edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendment to clause 34 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to. All those in favour say aye to the contrary no.Hon Members: No.Jan Logie: Aye. Ayes have it. Party vote.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I didn't hear an aye.Jan Logie: Oh sorry. Aye.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No I'm sorry. I believe we've moved on.Jan Logie: Point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hang on. Let me just—we'll sort this. Thank you for your indulgence committee of the whole House. The member may seek leave to cast a proxy vote for the Māori Party.Jan Logie: I seek leave to cast a proxy for Te Paati Māori.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection. Appears to be none.Jan Logie: Point of order. I'm sorry. Thank you. Just my notes I've got tabled amendment one and tabled amendment two and I'm not clear what we're voting on.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is and I did put the question and I will read it again. I'm not putting it again but I'll read it out for the member: that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to. There is another for the member's information. There is another question to be put on behalf of that member. This is the first one of those.Jan Logie: Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. If you could help me in clarifying I don't have which parts amend—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. No that is not a point of order. I suggest the member just waits. Members I'm going to put the question again and for clarity the question I'm putting on behalf of the member relates to deleting references to research". The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 12ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendments to clause 34 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.Part 3 agreed to."
Data and Statistics Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Data and Statistics Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendments to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 2Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 117New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected to add Te Paati Māori votes after originally being announced as unanimous.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 44New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 12ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Data and Statistics Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
Salesa JennyREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Data and Statistics Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has considered the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill and reports no progress. The committee has also considered the Plant Variety Rights Bill and reports it with no progress at the moment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.
Salesa JennyTHREE STRIKES LEGISLATION REPEAL BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 (continued)SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I want to start broad and then get quite specific including addressing some of the views of the Minister. The first point to make is that everyone has views. It's rather presumptuous to say that therefore they are the facts. The problem we have when we're discussing this three strikes legislation is the contradiction between growing crime including violent crime and this bill which is removing one of the ways of exacting consequences and increasing consequences on recidivist and violent in particular criminals. I think the first point particularly for listeners at home is to understand that three strikes does not apply to the young kid stealing a sausage or some lollies. This is serious violent offending and my colleague Paul Goldsmith noted the robbery today in his Epsom electorate. The Minister may or may not know that in my electorate in Tāmaki we've had multiple—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress on this bill.House resumed.
Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
Voting — Correction—Data and Statistics Bill
Salesa JennyVOTINGCorrection—Data and Statistics BillCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before we go on I just need to correct the vote on the last bill the Data and Statistics Bill. On the question that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to the result was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 2 and Noes 117. The correct vote is Ayes 12 and Noes 107.
Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Salesa JennyTHREE STRIKES LEGISLATION REPEAL BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. I remind members that you are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also be able to use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that you can refresh the House Papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it will be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if you'd like to have them for the member in charge during their call to respond. Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 10 "Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002" and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): In response to Joseph Mooney's question—and the succinctness of my answer should not be interpreted in any way as dismissing it—very carefully" I think is the answer. He's outlined the problem I think—a challenge facing modern societies—and I am convinced that the protections and the awareness is there but you know I think that's the answer. Technologies will change and we do need to be careful. The framework laid out here is designed to do that.I do want to go back to the point raised by Melissa Lee just regarding search warrants. She asked for some further clarification and I think it's useful for the committee to hear a little bit more about that. I agree with the member. The power supports the ability of the Statistician to make mandatory requests for data for official statistics from businesses and that data informs some of our most significant statistics like the Consumers Price Index as an example. It can only be exercised with the consent of an authorised person or after Stats NZ has obtained a warrant from a judge or other court. It's not a power that's used lightly. The member asked when this was last used. I'm advised that people who've been around a wee while are not aware of it ever having been used. But it is there because it backs up the requirement to comply with requests for data. I'm sure the member and other members in this House would agree that the likes of the Consumers Price Index are incredibly important economic indicators that we would want to see collected.The reality is that Stats NZ collects data by consent. It doesn't want to be in a position of being an enforcement agency; it wants to do it through having good relationships and that is how things work. None the less having a regulatory backstop effectively is a good idea. It's the old story about policing by consent. If the police are pushing things through they can lose the support of the public unless they're doing it with the will of the public and in a way that fulfils the purposes and people can see fulfils the purposes. They want the relationship and they work hard in my observations of Stats NZ to build relationships; for example—and the member has raised questions around this before—around the census building relationships with the communities. I know Rachel Boyack my colleague who was here earlier sitting behind me and is now a wee way across has raised questions about the relationship that Stats NZ has with minority-pocketed communities around our regions and making sure that those are being developed for the purposes of Census data collection.Mandatory powers only achieve so much but here they are to underscore the importance of this and to encourage or backup the requirement to comply with the request. I do thank the member for that question."
