Public Service Legislation Bill

Part 5 is debate on clauses 103 to 106 and Schedule 9.

In Part 5 of this bill, in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), the intention is to remove clause 105. Clause 105 in the bill, as introduced by the Minister, requires that a departmental agency comply with section 23 of the Privacy Act. Now, the huge responsibility that our Public Service agencies have and the effective management of privacy laws is important. My first question for the Minister is: why is clause 105 being removed? My second question is: if clause 105 is being removed, why is there still reference in the title of Part 5 to responsibilities under the Privacy Act?

I can confirm to the member that these changes were made on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and, again, it comes back to a drafting issue in that these provisions are covered by Part 6.

Well, that’s hardly a good enough answer. The title of Part 5 reads “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993”; you would then expect, in Part 5, for there to be some reference to the Privacy Act, but the Minister’s SOP deletes clause 105 so that there is no reference to the Privacy Act. I think the Minister has made an error. I think that if the law is to make any sense, the words “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993” should be deleted.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don’t think he’s going to answer that.

Well, Madam Chair, the responsibilities of our Government agencies to respect privacy is actually a very, very important, huge issue. So I do ask the Minister why he is removing clause 105, that puts a responsibility on departments to comply with the Privacy Act, with his SOP, and why does the title of the Part specifically state “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993”, when, with the Minister’s SOP, there is no reference to the Privacy Act?

I can refer the member specifically to clauses 108A onwards, in Supplementary Order Paper 549, which makes it clear that in the tidying up drafting of the legislation and the amendments, the Parliamentary Counsel Office have recommended shifting these provisions into the Privacy Act 1993 itself, and that’s what the changes do.

The Minister’s explanation does not satisfy us. We’re here to debate Part 5; those provisions are not in Part 5. There is nothing in Part 5 that makes reference to the Privacy Act. Now, the Minister in the chair has—if I started talking about issues in Part 6 or further on, I’d probably be told off.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You will.

Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You will.

Will. Well, the Minister’s just referred to parts later in the bill. Part—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In answer to your question, yeah.

That’s right. So my question to the Minister is: there is no reference in Part 5, under his SOP, to the Privacy Act, so why does the title of Part 5 say “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993”? There’s an error; there’s a mistake in the Minister’s law. I’m just not going to rubber-stamp law that makes no sense.

I’ve just sought further advice, and the member is correct: there has been an editing error in regards to this. So that is something that we will certainly look at.

I seek leave of the House for the words “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993” to be deleted from the bill.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Isn’t it somewhat concerning that, under urgency, passing legislation—200 pages of it—for all of the hundreds of officials, for all the members of Parliament in the House, we’ve got errors in the law? My question for the Minister is: what other errors might there be in this law, and will he give the committee an absolute assurance that there are no other mistakes in the bill? There are 200 pages of SOP that have not gone to a select committee that he is trying to rush through the Parliament. So what I’m seeking from the Minister is that we’ve found a mistake in his law, with respect to the Privacy Act—a pretty important Act. What other mistakes are there in the law, and can he give this committee an absolute assurance that there aren’t any other mistakes in his 200-page SOP?

Of course, I can confirm that, from time to time, people, in drafting of legislation, do make mistakes—and that does happen from time to time. We have a whole process that the Parliament has put in place to tidy those matters up: it’s called the Statutes Amendment Bill. You’ll see hundreds of amendments passed by this Parliament every year that tidy up minor drafting errors with legislation.

So does the Minister accept responsibility for the error in his SOP?

Yes.

We’re just not quite sure that we can do what we’ve just done, but I think they are quickly drafting an amendment to make it formal, but the committee can do it.

Doesn’t it speak volumes that on one of the most important statutes that sits on our law books—the relationship between this Parliament and the tens of thousands of public servants—rushing a bill through in which we have now found an error about something as significant as privacy—

💬 Hon Member: Under urgency.

—under urgency—200 pages of SOP, of which there is an error in respect of application of the Privacy Act—actually, this Parliament is owed an apology. It’s owed an apology by the Minister for rushing the process. I ask again: can the Minister give an absolute assurance—absolute assurance—that there are no other errors in Part 5 of this bill?

I can clearly say that I’m not going to apologise for the incompetence of the Governance and Administration Committee that were unable to complete their deliberations on this bill by the extended deadline they were given.

Point of order. So let’s see where we’ve now ended up—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, no, no, no, no. The member has a point of order?

No, I’m speaking—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): But I thought you said “point of order”?

No, I didn’t; I said “there is a point”. The point is this: so now the Minister in the chair is saying that the select committee is responsible for the SOP in his name. Didn’t we just hear that from the Minister? This is a Minister that won’t take responsibility. If the wheels fall off and there’s an error, “Oh, that’s the select committee and the National Party’s fault.” Well, whose SOP is this in the name of, Minister?

Minister, I refer you to the fact that this is not the select committee report; this is a 200-page SOP that has Chris Hipkins’ name on it. For him to now stand up in the Chamber and say that these errors in Part 5 of this bill are the responsibility of the select committee is truly disgraceful. This is just an example of another Minister who will not take responsibility for his mistakes and will try and blame it on the select committee. That is very unfair on the select committee; it is really rather desperate.

I simply ask the question again, having found an error in Part 5, in respect to reference of the Privacy Act: are there other errors in Part 5?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are we done?

I’ve asked a question of the Minister. The question is—we know that Part 5 has an error in it. The Government is scrambling to fix that up because the provision that refers to departmental agencies’ responsibilities under the Privacy Act 1993 is wrong. There’s an error in the bill. The question that I have put—and I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question—is: can the Minister give an assurance that there are no other errors in Part 5 of the bill?

No other errors that I know of.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Before we vote on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on Part 5 and then have a vote on the amended Part 5, could we have clarity as to whether the issue of the error that’s been identified—

Yeah, there’s a tabled amendment. There is a tabled amendment. We’re just going to vote on it now.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: So amendment has been tabled. Is that a separate SOP, just so for the voting it can be clear?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, I have it in front of me—hang on. So I have an amendment in front of me that replaces the Part 5 heading with “Offence, immunity, and public service reorganisations”. So that’s the Minister’s tabled amendment to the Part 5 heading—hang on. It’s the Minister’s tabled amendment to SOP 549 to the Part 5 heading, and, for the benefit of the committee, it reads: to “Replace the Part 5 heading with: ‘Offence, immunity, and public service reorganisations’ ”.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to:

Replace the Part 5 heading with: “Offence, immunity, and public service reorganisations”.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 5 be agreed to.