Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. In Part 2 I'd like to firstly draw the Minister's attention to clause 12—clause 12(3) in particular. Now we have absolutely no objection to giving the State Services Commissioner the power to institute a code of conduct—no issue with that at all—but my question for the Minister is reflecting on that particular subclause does he believe that we have actually got the wording right in sort of the effect and how we would expect that the State Services Commissioner might exercise that authority. It says The Commissioner may apply a code with any variations that the Commissioner thinks appropriate in light of the legal commercial or operational context to … (a) any agency or agencies … (b) any particular persons or groups …". So what that actually confers to the commissioner is not to apply a code of conduct to boards of Crown entities but to apply as many different codes of conduct as the commissioner may see fit to do over time.Now bear in mind that this amends section 57 and it's about minimum standards of integrity and conduct. Do we really believe that the principles of integrity and the principles of how board members would conduct themselves in the operation of their responsibilities would vary between entities simply because the function of the entity is somehow different? Remember we are talking about integrity and professional conduct. My contention to the Minister is that those standards are the same irrespective of which entity a person may serve on. Indeed you could have a situation where one person serves on multiple entities. It's rather confusing and complex to have different codes for each entity that a person may serve as a member of a board on.I have reflected on that and I actually think the wording is wrong. I don't think we should be encouraging the commissioner to have multiple codes of conduct with respect to integrity and general conduct. There will be instances and I'm not certain—certainly in this part of the bill at least—that the commissioner necessarily has direct influence on these or not. Where the reflection is touching upon the actual operations of the entity its functions and purposes and the actions that the executive takes which may well be guided through the governance of the board absolutely I can understand that those things will be different—naturally different—between entities because the entities do have different sets of responsibilities. The characteristics of the people that sit on the boards in terms of their personal integrity and the way they conduct themselves in discharging their duties their obligations as members of the board I contend are the same but the legislation very clearly and therefore purposefully is actually setting the commissioner up to create multiple codes of conduct.So my question for the Minister—and reflect on it firstly. Please reflect on that Minister. Is that really the message that we're wanting to send—that professional behavioural expectations and personal characteristics personal qualities around integrity might be different depending on the Crown entity you may serve as a member of a board on? I'm not at all convinced; in fact quite the contrary. I think that actually it creates more problems than it would solve. So I'm looking forward to hearing from the Minister on that particular point.Now the other part of Part 2 which I'll also be seeking if not a complementary call now then one later is on the power of inquiry. In the second reading debate and please forgive me if my memory fails me slightly on this the Minister noted that the commissioner's powers around inquiries were derived from a 1908 statute—I think it's the commission of power of inquiry—and that this would bring them more in line with the Inquiries Act 2013. Aside from the minutiae of the actual provisions I would like the Minister to consider and comment on why it is we are replicating duplicating certain provisions of the Inquiries Act in this piece of legislation instead of taking a position that says that the commissioner's powers of inquiries are defined in the Inquiries Act and that if there were in fact specifics for the commissioner that were different or greater than or lesser than the elements the provisions in the Inquiries Act we make amendments to the Inquiries Act instead.Doing it this way complicates the overall statue book because we say a number of sections of the Inquiries Act will apply for inquiries undertaken by the commissioner—for instance section 14 "Regulation of inquiry procedure"; section 15 "Power to impose restrictions on access"—I'm not counting them but there are about a dozen just in new section 9A(2) in clause 8. There are about a dozen of them. That means that if there's a future amendment to the Inquiries Act anyone who's going through that has to establish whether those amendments will have any consequences on any other piece of legislation which refers to them and particularly in that instance it does refer that they apply. Therefore if they change they still apply. They're not a copy of; they are a reference to.If we look at that that means that that's a very complicated future outlook for amendments to the Inquiries Act and I could talk about how this has got a broader principle across the legislative amendments that we make. But in this particular instance it means that any future amendment to the Inquiries Act creates a great deal of work for officials and for drafters to understand because any error that they make and that we don't catch through these stages of the legislative process can have very very significant consequences for those people that get caught up in it.Then those elements where there are changes to this legislation not by way of reference to other Acts but instead by copying the words of those Acts but not creating a connection: actually—and I don't mean this in a perverse sense—they create the same sort of problem in reverse. Where we might want them linked to changes in those other Acts in the future they won't automatically be. So the real point is Minister—and I see the smile—perhaps it would be better to take an approach that says "How do we do this by reference?" rather than a hodgepodge of some reference that creates certain issues versus some copying that creates a different set of issues and I think it's particularly around the Inquiries Act but also the Privacy Act where the other part applies.We do agree to that. We heard these in the committee. We've got no problem with the actual provisions themselves. We agree wholly with this but I think it is right for us to question in this stage—in the short time that is available before this does receive Royal assent—should we look at whether it is possible whether it is better to do it a different way. I'm not seeking leave to put this back into the committee for another six months; I'm just saying this is an opportunity to actually make sure that what we're doing—although you know the committee would do a great job if you gave it to them for another six months of course and that applies in both the context of the reference and the copying of wording of specific provisions.One particularly that I think is perhaps a little more problematic in the minds of the public than some others is the suspension of certain privacy rights during the inquiry. My read of this Minister is that that is simply copying the provision. It is copying the wording of a provision rather than making a reference to it. I think it's that suspension of privacy—which we agree with by the way. We think it's absolutely the right thing to do. We do not want to compromise the evidence of other people during that inquiry process and we do not want to compromise the inquiry itself but it does raise the question—because there is a linkage there and the wording was very clearly and definitely made to be consistent with other legislation—that therefore if there are certain changes made in other areas of legislation we may get a natural break here that causes a future issue. So I think it's worth you know getting the officials on the phone Minister. They can rush across; they could give a bit of advice on this. We've still got time. Thank you very much."