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Please excuse me if I actually sound a little obtuse on this one but I'm baffled as to why there is actually a search warrant for collection of data. Obviously I wasn't in the Chamber when different Parts were actually discussed maybe I've missed it but perhaps the Minister could illuminate me.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you. As I just briefly outlined these powers go back to basically 1910 in New Zealand. This is a modernisation of the current Act and this whole Part I would note is quite a reorganisation a modernisation but that particular set of powers is long existing for the purposes of ensuring robust statistics.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Just on this I note that the Statistician or the issuing officer can issue a search warrant if they believe there are reasonable grounds in believing it's necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Statistician to produce official statistics so I'd just like the Minister just to clarify that. It's very clear here as I read it but I just want to confirm that the purpose of exercising a search warrant can only be to obtain data for official statistics and not for research purposes although I would appreciate the Minister clarifying a little bit that definition all the way back in clause 6 which we didn't quite get which is data includes information". And that seems to be a very broad definition. So I will just ask how tightly exercised the Minister expects this power of entry and inspection to be used and for what purposes.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The fact that the definition of data includes information is a point that the member has raised before and I haven't directly addressed it so I do want to acknowledge that and address it now. There are lots of points you're following up on and sometimes you miss one. The information relates back to the Official Information Act so it makes the link back. So it's not a great expansion or anything like that—sorry the Privacy Act; sorry I said Information Act didn't I? The Privacy Act please excuse me. So it's a clarification and provides protections effectively."
Salesa JennyPart 6 Offences and enforcementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 6. Part 6 is the debate on clauses 57 to 89 the offences and enforcement clauses. The question is that Part 6 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Part 6 is the part that deals with offences and enforcement and I'm comparing Part 6 of the bill with Part 5 of the Statistics Act 1975 which we're replacing. Subpart 1 of the bill talks about powers of entry and inspection. Clause 57 gives the Statistician quite a bit of power to enter businesses or individual dwellings—sorry not private dwellings I should qualify—but require persons to produce data issue of search warrants by an authorised officer an issuing officer and it refers to data obtained using power of entry.In the 1975 Act at Part 5 which is the equivalent part on offences and penalties there doesn't appear to be any reference to powers of entry and the issuing of search warrants. So my question to the Minister is: are these powers of entry and search warrant new powers that don't exist in the existing legislation and if the answer to that question is yes given these are quite strong powers what problem are we trying to solve and why are we giving the Statistician and issuing officers such strong powers of entry and inspection?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The powers of entry and inspection are a modernisation of section 35 of the existing Act. The power has existed in statistics legislation in various forms since 1910. I think that probably answers the member's question.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I move That the question be now put.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to speak on clause 39 Statistician authorised to publish or otherwise disclose certain data". Subclause (1) says "The Statistician must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Statistician does not publish or otherwise disclose data in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify any individual or organisation." One of the things that appeared on my desk was an article that the Government was looking to filter the internet. So how may the new data—if I may ask the Minister if he could address this concern—captured under this data and stats bill impact the Government's plans to filter the internet and can the Government give assurances that the information captured under this bill is actually not going to be used to potentially prosecute or filter a specific person's internet content? Could the Minister actually address that?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I hesitate to say—we have canvassed the protection of data a number of times in the debate. The member's referring to Subpart 5 of the previous part of the bill rather than Part 5 which we're on now but I would stress for the member—in the spirit of her question—that the protection of data is paramount in this bill. And Part 5 absolutely goes to that issue so I think the broad issue is there and that is the issue we're debating."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I thank the Minister for that explanation. Just the second question: I'd ask if the Minister could just address regarding clause 52 the considerations of overseas persons accessing data and the point that they will not be subject to New Zealand's law in particular New Zealand's Privacy Act. So what confidence can people have that data collected by various agencies for the Statistician and provided to persons overseas will be protected despite those persons not being subject to New Zealand's laws—and you know recognising the point that once data is in the wild it can be very difficult to pull it back? So there obviously needs to be quite significant protective measures around that.I note that a number of measures have been put in place here but what confidence can the Minister provide and what confidence can people have that that information that does go overseas won't be used in ways that are unanticipated? And how can any persons or organisations overseas who access and use that data be held to account if they use it in ways that aren't contemplated by the Statistician who provides it to them?
