Data and Statistics Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Data and Statistics Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Data and Statistics Bill be now read a second time.

This bill replaces the Statistics Act 1975 with a modern framework. Some colleagues asked whether it’s time, but it is time. It supports a well-functioning data and statistics system that enables the best use of Government-held data while ensuring that people’s private and confidential information is kept safe. At first reading, the bill did receive cross-party support, acknowledging that quality data and statistics are crucial to every decision the Government makes in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Members also noted the importance of people having trust in the Government to protect their data appropriately, and trust is absolutely crucial to an effective statistics system. We build trust through a system that promotes universal participation and representation in statistics, is transparent about how people’s data is used, and protects both personal and commercially sensitive data. The Governance and Administration Committee has now considered the bill and reported back to the House with recommended changes that strengthen and clarify the bill’s provisions. I acknowledge the valuable and important contribution made by members of that committee to the bill’s progress in the House.

Before I outline the key things raised in submissions and how the bill responds to those, one thing I do want to do is to be very clear about what the bill does and does not do. So while the Data and Statistics Bill reflects significant changes in the operating environment since the Statistics Act passed into law in 1975, like the Act it replaces, it only allows for data to be collected for producing official statistics and research. It also maintains the Act’s confidentiality and privacy requirements. So, to be very clear, the bill does not expand the scope of information-gathering powers across Government, nor does it give Stats New Zealand sole control over the data collected across Government.

So what it has changed is that the bill provides for greater leadership of the official statistics system, in which increasingly there is work done across Government to produce statistics, enhance leadership, enhance quality of statistical data, and promote best practices around its collection, management, and use. The bill also provides for safer and more transparent access to data for research purposes in the public interest through its research access framework.

Administrative data is recognised and accepted internationally as a critical source for official statistics. An interesting reflection as that up until—I think it’s around the 1950s, in fact—most of the statistics produced in New Zealand were from administrative data. So in a way, it’s carrying on a very proud tradition. Surveys only became a popular method of collection around, I think, the middle of last century.

When I speak about administrative data, I’m talking about data collected in the day-to-day activities of public sector agencies, businesses, and community groups. The result of this means New Zealanders ultimately, if we use administrative data, spend less time filling in surveys about their lives and more time living them.

That’s not a radical departure from how Stats New Zealand operated in the past, as I have said. What the bill does, though, is it gives the Government Statistician power to collect administrative data, and that will enable the Government Statistician to produce more timely and granular statistics with less burden on people, businesses, and communities. There are appropriate exceptions to this power—for instance, where it’s expressly prevented by other legislation—so the Government Statistician is guided by that other legislation as well.

While the bill gives clarity on the use of administrative data, I think it’s fair to say that surveys will continue to play a very important role for collecting some types of information that we simply can’t collect other ways; we simply can’t know without asking people. One other significant change I want to touch on is the bill enables the next census to be either held in 2023 or 2024. The census is one of our most important, significant sources of data, providing us with an official count of people and dwellings every five years.

Statistics New Zealand has been very clear that they think they are very well positioned to deliver the census in 2023. But notwithstanding that readiness, the external environment—we’ve noted, in recent years—has a tendency to change rapidly with the ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic. So I think it’s right to have taken a decision to allow for flexibility of timing on the next census in the event that it’s happening, should it need to be delayed for some reason or other.

So let me say, though, to be clear to the House, contrary to what some members on the other side of the House have seemingly convinced themselves, it is my preference that the census goes ahead as planned in 2023. I can’t blame those Opposition spokespeople that have spoken to this, though. The flexibility we’re implementing here is good governance practice—something perhaps not familiar to those on the other side of the House.

Previous decisions to delay a census—for example, following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake—required the House to rush through retrospective changes to legislation. So amending the bill at this stage is the most efficient way of making sure that we incorporate any flexibility that’s needed in a timely way without disrupting the design and delivery phases of the 2023 census—and that, as I say, I hope goes ahead as planned.

Other approaches considered in that context, including safeguarding future censuses by building a more enduring contingency flexibility into the bill, would require significant and complex policy work. This is simply an easy tidy-up to do now. A decision on the 2023 census, though, will be made in July this year, and ultimately we will prioritise ensuring that it’s made in a timely fashion and made in the best interests of collecting that data effectively.

The committee received 36 submissions on the bill, touching on many different aspects, but there were three themes that developed that were prominent: the importance of representation, the need for sufficient accountability and transparency, and safe access to data. Official statistics have to be representative of all communities: iwi, hapu, tangata moana, the disabled community, migrants, youth, the rainbow community—all of these communities need to see themselves reflected in the data and statistics that we collect. New consultation requirements will help ensure the needs of diverse communities are recognised and help fill the gaps in the data that Government has traditionally collected.

The other thing the bill recognises is that effective engagement leads to better outcomes for Māori, for iwi, for hapu, and for the Government. The bill requires the Statistician to engage effectively with Māori on census, the data and statistics programme, and the development of data standards. So that is a new aspect to this bill that was not in the previous Act. The bill itself is designed to work alongside other legislation that supports accountability and transparency, including the Public Service Act, and the Official Information Act, and also, I note, the Privacy Act. Transparency is also required.

