te Heuheu Georgina: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19987] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I rise to contribute to the report back. At the first reading National was pleased to support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee but we raised the point that there were some issues of concern to us. As the House will see National has a minority report in the report back. 
We certainly support the underlying principle of the bill in terms of creating a record-keeping framework for Government records. We also support the idea that it has become much more important to us as New Zealanders to make sure that we keep a proper record of our history and archives and that we properly recognise the things that are distinct and unique to us and to our identity as New Zealanders. 
But my colleagues who sat on the select committee during the submissions process found that the provisions of the bill that is now before us impose unnecessary and substantial extra costs and compliance costs on all affected parties. In particular they heard some fairly robust objections from State-owned enterprises and universities. One would have thought that universities would be the first to see the need for the provisions. They did but there is also underlying concern about the cost that will be added in terms of the record-keeping provisions. National does not support the report back for those reasons. 
In the part of the report back relating to the application of the bill to State-owned enterprises we see that the view of the State-owned enterprises was that the bill does not address the position they hold in terms of their legal and commercial obligations. They were concerned that by including them within the ambit of the bill they would have to fulfil a number of obligations that private sector companies do not face and that their ability to compete successfully would be reduced. National thinks that that is a major flaw in the bill and we ask the Government to give serious consideration to the objections that were raised. 
There is also the issue of commercial sensitivity. A number of State-owned enterprises were concerned that their inclusion in the bill would damage their ability to protect commercially sensitive material. They commented that State-owned enterprises might not be able to assure customers that sensitive commercial information would remain confidential because it could be released into the public domain after 25 years. In the scheme of things 25 years is a very short space of time. 
The other issue relates to compliance costs. Some State-owned enterprises saw that they would incur excessive compliance costs under this bill. Although they commented that good management was not a major requirement under the bill they said that it did have implications for good business practice when decisions were to be made about record-keeping. 
I was not present when the Minister gave her address which began last night and I am not altogether certain whether she addressed the concerns of the State-owned enterprises. The next speaker Dianne Yates might take it upon herself to address those issues if they have not already been addressed. I was not able to be present when the Minister spoke last evening. 
In any event National has some major concerns that bring us to the position whereby we cannot support this bill. We think that the submissions put forward by State-owned enterprises have merit and need to be considered very carefully by the Government which prides itself—wrongly I might say—on being business-friendly and on understanding the needs of business. In terms of the costs that have been added on to business since the Government’s tenure both in the previous term and in this current term this is just another impost on those organisations that we have certain commercial expectations of. That is National’s position.