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister a question around clause 47. In respect of data that is collected under section 22(c)(i) for research clause 47(2) states that that data that's collected for research must not be used for the purposes of the production of official statistics unless—(a) the Minister approves the use of the data for the production of official statistics;".I would be interested to know whether the Minister has an obligation to advise the individuals or organisations who are affected by that decision by the Minister to approve the use of the data—which has been collected for research then being used for official statistics—of the change of status of their data that has been collected from them for a specified purpose under the Act."
SpeechPart 4 Official statisticsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 4 the debate on clauses 43 to 47 Official statistics. The question is that Part 4 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): This part may not be the longest debate but it's actually probably one of the most important parts of the legislation because Part 4 sets out the manner and nature of the production of official statistics. Ultimately the collection of the data is the means to an end. The end is the production of information useful for decision making and that's laid out in Part 4. Before I go on to talk about my proposed amendment to this bill as set out in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 198 I want to draw I guess another inconsistency to the committee and that is again the Minister's powers where he claims that the chief Statistician has this statutory independence albeit at clause 44 in Part 4 the Minister has very strong powers to direct the Statistician and in this case it's on the production or the ceasing of production of statistics. The Minister may direct the Statistician to produce statistics. The Statistician must comply with that direction and the Statistician must give public notice of any direction the Minister has given him. And so it again kind of undermines the Minister's claim that the chief Statistician is so independent of the executive that he has the power now to postpone a census for 20 months but can't produce data or would need to stop producing data at the Minister's whim.The concern I have—and I think largely Part 4 is in reasonably good shape—goes to the question of the reporting the public disclosure of certain decisions that have been made about information that may have been provided or delegated and the reporting requirements that are laid out in clauses 46 53 54 and 56. All of those clauses essentially say the Statistician must publish information about things like the persons to whom official statistics have been made available what official statistics have been made available and the purposes for which the official statistics have been made available and any conditions imposed but it's all right; the Statistician can just do that in a summary form. I worry about that term summary form". I think actually when we're talking about the public disclosure of information that has been provided by New Zealanders for publication that the public are actually entitled to know a bit more than just a summary of what the Statistician has done. So my SOP 198 actually removes the ability of the Government Statistician to publish the required information in summary form and requires him to be a bit more fulsome with the New Zealand public about how where and to whom data has been provided."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister just to expand a little bit on the comments around the Privacy Commissioner and this bill. So I note that the acting Privacy Commissioner made the comment that the bill should more carefully spell out the relation between the bill and the Privacy Act. I'm just wondering what the Minister's views are on how that's expressed in this bill—that relationship between the Privacy Act and this bill and the collection powers in this bill. I also note that the commissioner suggested that this bill fails to allow for redress when people are harmed by the release of personal information and recommended that in such a circumstance the bill should provide a right for individuals to complain to the Privacy Commissioner. I'm just interested in whether the Minister thinks that should be in this bill or if it shouldn't be why not?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The right to complain to the Privacy Commissioner exists beyond this bill. So this bill does not restrict that. That right exists and I think it's important to put that on the record for the House so I thank the member for that question. In terms of incorporating advice from the Privacy Commissioner along the way there was a close working relationship between the officials at Stats NZ and the Privacy Commissioner and many of the aspects and things that are included in the bill come from that fruitful engagement and mirror in fact ways in which the Privacy Commissioner operates and mirrors their legislation.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No this is a substantial part of the bill. I am still hearing new material. There are a number of amendments and Supplementary Order Papers proposed so I am keeping a very close eye on proceedings.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Can the Minister elucidate: is he saying that the Treaty of Waitangi requires the Government of New Zealand to put special provisions to engage with Māori over and above what they do for every other New Zealander who is not Māori?