New requirements for the Statistician to publish information about access to data for research will allow the public to see that the data provided to Stats New Zealand is used safely and used in the public interest, and that it contributes to the wider wellbeing of community and society. If the Government Statistician delegates functions to people who are not employees of Stats New Zealand, the Statistician must publish information about their delegations, including what informed the Statistician’s decision. So there’ll be a degree of transparency there, and any failure by the person who has received that delegation also carries a level of accountability for the Government Statistician. So the Statistician will be motivated to be careful and cautious about considering any possible delegations of those powers.

The bill provides a higher level of protection on data collected for the purposes of official statistics and research under the bill, imposing strong, non-negotiable confidentiality requirements on Stats New Zealand and researchers who are seeking access to it. That means that people who are supplying data can be very confident that it will be used in a way that they can trust by Statistics New Zealand. That actually goes beyond the powers that are laid down in the Privacy Act.

So this is about making sure that the data that people provide is safe, that it is accessed safely, as that is a core function. I do thank the committee for their work, thank the members of the public who provided submissions, and commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill. There’s a bit to unpack, not just in the Governance and Administration Committee deliberations but in what the Minister has just told us, so I’ll attempt to do that in the time available.

There’s no doubt that the statistics legislation that we have does need updating. I’m not a fan of repealing and replacing just because it is of a certain age. But the case for making changes to our statistics legislation is pretty easy to make. If you look back to 1975 we had no internet, no email, and no cellphones. We were living a fairly homogenous existence in nuclear families, and we probably didn’t put any energy to the views of tangata whenua over the collection and storage of information. So we’ve come a long way since then, and to some degree this bill is actually giving legislative effect to current practice.

But as the Governance and Administration Committee found out as they were going through their deliberations on this bill, it is a technical bill, and we certainly relied very much on officials and submitters. I’m very grateful to them, and I thank them for their thoughtful submissions. They came from former Statisticians, from the Privacy Commissioner, from civil libertarians, and from iwi. So we had a very broad range of views within which to pore over those technical elements. I’m going to focus on two particular issues: one of privacy; and then, as the Minister has touched on, the potential for a delay in census 2023.

So there’s two matters in privacy that I just want to touch on. The first is clause 39, where there was an amendment to clause 39 to effectively give a legal ability for Statistics New Zealand to publish data in a form that may identify an organisation, but there’s little that we could do about that. The select committee spent quite a bit of time interrogating officials as to why this was necessary and what circumstances might exist for this to occur. As the select committee report points out, they used the example of a community with, perhaps for example, one aged care facility where simply identifying data related to aged care would inevitably identify the organisation that was being talked about or being referred to. I think most committee members were, in the end, accepting of the need for this amendment, albeit that members on both sides of the table expressed a hope that that was as far as it goes.

I want to draw the House’s attention back to the comments that the Minister has just made, that the bill does not expand the power of the State to collate data and statistics. I hope he’s right. There were submitters that didn’t agree with that assessment of what the bill does, and that the bill, perhaps, gives the State more power than it needs to collect data. I’m somewhere in the middle of that discussion, but we need to keep a weather eye on whether or not this does go beyond the powers that are appropriate in the circumstances.

The second element of the privacy issue that I want to raise is a very thoughtful submission from the Privacy Commissioner. Now, I’m sure, like all parliamentary colleagues, I have a very high degree of trust and confidence in the Privacy Commissioner, and when she provides advice we need to listen carefully. Albeit in supporting the bill, she nevertheless came up with a number of recommendations for the bill to be improved. We didn’t make many of them, and so it was important to the committee that we were confident that the Privacy Commissioner was satisfied overall with the response to their submission. We were advised by officials that notwithstanding that only minor changes were made based on the recommendations of the commissioner’s office, they were broadly satisfied with where Statistics New Zealand officials have got to. I hope that’s right. I think it’s really important that we listen carefully to the privacy elements. We’re in a very, very unusual environment where people are fiercely protective of their privacy but paradoxically have no problem in open-source social media, for example, revealing quite a bit about their lives. But nevertheless, they still have a right to privacy, particularly when it comes to the State collection of information.

Now, I want to turn to the other matter that the Minister raised, and that is of census 2023. He managed to gild the lily and have a slap at the previous Government all at once. Flexibility is only good Government practice if it’s got the protections around it. Where he described “rushing through retrospective changes to delay census in 2011”, that is a rewrite of history, of course, because the Canterbury earthquakes occurred, I think somewhere less than two weeks out from the census.

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Guilty conscience. I didn’t say that.

It wasn’t retrospective, in any event; we passed legislation under urgency, but it wasn’t retrospective. I mean, actually, the Minister, I think, just said “I didn’t say that.” Well, he needs to go back and read his own Hansard. So this started—well, it started for us as a question to the Minister on 16 February when he appeared before the committee, and I asked him “Would it be necessary to amend primary legislation if it was decided that a delay to census 2023 was necessary?” And his reply was almost theoretical. He said something like “I suspect we would. Yes, that’s my understanding.” Well, actually, he understood a heck of a lot more than he was letting the committee know, because documents now indicate that they had been working on an amendment to this bill for months, initially as a Supplementary Order Paper, and then some official probably had a eureka moment when they realised that because the bill was still before the committee, a simple amendment to it to allow a delay was possible, and that’s what we have before us.

