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:20797] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I must congratulate Minister Williamson on his success in introducing the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill under urgency. If it passes without going through a select committee—and I guess that is what urgency is all about—it will be the 21st bill so far to have gone through Parliament under urgency with no select committee deliberation under this National-ACT Government. In that regard my congratulations should be read in inverted commas. Labour would have supported this bill. We called upon National to agree to allow the bill to go to a select committee so that it could receive public input. It is unfortunate and it is regrettable that the National-ACT Government refused to do so. We have no other option but to oppose this bill. National is continuing a habit of rushing laws through all stages under urgency. Rushed law is often poorly considered and has unintended consequences. 
It is also interesting to note that National MPs have developed a habit of taking short calls. It is fitting for me as Labour’s spokesperson on statistics to report some statistics. In my observation on average National MPs take only a 3-minute call for a 10-minute speech and a 1½-minute call for a 5-minute speech. No wonder they are so passionate about ramming through legislation under urgency. On the one hand the National Government is moving at a glacial pace in finding a plan to grow our economy but conversely it is moving very fast on and is very fond of rushing through bills under urgency. No wonder its partner the ACT Party is such a climate change - denier because it is equally slow and moves at a glacial pace when attending to issues concerning our economy but in a similar vein it moves rather swiftly in rushing through legislation under urgency. 
I reiterate however that Labour agrees with the policy objectives of this bill but we cannot support the way that the Government is seeking to rush important constitutional changes through Parliament without giving the public a chance to have its say. Those who have read my media statement and the subsequent Red Alert blog on 25 February 2011 would appreciate that I supported Government Statistician Geoff Bascand’s decision not to hold the 8 March census. I supported the decision of Statistics New Zealand as we as a nation turned our efforts to help the people of Christchurch through their darkest hour. I also sent my best wishes to census staff based in Christchurch at that very traumatic time. 
One commentator whose name is conveniently “Unpleasantly Odouriferous” made a very interesting point: “I can understand the decision—but I am intrigued about the mechanism. The Statistics Act seems pretty clear about holding a census every five years and 2011 is the fifth year … so it’s a legal requirement. I know the Government is now looking at legislation to permit this post-poning of the Census—but cancelling the thing by Executive fiat and without that legislative authority seems to sail close to the Muldoon case. … I am not litigating the actual decision—just wondering about the constitutional niceties.” I agree. I am also not litigating the actual decision but I was left wondering about the constitutional aspects. 
There are other aspects however which I wish to touch upon at the first reading of this bill. Firstly there is an increasing demand for statistical information from iwi as more Treaty settlements are agreed. Statistics New Zealand is working with iwi to identify the types of statistics that will be most useful for the collective management of transferred assets. I wish that the relevant stakeholders such as iwi and those parties involved in the settlements can have their say and the bill’s referral to a select committee rather than ramming it through under urgency is the most appropriate way to achieve that. 
Secondly and this is more relevant to the Minister responsible for this bill the Minister of Statistics there are some operational issues with regard to Statistics New Zealand and rushing the bill through under urgency without properly addressing these issues would leave the stones unturned. That is not fair for Statistics New Zealand. In the Minister’s response to the standard estimates questionnaire he notes: “The statistical system has lacked coordination coherence and prioritisation.” There is $17.685 million sought in 2011-12 for the coordination of Government statistical activities. Statistics New Zealand is responsible for leading the official statistics system. The Minister’s statement will lead to more questions such as: in what way does the official statistics system lack coordination coherence and prioritisation; what will be the key challenges for the official statistics system in 2011 and 2012; and will Statistics New Zealand be ready for the 2013 census? 
Thirdly I understand that the information technology used by Statistics New Zealand is ageing and needs to be upgraded. When will the information technology systems be upgraded? What will be the total cost of the upgrade? What kind of impact will there be on the 2013 census? 
Fourthly there is some debate as to whether we should hold a census every 10 years or every 5 years. Without a select committee deliberation we will not have the opportunity to have these issues addressed. As the Minister just confirmed this bill will not be good enough to address those issues. 
From the regulatory impact statement by Statistics New Zealand we know that to defer the March 2011 census to March 2013 and hold 5-yearly censuses thereafter would incur a cost estimated at $54.5 million plus the $18 million not spent on the 2011 census. So with constitutional contractual operational and financial aspects in mind there are solid reasons for this bill to be referred to a parliamentary select committee. For those reasons Labour opposes this bill.