is a very different place than what it used to be in 1975, and rather than just calling it the Statistics Act, we know that data is now an integral part of our lives. Fun fact: in the last two days, more data has been created and captured than any data from the beginning of human history to the year 2003. So we are in a rapid world of creating and capturing data, and we need to govern data in the right way as well.

This bill will seek, obviously, to modernise the framework for accessing data for research to make sure that the Minister and also the Statistician of the Government have the right powers to make sure that we do it ethically and we do it safely. For instance, there will be additional safeguards when overseas-based researchers access our data. There is the Five Safes framework we’re putting in place through this bill to make sure that we, as New Zealanders, especially in relation to our indigenous data—our iwi and Māori data, which is such a taonga for our nation—protect it in the best way possible while also advancing the way that we govern our country, that we do research, and that we enlighten ourselves with the technology that we have. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Data and Statistics Bill. Many thanks to the Governance and Administration Committee and all of the organisations and people who submitted in the hearings, which of course did result in several amendments made to their draft bill.

While we welcome the repeal and replacement of the Statistics Act of 1975, we recognise the outstanding concerns raised by those organisations and submitters, including professionals across the sector. We heard several of those concerns raised in the committee of the whole House, and it’s a good reminder that if you feel strongly about something, the hearings are not the end of it. You can keep coming to us and asking us to raise these concerns for you and we can put up those Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are heard in that committee of the whole House, and while none of those were deemed worthy by the Government, those issues were roundly aired and debated in the House.

So the Greens very much appreciate that the bill contains a specific section on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, where it aims to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—by providing for the interests of Māori in data, statistics, and research, because, let’s be honest, it’s not a strength of Governments to provide for Māori interests. No shade on the current Government; it’s been all 53 Governments so far. So we are thankful that it is there, and we recognise that the effective implementation of such a provision is contingent on working with Māori leadership in that area and working with whānau, hapū, and iwi as it relates to what the kaupapa is.

Fortunately, Stats NZ does have a mana ōrite agreement with Te Kāhui Raraunga—the Data Iwi Leaders Group, and although the Minister assured us there’s a strong relationship with them, that relationship was not strong enough for the Minister to incorporate their recommendations outlined in Tawhiti Nuku, the Māori data governance co-design outcomes report. It did not allow Te Kāhui Raraunga to look at the bill before it went to Cabinet, it didn’t respond to any of the concerns they raised in their submissions, and it didn’t consider the SOPs which were put out by the Greens and Te Paati Māori on their behalf. So we just thought a review clause—this is what they suggested. If we can’t have all those other things, let’s just look at a review clause that would allow us within three years after the commencement of this Act to commence a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act in accordance with the terms of reference set out by the Minister and the Data Iwi Leaders Group—Te Kāhui Raraunga. We included the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Ombudsman in that.

Of course, privacy is one of the major concerns we have consistently raised, and I acknowledge the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties—thank you for coming to meet with us, and I’m aware you met with and sent information to colleagues across the House. We appreciate the ongoing and consistent lobbying, because if people do not trust what will happen to the data they provide, they may choose not to provide that data or not to make sure it’s accurate when they provide it. “De-identified” is not the same as “anonymised”, and the more data you have on a single individual or a community, the easier it is that you’re not going to get either of those things.

This bill accelerates a shift from data collection that uses formally designed surveys and big surveys—like the census itself—into using administrative data. Now, the standards for that collection of data is far, far lower, and far fewer protections are in place for those people who have provided it and so it can be easily skewed in different ways. The quality of that data provided against Government agencies, then, that is coming, and that is then going to be available for other researchers and other people and businesses to use, needs to be on the same high standard.

Finally, as one of the many Māori takatāpui researchers in this country—and I know there are other researchers in this House—I’m currently involved in several community-based research projects. So I do want to shout out to all the people that do this work in the community, generally unpaid: Counting Ourselves for trans and non-binary people, Identify for young LGBTIQ people, at the trans perinatal care project, and I’m an ambassador for the Manalagi Project for rainbow pasifika. Just a shout-out to all of those people and all of those teams doing incredible work—I use your data all the time.

