Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is about upholding the intent of the principal Act, the Official Information Act 1982. I want to refer to the purposes of the Official Information Act. The purposes section talks about “the principle of the Executive Government’s responsibility to Parliament,—” it talks about increasing “the availability of official information”, it talks about enabling “more effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policies;”, and it talks about promoting “the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials,—”.

There is an anomaly within this Act, though. The anomaly is that it does not include parliamentary under-secretaries. Parliamentary under-secretaries are not subject to this Act, and my bill seeks to fix that anomaly. My bill seeks to fix that by amending section 2, “Interpretation”, of the principal Act by inserting “ ‘Minister of the Crown’ means a Minister, Associate Minister, or Parliamentary Under-Secretary”. I have done this because the Official Information Act is one of the few mechanisms of democratic accountability in New Zealand to give taxpayers and voters the confidence that decisions made on their behalf are right and proper.

We have some grave concerns about the way in which the Government has operated under this Act. Only a year ago the Prime Minister, John Key, admitted that the Government sometimes delays releasing official information right up to the deadline if it is in its best interests for it to do so. At the time the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem, made it quite clear that the Government is not allowed to delay right up to the 20-day deadline for political purposes. The Government’s record on transparency has been woeful. Just yesterday the High Court ruled that the Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, acted unlawfully when responding to an official information request.

I mention these in the context that there seems to be a culture within this Government of either avoiding or just not responding appropriately and in a timely fashion to Official Information Act requests, and therein lies the reason for this bill. We in Labour are committed to having open and transparent Government, which is why this bill is now before the House. The bill aims to fix this anomaly and to maintain the high standards of transparency that taxpayers demand of their Government.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the dinner break, I was talking about my amendment bill, of course. Just to recap, there has been a review by the Law Commission, which made 137 recommendations—quite wide-sweeping ones. I want to also mention, if I did not before the dinner break, that the Chief Ombudsman has started a review of the Official Information Act as well. I understand that that will be due out before the end of the year. As I was saying, the Government’s record on transparency has been quite woeful. Just yesterday we had the High Court ruling that Minister of Trade Groser acted unlawfully when responding to an official information request.

I think that goes to the nub of my bill. This is about open and transparent Government. Any party in this House that believes in having open and transparent Government ought not to have any problem with my bill. I think there will probably be some parties that do, but I want to talk about one of the drivers for having this bill in the first place. Last year the Government appointed a parliamentary under-secretary, and some of our members on this side of the House have been rather frustrated at not being able to make official information requests to the parliamentary under-secretary, who has responsibility for charter schools but also as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform.

Charter schools were excluded from the Official Information Act when they were set up. That arrangement, according to the Chief Ombudsman, may very well be unconstitutional. I suspect that in the Chief Ombudsman’s report at the end of this year—I am hoping we will get a more substantive position from the Chief Ombudsman. It is, therefore, vitally important that those with oversight responsibilities for these schools, such as the parliamentary under-secretary, should be subject to proper and democratic accountability. National and the ACT Party may claim that they have already accounted for this in respect of those delegated responsibilities, but I would say that if so, they should have no problem supporting this bill, which seeks to correct the anomaly in the legislation.

Can I read out a couple of quotes, and this one is from David Seymour’s maiden speech when he said: “public policy should be measured only by results.” If I was thinking about the results of applications for official information regarding charter schools, then this public policy has been a dismal failure. I would love to hear members opposite address that issue. If that is true, if someone can make that kind of statement about public policy and then not support this particular bill, which goes to enhance that public policy, then there is something drastically wrong. I would say that what is wrong is that that particular member is not upholding what he said when he came into this House. Here is another quote from Mr Seymour about another bill that he wants to put into the members’ bills ballot. Yesterday, I believe, he made the statement: “In my view it is politically, morally, legally and, in terms of public policy, the right thing to do.”

I say to this House that this is the right thing to do. Open and transparent Government should never be subject to not being able to access that kind of information, and I highly recommend the Law Commission’s report The Public’s Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation. I would suggest to Mr David Seymour that he go and read this. I suggest that everyone does. It makes, as I said before, 137 recommendations on this very issue. This is something that the Government of this day should address. I think that, to be fair, these could have been corrected earlier, but I refer to my earlier comments around the way that this Government has handled official information requests, and I believe that it has escalated it to a position where this bill is sorely needed.

