SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. Look statistically the chances of me speaking on this bill were almost zero until about 30 seconds ago and then it went from a statistical relevance of zero to obviously a statistical relevance of now one. Therefore I am speaking. Data-wise I think it's really important—exceptionally important—for the House to understand that this is the first time I've had the privilege and honour to speak on this Data and Statistics Bill. And because we are talking data it's important to know that while this is my first time being the third reading in the House it will also be my last which may be a prediction of my political future—who knows! I hope other people on the other side don't look so enthusiastic!Joking aside we are of course at the third reading of this Data and Statistics Bill. It is not a bill without controversy which is somewhat surprising. One would think and other members in the House on both sides have indicated that you would think a bill on data and statistics would be relatively straightforward. Some of the early controversies were actually just noted by the previous speaker Ingrid Leary who sat down noting I think in a slight way that this bill being 45 years of age was a bad thing. As someone who is just above 45 years of age I take that slightly offensively! Some things at 45 46 aren't too bad! But she is right: this bill is well overdue—well overdue—a review and I do want to acknowledge the Minister David Clark for his work although it has been I think appropriately raised that the depth and knowledge of the bill sometimes was lacking which in turn has given some lack of surety to the House.It's probably important to note that National is supporting this bill and I will touch on some of those reasons as we go through. But fundamentally data and statistics in themselves are what I'd term as something that is amoral. They don't come with any particular bias prejudice or other. It's how they're used and I think that's probably a very quick and important distinction to make. Collecting the data how it's collected and so forth—that's relatively if you will straightforward. This bill has run into trouble simply because of how it is going to be used. I think actually there's been really good debate with in many ways the House showing its quality over the last few days as we've discussed this to actually tease out what exactly this bill intends to do. Despite some short calls by some in the House I think it's relatively useful that not only the Minister through committee stage in particular but members are putting very very clearly on to Hansard the intention and importantly the interpretation of this bill.Fundamentally the data collected is at the service of all New Zealanders. It is not to become at the service of particular Government departments to serve any Government of the day—and I want to really stress that: any Government of the day. So this is not trying to play a partisan line. It applies as equally to the National Party when it retakes the Treasury benches next year as it does to—statistically quite a high probability. Quite a high probability. I'm trying to be generous tonight. I'm not going to give those statistics. The data's looking pretty good too! But no sorry bad humour aside this is not about Labour National left or right; it's fundamentally how that data is used. Rightly it has been pointed out that several well-known people including a previous Government Statistician obviously the Council of Civil Liberties—so it'll be Thomas Beagle and crew—have raised serious and genuine concerns. I want to say to them from the National Party side that we've heard those. We've thought about those. We've interrogated those. It's our belief that we are still in the right space with this law that the necessary checks and balances are in place.Look fundamentally it's all coming down to how the Government Statistician can delegate their powers. It's probably important for people to understand at home again that the collection of data is one thing. There are of course ethics around that. How then that data is used does become fundamentally important and I suppose we've become somewhat used to if not complacent that the statistics held by the department are firewalled separated at a certain degree of distance from any Government of the day from any agency. The delegation the ability of the Government Statistician to hand that data over to share that data in some way—that has been in operation as I understand it and happy to be corrected particularly by a fulsome 10-minute call from the Government benches. I think it's always best to put out a lot of data statistically to achieve a 10-minute call. But it would be really really useful for people to understand that actually since I think 2013 we've had the ability—or the Government Statistician has had the ability—to share the data.Look I'm not going to be able to interrogate this at length but I think most people at home would understand that of course the data being collected is not simply done for itself. I mean that would make no sense whatsoever. So when we think of the likes of the Census or the Household Labour Force Survey and so forth that is always being shared in some way or form. It's about setting the protocols in place. As I say we on this side of the House—and obviously along with Government because we are both supporting it—do believe that sufficient protocols the right protocols the right interpretation of this legislation is in place.Really importantly if I was to put on my foreign affairs defence trade and other hats on—from the past I might add—the place of this statistical data and its use by our security intelligence services is a particularly sensitive area. I know that's been addressed. It's one I will always remain nervous about and I do want to make it clear that's not a particular reflection on our security agencies and our intelligence agencies—enormous amount of respect for the work that they do and lead. But there's always always a nervousness when data is being shared particularly in that space. But again from the National Party side we believe that the interpretation of how this bill should operate is sufficient.But I suppose that comes again with two points. One we do want to make abundantly clear into Hansard into the written record of this Parliament and consequently to the judiciary if it reaches that of what we understand this bill to mean; and secondly to indicate—well in the committee stage my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse put through a couple of Supplementary Order Papers. I'm not going to relitigate them. They were exceptionally good—really really good. Disappointingly but again statistically expected—I made a lot of money off this bet—the Labour Party voted them all down which is a bit of a pity. Fortunately—fortunately—while materially important they weren't sufficiently so that we had to drop them or drop our support of the bill. So that's just important to note there.Look a couple of other points. Again it comes down to delegation just to give some surety particularly to people listening at home. The delegation of powers is discussed in this legislation but also the State Sector Act of—was it 1998? No 1988—another famous year for various reasons. It also makes it really clear what Government agencies can and cannot delegate out. So that's really important including that it must be published—or again that's my understanding. In other words in the worst case scenario—well actually there are really bad worst case scenarios one could ponder. But in the general case of the day or the week if the Government Statistician was choosing to share the information in some shape or form that has to be advertised which of course provides a degree of transparency for us.There's been lots of discussion and debate around research how this could be used for research. The overall goal I certainly think is a positive one. That's a personal reflection. I'm always very very supportive of researchers as various ones know around the country. If they ever want to talk about politics or our constitutional structure or I don't know China—anyone want to come and talk to me about that in a few days? Go for it. Just a quick aside. But actually importantly research still needs to be governed by some structures and importantly the way that the Government Statistician is able to if she or he chooses to give out this information is very very clearly spelt out in the legislation and importantly that it has to be for the public interest. That's just a small illustration of how the interpretation works. It's not for the interests of the academics. It's not for the interests of the researcher. It's to be in the public interest. In other words this information collected by the Crown—notice I say the Crown" not "the State". Statistically the use of "State" is erroneously used 100 percent of the time in this the Realm of New Zealand. But as again a side note the public interest must come into play. Anyway I have used almost all my time which statistically is somewhat appreciated but being generous because this is a statistical and data bill I'd like to gift at least six seconds to the House."