But the other researchers, any actual MP knows that we need to have our hands—we have to have that good evidence, that quality information, because the creation of good quality data is core to what we do. The respect of our sources must be core to what a researcher does, because when we collect information and stories directly from individuals and whānau, they trust us to protect what they have gifted us, and that’s why we call it a taonga. In many cases, a breach of privacy could cause them real harm. In a world that discriminates, for example, against people with diverse gender, sexualities, and sex characteristics, there are people who actively look for such information to hurt us.

As researchers within communities where little accurate data exists, we must create it, so we routinely use the vast amount of information collected by Stats NZ and all Government departments to extrapolate from what data is available to identify needs and strengths and to advocate for our communities but also to test the validity of Government data with our own research and life experiences. We must protect that data, we must make sure it’s accurate and of high standards, and we must protect the privacy of those people. We must protect the integrity of the chief statistician. On that basis, we consider this bill does go towards that, and so we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the third reading of the Data and Statistics Bill, and it’s been quite a journey that this bill’s had.

Initially, ACT has looked at it and saw it on the surface as being something that would seek to modernise something in the form of the 1975 Act that probably needed to be modernised, given the enormous changes in data-handling technology that have occurred over the past 47 years. But as we looked deeper into the bill, we heard serious concerns raised by people who have enormous expertise. One of them was a former chief statistician, Len Cook. Another was Sir Geoffrey Palmer, one of the foremost architects of New Zealand’s current constitutional framework. Another was the Council of Civil Liberties. Another was the council of librarians—although I’m going to get the exact title wrong on that.

We looked at what these people were saying and we realised that this bill had serious problems. We hoped that the Government would respect the parliamentary process, and when serious problems were raised with the bill—problems that brought into question whether the sanctity of data and statistics collected by Government and the security of those data and that statistics—we thought that maybe the Government would listen to these people with considerable expertise and make suitable changes to the legislation. There was even an alternative put up. Helpfully, the Australian Parliament in recent time has passed a piece of legislation aimed at solving many of the same problems our Government wanted to solve, but has done it without the pitfalls identified by those experts.

What were those problems? Well, as a bit of background, the position of the chief statistician and, in particular, the status of official statistics have been carefully constitutionally protected for very good reason for a very long time. When a survey is done, it has the potential to damage the Government of the day’s interests. It may turn up results about employment or the price of things that might favour one side or the other of politics. It might gather data or information that would be key to some people’s privacy.

There are many reasons why you would want a person who had the power to not just collect but actually demand that statistics be provided. It’s compulsory to fill out a lot of surveys done by Statistics New Zealand. It’s critical that that person with that sort of power has their power tightly circumscribed and held accountable and that the official statistics that they collect are subject to a high standard of privacy and cannot be misused, and the person collecting them cannot be interfered with politically if the results of their statistics might turn out to be politically charged. Those are things that at least the previous Statistics Act preserved.

So people who are listening at home might think, “How on earth could you have a political debate about the collection of statistics?” Some people might think that it was a particularly uninspiring area of policy. Well, actually, it’s critical, and let me just give you one example. I saw recently a wonderful movie, the movie Whina, a biography of the life of Dame Whina Cooper. One fascinating scene that was described—and it was a real part of her life—was when she became the president of the Maori Women’s Welfare League in Auckland, and in order to find out about the true state of the welfare of Māori women in that city, they actually went out as the league and did their own census. They collected data that the statistics department wasn’t collecting, and they forced the debate. Up until that time, a lot of the statistics that New Zealand had collected had been administrative data, and the problem with administrative data—that is, data of people that have already engaged with a Government department—is that the people who most need to have a light shone on them by official statistics aren’t included.

A classic example of this was when the Government recently decided to use the health service user population for the population to vaccinate during COVID-19. They accidentally missed only about a percent, but it was about 50,000 people, because they hadn’t been to their doctor recently—exactly the people that needed to be included weren’t. What they should have done is use the census and use the official data that the Government had that included everybody, rather than just those who were already engaged with the healthcare system.

So back in the 1950s and as recently as 2021, we see how important it is that we have official statistics that can be collected and that people will share their data with, without fear or favour. That is a backstop to relying on administrative data that people can know will not be misused and their privacy will not be violated—all really important stuff.

So what were the objections to this bill? Well, really, two things: first of all, this bill muddies the water between the collection of official statistics and research. In other words, assembling official statistics according to all the safeguards that are required to make sure that the data is given safely and not misused and that it’s collected without fear or favour—that has been blurred into research which could be done by just about anybody.