Ā, nō reira, tēnei te mihi ake ki te Whare nei. [And so, I truly acknowledge this House.] I look forward to everyone’s contributions, actually. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

I rise in opposition to the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill in this first reading. Look, I acknowledge what the sponsoring member, Adrian Rurawhe, said with respect to the concept of transparency, but when we are talking about this bill—official information with respect to parliamentary under-secretaries—I think that he is blurring the lines between parliamentary work and executive work. I think that that is a slippery slope, and, obviously, this bill is one that the Government opposes.

To put this assertion into context with respect to this bill, I do need to acknowledge the importance of the Official Information Act. It is significant in respect of its intent, its purpose, and the functions that it sets out in its principles as to accountability. But that is also a balance between transparency and privacy.

Given that I have got great respect for the principles of the Official Information Act, I have chosen a few key words from it that sum it up really nicely, and those are about availability of and access to information; effective participation; administration of laws and policies; accountability of Ministers—as the sponsoring member has mentioned—and officials; promotion of good Government, which is something we believe in on this side of the House; a balance between public interest to that information; and privacy. I believe that we have got that balance right at the moment.

I believe in this Act because once upon a time in a previous career I was a Government official and it was my responsibility to administer official information requests also. I will talk a little bit more about that shortly.

The Official Information Act, the parent Act that this bill seeks to amend, goes to the heart of the principles of natural justice about giving the public of New Zealand the right to access information so that they can build a case with regard to their circumstances in line with a particular policy or practice and so that they can fully understand the reasons for a determination on a policy and assess whether that was a proper decision, whether it was made without bias, and whether it was made fairly.

But, in the same breath, officials need to have the right to have free and frank conversations so as to debate outcomes, and that goes toward better decision making, and sometimes those conversations do need to be protected. Then there is something that in my previous role I experienced—vexatious litigants—but that is probably a story for another day.

But certainly as an official, in respect of the parent Act that this bill seeks to change, I felt a quiet pressure and a healthy intensity to make myself as an official accountable, the department that I worked for accountable, and, ultimately, the Minister and Executive Council accountable. Parliamentary under-secretaries are not part of the Executive Council. The Executive Council is made up of Ministers inside and outside Cabinet, with the Governor-General presiding over it.

Parliamentary under-secretaries do not have a warrant. They are responsible to the designated Minister and they do the Minister’s bidding. That is set out by the relevant Minister, so the line of accountability rests with that Minister. The line of accountability, and I will say that again, rests with that Minister, and all information relating to that role can be accessed through the Minister’s office—that is, one that has the appropriate resourcing and systems in place to meet statutory criteria of processing that request, assessing it, and communicating it appropriately within the time frames required.

It would be a slippery slope if we were to make parliamentary under-secretaries subject to the Official Information Act, as set out in the bill. It is blurring the lines, again, as I said before, between the Executive Council and parliamentary functions. What would be the ramifications of that? What would be next if parliamentary under-secretaries were included? Would members of Parliament be next, and all the parliamentary side of work that goes with that?

The communications of members of Parliament, unless they are directly with a Minister’s office, are not subject to the Official Information Act, and that is for a good reason. We all have constituents who come to us every day who find themselves in situations, whether it is through deliberate actions or unwitting actions, that put them in a precarious position with respect to the law. If that is all subject to the Official Information Act, then how can we do our job effectively if our constituents are fearful to disclose all of the information to their case? It is like a lawyer-client privilege. It is there for a reason. To ascertain true facts, there needs to be full disclosure.

There are all types of examples that come under that, but in respect of this bill it is about parliamentary under-secretaries. As I said before, the information of parliamentary under-secretaries can be obtained from the Minister because of the line of accountability. The relevant Minister tells the parliamentary under-secretary exactly what they can and cannot do. There is no separate warrant. The information pertaining to the role can be directly sourced from the Minister’s office.

I need to talk about accountability, and that comes to the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen. The sponsor of the bill and I sit on the Government Administration Committee, and we have had a chance to review the Office of the Ombudsmen. It is the overseer, of course, that goes toward that accountability under the Official Information Act. I believe that it is well administered. Not only is that the place where the public go if they are aggrieved about the outcome of their request for official information but, if it is not processed within the time frame, this is where those constituents go.

The Ombudsmen look at that, assess that, and make a ruling. They are independent and they are impartial, and so their job is a significant one. It is a check and balance for the Executive Council and all that goes with that work.

Just to wrap up—again, this bill seeks to amend the parent Act, the Official Information Act, by including parliamentary under-secretaries, and it is simply not necessary. The Official Information Act, at this stage, is fit for purpose. Recently, we had technical amendments through a statutes amendment bill that modernised the Official Information Act, allowing for requests to be made verbally and requests to be delivered electronically. It was an opportunity to update that Act and have a look at its functioning. The Act is within a suite of vehicles that hold the Government to account.

