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:20811] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Ni hao; thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The National member who just resumed her seat Nikki Kaye should not be shocked because I listed a number of reasons but largely in respect of constitutional concerns as to why Labour has no other option but to oppose the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel has just said it is about process. It is about the core values our Parliament operates under and members opposite simply cannot claim the high moral ground in shutting down the democratic process. Having said that it is fitting for me to touch upon some aspects of this bill at its second reading. 
Part 1 enables the census to take place in March 2013. The bill amends section 23 of the Statistics Act 1975 by replacing the date “1976” with “2013”. This was the preferred option recommended by Statistics New Zealand. Another option was to go to 10-yearly censuses as in the US and other OECD countries starting in 2013 but this option was rejected by the Government. Part 2 amends the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 to allow the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to delegate his or her functions responsibilities and duties and powers. Part 2 therefore creates delegation powers similar to those in section 13 of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988. 
Given that the Minister of Statistics believes that this bill is so important that it has to be rushed through under urgency it is very important for us to look at other aspects. Some developed countries including the Netherlands have given up on censuses. The logic for this is that censuses are expensive are not comprehensive and are slower to produce data whereas surveys for instance can produce data that is just as useful at a lower cost and in a much tighter time frame. Therefore as my colleagues Trevor Mallard and Charles Chauvel said earlier the select committee process was warranted. 
There are some further points of interest I wish to share with members and the general public who are watching the high-rating Parliament TV. I must thank our wonderful Parliamentary Library and in particular Lee Taylor who provided us with such valuable and thoughtful advice. The first census in New Zealand was carried out in 1851 and it was not until 100 years later—that is in 1951—that Maori were given the same census questionnaires as the rest of the population. Then in 1996 the option of completing the form in Maori or English was introduced. There have been only three occasions when the census was not held as scheduled. In 1931 the census was abandoned because of the Depression in 1941 it was postponed because of the Second World War and again in this year it was postponed because of the impact of the 22 February Christchurch earthquake. 
There are some debates in terms of the length of the census period. Among OECD countries there are six countries including New Zealand and Australia that hold a census every 5 years. There are 10 countries that hold a census every 10 years so there are valid reasons for us to consider our statutory arrangements. France is an exception. It holds a partial census each year and the results are published as an average over 5 years. Of course there pros and cons. According to a population expert from Waikato University moving to a 10-year census could make trans-Tasman comparisons tricky and it could create problems for historians. The strongest argument against holding a census every 5 years is the huge cost. The budget for the 2011 census was nearly $90 million which is approximately equal to Statistics New Zealand’s annual budget excluding the census of course. Without a 5-year census there would be more resources available to collect all of the other types of data that are relevant to work and life. 
Mr Andrew Whiteford an analyst originally from South Africa asked whether we were able to use a 10 percent sample of households. Why bother collecting data from every single household and why not just collect the information from every 10th or 100th household? On that note I wish that the Minister responsible for this bill would take as many calls as possible to enlighten us on these issues. Thank you.