So the powers that the Statistician has to collect data are not necessarily just used for the collation of official statistics. In fact, early in the bill, I think it’s Subpart 3 said “official statistics or research”, and when I asked the Minister of Statistics what was the difference between the two, he gave a perfunctory answer, only to come back at 9 o’clock the next morning and say, “Oh, I was stumped by the simplicity and profundity of your question.” Well, I’ve always thought myself to be a simple and profound questioner, but to have a Minister accept that he didn’t understand two of the most critical terms in the legislation he’d been shepherding through Parliament for the last year is absolutely unacceptable.

The next problem: having blurred the lines between official statistics and research and removed the protections of official statistic rules for the data that’s collected by the chief statistician, then it said, “Well, actually the chief statistician can defer or delegate those powers they have to anyone else in the entire public sector.”—theoretically, about 47,000 people. I’ve been in correspondence with Len Cook, who said to me—and I’m sure he won’t mind me repeating—that if he’d been told, in his time, that his powers that he held to be important and a sacred duty had been delegated to someone else, well, what would he have done? He said he would have resigned. But now we have this enormous and sacred power of the chief statistician that is blurred into collecting official statistics and research that anybody can have. Anyone can have it delegated to them by the Minister, and what we do is we destroy that line between official statistics and research that Whina Cooper had to contend with almost 70 years ago.

Now we have a situation where the Government can demand your data, the Government can use the powers to demand data delegated to any other department, and that data can be used either for the purpose of official statistics or research. It undermines the whole integrity of New Zealand’s statistics-gathering operation at a Government level. That is completely wrong.

I’d also add that this legislation has peppered throughout it requirements that Māori be consulted early and meaningfully, and I think that’s a wonderful thing. The only problem is I think we should be consulting all New Zealanders early and meaningfully in a modern, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy.

You know, the statistics department itself categorises New Zealanders as not only Māori and European but also Asian New Zealanders, also MELAA, or Middle East, Latin American, and African New Zealanders—for people who might be interested—and also Pacific New Zealanders. Having just been to Samoa, I have always regarded it as a very important part of New Zealand. Unfortunately, the racial preference that has been needlessly peppered through a bill on statistics is another example of this Government’s divisiveness. It has to stop. We need to unite behind good ideas and stop trying to make discrimination great again by finding superficial differences in each other instead of our common humanity.

That is just one extra reason why the ACT Party cannot support this bill. But the real problem with it is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the Minister himself what this bill actually does to the integrity of statistics gathering in New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a fairly brief call on the Data and Statistics Bill at its third reading. I’m sure members would like for me to speak for longer, but we have canvassed this bill fairly well here this evening.

A lot of what we do in Parliament is updating pieces of legislation. This bill replaces the Statistics Act 1975, and a lot has changed since 1975. In fact, the Waitangi Tribunal was created in 1975, Footrot Flats had its debut, and there was a gentleman named Robert Muldoon—who some people may have heard of—sitting in the Prime Minister’s chair in 1975. So a lot has changed since that time. Society has changed. The way we interact as New Zealanders has changed.

But what hasn’t changed is the importance of good data and good methods for collecting the data—modern methods to ensure that we have accurate data. Because, as we’ve heard from other speakers, data is vital in many areas, but particularly in terms of Government agencies—in terms of their ability to support New Zealanders, whether it’s in health, education, police, housing; in fact, in most areas of society where Government agencies are providing support to New Zealanders, they do so based on data. It’s important that that data is accurate in order for them to make their decisions.

Good data and statistics sit at the heart of democracy. We have a strong democracy in New Zealand, and it’s important that we protect our democracy by ensuring we have good data. I commend this bill to the House.

I call Chris Penk for a five-minute call.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So this is the third reading of the Data and Statistics Bill. We’ve heard contributions from across the House that I think have very fairly summarised the legislative process so far. As my colleague and friend Michael Woodhouse has said, on this side of the House, notwithstanding that we’ve had some reservations about the particular operation of parts of the bill, none the less we support its intent overall and certainly are not minded to oppose the bill in its entirety on the basis only of those particular points. So that’s where we’ve landed.

I think it’s maybe worth thinking about the way that the bill has come to Parliament—I was about to say “and having passed”. It almost will have passed, of course, and in fact it is about to do so, and then it will remain only for the Governor-General, in her wisdom, to sign it into law, giving the Royal assent.