Now, the Minister has also admitted that a decision would be made in July. And my question to him, which I will examine in the committee of the whole House, is why July? And why, if Statistics New Zealand are so well prepared, would it be necessary to make the decision seven months or eight months out from the due date? Because we can’t predict what will happen. At this stage it’s eminently possible, given the way COVID is tracking, to be able to hold the census in March next year; if nothing changes, why are we going to make a decision to delay the census for a whole year eight months out from it? Now, the shape the bill is coming back to the House in has that very broad amendment. Now, I’m not averse, the National Party is not averse, to an amendment to the bill to allow the delay. But I think the way clause 34 is currently rewritten is far too broad. There needs to be a reason for the delay. So I will be moving an amendment to the bill at the committee of the whole House to specify the conditions that will need to exist in order for a delay to occur. They will include things like a national state of emergency, a major pandemic—such as we’ve got very recent experience in—and civil unrest, and something else.

The Minister should make that decision, not the chief statistician, and he should make it only after consultation with the public. One of the reasons that shouldn’t be used, but which currently could be, is political expediency—the risk that the Government will oversee yet another debacle, the like of which we saw in 2018, six months out from a general election, that produces the sort of political embarrassment that this Cabinet will want to avoid, which I believe is why they are going to make the decision in July or August rather than wait until much closer to the time. So I don’t think that’s good enough. I certainly think it’s consistent with the track record. I think it’s laughable for the Minister to describe their good governance practice given what they oversaw in 2018. So this amendment is not well written, and we’ll be seeking to amend it.

We will continue to support this legislation, but we believe much tighter constraints and parameters should be brought around the Minister’s ability to delay next year’s census. With that, we’ll continue to support the bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Data and Statistics Bill. I just want to begin just by noting that this is a comprehensive rewrite of the Act, which has meant a big piece of work for the committee. And on that note, I just want to thank other members of the committee, the officials, and submitters—and, as the previous speaker noted, a particular thank you to the Privacy Commissioner, who gave some very helpful advice.

But I do just want to comment on the changes around the census—just to correct the record here around what actually did happen in select committee—because the former speaker, a member of that committee, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, did raise questions around what would happen for Census 2023, and as a result of that, we now have this amendment in the bill to ensure that we have the flexibility required if we need to delay the census. And we came to a pragmatic, flexible amendment to the bill, just noting that the committee, in its deliberations on a number of matters, including this bill, has had the delivery of Census 2023 at the forefront of its mind, including an assurance that we have the resources to deliver on census so that we don’t end up with the challenges that came about last time, due to funding cuts made to the delivery of census by the previous Government, that we inherited. It’s important to put that on record because one of the reasons for the importance of this bill is to ensure that we are able to deliver on census, that the census collects the appropriate data that we need.

One further comment I just want to make is around the recognition of Māori data and Māori statistics in this bill, which is an incredible step forward for us, and we heard from a number of Māori Statisticians who made very important and useful contributions. So this bill is a very, very useful one for the delivery of the census and many other parts of our statistics framework, and on that note, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Data and Statistics Bill, second reading. I wasn’t on the Governance and Administration Committee, although I did hold this shadow portfolio last year and had the pleasure of meeting Mark Sowden and his team, who at that stage was as relatively new CEO of Statistics New Zealand. I thought the direction he was taking the organisation, after the previous disaster, was very helpful and, hopefully, will lead to a better outcome. And, of course, this bill, as we’ve heard, helps move statistic collection and production of data into the 21st century, if I may say, in terms of how we go about collecting data and how it can be used.

There are a few issues with the bill, and I think the Hon Michael Woodhouse has certainly covered off his Supplementary Order Paper 156, which raises the question of why on earth should Statistics New Zealand be allowed to contemplate either holding the election in 2023 or 2024, especially when a decision will be made, literally, in July, which is not that far away. So it raises sort of the most fundamental questions—and I know Minister Clark talked about the potential impact of COVID and all that sort of stuff. Normally, you would not give unfettered power to people or organisations. I think Mr Michael Woodhouse’s Supplementary Order Paper is actually good, because it actually lists some specific criteria that might be used in determining whether or not to delay Statistics New Zealand’s census, and, of course, he talks about a national state of emergency, an unreasonable level of risk to the public health and safety—so that could be a COVID reason—an unreasonable level of risk to the health and safety of staff employed by Stats New Zealand, or civil unrest. Those are four clear areas where, if they were to occur, that would be a legitimate reason to delay it. But just to say, “Well, we’re just going to make our decision and we could delay it, technically, theoretically, for any other reason, for any reason.”, then that is a very unusual power to grant any organisation.

The bill obviously picks up Te Tiriti o Waitangi requirements, and particularly a way of engaging with Māori, which is perfectly understandable. But, of course, I think we should also recognise that the number of different ethnic groups in New Zealand is very, very considerable, and there is also an absolute need that our other minority communities are also adequately looked after, adequately catered for, adequately addressed in terms of their language and the way that they want to be engaged with, which is quite likely to be different from what Māori might want or even Pacific Island communities. So I think the importance of the way that statistics are collected is important, but also there’s a need for recognition that there are multiple ethnic groups and they are also just as important in New Zealand.

