Macindoe Tim: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11310. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This is a fairly unusual experience—in that this is the first time that I can remember in my 7½ years as a member of the House—where the Government having opposed a bill at its first reading is now supporting it as its second reading. I want to traverse some of the arguments as to why that might have come to pass.I think we need to reflect on some aspects of the history of the bill. One is that as my good friends on the Government Administration Committee have said to me there were only five submissions received on the bill which would suggest to me that there is a very low level of public interest in this particular measure. Nevertheless I do not want to be dismissive of that because of the five submissions that were received all were in favour of the bill being passed. Two came from quite august bodies of which this House always takes note and listens to with respect—i.e. the Law Commission and the Law Society. And of course it is also notable that in its report to the House following its careful consideration of the submissions the Government Administration Committee has advised that it had unanimous support that the bill should proceed.Taking that into account I have to say that I was very disappointed tonight that the member in charge of the bill Adrian Rurawhe gave us very little of his personal reasons for supporting it and in particular the purpose of the bill. In fact I am not sure that he actually mentioned anything about the purpose of the bill whatsoever. Essentially what he confined himself to in his relatively brief speech were questions of process. I would have expected to hear some compelling arguments in favour of the bill from the member. For that reason I want to put a few questions to him that he might give some thought to as he moves on to the next stage. It appears that the bill will pass tonight and so as he prepares for the Committee stage of the bill I would like him to give some thought to a few questions.Nevertheless I do congratulate him as others have done on having had his bill adopted if not unanimously—it looked for a while as if it might have been unanimous but of course the New Zealand First Party hates to be agreeable so it now looks as if it will just be adopted comprehensively. But that is a very rare thing for any member putting forward a member’s bill and particularly an Opposition member so I do congratulate Mr Rurawhe on that particular fact. Of course the only current parliamentary under-secretary is Mr Seymour and he gave his warm endorsement to the measure before describing itas effectively completely pointless—I think that was his description.In an effort to educate myself as to the purpose of the bill—because I had not had much of that from the member in charge of it and I was not sure after listening to Mr Seymour that I was much better educated—I decided to try to bring an independent analysis to Mr Seymour’s less than generous assessment of the bill by turning to what you might know as the parliamentary bible—otherwise known as David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. It is always a wise place to start if one wants to understand a little bit more about parliamentary procedure and constitutional provisions. But I have to say that despite the impressively comprehensive and scholarly tome that McGee’s text undoubtedly is references to parliamentary under-secretaries in McGee are relatively few and far between. He notes that “A Parliamentary Under-Secretary may answer a question on behalf of a Minister in the Minister’s absence. Otherwise a Parliamentary Under-Secretary cannot perform functions conferred by the Standing Orders on a Minister such as taking charge of a Government bill.”Kris Faafoi: What happened to the questions?TIM MACINDOE: They are coming Mr Faafoi. Thank you so much; it is lovely to know that you are listening.On page 331 of the third edition—and I would just like to read from this particular passage—McGee notes about private member’s bills: “A Parliamentary Under-Secretary may introduce a Member’s bill.” That led me to ask: in that capacity will an under-secretary now face scrutiny that other members who are introducing a bill will not? That is a matter that I would recommend the member sponsoring the bill give some thought to as he approaches the Committee stage. Later McGeenotes on page 533 that “A Minister (or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister whose measure is under discussion) who quotes from a document relating to public affairs must table that document if requested to do so by any member.” So of course there are a few degrees of accountability in that.But at page 558—if Mr Assistant Speaker you would just allow me to read a slightly longer passage from McGee; and I might need to put my glasses on—he notes: “a question cannot be addressed to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in his or her own right as if the under-secretary were a Minister. Questions to Ministers must be addressed to Ministers of the Crown (including now an Associate Minister). A Parliamentary Under-Secretary may answer a question on behalf of a Minister but can have a question addressed to himself or herself personally as a non-Minister only in respect of parliamentary proceedings of which the under-secretary has charge (for example as the chairperson of the select committee) not in respect of the wider range of responsibilities for which Ministers are answerable. Thus a question to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary relating to a statement the under-secretary had made was not allowed”—in 1977—“even though the statement was made in respect of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s official departmental duties.”There is clearly an essential difference between the two roles and I ask the sponsor of the bill—Grant Robertson: Why isn’t this man in Cabinet? Or at the very least an under-secretary?TIM MACINDOE: Moving right along Mr Robertson thank you.I ask the sponsor of this measure as he prepares again for the Committee stage of the bill whether the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill which we are considering tonight in his name will have the effect of changing that constitutional distinction and perhaps force David McGee out of his well-earned retirement in order to update or indeed write a fresh edition of his parliamentary masterpiece?As Ruth Dyson the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee argued this bill should not be about David Seymour. Ms Dyson told us that it clearly is not. But I have to say that although the member for Epsom seems to delight in the thought that it might be—and the select committee’s report to the House after its consideration of the bill although little more than a page in length is nevertheless about three times the length of the bill itself—one cannot escape the conclusion as my good friend the learned and distinguished member for Rodney noted earlier that this really would appear to be the “Pick on David Seymour Bill”. Given its incredible brevity one would also have to wonder whether it is not a case of much ado about nothing.I listened with interest to the contributions of previous speakers and I thank them particularly those MPs who are members of the committee their officials and those who submitted on the bill for their careful consideration of it. All speakers have noted that transparency and accountability are important features of good government. There is no argument about that of course. If this bill will enhance that outcome then it is perhaps a good thing and we can support it. Indeed the National Government has decided tonight that it will support it at its second reading but I join Mr Mitchell in questioning the sponsor’s real motives for introducing it. Is it really just an attack on David Seymour? Because—Hon Ruth Dyson: He never raised that at the select committee. He’s got more manners.TIM MACINDOE:As Ms Dyson is interjecting so effusively at the moment she might want to reflect on the contribution of her colleague the member for Rimutaka because in his diatribe about partnership schools—and of course we hear that quite frequently from Mr Hipkins whenever he is speaking in the House—you would have to say that he lent credibility to the view that this is the “Pick on David Seymour Bill”. Really given that that came from my opposite number in the whips’ desk across the House I am left thinking that it probably is the real motive.But I do not want to attack Mr Hipkins. It would be churlish to do so because I would like to congratulate him on the double dose of happy tidings that we have heard recently. I gather there is both an engagement plus a baby to come and that is wonderful news. I do feel that all members of the House would want to celebrate that with him.So let me end as I started: initially the National Government members did not support this bill because we believed and we still believe that there are strong mechanisms to keep the Government to account without having to go down this particular path. Although parliamentary under-secretaries are not members of the Executive Council they do perform an important constitutional role with powers and responsibilities delegated from the responsible Minister. Any official information relating to their work as a parliamentary under-secretary can be sought from the Minister to whom they are responsible.This bill may help to ensure transparency across government. It is clear that the public wants that accountability and no one wants to hold that back particularly from those who perform public functions. As a Government that has always championed accountability and transparency in government the National Government has taken steps over the last 8 years to try to ensure that Ministers and Government agencies are accountable to the public. So although I am not entirely convinced that this is going to be a vital constitutional innovation I along with my colleagues—particularly as you are giving me the message that I should conclude these remarks Mr Assistant Speaker—will support this bill at the second reading.