But in terms of the legislative process for this Chamber, we had, of course, the introduction of the bill at its first reading. Typically, of course, the House would regard a bill as containing a meritorious idea or not, and voting for it at least to proceed to select committee on that basis. I tend to be a bit harsher than some others in this House. I think if the bill isn’t in a sufficiently good state, that there’s nothing wrong with trying again. But, as it happens, the intent of this seemed obvious enough: to modernise—as others have said—recognising the passage of time and, more importantly, since 1975, the increase in technology, the additional ways that data can be collected, the nature of the data collection, and the use of the data too. So with that initial good intent being recognised across the House, with the bill having gone to select committee and having heard from a number of submitters that while its intent was shared almost universally, nevertheless there were particular points that could be the subject of reservation.

In the second reading, reporting back, essentially, from that select committee to the House, and, indeed, in the committee of the whole House stage, we saw a good examination of the detail. The Minister was put through his paces, and I think, to give him his due, he engaged with that questioning from this side of the House and the points that we were making on our own behalf but also on behalf of those who had so diligently and helpfully got in touch with members of Parliament and policy makers regarding certain reservations that they had.

The Green Party member who has spoken on this bill actually, I think, made a really good point about the fact that the legislative process need not stop, in a way, even after the bill has been passed into law, in the sense that we can continue the conversations—I think she might have said. Certainly it’s right that we as citizens, actually, first and foremost, and then as policy makers and MPs and Ministers, from time to time, should always be interested in whether the bill or the Act, as it will be, is working in the way that it’s intended and without those unintended consequences whereby data might not be used always as it should. So while a formal review may or may not be included in a particular piece of legislation, that’s not to say that ongoing scrutiny and monitoring can’t take place; indeed, I would argue that it should.

We’ve heard about the collection of data, the use of data, and the sharing of data, and that’s not only between Government agencies, which on this side of the House, we’d say—or at least speaking for the National Party—is a worthwhile thing to the extent that it allows Government to be more responsive to the needs of its citizens. From a National Party perspective, our social investment approach actually demands that our Government agencies work together collaboratively to understand the needs of vulnerable people in our society, particularly, those whose needs can’t be categorised in neat silos that equate exactly to specific Government departments and agencies. So that sharing is very important and meaningful and enabling in that sense. But we have nevertheless expressed those concerns as encouraged by others to do so about the fact that data could also be used for the purpose of research and be shared, therefore, with others who don’t have that official stamp of approval, so to speak.

So balancing that with the natural interest that we have in this House of the privacy of individuals, and noting that the data, at a level, will always belong to the person who has given it—particularly if it’s not given voluntarily—and noting the obligation that is on the State, therefore, to use that data correctly for the purpose it’s intended and, therefore, accord with our expectations in terms of the legislation, let’s continue to look at the legislation even after it’s passed and consider if any further changes are needed. In the meantime, however, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it’s important that this House notes that this bill seeks to update legislation which is 45 years old, so let’s not forget that. I think we’re all in agreement about the state of some of the data collection in New Zealand.

We’re coming from a wellbeing perspective, on this side of the House, and that means having data which we can use to be able to target interventions to get the best possible outcomes to create equity. Today, in this House, we have been discussing the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill. That is an example of a particular sector where there just hasn’t been adequate data collection to be able to make very big and quick changes that data collection needs to happen. Others in the House tonight have said how critical data collection is to our democracy, and so what this bill will do is update our systems to make sure that we can get better data and that we can therefore have a more robust wellbeing approach. Of course, that needs to be balanced with efficiency, with value, and, perhaps most importantly, the systems integrity that we’ve heard discussed tonight.

I know, when I was studying law 30-something years ago—I actually did my honours thesis on privacy law and at that point there was the Tucker case and the very emergence of the tort of privacy. Well, that has changed so significantly. We have had huge developments in privacy law, confidentiality, security, and the things that we need in order to make sure that we do have the appropriate checks and balances on the data collection and the data use. And I’d also add that the bill is in accordance with a whole host of international treaties that look specifically at confidentiality, security, and appropriate use of data collection.