The issue around the secrecy of the data and how this data is collected and stored is, obviously, a very, very important aspect. This bill replaces the 1975 Statistics Act statutory declaration of secrecy with a more modern, as they say, fit for purpose certificate of confidentiality. But it does still continue the two statutory obligations mentioned about just making sure that if data is collected, it is protected, and individuals and organisations are not unnecessarily identified—although, of course, in the bill it specifically enables certain entities or individuals to be named, as the Minister’s covered off in his opening address. That is a very, very important element of data and how it’s used, because it does give rise to a wider issue, which is how this data might be used.

Of course, the collection of data is set out in clause 22, and one of the aspects I find slightly interesting, just having a quick look through the bill, is for what purpose might data be used, either by Stats New Zealand or by another entity. In clause 22, it says that “Data may be collected by the Statistician under this Act—… (c) if the Statistician considers the data is necessary or desirable to enable the Statistician to produce official statistics, or desirable for research under Part 5,”, and then it lists those provisions.

I think this gives rise to how data might be used, and I’ll give you a case in point. David Parker’s on a witch hunt for high-paying New Zealanders and wanting to understand what they’re doing with their tax structures, and he has commenced an investigation through IRD to find out the personal tax position of many wealthier New Zealanders. The question I have is whether data that may be collected by the Statistician could be used by another Government entity, such as the IRD. And I give that as an example because, during the committee of the whole House stage, I think it’s very, very important that we do ascertain whether in fact we do not allow people to use information, particularly where it’s a Government-sponsored investigation, it’s a ministerial investigation, conducted by the IRD—to use another entity to provide that information. Certainly I think that’s something we need to get, certainly from the Minister: that it will not, cannot, and should not occur under those arrangements.

I think that’s all I want to say on the bill at the moment. I’m looking forward to other contributions on it. But, obviously, it is a welcome update to the Act, and, hopefully, we’re going to lead to much more timely, relevant statistics. I think the issue around the type of research undertaken and the type of information provided by Stats New Zealand is also critical to making sure that we are getting the right sort of stats, the stuff in the data and the information that people really want to use. So on that note, I’m looking forward to hearing what other people have to say.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s quite a shame that the member who’s just resumed his seat, Andrew Bayly, does not sit on the great Governance and Administration Committee, like you yourself do. We’re chaired by a really great chairperson, as well. I think if he did, then maybe, perhaps, he would be a little bit more familiar with the details of this bill.

Happy New Zealand Techweek. This week, I was very privileged to have time to go and attend one of the sessions at New Zealand Techweek, and that session was called “AI in healthcare: what do medics really think?” During that panel session I heard a lot about how AI is now incorporated into our healthcare system, including during COVID times, where each patient who had registered that they were COVID positive was given a risk number in the system to determine the types of healthcare that they would be getting. For instance, if you had a precondition like diabetes, you would be getting a call from your family doctor. You’d be getting extra support. Or, for instance, if you were immunocompromised, you’d be getting a particular type of medicine sent to your house or through your pharmacy.

I just wanted to use that story because I thought that it’s a really good way of illustrating the importance of updating our data and statistics legislation. Data right now is everywhere within our lives. I talked about, in the first reading—that was the week that Facebook had just announced the “metaverse”. So we are in a different time, where we need to modernise the way that we govern statistics and data.

During the panel session, someone asked one of the panel about whether we had any other overseas comparisons that we could have in terms of how we governed data, the way that we used AI in medical scenarios. The panellists all replied with “Not really.” Actually, in fact, they used the example of kidney failure after a kidney transplant. So far, the only technology overseas available to us is identifying people as either black or white. You guys can probably imagine that that was from, I think it was, a Canadian company that had particularly developed that software. Now, why I talk about that story is because New Zealand data sovereignty and information about our indigenous people is really important and unique to New Zealand. This will be a world-leading project that we will embark on through this bill. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai, kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party, on this International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia and Transphobia, in support of the Data and Statistics Bill, which was largely developed by the Hon James Shaw as the Minister of Statistics last term.

Many thanks to the Governance and Administration Committee for your work on this bill—you get all the best bits. This is also a very impressive turn-around from the report being presented to the House to us actually speaking on it. There are several other bills I wish would come in so quickly.

We welcome the repeal and replacement of the Statistics Act 1975. This bill brings it up to date in this digital age and it ensures that the collection, production, and dissemination of New Zealand’s statistics are in line with the best international principles and practices.

I’ll focus this short call mainly on kaupapa Māori. We note that the purpose of this bill is “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. This is largely addressed in clause 14, which outlines the duties of the Statistician relating to this, but I want to point out the submission by Te Kāhui Raraunga, the Data Iwi Leaders Group. They have a mana ōrite agreement with Stats New Zealand, and were invited to be part of developing this bill, but only after the release of the Cabinet papers that set the parameters for it. In its submission, Te Kāhui Raraunga raised several concerns about how this bill met its own goals and its own aspirations in terms of the Treaty. So let’s just think about that for a minute: the organisation representing iwi and Māori data interests, with which Stats New Zealand has a formal agreement, was not able to get its point into the draft bill in its area of expertise and had to make its own submission.

