Tisch Lindsay: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19997] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to speak to clause 17 “Requirement to create and maintain records”. I want to articulate further the reasons that I mentioned in the second reading debate as to why it is my view and National’s view that State-owned enterprises should be exempt from that requirement. Clause 17(2) states: “Every public office must maintain in an accessible form so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference all public records that are in its control until their disposal …”. The definition of a public record includes records created or received by a public office in the conduct of its affairs. Clause 4 states a public record could be: “ … (without limitation) a document a signature a seal text images sound speech or data compiled recorded or stored as the case may be—(a) in written form on any material; or (b) on film negative tape or other medium so as to be capable of being reproduced; or (c) by means of any recording device or process computer or other electronic device or process” or other electronic means. I suggest that when we look at the requirement under clause 17 that all public offices need to create and maintain full public records we can see that it will be very difficult in fact for a State-owned enterprise to be able to comply with that. 
Most State-owned enterprises work on the basis that when material comes in if it is not necessary it is destroyed. In fact the staff in State-owned enterprises are actually encouraged to get rid of material that is no longer relevant is no longer of use and cannot be used in the future. So in relation to the requirement here to be able to maintain that material I ask who is to say what will actually be required. Who is to make that determination? The point I have made about the commercial sensitivity of State-owned enterprises needs to be reiterated. State-owned enterprises have a commercial focus; that is what they were set up to have. The State-Owned Enterprises Act which I referred to in the second reading is very clear. State-owned enterprises are commercial businesses that are not focused on public policy-setting. Their activities have limited short medium or long-term public interest. That is how they were designed to be set up. The bill already recognises that there is a need for flexibility for local authorities. The bill actually allows that as they have a degree of autonomy from central government and a community rather than a national focus. State-owned enterprises have greater autonomy than local authorities and are further removed from the public arena yet this bill actually constrains them. So on the one hand there is greater flexibility for local authorities but on the other hand however State-owned enterprises are brought in and will be constrained. 
It is National’s view that when we are talking about commercial operations there will be some commercial risk associated with the storing and release of material even though it will be released after a period of time. The point is that the Chief Archivist is not able to waive the requirement to create and maintain records. There is actually no discretion in that provision whereas we are saying that it should never have been included in the first place. We are very concerned about clause 17 because of the requirement to create and maintain records which we believe is not necessary for State-owned enterprises. 
Clause 27 is another clause that we had great difficulty with—and there were certainly submissions on it. That clause looks at what the Chief Archivist can do and on looking through it I see that there are no checks and balances on the archivist. Nothing in that clause controls what the Chief Archivist does. Subclause (3) states: “The Chief Archivist must ensure that every standard issued under this section is published in a manner that the Chief Archivist considers appropriate.” Well when we look at that requirement who do we see actually controlling and overseeing the archivist? Where are the checks and balances that will be required under that particular subclause? There is absolutely no accountability there at all. 
Dianne Yates 
: At this stage? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well we argued that issue at the time and we are not convinced that there have been any changes that allow us to have confidence that the position will be safeguarded particularly for State-owned enterprises. 
If we look at clause 29 “Inspection powers” we see there is a requirement for some modifications to be made for local records and local authority archives. I do not know what those modifications will be. Clause 33 is where the compliance costs have come in and I mentioned earlier that there is no compliance cost impact statement in this bill. There will be huge compliance costs associated with this legislation yet there is no compliance cost impact statement. Clause 33(2) states: “The Chief Archivist must commission and meet the costs …” of an independent audit of record-keeping practices in every public office. But there will be other costs. My question is: who is to pay for those? Well I tell members that it will be the organisation that is required to keep the record. There are huge compliance costs there. When we look at the financial reviews I will ask the departments that come before the Government Administration Committee how much it will cost them to comply with the provisions of this legislation where there is to be an independent audit of the record-keeping practices of every public office. It will be an interesting exercise over the next 12 months just to see the extra compliance costs that will be associated with that. 
Those are the points that National has concerns about and we mentioned them in our minority report. The reason National is not voting for the bill is that we are not satisfied that the answers that were given in particular regarding the issues pertaining to State-owned enterprises have been adequately covered. For that reason National is opposing this bill.