Funnily enough, this is an approach that is one that is consistent with the Helen Clark and Labour - led Government in 2002, when she appointed two parliamentary under-secretaries. And so I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and there is no need for this bill.

This is a very simple bill. It is a very simple bill. It is very straightforward. It is a very common-sense bill. It is a bill that fixes an anomaly and takes us in an important direction, which this Government—a member of which just got up and opposed this very simple and common-sense bill—says that it is headed in the direction of, but actually it is not. I think this is a classic example of paying lip-service to democracy. In fact, one could go as far as saying that it is actually faux democracy—f-a-u-x.

The Official Information Act is one of the incredibly important mechanisms that this Government has, that this Parliament has, and that this country has for democratic accountability and for public information to be made available. Unfortunately, the refusal by this Government to allow this bill to go forward to a select committee is really just putting a big block in the face of that. It is actually blocking transparency. It actually impacts on New Zealand’s integrity and international reputation.

We, supposedly, pride ourselves on being a First World nation, a democracy based on the Westminster system, which holds accountability and the ability for public information to be made available in high regard. Well, I think there is something drastically wrong in our system. That member, Sarah Dowie, talked about a slippery slope. Well, this is a slippery slope, which is anti-democracy.

I would like to remind the Government that in 2013 the then Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, in her initial response to the recommendations in the Law Commission’s review of the Official Information Act and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, made an announcement around improving the legislation and processes that govern the openness and transparency of public agencies. Well, 2 years on, where are we? Two years on, where are we with the recommendations on the improvements to the Privacy Act? We are no further on.

I would also like to remind the Government that it signed us up to the Open Government Partnership and put forward an action plan between 2014 and 2016 that actually compares very unfavourably with the other Open Government Partnership members. The average number of actions in their commitments was 41. In New Zealand’s commitment, the number of commitments we have is four, and two of them are pre-existing Government policies. It has been described as being the least ambitious.

One of those commitments was to look at the 60 recommendations in the Transparency International New Zealand Integrity Plus 2013 New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment report. Another one of those commitments was to look at the introduction of “systematic proactive release of official information” and the promotion of “enhanced compliance with and understanding of the Official Information Act 1982”. Well, I would say that what this Government is doing today is completely taking the opposite approach. It is saying one thing—it speaks out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand the Government says it is committed to transparency and open government and signs us up to these commitments, but the reality is that it is not interested in making more information available to the public.

The appointment of a parliamentary under-secretary is a function that should be able to be scrutinised under the Official Information Act. There should be information available. Unfortunately, this Government does not practise what it preaches.

I would like to thank the member Adrian Rurawhe for giving me this opportunity, by bringing this bill. I felt a little bit bad over the weekend because I said on the radio that it was evident that the member had brought a bill that he did not understand, had not written himself, and had probably been allocated out of the Labour caucus ballot. I still feel bad, but I now know from his speech that it was absolutely correct. You could see him reading away, bumbling through his notes.

I also saw one other thing in that speech—actually, let me come back a second. I want to pay a compliment to Sarah Dowie, who made an excellently set-out speech. She logically laid out the argument and the facts, and was not the Opposition rude when it was vexed by the force of Sarah Dowie’s argument?

But coming back to the bill, I felt a bit bad, but maybe I should not have because I also noticed something about this bill, which is that it is indeed a stunt bill. I was flattered perhaps to star in most of Adrian Rurawhe’s speech. This is a bill entirely designed to target a particular member—strangely enough, me. You have to ask yourself, why did the Labour Government not change the law when Dover Samuels was a parliamentary under-secretary back in 2005? I have got a few theories about why that might be. It might be because Labour actually understands the Official Information Act quite well. It might be that it understands the Official Information Act quite well because most of its front bench were in Parliament in 1982 when the Act was originally passed. It might also be that Labour understands how this actually operates. It is in the Constitution Act, which almost all of the Labour caucus were here to pass.

Parliamentary under-secretaries derive their power entirely from Ministers. They do not have decision-making powers.

The Labour Party probably understands that the purpose of the Official Information Act is to allow citizens and the House of Representatives to keep an eye on the executive, to understand how it makes its decisions, and why, and what those decisions are. If any member of this House or the public wants to know about policies where I have assigned responsibility from the Minister, they need only go to the Minister for the official information, because the Minister makes the final decision and the Minister has all of the official information.

