Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I just comment briefly the excellently chaired Governance and Administration Committee was the committee that examined the bill and the Minister says that he's got great confidence in the scrutiny by the committee. But what people watching at home may not know and what he forgot to say is that three out of the five members—i.e. a majority of the committee—are Labour members. And that's the problem with select committees particularly in the current Parliament. When the majority of members are from the same party as the Government who's putting forwards the legislation that the committee's supposed to be scrutinising you've got a problem—even with an excellent chair even with the best chair you've got a problem with that majority. The people at home may not realise the gentleman Ian McKelvie sitting in the Chair also chairs that committee but he's a hostage to several Labour members—now he wants to talk about the bill.But I just go back—Mr Chair I hope you'll keep this debate going until the Minister answers certain questions—I asked him Has he had any advice about what sort of delegations might occur?" And I said "Why don't you tell the Parliament?" did he have advice about how section 17 might be used to whom the Statistician's power might they be delegated to? They're pretty significant powers. If you were a Minister designing legislation to bring it to Parliament wouldn't you want to know? So has he had any advice about that and if he has had advice about what some examples of delegations might be then can he tell the committee what those are?Now if he hasn't had the advice and he can't tell us why doesn't he just take section 17 out and not have the delegation or better still prohibit the delegation under the Public Service Act that all chief executives can make. What he's tried to tell us is "No no no you've got it wrong section 17 is a safeguard against delegation this will be safer than other delegations under the Public Service Act." Well what he could do is simply say the powers of the Chief Statistician will not be delegated. That would be a sensible change. If he was to do that we'd avoid any loss of responsibility. The Minister has said multiple times "Oh no no it's watertight; there's criminal charges you've got all the responsibilities of the Chief Statistician if you're delegated the Chief Statistician's powers." But the problem is you only need criminal charges after there's been a failing.Actually what we're interested in is getting the right result the first time. So if there's no reason to take the risk if someone's going to have to be criminally charged for abusing delegated powers then let's not take the risk. Let's outlaw delegation of the Chief Statistician's powers unless the Minister can stand up now and say "I've had some advice and here's some good examples why it might be useful to delegate." So far all he's told us is that he wants the Chief Statistician to be able to delegate some of the strongest powers in Government because he's interested in the "theoretical possibilities"—I mean this is Mickey Mouse lawmaking. So either we rule out delegating or give some examples why it's useful. And it won't wash to say "I've already said four times that there won't be any loss of responsibility" the fact he needs criminal charges in case something goes wrong shows there could be a loss of accountability. Thank you Mr Chair.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I think it would be helpful to give the member an example because—I mean I do think it's a good question. As I've said it's a power that's unlikely to be used often—I have been clear on that. Now here's a theoretical example: another agency may be better placed to develop standards on particular issues using powers under the Act. And a good example might be standards relating to the collection of environmental another department might be best placed to do that. Now again I don't think the member with his highfalutin rhetoric—it's not enough for the member to say that there's clear lines of accountability and consequences; it's an unusual thing perhaps for a party that hits the table on law and order to say. But I don't buy into that rhetoric I do think it's important to have clear accountability and I do think it's important to have consequences if it's ever misused or abused. I think that should be laid out in the law and I don't dismiss it as lightly as the member does."