So I just want to reiterate some of the points that they made, which include that the bill should incorporate a general Te Tiriti provision—which is there in clause 14—but that it is also consistent with the other reforms that are happening across health and other parts of our legislation programme, and it should recognise the special relationship that Māori have with data as a taonga. A big thing I think that’s missing from this is that if you’re talking about the Treaty, you are talking about the relationship of the Crown with iwi and with hapū, and that isn’t mentioned in this bill. It’s all about “Māori”. So we need that generic Māori data, but there’s a lot of data which must be iwi-specific. All of those great provisions which have been beefed up through the select committee process around engagement with and consulting with is all very specific to Māori, and so it’s no wonder that the iwi leaders forum is wanting us to be more specific about those connections to iwi and hapū.

They went even further than that, though. They’re suggesting a Māori co-governance type of model and the establishment of a Chief Māori Data Steward. So I think these are very good ideas and not very dramatic at all.

But, generally, we reiterate our support for the explicit clarification of the Statistician’s professional independence. The quality of the data is paramount, and we support the specific provisions accounting for the anonymisation of data for public release and the frameworks of scrutiny to make sure that we create very, very safe mechanisms for sharing of data between Government agencies.

We have had concerns raised with us by some of the members of our party but also other members of the community that the quality of the survey work done by other agencies is no longer approved by the Minister of Statistics, and there is a risk when people are expected to rise to the standard of Stats New Zealand but Stats New Zealand are not actually checking that they have, because the data across agencies should be consistent and it should be of the highest quality. All of this goes into our research projects, it goes into the cases that are made, and it goes into our Budget, and that data has to be sound. We have to trust that it is good.

Privacy is always a big issue for us, and it’s very much so for the State collection and use of data. For that ethical data environment, transparency requirements are crucial, but especially when data is not anonymised and we know who has said what. It is even more important that those people have given consent, whether that’s an individual or whether that’s an organisation.

We note National’s concern in their differing opinion that was raised in the select committee report, regarding the need to give specific reasons to delay the next census. We’re pleased to see that Supplementary Order Paper coming through from the Minister to address that, so we really, really would have supported that.

In that next census—hopefully, in 2023—for the first time, the Government will finally gather detailed data on takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary people, and we hope this data will come into the same safe and ethical data environment that is provided by our takatāpui, trans, non-binary, and intersex researchers in our community and our universities who have carried this responsibility so far. I want to shout out to some of the projects that I’m aware of, and I know that there are more, but Counting Ourselves, Identify, the trans perinatal project, and the Manalagi Pasifika rainbow research project. We have relied on their work and the work of the Human Rights Commission in the absence of this data, so I’m very, very excited that now we’ll start towards some real core numbers.

Finally, we note that key organisations like Te Kāhui Raraunga, the Privacy Commissioner, and the New Zealand Statistical Association are all very broadly supportive of this bill. Given the select committee did not address all of the issues through this process, we consider they all will have a role to play moving forward in the implementation of this legislation. So, nō reira, we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Mr Speaker, the fact that you’re also on the committee means you’re statistically very important to this bill, and it is a very important bill to get right. It’s one of, I think, Dr Clark’s most important jobs, this and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. And I rise on behalf of ACT to talk about the power that’s been vested in the Government Statistician post this introduction. It is a bill to replace something that is 46 years old and statistically itself is requiring an update.

I like the Australian approach that they took. It takes a more robust approach with their recent Data Availability and Transparency Act, and I think it places limits on data sharing across the different domains of Government. It is a better solution, and that is what the ACT Party always seeks to find in public policy around the world. It better articulates the principles and checks and balances that one would expect in this area. Sharing Government data is a very important issue for the people of New Zealand. Indeed, the law itself, although needing a refresh, the direction of travel the Ministers and the officials want to take is in the right direction.

This bill is not a BMW Government limo; it’s a solid Toyota Corolla, probably needing a few rip-outs of its engine and side doors to just get it finally right. But left to mature as a public sector tool, it could be very useful. So we also believe that there should be a review undertaken of this after three years. And we believe that overcoming cultural resistance for all the 5.127 million New Zealanders is vitally important to get right from being a born child with a birth certificate through to someone who’s got spina bifida and wants to have their files shared with them.

So there is a question mark over the costs of bringing these systems together. I don’t see anywhere a cost-benefit analysis, which the ACT Party would like to ask the Minister in the next section on: what is the Government Statistician going to need to make this happen? What is the IT spend that’s needed to integrate this? Maybe we’ll hear this in the Budget on Thursday, but I suspect it’s a significant amount of money to bring researchers and statisticians into a place where they can actually, with permission from the public, match up data that is relevant.

The other aspect is we’ve looked at the timeliness of reporting. Nothing must stop, as an example in the business world, the Performance of Manufacturing Index and Performance of Services Index statistics coming through in a timely fashion. We’ve heard that 76 percent of our GDP gets reported by Statistics New Zealand and we’ve seen with the Auditor-General’s workload, with regard to COVID, that once something big hits, then the statistics bundle can just fall out or people can start to get overworked in departments or stressed. That’s a worldwide benchmark and it affects our credit rating as a country.