This bill is redundant. It is only useful as a stunt by the Labour Party, and have we not seen the hypocrisy of it coming out because, of course, Labour itself did not act when it had parliamentary under-secretaries in Helen Clark’s time.

Finally, can I suggest that in the law and public policy that Adrian Rurawhe was so keen to quote, the exercise of the law should be proportional. What that means is that in order to achieve its purpose, which is to allow citizens to hold the Government to account, the law should use only the amount of inconvenience and effort required to achieve that. We have already established that it is possible to hold the executive to account and to understand its decisions by making an Official Information Act request to the Minister responsible. What extra benefit would there be from placing an additional burden on parliamentary under-secretaries to comply with the Official Information Act?

💬 Denis O’Rourke: What harm would there be?

And what harm would there be? I am hearing this from the old man in the corner. Let me tell him what harm there would be. The harm would be that he would be the first person to stand up when parliamentary under-secretaries in this Government, or in any other, requested additional funding and resources to comply with Official Information Act requests—that is what would be required.

So I will conclude by saying that this bill is a political stunt. It is sad for the quality of debate on public policy in this House that it is the second Labour stunt bill that has come up today. It is a stunt bill because it does not achieve any of the purposes for which it is required. All it does is attempt to attack me, and although I am a little bit flattered, I cannot support the bill.

Finally, the law, in achieving its objectives, should be proportional, and would be a disproportionate application of the law to apply the Official Information Act requests to parliamentary under-secretaries. When Labour wrote the Constitution Act of 1986, when it had intellectual giants like Sir Geoffrey Palmer—unlike today—Labour got it right. Even when the Muldoon Government introduced the Official Information Act in 1982, it actually got it right. So those laws will stand tonight because my colleagues on this side of the House and I will be opposing this silly, vexatious stunt bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare ko tēnei pō. I would like to congratulate the member who put this bill to the House, and to disassociate myself from any of the disrespectful and patronising remarks that we have just heard about why the member wrote this. I think it is unnecessary to behave like that in this House. We have too much of it. It is actually important to talk about issues, not attack people or disrespect people who get a member’s bill through. Member’s bills are actually quite an achievement, they are quite a struggle to get selected from the biscuit tin, and they also represent the sincere interests of many of us. Even if other people do not understand it, we should at least show some respect.

I think that it is a great pity that this bill will not go to a select committee because it would have been a chance to discuss the Official Information Act in relation to parliamentary under-secretaries’ roles. I am fully aware that Labour had parliamentary under-secretaries. The Greens had parliamentary under-secretaries under Labour as part of a coalition agreement. I think that it would be good to talk about making those positions accountable and making them absolutely clear and subject to the Official Information Act, because anybody who has had the experience of trying to carry out their opportunities under the Official Information Act to the Minister of Education’s office will understand how frustrating the situation is around a particular issue.

I think it is worth remembering that the parliamentary under-secretary gets paid more money. Often it is through a high-level political agreement—i.e., a coalition agreement—that that person gets power. They get a lot of opportunity to influence policy and to spend public money, but we cannot ask them any questions. I think that is a shame, especially since many of us are deeply frustrated and, in fact, are struggling to get answers out of the Minister of Education. I believe that the current Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Education would probably be more frank, which would be quite helpful. I would be interested in his often very frank remarks on these issues, and I would like to hear from him on those subjects.

So I think it is a shame that it is not going to go forward so that we can look at what it would mean. Would it really be such an undermining of the executive if the parliamentary under-secretaries were directly covered by the Official Information Act? One of the reasons that some of us are exercised about the Official Information Act is the parliamentary under-secretary role at the moment relating to information on charter schools, because we have had an authorisation debacle, and we have had a very interesting funding formula that is now being adjusted because so much money was put in per student that even the parliamentary under-secretary and the Minister know that it is wrong. So they are having to tweak the model, but it would be much better if, instead of the arduous and often frustrating struggle to get through to the official information—when half of it is redacted anyway—we could actually talk straight about what is going on, why it is going on, and how much money is being spent.

As much as we pride ourselves on being such a developed country, voting once every 3 years is not participatory democracy, and we do need the mechanisms of Parliament that we have to be a lot more rigorously open and a lot more transparent. The public heavily rely on the Official Information Act, as do the Opposition parties. Frustrating as it may seem to Government Ministers and their coalition partners, we actually need those mechanisms so that we can hold the Government and the parliamentary under-secretary—whose policy has had a huge influence on the Government education strategies this term—to account, and a lot of money has been spent.