So I think we’ve reached that position very thoughtfully, very carefully, through robust democratic processes to make sure that we are falling as close to the perfect line as we can on managing those tensions. There is a statement in one of the regulatory reports that says: of course we could do more, but the cost just would not be value for money for New Zealanders. I thank the previous member, Chris Penk, for his thoughtful contribution and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much. Look, statistically, the chances of me speaking on this bill were almost zero until about 30 seconds ago, and then it went from a statistical relevance of zero to obviously a statistical relevance of now one. Therefore, I am speaking. Data-wise, I think it’s really important—exceptionally important—for the House to understand that this is the first time I’ve had the privilege and honour to speak on this Data and Statistics Bill. And because we are talking data, it’s important to know that while this is my first time, being the third reading in the House, it will also be my last, which may be a prediction of my political future—who knows! I hope other people on the other side don’t look so enthusiastic!

Joking aside, we are of course at the third reading of this Data and Statistics Bill. It is not a bill without controversy, which is somewhat surprising. One would think and other members in the House on both sides have indicated that you would think a bill on data and statistics would be relatively straightforward. Some of the early controversies were actually just noted by the previous speaker, Ingrid Leary, who sat down, noting I think in a slight way that this bill being 45 years of age was a bad thing. As someone who is just above 45 years of age, I take that slightly offensively! Some things at 45, 46, aren’t too bad! But she is right: this bill is well overdue—well overdue—a review, and I do want to acknowledge the Minister David Clark for his work, although it has been, I think, appropriately raised that the depth and knowledge of the bill sometimes was lacking, which in turn has given some lack of surety to the House.

It’s probably important to note that National is supporting this bill, and I will touch on some of those reasons as we go through. But fundamentally, data and statistics in themselves are what I’d term as something that is amoral. They don’t come with any particular bias, prejudice, or other. It’s how they’re used, and I think that’s probably a very quick and important distinction to make. Collecting the data, how it’s collected and so forth—that’s relatively, if you will, straightforward. This bill has run into trouble simply because of how it is going to be used. I think actually there’s been really good debate, with in many ways the House showing its quality over the last few days as we’ve discussed this, to actually tease out what exactly this bill intends to do. Despite some short calls by some in the House, I think it’s relatively useful that not only the Minister through committee stage in particular but members are putting very, very clearly on to Hansard the intention and, importantly, the interpretation of this bill.

Fundamentally, the data collected is at the service of all New Zealanders. It is not to become at the service of particular Government departments to serve any Government of the day—and I want to really stress that: any Government of the day. So this is not trying to play a partisan line. It applies as equally to the National Party when it retakes the Treasury benches next year as it does to—statistically, quite a high probability. Quite a high probability. I’m trying to be generous tonight. I’m not going to give those statistics. The data’s looking pretty good, too! But no, sorry, bad humour aside, this is not about Labour, National, left, or right; it’s fundamentally how that data is used. Rightly, it has been pointed out that several well-known people, including a previous Government Statistician, obviously the Council of Civil Liberties—so, it’ll be Thomas Beagle and crew—have raised serious and genuine concerns. I want to say to them from the National Party side that we’ve heard those. We’ve thought about those. We’ve interrogated those. It’s our belief that we are still in the right space with this law, that the necessary checks and balances are in place.

Look, fundamentally, it’s all coming down to how the Government Statistician can delegate their powers. It’s probably important for people to understand at home again that the collection of data is one thing. There are, of course, ethics around that. How then that data is used does become fundamentally important, and I suppose we’ve become somewhat used to, if not complacent, that the statistics held by the department are firewalled, separated at a certain degree of distance from any Government of the day, from any agency. The delegation, the ability of the Government Statistician to hand that data over, to share that data in some way—that has been in operation, as I understand it, and happy to be corrected, particularly by a fulsome 10-minute call from the Government benches. I think it’s always best to put out a lot of data, statistically, to achieve a 10-minute call. But it would be really, really useful for people to understand that, actually, since I think 2013, we’ve had the ability—or the Government Statistician has had the ability—to share the data.

Look, I’m not going to be able to interrogate this at length, but I think most people at home would understand that, of course, the data being collected is not simply done for itself. I mean, that would make no sense whatsoever. So when we think of the likes of the Census or the Household Labour Force Survey and so forth, that is always being shared in some way or form. It’s about setting the protocols in place. As I say, we on this side of the House—and, obviously, along with Government, because we are both supporting it—do believe that sufficient protocols, the right protocols, the right interpretation of this legislation, is in place.