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I repeat my question to the Minister which he's refused to engage with. He said he wouldn't talk about clause 15 because it was in the wrong part. Clause 15 requires the Statistician to engage early and meaningfully with Māori. I simply asked why not do that with everybody—people of all backgrounds. As it turns out engagement with Māori on census in clause 35 which is in this part requires basically the same thing just with respect to census. It's not hard to find these clauses. They are in every part of the bill we've debated so far.So given that the Minister has committed to debating sections that are in the part currently before the committee can he please explain why we have clause 35 and why we're not committed to work with and meaningfully engage with New Zealanders of all backgrounds whether they're Middle Eastern Latin American and African; whether they're Pacific people who face many social and economic challenges; whether they're Asian New Zealanders who have a distinct culture; or whether they're European New Zealanders many of whom face hard times and could do with rigorous statistical engagement? Why are we emphasising engagement with Māori above all others in this legislation? Why do we not require the statistics department to engage with all? Hon Members: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No I—the Minister was seeking a call yeah? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I guess just to cover off the member's point again: the Treaty obligations that are included in the bill.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister Part 3 which we're debating now is concerning the collection of data and something that this bill does is it diffuses the powers of the Government Statistician to others who the Statistician delegates those powers to. So not only the Government Statistician but other chief executives to whom those powers have been delegated may request information. And so there's quite a significant diffusion of those powers in this bill. Now the second thing is that there's a significant change in terms of the collection of data to produce official statistics or desirable for research. So these powers would be delegated to chief executives and then they will need to determine whether they are requesting data produce official statistics or desirable for research which they have a power to do under clause 26. So a public sector agency may request the data on behalf of the Statistician from an individual public sector agency or organisation if the individual public sector agency or organisation is in a position to provide it." My question is: what oversight is there going to be to ensure that this diffusion of powers and this broad change to request data for official statistics or for research is done appropriately as these powers are delegated and the powers of this Government Statistician are quite broadly distributed across different public sector agencies?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you Madam Chair. The member again comes back to the delegations. I think this is the sixth time I've rehearsed these points. I still think they're important so I'm going to say them again. Look the Government Statistician is accountable for every decision made by a delegate. The idea of diffusion of responsibility here somewhere is just not relevant. The bill hardwires on the legal obligations regarding independence and confidentiality which apply to any delegate and it is a criminal offence to wrongly obtain data while acting as a delegate of the Government's Statistician which is in clause 79 of the bill.I repeat these things many times because it applies to all of these different sections and the member is I appreciate trying to test where the different parts of the Act may lead to a different outcome but I think we have to fundamentally come back to that delegation principle which is hardwired into the Act."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. In response to the Minister's assessment that I was somehow undermining or challenging the independence of the chief statistician nothing could be further from the case. He goes on to say Well there are always statistics that are being produced that may cause political embarrassment." I agree with that. That's not the point. The point of the delay of the census is that there will not be adequate data collected in the census that will enable any sort of conclusions to be drawn much less political embarrassment to be reached.It is quite rich for the Minister as Mr Seymour said to score an own goal by admitting that six months after they took office they went ahead with a census that they thought was not ready to go and then blamed the previous Government. That's not good enough. Actually the things that are a concern to the Minister now and that is in particular social economic groups and ethnic groups—Māori and Pasifika particularly who may be reluctant to participate in Census 2023—were actually reluctant to participate in Census 2018 and that had nothing to do with COVID. I think the Māori response rate to the census was 63 percent. That is far below the level that would be required to draw meaningful conclusions from the data collected and it had to be backfilled with administrative data which makes it inherently unreliable in my view.Simon O'Connor: What percentage again?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Sixty-three percent Mr O'Connor was the rate. They've had five years to fix that and there has been a pandemic—I grant the Government that—but we're well past the point I think where we should be blaming COVID for everything. The Government needs to—David Seymour: They're starting to blame the next disaster.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well that's right—he's already anticipating that. Look that's the point of my amendment—these things can happen. We know that because we had an earthquake to deal with. But the idea that the Government Statistician should be so independent as to commit the Crown to about $80 million of extra cost in his own decision to delay the census actually takes independence far too far. The strong convention—and the reason we're even debating this in the House—is that when and how censuses are held is a matter set out in primary legislation. We're debating the very point that the Parliament is giving the requirement to conduct a census next year and to simply tag on "unless a public sector official"—who's not accountable to the public—"decides that we're not ready for it" that's OK!I'm saying it's not OK and that's not a slight on the Government Statistician; it's a slight on the Government. Put the four criteria in give the Minister the responsibility that he should have and the House has to make the decision based on the advice of the Statistician and engage the public on why. That's what a sensible responsible and transparent Government would do."