It would be great to be able to get straight answers. And so, for many of us, I appreciate the member’s bill, because I know that what he is trying to achieve is some consistency across that idea of open and transparent and healthy democracy. So it was great to hear Sarah Dowie talk about the importance of the Official Information Act and how important it is to have transparency, but then it is highly contradictory to turn round and say: “But not for this.” No, this position—which actually accrues considerable funding and considerable policy influence and opportunity—will not be subject to the Act. So I think it is a special deal, and if a person gets a special deal they need to be subject to the same challenges as the Ministers. I think that is an important part of the job.

I would say to the current parliamentary under-secretary—I hate the expression “Harden up”, and I hated it when he used it; I think it is a shame and a disgrace—if you want to be in a position of responsibility and influence, not only should you be careful what you say about other human beings; you should also be careful about being accountable to the public. Kia ora tātou katoa.

I wish I was able to stand here and talk to something more important like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, but the reality is—and normally I would ignore it, but I am actually going to address it—this bill is called the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill, but it should be called the “Pick on David Seymour Bill”. I heard the Green member Catherine Delahunty get up and immediately launch an attack on David Seymour about the comments he made—a vicious attack on David Seymour—and I just could not believe the hypocrisy of it.

Sitting in this House during the course of this debate, I have listened to the Opposition members not talking about the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill, which should not be directed at any individual, but they have sat there attacking David Seymour the whole time. So I would have to assume that this bill was submitted with a view to attacking David Seymour. I am actually a bit surprised at the member who has brought this bill to the House, because I sit with him on a select committee and I thought that he would have been better than this. But, actually, when I see who is sitting behind him, the Hon Ruth Dyson, I think that she is probably the puppeteer and the one who has put this bill together.

A further example of the hypocrisy is the fact that the Green member stood up and said that the Greens had parliamentary under-secretaries under a Labour-led Government. She freely admitted that they had parliamentary under-secretaries under a Labour-led Government. The same with the Labour Government—it had a parliamentary under-secretary in Dover Samuels, as David Seymour pointed out. So the question is this: if those members felt so strongly about an amendment like this, why did they not do anything while they were in Government? I can tell you why they did not do anything—because they did not think it was necessary. They knew it was not necessary. They are doing it now because they are making a personal attack on a member of this House: David Seymour, member and leader of the ACT Party.

This bill is totally unnecessary. It is going to erode the current distinction that is drawn between the executive, which is subject to the Official Information Act, and other members. Sarah Dowie made a very good point, and I agree with her, which is that the minute you start to erode that distinction—and the executive should be held accountable, and it is held accountable through the Official Information Act—you can start to move dangerously into a territory called mission creep. That is, you start off with one intent and all of a sudden you add something else to it and you decide that you are going to do something else, and, before you know it, you have eroded and eaten into a protection that this Parliament has—simply by introducing a bill like this. That relationship between an MP and their constituent must be protected; she is absolutely right. When constituents come to see an MP, there is complete confidentiality around what is discussed, and an MP needs to be free to act on behalf of their constituent. A bill like this is just going to move slowly towards mission creep—an eroding of that confidentiality between an MP and their constituent.

A parliamentary under-secretary is not a member of the Executive Council. That is right, they are not subject to the Official Information Act, and neither should they be—the Minister is. The Minister is the person who is responsible for the powers and responsibility in the delegation of a parliamentary under-secretary. Therefore, that is where the Official Information Act requests should lie, and that is where the information should be generated. This bill is, therefore, unnecessary. Thank you.

Initially, there are a few words I would like to mention in favour of this bill. Firstly, it is short, concise, effective, common sense, necessary, and annoys the young, wet behind the ears member for the ACT Party. All of those are the great advantages of this bill and, therefore, New Zealand First will have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting it.

It is a common-sense measure because actions taken by parliamentary under-secretaries, being actions taken by politicians, ought to be subject to the fullest possible scrutiny by members of the public. Currently the public cannot do that because parliamentary under-secretaries are effectively protected from it by the way the current law is written, and that is wrong. They should be subject to the same Official Information Act rights by the public as any Minister but also any public servant who has to provide information or any Public Service agency that is also subject to that Act. So when you think about the whole spectrum of information that the public should be able to obtain, they should be able to get it from any person who is related in any way to Government functions, and that is the point.