Really importantly, if I was to put on my foreign affairs, defence, trade, and other hats on—from the past, I might add—the place of this statistical data and its use by our security intelligence services is a particularly sensitive area. I know that’s been addressed. It’s one I will always remain nervous about, and I do want to make it clear that’s not a particular reflection on our security agencies and our intelligence agencies—enormous amount of respect for the work that they do and lead. But there’s always, always a nervousness when data is being shared, particularly in that space. But again, from the National Party side, we believe that the interpretation of how this bill should operate is sufficient.

But I suppose that comes again with two points. One, we do want to make abundantly clear into Hansard, into the written record of this Parliament and consequently to the judiciary, if it reaches that, of what we understand this bill to mean; and secondly, to indicate—well, in the committee stage, my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse put through a couple of Supplementary Order Papers. I’m not going to relitigate them. They were exceptionally good—really, really good. Disappointingly but, again, statistically expected—I made a lot of money off this bet—the Labour Party voted them all down, which is a bit of a pity. Fortunately—fortunately—while materially important, they weren’t sufficiently so that we had to drop them or drop our support of the bill. So that’s just important to note there.

Look, a couple of other points. Again, it comes down to delegation, just to give some surety, particularly to people listening at home. The delegation of powers is discussed in this legislation but also the State Sector Act of—was it 1998? No, 1988—another famous year for various reasons. It also makes it really clear what Government agencies can and cannot delegate out. So that’s really important, including that it must be published—or, again, that’s my understanding. In other words, in the worst case scenario—well, actually, there are really bad worst case scenarios one could ponder. But in the general case of the day or the week, if the Government Statistician was choosing to share the information in some shape or form, that has to be advertised, which, of course, provides a degree of transparency for us.

There’s been lots of discussion and debate around research, how this could be used for research. The overall goal, I certainly think, is a positive one. That’s a personal reflection. I’m always very, very supportive of researchers, as various ones know around the country. If they ever want to talk about politics or our constitutional structure or, I don’t know, China—anyone want to come and talk to me about that in a few days? Go for it. Just a quick aside. But actually, importantly, research still needs to be governed by some structures, and, importantly, the way that the Government Statistician is able to, if she or he chooses to give out this information, is very, very clearly spelt out in the legislation, and, importantly, that it has to be for the public interest.

That’s just a small illustration of how the interpretation works. It’s not for the interests of the academics. It’s not for the interests of the researcher. It’s to be in the public interest. In other words, this information collected by the Crown—notice I say “the Crown”, not “the State”. Statistically, the use of “State” is erroneously used 100 percent of the time in this, the Realm of New Zealand. But as, again, a side note, the public interest must come into play. Anyway, I have used almost all my time, which statistically is somewhat appreciated, but, being generous, because this is a statistical and data bill, I’d like to gift at least six seconds to the House.

I’m pleased to take a call as the last speaker on the third and final reading of the Data and Statistics Bill. Can I acknowledge all those parties in the House that are supporting this bill. Can I acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Statistics, the Hon David Clark, in ushering this bill. I think it’s a thorough bill. It has seven parts, it has four schedules, and it is around modernising so that we have a fit for purpose data and statistics system in Aotearoa New Zealand.

In my brief contribution in this third and final reading, I want to just put on record the engagement that this Minister has had with iwi Māori in the formation of this bill but also with iwi Māori in supporting their aspirations around data and statistics. I just want to acknowledge the work of the Data Iwi Leaders Group, which comes from the Mana Ōrite Relationship Agreement, which was signed under the then Minister of Statistics, the Hon James Shaw. I want to acknowledge that. From that particular agreement, it commits the Crown to working and engaging with iwi Māori in building their capacity, to let their aspiration of better data to inform their decision making, particularly in a Treaty settlement context—and I want to say that this bill not only actively engaged with them but we continue to work to build the capacity. If you look across the Māori economy and all those Treaty settlement groups, they are massive players economically, socially, and environmentally in this country. So it’s important that we have a data and statistical system that unlocks that economic and social potential in those organisations, which do not just benefit iwi Māori but actually benefit all.

In contributing as the Associate Minister of Statistics with my colleague the Hon David Clark, it’s a lovely piece of legislation that modernises something that’s dated since 1975. But I particularly want to put on record the engagement this Minister had and continues to have with the Data Iwi Leaders Group, which represents the chairs of our national iwi forums. With that small contribution, I’d like to commend this bill to the House.