Mallard Trevor: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20799] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think my colleague Raymond Huo summarised our position on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill relatively well. Given decent time decent briefings and proper process I think we would have been supportive of the legislation. Even the member for the Wairarapa Mr Hayes summarised the situation pretty well. There was an earthquake and we all know that there could not be a census in Christchurch this year. I think “munted” is the description of the centre of Christchurch. The office was stuffed and we could not hold a census for part of the country. Therefore it had to be deferred. I would have thought that Maurice Williamson if he was a good active Minister of Statistics would not go past the first week in March when he had advice to that effect. The decision to do it we are told was made in May and I think the announcements were made around that time. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The census was actually being held in March. We cancelled it back in February. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK it was cancelled. But the decision to take this process was made in May I understand. The question I have for the Minister is a relatively simple one because this bill is not complex. I think it is fair to say that when we get to the Committee stage there will be some holding of the Minister to account for what might be described as sloppy drafting. But we will work our way through that and that is one of the reasons of course why bills should go to select committees. The Minister is aware that I offered a process whereby the bill went to a select committee for the period of the adjournment and then went through its stages without much debate at all and quicker than we will do it today and tomorrow. There was an offer to do that because it meant that we could have had the statistician in and we could have had parliamentary counsel— 
John Hayes 
: Trevor you’re just playing games. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Not at all. I have been around this place for a while and I have respect for the institution. There has to be a very good reason for a bill not to go to a select committee. The fact that the member was late getting himself organised in this way is not a good enough excuse. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We had to get an appropriation through the finance Minister and that took some months. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the member is now pleading a lack of influence. The member is now pleading the fact that the Minister of Finance will not listen to him. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The Minister is saying it’s difficult to soar like an eagle when he is surrounded by turkeys. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to be a little bit fair to that Minister. If I was putting together a National Cabinet I would stick him in it because he has had experience and he knows practical stuff. If he was in there he would have been able to sort out the Minister of Finance and the bill would have been able to proceed. It could have been referred to a select committee for 2 weeks we could have had 2 or 3 hours of hearings and people could have been satisfied. The drafting could have been made slightly more fashionable than it is and we could have heard from the people who are interested in it. That would not have been hard. And as I said it would have taken less time than pushing it through this way under urgency. In fact we probably could have had one speech from either side in the first reading. It could have been off to the select committee by now if the Minister had decided to take that approach. 
I had one specific question which the Minister has answered privately that I would like to get on to the record as part of the exercise and that was to seek an assurance that section 77 of the Electoral Act is not offended by this bill. There is a requirement in there for 5-yearly censuses—and the word is “censuses”; I have looked it up. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s Latin-based. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. It is Latin not Greek and it means an assessment. The first thing it used to be was a traffic count. It was used to count the traffic. That was the first census. Then it was used for taxation in Roman times—[ 
Interruption 
]—and no like the member I cannot remember. I had to do some research in the  
Collins English Dictionary 
 in order to find that out. 
There is another question that I think is important and I am obliged to my colleague Charles Chauvel for highlighting the issue to me. Why when we have a Statutes Amendment Bill that has been through the select committee—and I think we also have the Legislation Bill somewhere in the process—are we amending— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Both back from committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They are both back from the select committee waiting for their second readings. Why are we taking a process to put through under urgency an amendment to the Statues Drafting and Compilation Act? I want to seek an assurance from the Minister that this is not legislation in order to make arrangements for a particular individual. I think it is very important that the House gets an assurance that this is a general piece of legislation and that we are not faced with the immediate situation of someone who wants to do another job for a period of time and come back. 
If that is the case that would be an outrageous abuse of Parliament because in the briefings we were given there was no such reference. There was no such reference at all. In the past chief executives have gone overseas to do other jobs—sometimes they are very important jobs—and have come back. They do not necessarily come back to the same job—they took their chances when they returned to the country. I think it is important to get that assurance and I think the time taken on the legislation will depend on the Minister being able to give that assurance during the select committee process. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Will we have that assurance under a polygraph test? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. Frankly if that Minister gave his word then I would take it. Of course inside this House we are obliged to. Behind the chair there would be one or two of his colleagues whom I would not be quite as trusting of including the Minister who has responsibility for parliamentary counsel. But within this House— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Never you! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Never me either. I think there is never a danger of my being Attorney-General. I think there is a certain amount of shuddering to my right at the very prospect of that. 
I compliment my colleague Raymond Huo who is leading the Labour debate on this issue for his work both on this legislation and generally as the Opposition spokesperson on statistics. I think it is fair to say that it is not normally a position that has a lot of profile but the member has made a lot of it. He has looked at a lot of the statements that have come out. He has inquired into the positions and workings of Statistics New Zealand and he has developed an understanding of statistics the way it works and the importance of the Government Statistician. I think the last person who had that level of understanding—I do not want to be too rude to Darren Hughes—was Michael Cullen. As well as being the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance he was at least early in his career the Minister of Statistics. He thought it was an important role and he wanted to guard the independence of it. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I’m going to tell Clayton you said that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh was Clayton the Minister as well? I will plead guilty to my friend and colleague Chris Hipkins for that one passing me by. It did not quite— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I was too Trevor. I was Minister of Statistics. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh dear! I do not care about that member; he will not be voting for the next Cabinet in November so I do not really care! But I say to Clayton that I am very sorry. The point I want to make is that Dr Cullen regarded the independence of the Government Statistician as vitally important. Frankly on occasions we used to get quite grumpy with him. There were some arrangements that we thought could have been much better from a taxpayer’s point of view. We thought we could have got better-quality information but over a period of time we had some statisticians who just would not be told.