That is where Mr Seymour got it wrong, because it is not about delegations and it is not about who has responsibility for information; it is about who actually has information that the public wants to be able to access. For that reason alone they should be able to access it directly from parliamentary under-secretaries in the same way that they can access it from Ministers or from bureaucrats or from Government agencies. So as far as New Zealand First is concerned, it is unacceptable that people can be delegated Government functions as politicians and yet be protected from the Official Information Act. So that is why we say it is common sense that this piece of legislation should pass.

This Government has an extremely bad reputation for secrecy, especially on its record with the Official Information Act. Only this week we have seen solid evidence of that, because the secrecy around the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiations and the content of that agreement, whatever it might be, remains secret for no apparent reason.

💬 David Seymour: Ha! Eleven other countries?

It is for no good reason whatsoever—absolutely none. And this member over here can snigger, but the people of this country want to know what is in that agreement, and the High Court has ruled only this week in the Kelsey case—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.

—that that information should be available. So what I am saying is that this Government has a very bad reputation as far as Official Information Act matters are concerned, and it should welcome the opportunity to support this bill, to show its commitment to providing in a transparent way the information that people in New Zealand want to get from wherever in the Government, whether it be from parliamentary under-secretaries or anybody else.

Finally, by opposing this bill, this Government is showing two things. First of all, it believes it needs to protect its parliamentary under-secretaries because of their sheer ineptitude in being able to do their jobs properly, and Mr Seymour falls directly into that category. He is a parliamentary under-secretary only because of a political deal done with the National Party so that it could stay in office. Nobody would dream of putting a wet behind the ears MP like this in a parliamentary under-secretary position. He simply cannot handle it and this Government knows it, so it wants to protect him from the ravages of the Official Information Act. Secondly, this Government wants to hold on to its bad habit of secrecy, so it will not support this bill, but New Zealand First will.

I rise in opposition to the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill. Some people have tried to talk a lot about the Official Information Act itself, but I would rather focus on the specifics of this bill—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: How refreshing.

—because it seeks to do some very specific things. It does not seek to amend the entire Official Information Act. I refer back to what the sponsoring member, Adrian Rurawhe, raised, because he made points about what he said the bill would achieve and the problems that he articulated it would address.

The points I will make are threefold. First of all, when he speaks to what it will achieve, quite frankly, he is flat-out wrong. Secondly, he talks about the problems—he spent over half his speech articulating the problems that the bill was to address. His bill will not—cannot—address the problems he raised. Thirdly, it is simply unnecessary because the mechanisms exist today to get the information that the Opposition members might want from a parliamentary under-secretary.

First of all, let us look at why what it would do is, quite frankly, wrong. Mr Rurawhe said to us that this would provide greater scrutiny and accountability of the executive. It is going to give greater accountability of the executive, except for one small but rather substantial and important issue, and that is that parliamentary under-secretaries are not members of the Executive Council. This bill does nothing—nothing at all—to address accountability of the executive. What it does is it undermines the distinction between the executive and Parliament. That is what they are looking to do. That is what that member is looking to do—he is looking to undermine the distinction between the Executive Council and these members of Parliament.

Secondly, Adrian spent more than half of his speech talking about the issue of Ministers delaying responses to Official Information Act requests , clocks being reset, and information being difficult to get hold of. Well, we on this side actually dispute that. We are not accepting his proposition that that is a real issue. Even if we were to be charitable for just a moment and permit that possibility, there is nothing in this bill to ensure that by simply extending the processes as they exist today to include parliamentary under-secretaries it is going to address a single point of the problems he articulated. This bill does nothing to actually address what the sponsoring member raised.

The third point is that the bill is unnecessary. As Mr Seymour pointed out himself, parliamentary under-secretaries are not decision makers. They take all of their powers and all of their activities from the Minister whom they are responsible to. If members opposite wish to scrutinise the work of the ministry or the work that the parliamentary under-secretary may have been delegated, they can do so through questions to the Minister whom the parliamentary under-secretary is responsible to. So the bill does not do what the member says it will. It will not fix the problems the member actually addressed, and it is unnecessary in the first place.

What is more, it is actually another Labour flip-flop. As we know on this side, in 2002 Helen Clark used the very process and the very situation we have when she appointed two parliamentary under-secretaries, neither of whom were subject to questioning through the Official Information Act. Dover Samuels was one; you may remember him. He had a little hotel incident. So here we have the Labour Party flip-flopping from the Cabinet Manual under Helen Clark, and just a few days ago it turned its back on her when she talked about the need for the New Zealand Government to be part of free-trade agreements to improve prosperity for New Zealanders. I will tell you what, this Labour caucus compared with the previous Labour Government is just a series of flip-flops—more flip-flops than a busy beach in summertime.

