Huo Raymond: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Huo Raymond: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20827] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I listened rather attentively to the contributions from the National MPs on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. It is fair for me to say that the best contribution was from my Asian colleague Mr Bakshi who just commended the bill to the House without claiming the moral high ground in attacking Labour members. 
For many National MPs when there is a problem there is an excuse. For instance the National-ACT Government has failed to present any plans to grow our economy. They say: “Oops there is a financial crisis worldwide.” There was a 6-month gap or so between when the decision was made not to hold the census and when the Government said “Oops there is urgency.” because without the bill the Government Statistician would have been in breach of the Statistics Act. That warranted the Minister to ram through the bill under urgency without referring it to the select committee. 
It is very satisfying however that in my earlier speech I said that National MPs had built up a very good habit of taking short calls and that they would take short calls during this debate. They have taken turns to take short calls; I cannot be convinced that they have taken this bill very seriously in respect of either its contents or its process. 
The process is very important. It is about the core values of how Parliament operates. That is why I ask members opposite to please exercise some forbearance in claiming the moral high ground on shutting down the democratic process. It is disappointing that the Minister of Statistics—a very willing and able Minister—did not answer some very important questions that were asked particularly those questions of my colleague Charles Chauvel. Again as my colleague Charles Chauvel said this is our only opportunity for some important issues to be addressed given that the bill is being rammed through under urgency. I reiterate that I am not litigating the actual decision but I am left wondering about the constitutional niceties. 
We agree with the policy objectives of this bill but we cannot support the way in which the Government is seeking to rush important constitutional changes through Parliament without giving the public a chance to have their say. 
Simon Bridges 
: I thought this was going to be a short call. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I say to that member that in my speech at the first reading I said that National MPs had built up a very strange habit of taking short calls. You guys just took turns to take short calls. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Don’t use “you”. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Sorry; I apologise to the Deputy Speaker. It is not good enough to try to convince the public that National MPs are very serious about this bill either in respect of its content or in respect of its process. 
During the debate some National MPs said they were shocked that Labour did not support this bill. There are some issues that are very shocking and they could have been addressed in a timely manner if the bill had been referred to the select committee. For instance Statistics New Zealand’s statement of intent for 2011 stated that Statistics New Zealand has “a high proportion of inexperienced staff [which] poses a risk to the production of timely and accurate statistics.” I am sure the public wish to know about how Statistics New Zealand is managing the risks posed by the high proportion of inexperienced staff and what steps will be taken in 2011 and 2012 to recruit more staff with the necessary experience in leading up to the 2013 census. The Minister cannot say that “Oops that’s an operational matter.” and that his job is just to get the bill rammed through under urgency. That is not good enough. It is not fair to Statistics New Zealand and it is not fair to the general public. 
There are some important issues that I wish could be addressed properly. For instance should we hold a census every 5 years or every 10 years? Among OECD countries at least 10 countries hold a census every 10 years. It is also argued by some experts that we could collect data by way of a survey for instance. Although congratulating the Minister on ramming through the 21st bill under urgency under this National-ACT Government I say to the Minister that the general public of New Zealand have just lost another good opportunity. Thank you.