Curran Clare: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11309. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I have listened very carefully to all of the National Government members speaking on this bill tonight—Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s very courageous—very courageous.CLARE CURRAN: It was a very courageous thing to do but yes I have listened very carefully and I do not think anyone is in any doubt that every one of them is extremely uncomfortable about voting for this bill. They have trotted out a whole range of reasons why and I am going to address all of those reasons.The member Paul Foster-Bell said in his speech that he strongly believes in open Government “but …” and then went on to give a whole lot of reasons why he did not like this bill and was followed up by all the other speakers. The “listening carefully” was about their support for the bill at this reading and certainly we were left in no doubt with the ACT member who told us that he was going to put up a whole lot of Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage that would be about opening up the Official Information Act (OIA) to all and sundry including yourself Mr Assistant Speaker—not bringing you into the debate.So either they are serious about open and transparent Government and are swallowing a bit of a dead rat with this bill—and there are some good reasons for them to do that—or they are playing games. They are playing silly games and their so-called support for open and transparent Government—they are doing that at the behest of the silly David Seymour. Paul Foster-Bell also said that the Government—[Interruption] Apologies to my colleagues but Paul Foster-Bell who did make a worthy contribution made the claim that the Government has nothing to be ashamed of in regard to open and transparent government. It is true that the National Government did sign up to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in December last year—Paul Foster-Bell: Ratified.CLARE CURRAN: Ratified. It was a strong step in a direction. And in 2014 New Zealand accepted an invitation to join the Open Government Partnership which brings with it a requirement to demonstrate how the Government will implement transparency accountability technology innovation and civil society participation in Government—all very worthy.It might interest the members in the House tonight and the public listening at home that New Zealand has formally been warned in just the last few months—formally been warned—for its lateness in meeting its obligations under that Open Government Partnership. One of the parts that we signed up to was a recommendation on parliamentary transparency which relates directly to this bill. But that formal warning is directly relevant—directly relevant—because we are not fulfilling our obligations under that.Therefore the action of the National Government tonight in swallowing a dead rat—hopefully that is what it is doing—and voting for this bill at the second reading is because it realises that in this environment when the eyes of many in the world are on New Zealand at the moment and it is whether or not we are a tax haven and just how much our commitment is to anti-corruption measures and to transparency measures this is an opportunity for the Government to show that it has a commitment to openness a real commitment to openness and transparency. Certainly I hope that is what this is about and that it is not about playing a silly game with the silly David Seymour who has really shown very little brains tonight in his speech in the House.Certainly if the Government had voted against the bill at the second reading it would have been going against the advice of the Ministry of Justice which was very clear and the Government Administration Committee. They said that the bill was consistent with the purposes of the OIA and with the constitutional position of parliamentary under-secretaries as part of the executive with the ability to exercise delegated ministerial power. This was backed up by the Law Commission and the Law Society both august organisations whose recommendations should be listened to. Certainly this Government has not always listened to their recommendations when it comes to legislation but tonight it appears as if it has.My third point is that this bill is very clear and the analysis is very clear about the distinction between the executive and the rest of Parliament—very very clear. It is a very simple bill. It makes a very simple change to correct an important anomaly and I do want to commend my colleague Adrian Rurawhe for bringing this before Parliament tonight. There is no hint in this bill that that line should be blurred. There is no slippery slope. This is an anomaly it is a clear anomaly and it makes an important and simple distinction between the role of an under-secretary and the role that they play and how that should be accountable to public scrutiny and accountable under the OIA. Of course the Ministry of Justice agrees with that as do other submitters. There is no muddying of the waters with this so-called “slippery slope” argument that the National members seem to be buying into tonight. This is not about the road to ordinary members of Parliament becoming accountable under the OIA. This is not about the Speaker’s office becoming accountable under the OIA; this is about the under-secretaries who are part of the executive even if they are not members of the Executive Council and that is quite simple and that is an important principle.This is important for the future. It is a small but important piece of legislation. What David Seymour has done tonight has actually started a trend—a positive trend from our perspective on this side of the House—because he has begun proactively releasing information before the law requires him to. We support that. This was part of our policy in 2011 and 2014 for the proactive release of information under our open government policy. Of course the Government had no open Government policy. The proactive release of information is an important trend. If we could see other National Ministers starting that trend and continuing that trend that would be a good and positive thing. So what David Seymour has started is a very significant change in keeping with the principle of keeping the bastards honest and we support that.What we do need to do is to cement this under a small legislative change. This bill is not about David Seymour as much and all as he would like it to be about him; it is about the role that he currently plays as a parliamentary under-secretary. It is not about his ego in any way but it is important. I think that what it is doing tonight is showing a pathway and with the Government’s support it will actually cement that pathway towards true openness and accountability and towards the release of more information and the accountability of another member of the executive who currently is not accountable.