💬 David Seymour: Dad joke.

It is a dad joke—thank you very much. But I think that this gives us an opportunity. Given that we have got a bill that does not do what it says it will—it is not going to fix the problem—we should question the motives of what this bill is about. I heard Ms Dyson saying throughout Ms Dowie’s speech: “What are you protecting him from?”. I think that is a very clear reference. As Mr Mitchell said, this bill is not about Official Information Act scrutiny of parliamentary under-secretaries; it is about trying to attack Mr Seymour. I will tell you what, these Opposition members do not learn much. They are very slow learners. I am not here to sit in judgment on Mr Seymour, but, very clearly, if they think they can win by attacking Mr Seymour in this House, they have got another think coming. I oppose this bill and I call upon all members on this side to oppose it. Thank you.

E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. Tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Secondly, I acknowledge you all, the members of our House.]

We are proud to support this bill and congratulate the sponsoring member, Adrian Rurawhe, on the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill. It is astonishing, the criticisms that Mr Seymour has made. His complaint is that the bill is all about proportionality—that there would be no extra benefit and the harm would be that the parliamentary under-secretary’s office might have to provide some additional funding in order to answer Official Information Act requests. I think that reflects the attitude of this Government to our democracy. It is not about open government and transparency under National; it is much more about secrecy. This bill is a good bill because it goes to close a small loophole—the fact that parliamentary under-secretaries are not subject to the Official Information Act.

It is really ironic that we are debating this bill today after the afternoon’s debate on Phil Goff’s member’s bill, which would have ensured that all students, including those in charter schools, have access to a broad, balanced curriculum, because although National speakers have said that parliamentary under-secretaries do not make decisions, they sure have a lot of influence on policy. It has been this particular parliamentary under-secretary, Mr Seymour, in his role in education and regulatory reform, who has developed a lot of the policy on charter schools. They are such an ideological nonsense in terms of their failings and the large amount of public money they have attracted at the expense of public schools, and the Opposition has not been able to call the parliamentary under-secretary to account on this policy development because he has not been open to the Official Information Act. So this bill is a good one because it closes that small loophole.

It is very disappointing that the Government is voting against it, because it shows just how cynical members opposite are in relation to the Official Information Act, to democracy, and to open government. Where you have openness in government you build trust among citizens. Where you have secrecy, as this Government promotes in its endless denials of requests for official information, in its delays, and in its redactions, then you promote distrust. This bill is about promoting openness and transparency, and that is why the Green Party is voting for it.

We only have to look at the record of this Government. Under the law, the requests are supposed to be answered within 20 working days, yet the Prime Minister himself has admitted to the Government’s use of delaying tactics, pushing it out to the 20-day maximum, because, as the Prime Minister said, the “Government might take the view that’s in our best interests to do that.” So this Government regularly uses the Act to drag the chain on releasing information because it is in its political interests to do so.

If we are to build public participation and if we are to build trust in our political system, we need to be promoting openness and transparency. We need to be reforming the Official Information Act to make it incumbent on Ministers and departments to release information much more proactively on to the web. We need to make sure that parliamentary under-secretaries, who may not be part of the Executive Council—but these parliamentary under-secretaries are generating policies that this Government implements, so they should be part of the schema of the Act. The Office of the Ombudsmen is reviewing the way in which the Act is applied. The report from that review is due at the end of the year, and I think it will show some of the very poor practice we have seen under National—some of the ways in which information requests to departments are routed through to Ministers’ offices so that the Ministers can delay the release or can take out anything that might be embarrassing for the Government.

This bill is a very tiny step toward redressing that imbalance that we have at the moment, and toward making a step towards openness and transparency. It is cynical of the Government to oppose it and to take a position that is based on secrecy, encouraging more suspicion of policy development and decision making by the Government rather than more trust by the public—the people whom we represent.

It is a great privilege to speak on the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill. First of all, I just want to speak about that last speaker, Eugenie Sage. Really, it is offensive for the Green Party to come into this House and speak about openness when we consider that only a matter of years ago there was an election within the Green Party that it was not actually going to make public. Remember those days of openness within the Green Party, with its members coming into this House and spouting about openness? But when it comes to their internal political dynamics they will not be open with their own members, they will not be open with the public, and they will not be open with the wider community.

💬 Eugenie Sage: We will in Government, Mr Bennett.

