Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to pick up within Part 2 some points around this notion of independence. The Minister's covered that from her perspective in terms of the value of independence. We can acknowledge that lack of interference might seem on the face of it a good thing—I'm not here to argue against that—but I do just want to test the Minister on how she would explain the balancing exercise whereby independence in some sense is the reverse of accountability. So if we look for example at new clause 16A Duty to act independently"—as proposed within the Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that relates at the moment to Part 2. So there at the second part of that we see that "A Minister of the Crown must not direct the Monitor to stop carrying out an activity or prevent the Monitor from carrying out an activity that the Monitor considers is necessary to enable them to perform or exercise their functions duties or powers under this Act." So it seems to me—and I'd be grateful if the Minister can explain; perhaps I've misunderstood—that if there's not ministerial accountability and if in fact that's precisely precluded from the operation of the monitor and we don't have an oversight in a ministerial sense then to what extent can we say that we have a system that's accountable ultimately in a political way? So it's a genuine question just how those two things can be reconciled and it might be that it's somewhere else within the bill. I'd be happy to be pointed to that if there's some sort of safety mechanism there. But on a similar note I note that within clause 12 which is about the establishment of the independent monitor of the Oranga Tamariki system we've got a note that it must be independent of the ministry. So the monitor and the ministry—they sound quite similar and that's unfortunate at this time of night as I stumble my way through the contribution. But again I'm looking at those different functions intended to be separate and to some extent that may be healthy. Others on this side of the House will probably have a more informed view than me on that because they've attended the select committee hearing and so forth but it seems to me again there's a trade-off between accountability versus independence and particularly accountability to a Minister as opposed to a ministry if we want the relevant Minister from time to time whoever that may be to be able to exercise oversight and perhaps steer the Government agency—and at the end of the day it is a Government agency—in the right direction for its activities. I'll just put that out there and I think you've encouraged us Mr Chair to ask a series of questions within our contributions so that the Minister can have a chance to reflect on those and sort of take them one by one maybe or refer to officials for advice and so forth. But the other questions I had mostly were clustered around the heading "Code of Ethics". So again within Part 2 clause 20 we read that "The Monitor must have a code of ethics relating to engagement" but there doesn't seem to be anything in here about what the consequence is if the code of ethics is to be breached. It's enough according to this clause clause 20 simply that there is a code of ethics. It doesn't actually say that the monitor is bound by them. The monitor must publish the code of ethics having developed it. It must consult certain persons. The code of ethics must include certain things and the purpose of the code of ethics is set out but it doesn't actually say that the monitor's going to be bound. And that seems to me actually a bit of a shortfall in the legislation unless again the Minister can assure the House—excuse me the committee of the whole House—and indeed the country that this has been taken care of. And also what we don't have is any consequence if the code of ethics is breached. And we know because we understand the point about independence that it's not going to be the Minister calling to account the monitor; it's not going to be the ministry either because we've heard that and discussed that. So it seems to me that there's a danger of a Clayton's code of ethics such that it's not actually going to be enforceable in any way; it's not required to be. And in practical terms if no one is to be able to hold the monitor accountable for compliance with these ethical standards then it seems to me not much point in being there. So I look forward to the Minister's comments on that and with your indulgence Mr Chair in further contributions I certainly have other questions that I would like to have the Minister answer in this part."