Foster-Bell Paul: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionFoster-Bell Paul: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11843. Text is subject to correction.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Thank you Mr Chair. I was not tardy at all on this particular occasion.Clause 1 of the bill is of course just the title clause so I was hoping that might allow for a slightly more wide-ranging debate given that it is only one sentence and it includes the words “Official Information” “(Parliamentary Under-Secretaries)” and “Amendment Act”. So being able to take this one debatable clause is helpful because actually it is a very very difficult—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just do it.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: The issues that we do have concerns around include actually clause 4 which varies the definition of what a “Minister of the Crown” is. We heard during the selectcommittee stage some erudite observations from for instance Sir Grant Hammond the President of the Law Commission but those were in a personal capacity.Those were not made in his position as president. He was I think in between appointments at that stage or the board had not authorised him to comment officially. He was of the view this was a device that would allow the parliamentary under-secretary to come under the scrutiny of the Official Information Act (OIA).Although that might be the case it was somewhat concerning to members particularly on our side that we were varying the definition of what a “Minister of the Crown” is. It might be only for the purposes of the OIA but would this be a slippery slope? Would this open the door to others being considered for the purposes of the OIA to be a Minister of the Crown even though they are clearly not Ministers under the Cabinet Manual definition of what a Minister is? They are not members of the Executive Council of New Zealand and they enjoy none of the privileges—indeed protections—of Ministers. For instance parliamentary under-secretaries do not enjoy the honorific of “the Hon”. They may be honourable members but they do not have that titular honour.They also do not have the services for instance of the VIP Transport Service. It might be seen as something of a luxury having access to a Crown car but it is a very useful amenity for Ministers who need to have confidential conversations for instance with their officials on a cellphone in the back of the car so that they are not necessarily being overheard by taxi-drivers or other people who are not cleared to the appropriate security clearance levels.These are amenities that a parliamentary under-secretary does not enjoy yet they would have imposed upon them the criteria of the OIA not only with regard obviously to their official duties because that already is the case. The parliamentary under-secretary that we have in the current Parliament Mr Seymour is subject to the OIA in so far as he is delegated responsibilities within the education portfolio or the small business—or is it the regulatory reform portfolio? But in any case that was a concern for us because on this side of the House the other thing we take very seriously as well as transparency is also the protection of the confidentiality of constituents who might come to a member of Parliament.So having inherited the Westminster system we have here members of Parliament who also hold roles in the executive unlike other jurisdictions like the United States where there is that complete separation between the executive and the legislature. We were somewhat concerned I have to confess Mr Rurawhe that it would be possible to extend this even further or to make an argument based on the change being made here because it is a change. We have to face up to the fact that this was not the intention as expressed in clause 4 of this bill of the original drafters of the OIA.Certainly there was no evidence that was provided to the select committee and research was done by our justice ministry officials that it was the intention of those who drafted the original OIA which was a very forward-looking piece of legislation back in 1982 which was put down in the dying days of the fourth or was it the third National Government the Muldoon National Government in 1982—many years ahead of the equivalent Freedom of Information Act in the United Kingdom jurisdiction. But from when this Act was drafted clause 4 as it is laid out now is a change. It is a departure. It is not a correction. It is not bringing it back to what it should have been; this is an innovation. It is a clear change that we are making so we must understand that I believe.Similarly I think it is also necessary that we are mindful of the fact members who are parliamentary under-secretaries are also members of Parliament and we do not want this to be seen as an open door to other further innovations that could have a negative effect on for instance the ability of members of Parliament to conduct their constituency business with confidentiality for those who bring—