SpeechPart 3 Collection of data and statistical confidentialityCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 22 to 42 Collection of data and statistical confidentiality". The question is that Part 3 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'm in something of a dilemma because I've a very high regard for the Minister in the chair Dr David Clark. That said he may not be able to answer the questions that I've got. Before I go on to the substance of my question in Part 3 which may need to be repeated in a later call can I just touch briefly on the ad hominem defence of the Governance and Administration Committee to which Mr Seymour interjected he didn't agree that—he didn't have faith in the committee and I interjected I agreed and I was a member of that committee. It's not only because the committee has a Labour majority. It's because making law is a very very messy kind of sausage factory process of which the committee of the whole House is a really important part. So the fact that the committee did a good job should not detract from the questions and the analysis that we're doing now to which I would go to Part 3 clause 22 paragraph (c) because what we've established in Parts 1 and 2 from the Minister is in his words there is no mandatory ability for the Statistician to collect data for the purposes of research. He answered my question correctly in the hypothetical scenario of whether the Statistician to populate the Integrated Data Infrastructure popped along to the Ministry of Education and said "We'd like your data on school attendance."—the Ministry of Education is quite free in the answer the Minister gave to decline that request. If that's the case why is clause 22 written in the way that it is? Because what it says is at (a) "Data may be collected … by means of a request" so you ask for it or by means of a request under delegated authority—paragraph (b). But if those are unsuccessful and the Statistician believes that "the data is necessary or desirable to enable the Statistician to produce official statistics or desirable for research"—and those are the key words: "or desirable for research"—then he or she can just go and ask for it. So not only did the Minister not give a clause in the bill that made it clear that data collection for research was not mandatory but I now point to a clause clause 22(c) that actually demonstrates the opposite: that the Statistician if he or she considers it necessary or desirable for research under Part 5—the Statistician can go and get it. That to me is the very definition of mandatory. If you request it under (a) or (b) or otherwise well we'll just ask for it because we think it's desirable. Now we've established in Part 1 that the Minister and the Government's goal here is to collect data for official statistics using mandatory means but not to collect data for research using mandatory means. My submission to the committee is that clause 22(c) says the opposite of that which is why in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 197 I have a very straightforward amendment and that is to simply delete the words "or desirable for research under Part 5". That change will give absolute effect to what the Minister has told this committee is his Government's intention and that is mandatory collection for data for statistical purposes but voluntary collection for research purposes. Only this clause says the opposite. So I commend SOP 197 to the committee but also ask the Minister whether or not he agrees with my assessment of (a) what he said and (b) what clause 22 says.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you Mr Chair. Firstly I just want to agree with the member's comments around the sausage factory and the fact that the Governance and Administration Committee did a good job does not detract from the need to have a robust debate in the committee of the whole House. I think I said that previously but I think it's important to note that for the record. Certainly I did not want it interpreted that we shouldn't be having a robust debate at this point. It is an important part of our democratic process and valuable. In respect of the member's discussion around clause 22 there's a very important distinction here which is that collection does not equate to the ability to compel. That is the absolutely critical thing. Collection—so data may be collected—is not a compulsory power. It is possible to collect it. It may be collected. But the department can refuse that request if it does not believe—it is empowering but it's not a compulsion. The clause clearly references sections 23 and 26 which explicitly reference collection of data for official statistics. Sorry I'm jumping ahead. Clause 29—and I risk causing confusion by bringing those things in too early—is the clause that places the obligation to comply with a request. That clause clearly references sections 23 and 26 which explicitly references collection of data for official statistics. I think it's really important to note that this all hinges on the words "may be collected". It's not a compulsion at this point. That's the really important and subtle distinction. Subtle—you know it's legal terms. That's the distinction that's being made in this particular point in the sausage factory."