O'Connor Simon: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11306. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a call on the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill in its second reading.I want to acknowledge the member Adrian Rurawhe for his work in bringing this to the House. I think it was noted earlier by another member that getting one’s member’s bill drawn is quite something in and of itself. To have it then actually begin to progress through the House particularly past its first reading is of note as well. Can I thank the Government Administration Committee for its work on this. I do so for two reasons: first and foremost I do not actually sit on the committee but I have found the work that its members have done and the discussions that have been generated through that very helpful in being able to inform my own view. And I think a number of those members have spoken tonight and have discussed how via the select committee process and particularly through listening to the submissions they have changed their minds somewhat.I am happy to go on record that I am uncomfortable with this bill. I am comfortable enough to along with the party vote for it tonight at this second reading but I will elucidate the reasons for my discomfort a little bit more. I think first and foremost we have to understand the role of a parliamentary under-secretary. It has been part of the Westminster System for a while. It is explicitly acknowledged and written up in our Cabinet Manual—sorry it is in the Cabinet Manual but it is also within the Constitution Act 1986—and without belabouring the point for the House section 8 of that Act makes it very clear that the Governor-General can appoint a parliamentary under-secretary with the advice of the Prime Minister.I think this becomes quite important because there has been a lot of discussion tonight around the constitutional manifestation shall we say of a parliamentary under-secretary. Are they part of the executive? Well as I would understand it yes in so far as they hold a delegation from a Minister. But vitally important—vitally important—is that a parliamentary under-secretary is not part of the Executive Council.I need to draw that out a little bit and my colleague Brett Hudson had done so a little bit earlier. The parliamentary under-secretary that is a power authority is ultimately as I said delegated from a Minister. It is the Minister in some ways—if I wanted to put it in very simple terms—giving part of their responsibility over in this case to another member of Parliament. That is quite distinctly different though from sitting on the Executive Council. A parliamentary under-secretary does not sit on the council and the council in turn is that body of MPs who have become Ministers of the Crown who advise the Governor-General. I am not going to bore the House—primarily because most of them have sat on the committee—as to why that is constitutionally important but it does begin to raise questions about why this bill is ultimately necessary. I might leave that point there for now.The second point—Paul Foster-Bell: Very good point.SIMON O’CONNOR: Look I think it is a good point again on the constitutional reality. It will come back to the whole mission creep that Mark Mitchell talked about but I just think it is important to note that the OIA the Official Information Act has been specifically directed at Ministers and primarily—if not actually up until this bill—exclusively to those who sit on the Executive Council in order rightly and properly that the executive can be held to account. Granted—I must say as an aside—that there is part of me that often wonders just how effective the OIA is. Granted I have not sat in Opposition yet so I will defer my thoughts somewhat. But I do see the enormous amount of work and effort that goes into generating paperwork; I am not really sure at times how useful that is and in some other ways just how much time effort and money is spent particularly by civil servants generating this. But as I said I reserve my judgment: I have not applied it completely and fully.Importantly as well as the member for Epsom David Seymour was indicating tonight—and we do understand this—his work as a parliamentary under-secretary is already in effect covered by the OIA. We know this for two reasons: the first reason is that it is actually very clear that any person is able to approach the Minister who has handed over that delegation to a parliamentary under-secretary and ask for the relevant information. I think that makes absolute perfect sense. Again you do not want Ministers beholden to the OIA handing over responsibilities to a parliamentary under-secretary—or anyone for that matter—in order to escape the purposes of the OIA. We can see that you can already seek this information so you begin to wonder what the point of this bill is—it is somewhat redundant. The second reason came through very clearly and by the great illustration shall we say by David Seymour when he gave his presentation of just how much paperwork he was already providing. There is nothing that is being hidden here currently and I think that is important to stress.The other element and it is little bit theoretical—I am no lawyer and I am a little bit nervous to raise this with lawyers in the Chamber—is that one of the basic precepts of the law that I have understood over time is that it should never really be designed to address a particular individual. Instead laws should be designed to address particular behaviours and most of the time that is what we do in our laws. I am sure an argument can be constructed that this bill is aiming at a behaviour—and we have heard a lot about open and transparent Government—but I cannot help but feel and I think it is evidenced rather strongly that this is a bill whose genesis has come about to target a particular member. Others have referenced previous debate points where it has been noted strongly that it has been focused on David Seymour—in fact even the previous speaker Marama Fox alluded to it—and that is a concern.We have had it too even with Chris Hipkins who spoke around—slightly more eloquently I have to say or with a rather refreshed angle about—the whole “we want to get more information on partnership schools and we haven’t been able to do that directly so we’ve got to go through a person.” It is I think a slightly cleverer argument but one that still does not stack up. This is not the appropriate way to try to seek information on an entity.Chris Hipkins: Through the OIA.SIMON O’CONNOR: No it is not about going through the OIA. But the whole idea that “we couldn’t go directly to the organisation or we weren’t happy with dealing with the Minister so now we have to target an individual” I do not think is all that helpful.Chris Hipkins: Who is acting on behalf of the Minister.SIMON O’CONNOR: Exactly. Of course you can already go to the Minister too and receive that information—which I think completely highlights the point that this has become a bill focused on the individual rather than a particular behaviour and therefore is breaking a pretty basic precept of law. Again for those legally interested the whole bills of attainders years ago were a good illustration of just how these things were misused. It also came up in one of the talks that if an entity gets Government money then it should somehow automatically be a focus of the OIA. Having worked in the likes of the Ministry of Social Development and so forth where a number of NGOs and groups charities and otherwise get Government money I am not quite sure we want to go in that direction.I think that brings me—conscious of the bell Mr Assistant Speaker—to that whole slippery slope and mission creep. We have breached a constitutional line here; it has been very clear to date. We have breached a line here. [Interruption] Yes that is right. We have breached a line and I do wonder where it ends.I actually hope that the Supplementary Order Papers that David Seymour has proposed are discussed—not that I necessarily think they should go through—but I think they do begin to illustrate the point that if the OIA is just about open and transparent behaviour if it is about people of influence then it actually applies to just about everyone. Why should it not apply to the Leader of the Opposition? Why should it not apply to MPs? I do have concerns when I think how in recent weeks the names of New Zealanders have been drawn and pushed through this House—without good merit but again information has been sought grabbed and misused. I think we have seen that far too often actually: where knowledge about people’s activities becomes an excuse particularly for Opposition parties to have a crack at those people often without good reason. I do not think that is particularly helpful for open or transparent government.I again reluctantly vote for this bill. I do acknowledge the intentions I do acknowledge the hard and good work of the Government Administration Committee and I do acknowledge the conversations particularly those that my colleagues from the National Government who have been on the select committee have had. So I will vote in the second reading but I am interested in the further processes as they come forward. Thank you very much.