If you look at health, Mr Mooney did discuss in his electorate the need for quality statistics around the DHBs and beds. As we’ve seen in the last iteration, we haven’t managed post-pandemic to get that right, and it’s causing us problems now, actually costing what should be savings in the healthcare system. If you look at 50,000 women across New Zealand who are now waiting with breast cancer scares to get a mammogram or to get access to drugs from Pharmac or an integration of all that health, it’s a very serious piece of data collection which has failed. So we need to take an approach that if somebody is the Government Statistician, they really need to modernise their approaches to collecting data for the good of the nation and for something that, even though it’s digital, needs to provide quality outputs.

The one area that I am disturbed about is just the punishments, and the punishment in this for individuals has quadrupled with a fine of $2,000 for failing a census return. But it removes the duty of the Statistician, the Government Statistician, to provide you with a census form. So if you’re disabled and you fail to complete this form or digitally you can’t get online or you’ve got mental and physical issues actually being able to complete this, you are going to get fined $2,000. Now, ultimately that’s not the New Zealand way, it’s not the Kiwi way, and I’d like the advisers to have a look at that punishment regime. Fifteen grand for organisations, that’s a different story, but as individuals we don’t expect to get punished for data release and also not being able to do something. Fortunately, we have a social contract with individuals and with regards to the census that needs to be as transparent as possible.

Just to finish on a lighter note, we all remember the code in the census that tracked the Jedi population. On this side of the House, we are the carriers of light and 1 percent of the population was recorded as being Jedi. So I hope the Statistician still keeps his sense of humour when he’s working.

Over the process here, if we’re going to ask people to tell us once and then it gets integrated across various Government departments, I think the cost of that system hasn’t been thought out. I stand to be corrected by the committee and the Minister. Even though this is a statistics bill, I think it is one of the most important Acts that David Clark will ever do. He’ll be judged by it and he’ll be judged by how this sticks around the area, and we need better data to make better decisions as a Government. Now is the time to actually define what it is we’re going to be doing in some schedule that manages the workload, costs it out, and also gives us confidence that we’ve not just got a set of words here and a policy that doesn’t actually deliver the final outcomes that we’re seeking for the next 50 years.

We will support to build to the next stage and we would like to really get people to think that this is a very important task and we’ve got to get this bill right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take the opportunity to take a call. On the Star Wars theme, may the Force be with the Minister as he works hard to shepherd this bill through the House. Actually, I myself explored the final frontiers of Tauranga, collecting census data in the early 2000s. It’s a memory that stuck with me, going house to house—first of all, giving out census documents and then, later on, going and retrieving them, and, at various times, working very closely with families to ensure that they completed their forms. There is a lot of work that takes place on the ground in terms of collecting census documents and other forms of data, which, as the previous member said, are incredibly important for our country.

Mr Speaker, I’d like to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee, a committee that I’ve recently joined and was warmly welcomed by yourself as the chair, and the other members. I’d like to thank all of those who made a submission to this piece of legislation.

I’m going to keep my contribution fairly short. We have canvassed this bill quite well. I’ll just touch on a couple of quick things. The first one is that this bill replaces the Statistics Act of 1975 with modern, fit for purpose data and statistics legislation. The reality is that much of the legislation that passes through this House is updating legislation which, over the course of time, is no longer quite fit for purpose, as our society evolves. So, look, it’s important for this to come through, and I sense we have broad support across the House, which is good. The second aspect is just that it considers and provides for Māori interests in this data and statistics, and I think that’s a very positive thing, moving forward.

Excellent piece of legislation. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I shall take a short call on this, the Data and Statistics Bill. Others on this side of the House have already indicated that we support it and have given a much better account than I’ll probably be able to manage. I wasn’t present at the select committee process, but I’ve had the ability to read its report and it seems very thorough and it seems to me that our colleagues on the Governance and Administration Committee have done a good job of identifying a number of changes that would be usefully made. So I thought I would provide some of my observations about that, and also a couple more general points, which I’ll start off with.

First, as others have said—actually, it might have been Damien Smith in his contribution, talking about the allocation of resources, and this is one of the important reasons that the data is collected. In the case of a census, it might not be obvious to those who haven’t thought about these things from the point of view of the policy maker, or executive Government allocating resources on the basis of per head of population, but manipulated—and I don’t mean that in the ugly sense, but the data being used in a way that makes sense. Of course, we need to know where people are and some key basic details about them as well, and so, of course, it’s a highly important exercise for that, and not merely a matter of interest to obtain statistical data.

The other reason that it’s so important to get these matters right is that this goes to the relationship between the citizen and the State. The citizen is compelled to provide certain information about themselves, which is fair enough in this case, providing that the data is used appropriately. But, of course, that’s a heavy caveat, and it’s been pleasing to hear that the select committee has taken seriously the submission of the Privacy Commissioner and noted certain ways in which it’s appropriate for the data to be able to move between different agencies—and in one case, actually not a Government agency so much as the courts. So I will just speak to that briefly, wearing my hat as National’s court spokesperson.