You can laugh all you like in the Green Party, but the people know what you are like, and they know that you are really the Communist Party in drag. They know that if you ever got into Government there would be no chance of any openness, because you and your ilk have always tried to make sure that there is no public accountability, because that is how the green parties and the communist parties around the world have always operated, and there is no difference there. We have seen it—your true colours have come out—in terms of how you deal with yourselves in this Parliament and in this party. So we cannot have the Green Party talking about openness.

New Zealand First members are sitting over there. There was a sustained and derogatory attack on the fine member of this House in front of me, and I felt very disappointed about that attack on this young man, who is doing such a great job leading his own political party and making such inroads into this political environment. And the New Zealand First Party had to attack him. Pure jealousy is all that that was—that was just pure jealousy. One member of this party can do more than 14 in that party. That was all it was about. Well, there is only one member in that party as well, actually. There are 13 followers who turn up and come to speak sometimes. They sit there and warm the chairs, but they do not do any actual work for any New Zealanders.

This bill is not necessary. It is not necessary in this situation. You know, we have got a situation where there is a distinction between the executive and Parliament, which is not subject to the Official Information Act.

💬 Sue Moroney: She’s got to hide. Come on.

That is Sue Moroney over there: another member who is well-known for her openness. Sue Moroney—I am sure we all know about what you want to do. So the Official Information Act—

💬 Sue Moroney: Come on. Bring it on, big boy. Come on.

Yes, well, tell us about the new union movement. That would be lovely to see. That would be an open environment, would it not, in terms of how you elect leaders to the Labour Party?

💬 Sue Moroney: Is that as good as you’ve got?

Well, no. That is good enough for a start, and that will do.

This bill is actually something that is not necessary in this House, and I think it was a personal attack on the fine young member in front of me who is doing a great job here. Parliament should not be used in that way, especially when we hear about openness from the Green Party and personal attacks from New Zealand First that really take the heat out of members’ days and make it an unfortunate experience for those who are listening. Thank you.

Ā, tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. He tino hōnore tēnei kia tū ake ki te whakahoki i ngā kōrero ki te Whare e tū ake nei, ā, ki a koutou e tuku kōrero ai mō tēnei take. Tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ana ki a koutou.

[Thank you indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is really a great honour to rise and to respond to the contributions to this House standing here and to acknowledge you who have contributed to this matter; my acclamations to you collectively.]

I just really wanted to start off in Te Reo Māori to bring some decorum back to the proceedings, because I think that some of the contributions that I have heard are so far off the mark. Let me start with the first contribution from Sarah Dowie. I mentioned in my earlier contribution a report by the Law Commission called The Public’s Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation. If that member does not like this bill, she is going to really be annoyed—seriously annoyed—by this report because not only does it bring a responsibility around the Official Information Act; it broadens it quite a bit. That is what the Law Commission is saying, and it goes a lot further than my bill. My bill is just a tiny little change to make sure that the parliamentary under-secretaries are subject to the Official Information Act.

I read out some of the clauses and the purposes of the principal Act and I would say to the House that it is incredibly important to refer back to the purpose of this particular legislation, which was passed in 1982—33 years ago—and has endured. I would like to say that my bill, I believe, enhances and respects the purposes of the principal Act.

We also heard that one of the reasons why members are not supporting this bill is that Labour did not do it when we were the Government. Well, let me tell you that I think we have had three or four Governments in that time period of 33 years and any one of those Governments could have done it. I draw this distinction between the Clark Labour Government and the National Government. I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of the extent of issues around the Official Information Act during the Clark Government that we now have under the Key-led National Government. That is just not right. Only yesterday, as I said, there was a decision by the court around the behaviour or the findings against the—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill. You will be on tricky ground.

It is relevant to the principal Act, and I stand here in response to the kōrero that was given on this. My comments are related exactly to what members in this House have said.

I want to acknowledge the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party for their support on this bill.

I will just say one more thing in terms of one of the arguments around the cost. What is the cost of open and transparent government? That is a question that we should be answering, and for a member to stand up in this House and to say that that is one of the reasons why he is not going to vote for it is very sad. It is part of the woeful, sad performance of the National-led Government on issues around official information.

I stand here before you to say that this is not a vindictive bill. This is not about targeting one person; this is about making better law for this country and, as I said before, making better public policy.

Nō reira, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa. [And so, I commend you all; well done, and my appreciation to us all.]

The question is that the Official Information—[Interruption] Do not squander the opportunity. [Interruption] Order! The question is that the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be considered by Government Administration Committee.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.