Chauvel Charles: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20818] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I say first off that I appreciate the Minister of Statistics taking a call immediately after Mr Hipkins’ contribution in the Committee stage and the bona fide attempt to address the questions that were raised. I said in my earlier contribution that I had one or two questions about Part 1 of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill and I hope that the Minister will be minded to take a call and answer those questions. 
I suppose the first question asks why the Minister feels he needs separate legislation to effect this change and whether any consideration was given to simply enacting this amendment under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. On my reading of that legislation it could have been accomplished by an Order in Council under the emergency legislation. Although normally no one on this side of the Chamber would advance that as a preferred option the reality is that at least if that course had been adopted there would have been better scrutiny than this legislation will receive from this process. 
Under the Canterbury emergency legislation there would have been a two-stage scrutiny process. First the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel headed by Sir John Hansen would have scrutinised the legislation. Secondly the Regulations Review Committee would have considered the legislation under the grounds of the Standing Orders. Under the process the Minister has chosen the only scrutiny that the legislation will receive is the half an hour or so that we are devoting to it in this Committee of the whole House. So I would be interested in knowing whether the Minister and his colleagues considered using the process they put in place to deal with Canterbury emergencies given that this is—we are told and we accept—a question arising out of such an emergency. At least there would have been that better scrutiny. If not why instead are we here dealing with all of this under urgency? 
The Minister has dealt with one of my concerns because it was raised by Mr Hipkins. It related to the issue of drawing the boundaries for the next election and he said that that has been done on tighter time frames before this. But it would be useful to hear from the Minister about what assurances the Maori Party received concerning the Maori electoral option— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes. What secret deals have been done? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well good on the Maori Party for seeking those assurances. I am not attributing anything negative to that exercise but it would be useful to know what the assurance was. I think that members on this side of the Chamber would also be interested to know and to be assured that the Maori electoral option has been preserved safely and will not be jeopardised in its administration by the proposal to move the census forward 2 years. 
Similarly as I mentioned in my earlier speech I ask in response to a proper admission by the Minister that he has canvassed the issue of population-based funding for district health boards with his colleague the Minister of Health what is to be done in order to secure health board funding on a rational basis given the moving of the census forward 2 years. 
The concern I referred to earlier on this part related to the language that is used in the legislation and in the explanatory note. It would be useful I think to have an assurance from the Minister on the record that the deferral of the proclamation process is intended as only a one-time exercise and that it is not intended that the process be done away with by way of an erosion of the independence of the Government Statistician. As was indicated earlier there is a reason for that process. It is important and it exists as a significant feature of the statute. 
Finally it would be useful to have an assurance from the Minister that he is concerned as I am that the apparent breach of the principle in  
Fitzgerald v Muldoon 
 contained in the explanatory note is an accident.