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. This debate was going so well until the Minister started talking about which Government was competent—inadvertently some would say incompetently admitting that his Government ran a census with a framework that wasn't fit for purpose which is something of an own goal. Look I mean nobody's been asked—Hon Peeni Henare: It was already set by the previous Government.DAVID SEYMOUR: Hey Peeni Henare is saying something that I can't hear behind his mask. I mean Peeni Henare nobody's been asking about the statistics for the importation of mountain bikes or the number of times people move house in this debate so let's just keep it civil folks.I actually do want the Minister to address the question I asked about clause 15. Why does this law say that the principles of engagement by the Statistician for Māori say that engagement with Māori must begin early and be meaningful. It's not good enough to say—Hon Dr David Clark: Point of order Mr Chairperson. This has already been canvassed that this part of a previous part of the bill. The member continues to raise clauses that are not in the part being debated—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you. David Seymour I've just assumed the Chair so if he could direct his comments and his questions to the Minister on Part 3 of the bill which is the part we are considering.DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah well the only reason for raising it is that we were unable to get on to that topic in the previous part. If the Minister doesn't want to answer it then he doesn't have to. But it is part of the bill and it would be helpful for him to address it for the goodwill of the public and their understanding of the law being made even if we weren't able to debate it earlier.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. The comment the Minister made right at the end made reference to sort of the legal interpretation and that's the lens through which I'm looking at this. I don't have any doubt that the Minister's intentions have been made clear to this House and that may even be helpful but when we're passing black-letter law and a judge or a lawyer is then required to interpret what the law was that was passed we need to make really sure we've got it right. Because if there is a refusal to provide information it seems to me that the statistician can—and I refer the Minister to his own reference actually in clause 29 which is entitled Obligation to comply with request". So if the statistician asks for it it can't be declined because there's an obligation to comply with the request in the manner—"must provide the data by the date and in the manner and form specified in the request". The question really is: does paragraph (c) also apply even though a request has not been made under section 23 or 26 and if so why do we need the clause? Because the way I'm reading this and the way I think a lawyer would read this is if the Statistician makes a request under paragraphs (a) and (b) of 22 clause 29 says there's an obligation to comply with it when the request is made under section 23 or 26. But even if the request hasn't been made under section 23 or 26 paragraph (c) of clause 22 says "if the Statistician considers the data necessary or desirable to enable the Statistician to produce official statistics or desirable for research under Part 5". What the Minister has said is that the key word in that request is "may" but the word "may" refers to the actions of the statistician not the response by the person being asked for the data right? So the Statistician may ask for it but it doesn't say anywhere that the person being asked may decline the request—in fact quite the opposite. It's very strongly implied that the Statistician may collect data under this clause. Despite Dr Clark's repeated assertions that this is not a mandatory collection of data for research my reading of clause 22 is very much that. Now and this is the point that I was making in Part 1 which is where is the clause that says data is not mandatory? I don't think there is one. A way to fix that would be to delete the words "or desirable for research under Part 5". Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Again just to clarify clause 22 simply enables the statistician to collect data for official stats and research. A request isn't made under clause 22. It's not where the—it doesn't describe the requests being made. It's an enabling clause. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Just briefly I couldn't agree more with the Minister but that's not what I was saying. In fact I did say that as well. This is a "may" for the statistician. The question isn't whether the Statistician may collect data. The question is what is the obligation on the person being asked for the data? My reading of this clause very much so is that he may collect it for research purposes and it must be complied with. That's the point."
SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek the leave of the committee to correct the record for the voting on tabled amendment No. 2 by Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to correct it to: Te Paati Māori two votes in favour.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave is requested for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The vote will be corrected.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Mr Chair you're absolutely right. However I would also add that a motion on the part is usually put without a closure motion when there are no competing bids for the call—and there were at least four people on their feet seeking to continue to discuss Part 2. Therefore a closure motion would have been appropriate.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): So my ruling was simply based on the fact that the last three speakers spent more time talking about the speaker than they had about the motion.The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.
SpeechDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Mr Chairperson. I may be a bit new to this relative to you but don't we have to have a motion that the question be put? CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): No we don't.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Statistics is very important and the way we actually collect and the way we make sure that the people's data stays safe is something that people feel very passionate about. I think some of the questions that I have are going to be in Part 3 so I'll save it for that. But something that popped up is in Part 2 clause 13 Functions of Statistician" which says "to guide and direct best practice in the production and communication of official statistics". Considering the fact that the Minister basically has the power to direct us to Statistics New Zealand and specify the Government's data and statistical priorities and looking at the function of trying to communicate official statistics with New Zealand's population I'm wondering if the Minister could actually answer how he is going to improve the practice of this to the communities who are digitally excluded when we have a census that is actually carried out online. There are plenty of people who can't actually participate when they don't have connectivity. How are the communications going to be extended to people who speak a language that is other than English as a first language? For people who are blind is there a Braille option in terms of the statistics information? Are we improving our dissemination of statistics information?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you Mr Chair. The member refers of course to clause 13(d) and at one level this is a question for the Government Statistician but here we are debating the bill so it's appropriate to address it I think at least in passing and to acknowledge that this is the independent function of the Statistician. They have to look to best practice in this regard. I think my observation and reflection is that Statistics New Zealand is very focused on how it can do this better and how it can collect data more effectively for official statistics through the census process and very focused on how to do that more effectively to reach communities that simply weren't well reached in the previous census. This is something that there is layers of governance across. A lot of it is focused on collecting good census information from people who are digitally excluded.So I appreciate there's going to be a good fulsome debate—and here's a good time to advertise it—this afternoon on this matter and I know the member's bringing the debate to the House this afternoon. So it's a good time to begin rehearsing some of the conversations that will happen there. But ultimately it's the responsibility of the Government Statistician to discern what best practice is and to guide the production and communication of official statistics in that respect."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a relief to see you there. Look I just wondered if we could just get the Minister to be totally clear about what he just said. So he's putting in place a new power for the chief statistician to delegate the considerable powers of the chief statistician to anybody but he doesn't think it'll be used very often and he's not able to give the committee a single example of hypothetically how it might be used. Now I want the Minister to put on record that he's been involved in drafting and designing this legislation putting together this policy and at no time can he tell the committee at no time can he tell Parliament at no time has he ever had suggested to him ever had any advice about what sort of example there might be for delegating a power under this Act. Is he really telling us he decided he'd put it in there just for in his words a theoretical possibility"? If he has had advice and it has included examples of somebody that power might be delegated to then I want him to tell us (a) has he had any advice and (b) if he has what were the examples? On the other hand if he's never had any advice about how this new power might hypothetically be used then why is it in there and will he take it out?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): What I would note is that while the current Act doesn't contain this delegation in it the Public Service Act applies anyway. So this is making it explicit that that power applies. It's also true that that has then enabled a clear explanation about the publishing of information of any delegations to have transparency and that was something that the Privacy Commissioner sought so that there would be transparency around any powers that were being delegated in this respect."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to return to the answer that the Minister gave to my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse about mandatory requests for information or data. My question is: the issue he said was that in the case of the Statistician wanting to get data on truancy for instance from schools—going to the Ministry of Education and the ministry refusing that request. There's obviously some data that is mandatory and some data that is not mandatory and I suppose this comes back to the question of research that Mr Seymour and Mr Woodhouse have been talking about. So my question is: under what circumstances is a Government agency or organisation required to provide the information to the Statistician—I presume that would relate to the preparation of statistics as defined in the bill—and where is it clear that it's not mandatory for certain other information? The reason I'm just raising that is just in reference to clause 11 that the Minister's just been talking about there may be occasions where there is a change that the Government or the Minister requires the Statistician to provide new additional data or statistical priorities as set out in 11(a) which in that case might mean that we do want to get the truancy information from the Ministry of Education. At what point and what would the process be that it would enable the Statistician to require the Ministry of Education to require that data? So just the clarity around when and under what process is it mandatory and how is that power exercised; and when is it not mandatory and discretionary?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I want to be helpful to the member. We have canvassed this debate a few times already. Properly and fully this debate belongs in Part 3 which we'll come to next. We're debating the bill clause by clause so we are doing a fairly in-depth play on each of these things. Part 3 canvasses that entirely so I think I would prefer to respond in Part 3 where that debate can be had again and more fully.
