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:19995] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Firstly I want to acknowledge our very informative visit to Archives New Zealand and to thank the staff there for showing us around and for the lunch they put on. National appreciated that opportunity to see their operation. 
National is not opposed to the keeping of records. What we are opposed to and the reason why we are not supporting this bill—and that is in our minority report—is the inclusion of State-owned enterprises in the bill. We think that there is a clear demarcation between the role of a State-owned enterprise and what one would expect of a Government department. I think the question that needs to be answered quite clearly is whether the bill will enhance the operation of State-owned enterprises under the State-Owned Enterprises Act. 
It is our view that this bill will erode the principal objectives of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Section 4(1) of the Act states: “The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and to this end to be—(a) As profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown;”. That is the key objective of a State-owned enterprise. Yet this bill undermines that role because of the prescriptive nature of what will be required in terms of record-keeping. In fact State-owned enterprises will be both operationally and financially disadvantaged as a result of this bill’s obligations compared with private sector organisations that are not subject to such rigorous record-keeping and requirements. 
A classic example that was given to us at the Government Administration Committee relates to the energy sector. We have two privately owned operators: Contact Energy which operates geothermal power in the Taupo region; and TrustPower which operates in the Bay of Plenty. Then on the other side we have three State-owned generators two of which are in my electorate. In the North Island Genesis Power operates the Huntly power station and Mighty River Power operates the dams on the Waikato River. Meridian Energy operates in the South Island. So there we have three State-owned enterprises in the energy sector that will have to compete with two private commercial entities. [ 
Interruption 
] Well members on the Government side have no understanding about commercial sensitivities and about how those businesses operate. 
The point we make is that State-owned enterprises which operate under the State-Owned Enterprises Act will be compromised. It is quite clear they will be compromised. We heard from Meridian Energy from Mighty River Power and even from Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd—which also operates in the Piako electorate with regard to coalmines—and they were very clear in their view that State-owned enterprises would be compromised. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: How? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The bill adversely reflects on the flexibility they will have in being able to contract and undertake business in the future. 
It is our clear view that the role of State-owned enterprises is already clearly defined. The reporting procedures they have to carry out are quite intense now and I point out to members that under existing law there are enhanced reporting requirements for them compared with private sector companies. They have to provide information to their shareholders as outlined in their statements of corporate intent. That is a requirement. They are required to provide half-yearly reports to their shareholders within 2 months after the end of the first half of their financial year. Their shareholders of course are the Minister of Finance and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and they have to report quarterly to the shareholding Ministers. 
Dianne Yates 
: They do in any case. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is the point I am making. They are already doing that sort of thing so to have to keep records on top of that will add huge compliance costs and it is unnecessary. In fact there is no compliance cost impact statement in this bill and the extra costs and the extra burdens will be quite excessive unnecessarily. 
I will finish on a couple of points about what State-owned enterprises are required to do. Members on the Government side do not actually know how the corporate sector works. 
Phil Heatley 
: They don’t care. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Correct—they do not care. They want to interrupt all the time but they have never been involved in that sort of process. 
State-owned enterprises must have a draft business plan for shareholders provide half-yearly reports annual reports and auditors’ reports and table their statement of corporate intent in the House of Representatives. Their financial performances and operations are scrutinised by select committees and they have company and tax legislation reporting requirements and requirements under the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act all of which fall into that regime. Further State-owned enterprises are monitored by the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit so that there are actually no surprises in the approach of that unit to State-owned enterprises. 
National’s view is very clear. We are not opposed to record keeping but we are opposed to the excessive burden that will be placed on State-owned enterprises when they are in the marketplace. They are there as the State-Owned Enterprise Act states to be competitive in their markets—especially the energy sector—but now all those extra requirements will be burdens on them in the way they do business. At the end of the day costs will go up and consumers will pay and that is the point we have already expressed. 
So the question that needs to be asked is why all records and documents produced by commercial companies should be kept for 25 years and we also question whether such records and documents produced by commercial companies are of such a nature to warrant placing them in the public archive. It is our view that State-owned enterprises with all the other requirements currently placed on them should be exempt from that requirement. 
Another area which has not been mentioned this morning is in relation to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. I will quote from a document that was tabled at the select committee because I think it shows just how stupid this whole thing will be. It states: “The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act of 2004 has major implications for access to the following types of records.” It mentions a number of them about 10 but I will not say what they are. It goes on: “The above records could potentially contain the names of peoples whose convictions have been clean-slated. We will not be able to allow access to them. The new Act means that people who currently have access letters can no longer view these records. Only records 100 years old or more remain open except for all records of trials and punishments which have a blanket restriction irrespective of age under the Archives Act of 1957. People can obtain a transcript of an individual register entry less than 100 years old if it is their own record and they can provide photo ID and if they can provide a copy of the death certificate of the person they are researching.” 
So there we have an example under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. No one has mentioned before that some provisions of that Act will not be applicable and that some records will not be accessible under this legislation. National is opposing this bill.