Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. So this is the third reading of the Data and Statistics Bill. We've heard contributions from across the House that I think have very fairly summarised the legislative process so far. As my colleague and friend Michael Woodhouse has said on this side of the House notwithstanding that we've had some reservations about the particular operation of parts of the bill none the less we support its intent overall and certainly are not minded to oppose the bill in its entirety on the basis only of those particular points. So that's where we've landed. I think it's maybe worth thinking about the way that the bill has come to Parliament—I was about to say and having passed". It almost will have passed of course and in fact it is about to do so and then it will remain only for the Governor-General in her wisdom to sign it into law giving the Royal assent.But in terms of the legislative process for this Chamber we had of course the introduction of the bill at its first reading. Typically of course the House would regard a bill as containing a meritorious idea or not and voting for it at least to proceed to select committee on that basis. I tend to be a bit harsher than some others in this House. I think if the bill isn't in a sufficiently good state that there's nothing wrong with trying again. But as it happens the intent of this seemed obvious enough: to modernise—as others have said—recognising the passage of time and more importantly since 1975 the increase in technology the additional ways that data can be collected the nature of the data collection and the use of the data too. So with that initial good intent being recognised across the House with the bill having gone to select committee and having heard from a number of submitters that while its intent was shared almost universally nevertheless there were particular points that could be the subject of reservation. In the second reading reporting back essentially from that select committee to the House and indeed in the committee of the whole House stage we saw a good examination of the detail. The Minister was put through his paces and I think to give him his due he engaged with that questioning from this side of the House and the points that we were making on our own behalf but also on behalf of those who had so diligently and helpfully got in touch with members of Parliament and policy makers regarding certain reservations that they had. The Green Party member who has spoken on this bill actually I think made a really good point about the fact that the legislative process need not stop in a way even after the bill has been passed into law in the sense that we can continue the conversations—I think she might have said. Certainly it's right that we as citizens actually first and foremost and then as policy makers and MPs and Ministers from time to time should always be interested in whether the bill or the Act as it will be is working in the way that it's intended and without those unintended consequences whereby data might not be used always as it should. So while a formal review may or may not be included in a particular piece of legislation that's not to say that ongoing scrutiny and monitoring can't take place; indeed I would argue that it should. We've heard about the collection of data the use of data and the sharing of data and that's not only between Government agencies which on this side of the House we'd say—or at least speaking for the National Party—is a worthwhile thing to the extent that it allows Government to be more responsive to the needs of its citizens. From a National Party perspective our social investment approach actually demands that our Government agencies work together collaboratively to understand the needs of vulnerable people in our society particularly those whose needs can't be categorised in neat silos that equate exactly to specific Government departments and agencies. So that sharing is very important and meaningful and enabling in that sense. But we have nevertheless expressed those concerns as encouraged by others to do so about the fact that data could also be used for the purpose of research and be shared therefore with others who don't have that official stamp of approval so to speak. So balancing that with the natural interest that we have in this House of the privacy of individuals and noting that the data at a level will always belong to the person who has given it—particularly if it's not given voluntarily—and noting the obligation that is on the State therefore to use that data correctly for the purpose it's intended and therefore accord with our expectations in terms of the legislation let's continue to look at the legislation even after it's passed and consider if any further changes are needed. In the meantime however I commend the bill to the House."