I think it’s positive that the select committee has thought to propose an amendment to exclude courts from being what is described as an “organisation” in the bill. All things being equal, an organisation is some sort of arm of Government—and I’m using a phrase deliberately away from agency because courts are different in their nature—and the confidentiality that should attach to court proceedings is preserved by making it clear that whereas other agencies or organisations would be required on request to provide data, that doesn’t apply to the courts. And I think that’s right, partly for the reason that I’ve mentioned around confidentiality, but also at a more theoretical level it’s a separation of the powers of the judicial branch of Government and that of the executive.

On a similar note, but slightly different, I think they’ve also made a really sensible suggestion regarding the Chief Ombudsman and the Office of the Auditor-General and also Offices of Parliament, whereby those different actors are not required necessarily to provide data. That’s recognising the difference between Parliament and the executive but it does, nevertheless—it will be the case I think, you know, if the select committee recommendation is taken seriously, that authorisation would be needed if the data was to be used for the production of official statistics. So again, bit of a safeguard and certainly the right questions have obviously been asked. So that’s very positive.

I think the suggestion about the functions of the Government Statistician that the select committee has made in clause 13, and that’s concerning the Statistician—capital “S”, that’s the person performing that particular role—to be permitted to collect data but also to manage data. And I think that reflects that there are a couple of different main ways in which such a person can interact with the data: there’s obviously the collection, but there’s also the management thereof. We’ve famously heard, and it’s a truism, but true none the less, that there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics. Those who are cynical about politics I suppose might come up with a different version of that in relation to Government announcements and press releases. But anyway, that’s for such cynics to say and wouldn’t be anything that I would introduce to the House here, of course, especially on such a bipartisan bill as this.

As I say, the committee’s done a good job and we look forward to hearing further discussion at the committee of the whole House stage and beyond.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my honour this evening to speak on the Data and Statistics Bill. And can I acknowledge the Minister the Hon Dr David Clark for the work that he has done in this particular piece of legislation, and also the Governance and Administration Committee for hearing submissions and working through this particular legislation to bring it before us this evening.

I think quite fondly of our growth as a country and the use of data in informing the decisions that we make strategically for our total population across Aotearoa; for our communities, no matter where you come from. And I think to areas that I’ve been involved in where data has been vital in making good decisions and to achieve better outcomes. I think to health and I think to the COVID response, and the work that we had to all do to get out on the streets, to get people vaccinated, right down to the views that we could get in my own city, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, around where people were living, what numbers were living in particular areas so that our DHBs, our health workforce, could get out there, use their resources, their volunteers, to engage with those people to promote good health.

Similarly in tertiary education, I’ve had the benefit of understanding better student profiles to understand their learning needs and to work with academic staff to bring in curriculum and learning methodologies to engage learners and their families to achieve graduation and educational achievement.

And lastly, as you know, Mr Speaker, I hail from the mighty Mōkai Pātea. And we’re going through a settlement process of our own where we’ve had to build a profile of our own whānau of where they live across Aotearoa and across the world. As a very small iwi, we’ve been able to engage and identify with those particular people.

This bill replaces the Statistics Act of 1975 with a modern, fit for purpose data and statistics legislation. It’s important that this piece of legislation moves forward. So without further ado, to enable and continue the good work, can I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I acknowledge you in the Chair this evening because it’s well-known by members in the House, but perhaps not the public, that you presided as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee over the consideration and deliberation of this bill, which is the Data and Statistics Bill.

I stand for the second reading as a member of the National Party, but also in my Māori development spokesperson role and Whānau Ora role. There’s been some reference in the House in the debates this evening about COVID-19 and the importance of the collection of data for the roll-out of the vaccination into communities.

I think what’s important in relation to this bill, data and statistics—it’s about the collection of information and that with the collection of information, members would be entrusting and having a sense of trust in those who are seeking this information. That was evident—and I refer to my Whānau Ora spokesperson role—during the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out. Why is that relevant? The relevance of this is that a lot of our Māori communities entrusted the Government with information, but, regrettably, the Government didn’t trust our communities to empower and enable them with information to target the very communities—the vulnerable communities—who are most in need. Our people entrusted the Government with information, but the Government chose not to trust our people at critical, crucial times for the delivery of that vaccination programme.

This bill, Data and Statistics Bill, is very much premised on trust. The National Party supports this bill because the purpose of it is to update the principal Act—it needs updating. The Statistics Act 1975 was at a time when statistics was produced in hard copy, the old pen and paper—my generation. Now, we’re fast-tracking through to the innovation of technology and the speedy collection, but also the utilisation—the appropriate utilisation and delivery of that. I’ve talked about how significant and relevant that was for part of the COVID-19 response in our vulnerable communities.

So in my Māori development lens—again, I didn’t serve on the select committee, as you well know, having been the presiding chair, and I certainly acknowledge those members who did preside over this. The bill was referred to the committee on 9 November 2021, and then the Minister of Statistics, the Hon Dr David Clark, provided the first oral submission on the bill on 16 February of this year. There were some 40 submissions considered, with 19 oral submissions heard by the select committee.