SpeechPart 2 Roles and responsibilitiesHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Clause 13 of Part 2 talks about the functions of the Statistician and the first function of the Statistician is to collect data in accordance with this Act." It's a somewhat circular clause because the purpose of the Act is in Part 1. So if we are in a somewhat cloudy area about what the purpose of the Act is then it's important I think to reconcile clause 13 with clause 3. Now in clause 13(c) I think we get some clarity about the research which is "access to data for research [is allowed] in accordance with section 48:" but the collection of data is in accordance with the Act overall. And as we have established and haven't yet had rejected or refuted the purpose of the Act is to collect data for research. So I have two questions. The first is the question that I asked in Part 1—it's still relevant here—and that is: if as the Minister said last night the Statistician can only make mandatory requests for data for official statistics and not for research where in the bill is that made clear? Secondly in respect of I think quite a helpful contribution around the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) in that the IDI is a database for research and I stand to be corrected but I'm almost certain that what the Minister basically said is the contribution—to my comment that if it's voluntary it doesn't need to be subject to a legal framework in the response the Minister said "Well it is voluntary but it does need to be subject to the law." So my question is this—it's hypothetical but it's very relevant. Let's say for argument's sake that the Statistician goes to the Ministry of Education and says "We'd like all your data on school attendance anonymised and put into with a unique identifier." and the Ministry of Education says "No thanks; we're not going to give you that data." Does the Statistician have the power to say to the Ministry of Education "Too bad you've got to give it to us."? That makes it mandatory and that makes it mandatory for research because it's going into the IDI. It wasn't collected under the Data and Statistics Act when it's passed. It was collected probably under the Education Act but it's being pulled into the IDI under this Act which the Minister has just said that's not mandatory for research. So I want to know—and I know the answer; I've been a Minister around a table that's discussed the IDI at some length—does the Statistician have the power to go to the Ministry of Education in that scenario and say "Too bad Jack. You've got to give us that data."?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The answer to the member's question is no and he does appreciate that in that case the Government Statistician cannot."
SpeechDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Madam Chair. I don't think I've ever seen in a committee stage a presiding officer put a question after the first closure motion while there were multiple members making a call. This is a bill that has attracted widespread and deep expert criticism. There were several more clauses that had not been debated that I know members wanted to move on to. You've taken a closure motion while there were people calling to add more to the debate and I urge you to allow us to actually fulsomely debate this issue. Otherwise I think members on this side will have to ask for the Speaker to be recalled—it's a serious matter.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. The member should be well aware that an ability to accept a closure motion by the presiding officer rests entirely with the presiding officer. To suggest otherwise I think calls for disorder of the House. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to the point of order. I guess you could put it down to inexperience but you can question a ruling without questioning that it's their right to make it. I haven't questioned the presiding officer's right to make the ruling; I just think in this instance it's the wrong one. When the member's a bit more experienced he might learn that members are actually allowed to comment on the proceedings of the House. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Speaking to the point of order the Minister the Hon Dr David Clark and then I will be making a ruling. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Speaking to the point of order. Yep I will leave the member's condescension to one side but I do think that we have had a fulsome debate somewhat repetitious and getting into the detail of clauses that members were interested in. There has been plenty of opportunities for new clauses to be debated but members have chosen to focus in on certain areas. We have chosen not to have closure motions on this side of the House because we also believe in a fulsome debate but when the material does start to get repetitious of course we reserve the right to bring a closure motion because there's business to get on with in the House.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will now make my comments because there's been a lot of point of orders and further points of order on this issue. I was actually on this seat last night when this bill began to be discussed and I've just counted how many calls I've taken and how long we have actually taken to discuss just Part 1 of this bill—this is a seven-part bill. We have debated Part 1 for over two hours. So one of the reasons why I actually accepted the closure motion was that we have discussed it for a long time. It is clear to me that there is no agreement in terms of the debate here. There are substantial parts that we will be discussing in Part 3 and I've accepted the closure motion. We shall now move to Part 2.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move That the question be now put.