Mitchell Mark: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I wish I was able to stand here and talk to something more important like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement but the reality is—and normally I would ignore it but I am actually going to address it—this bill is called the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill but it should be called the “Pick on David Seymour Bill”. I heard the Green member Catherine Delahunty get up and immediately launch an attack on David Seymour about the comments he made—a vicious attack on David Seymour—and I just could not believe the hypocrisy of it.Sitting in this House during the course of this debate I have listened to the Opposition members not talking about the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill which should not be directed at any individual but they have sat there attacking David Seymour the whole time. So I would have to assume that this bill was submitted with a view to attacking David Seymour. I am actually a bit surprised at the member who has brought this bill to the House because I sit with him on a select committee and I thought that he would have been better than this. But actually when I see who is sitting behind him the Hon Ruth Dyson I think that she is probably the puppeteer and the one who has put this bill together.A further example of the hypocrisy is the fact that the Green member stood up and said that the Greens had parliamentary under-secretaries under a Labour-led Government. She freely admitted that they had parliamentary under-secretaries under a Labour-led Government. The same with the Labour Government—it had a parliamentary under-secretary in Dover Samuels as David Seymour pointed out. So the question is this: if those members felt so strongly about an amendment like this why did they not do anything while they were in Government? I can tell you why they did not do anything—because they did not think it was necessary. They knew it was not necessary. They are doing it now because they are making a personal attack on a member of this House: David Seymour member and leader of the ACT Party.This bill is totally unnecessary. It is going to erode the current distinction that is drawn between the executive which is subject to the Official Information Act and other members. Sarah Dowie made a very good point and I agree with her which is that the minute you start to erode that distinction—and the executive should be held accountable and it is held accountable through the Official Information Act—you can start to move dangerously into a territory called mission creep. That is you start off with one intent and all of a sudden you add something else to it and you decide that you are going to do something else and before you know it you have eroded and eaten into a protection that this Parliament has—simply by introducing a bill like this. That relationship between an MP and their constituent must be protected; she is absolutely right. When constituents come to see an MP there is complete confidentiality around what is discussed and an MP needs to be free to act on behalf of their constituent. A bill like this is just going to move slowly towards mission creep—an eroding of that confidentiality between an MP and their constituent.A parliamentary under-secretary is not a member of the Executive Council. That is right they are not subject to the Official Information Act and neither should they be—the Minister is. The Minister is the person who is responsible for the powers and responsibility in the delegation of a parliamentary under-secretary. Therefore that is where the Official Information Act requests should lie and that is where the information should be generated. This bill is therefore unnecessary. Thank you.