In the House, this evening there’s been mention—and again I allude to my Māori development spokesperson responsibility and role—of the significant provision and cognisance of Māori participation, engagement, and uptake in the Crown-Māori relationship, as has been recognised within particular clauses of the bill relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The first time that I was really confronted and exposed to the importance of data sovereignty, and in a Māori lens, was when I was attending a Whānau Ora hui up in Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—about three years ago. There was a particular session on the importance of Māori data and information and who was to be entrusted and empowered with the collection, with the holding, and with the utilisation of that information. This bill attempts to address that in part.

In the House tonight, member from the Green Party Dr Elizabeth Kerekere made mention that within the clauses of the bill of reference to the Treaty of Waitangi and the relationship between Crown and Māori, there’s only mention of Māori as opposed to hapū and iwi. That’s really interesting, because when I presided on another select committee—the Social Services and Community Committee—when we’re dealing with the Oranga Tamariki proposed legislation, that has come up in debate and it arises in this House yet again. I sit on the Māori Affairs Committee and we deal with these matters on a regular weekly basis when the House is sitting. It’s interesting that that has been raised, it has been addressed within this bill, and, to my lens, it highlights that there are inconsistencies in legislation that’s being proposed to this House in terms of that level of engagement with Māori, with hapū, with iwi, and the responsibility that the Crown has in that relationship.

So in clause 4 of this bill, there is some inconsistency across the board in terms of Government bills and legislation. This bill talks about engagement with Māori, but it also specifically in terms of particular organisations that are to be engaged with it, references whānau, hapū, or iwi—that’s under clause 6, “Interpretation”. And then, again, there is a reference at clause—and I’m not familiar with the bill, it was a cursory glance through this. I don’t sit on the select committee, but had this been brought to my attention—that there is a particular provision within the bill that does make mention only in a very small aspect and manner to hapū and iwi.

So it just again highlights that there is some anomaly in terms of what is outlined in the bill and how it’s going to be interpreted and applied. It’s really important, and I raise that as an issue for due consideration before this comes to the House for the third reading, to get a level of consistency so that there’s not going to be the anomaly, there’s not going to be the confusion, and so that there is a measure of trust engaged with Māori, with hapū, and with iwi in terms of the seeking, the sourcing, the uptake, and being entrusted to treasure and hold that information to use and dispose of it in the appropriate, responsible manner.

So also I made mention that I was at a Whānau Ora hui, and at that gathering, there was recognition by those working in the Whānau Ora space of the importance of data sovereignty. So we have Māori organisations that have been entrusted on behalf of their representative groups, such as Te Kāhui Raraunga; that is one group, and the responsibility that they have to be trusted by the people to be entrusted to care for that information. Information is knowledge and knowledge is power.

Interestingly enough too, Mr Speaker, I looked at the Hansard record of the first reading of this bill, and because you, Mr Speaker—Mr Assistant Speaker McKelvie—are in the Chair, you are denied the opportunity to speak at this reading. But what I did notice is that at the first reading you did raise and talk about the importance of trust. And I quote that you shared with the House that, “It is most important that we do that in a manner that those people providing the information can trust, because if they don’t trust it, they won’t fill the information in [or provide it] correctly.”, and that it—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: That’s beautiful.

It is beautiful, indeed, because trust should be premised on the relevance and the significance of the beauty of a relationship. If it’s not there, then people will either withhold the information that’s sought or they will give incorrect information, upon which the Government would be required to act.

In the few moments I have left, I’m mindful that it’s Budget day on Thursday, and in terms of Budgets, it’s important that the information that’s sourced from the census is reliable for the Budget information and the allocation of resources and funding to those targeted groups are identified within the census, as is provided by members of our public.

So, on that note, the National Party commends this bill to the House. Before it comes to the third reading, I invite members to consider what I’ve shared in terms of the Māori development, the importance of trust, and getting consistency in our legislation that comes before the House in relation to engagement with the Crown.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. While not a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, as an ex-academic researcher and full nerd, I feel inspired by this bill to start this closing submission with the opening words of literature’s greatest love story: “It is a truth universally acknowledged that any policy maker in possession of a great social issue will be in want of data and statistics.” Conversely, to proceed without sufficient data and statistics is to risk ineffective or even counter-productive policy and legislation. Evidence is important.

So, after 47 years, we gather to update the 1975 Statistics Act, an Act pre-dating not only the internet and online data collection tools, such as the beautifully named SurveyMonkey but also proper recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This new bill recognises Māori interests in data and statistics, requiring meaningful engagement as to how and for what data is collected, and enabling Māori to better access and use their data. We’re enabling better systems leadership, strengthening the Statistician’s oversight and powers to set standards, require agencies to provide information, and to set and revise the format in which the data comes so it comes in its most practicable form. And alongside that, we’re modernising census data collection too.

My academic’s heart soars to know that this bill also modernises the framework for research, incorporating best practice frameworks, ensuring that researchers are properly expert, and that the public knows who those researchers are, and what and how they’re doing with the data. In so doing, the bill provides vital protections for the privacy and confidentiality of individuals and organisations. Good information is essential to good governance. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.