Hipkins Chris: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20815] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’re allowed four calls. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I say to my colleague Trevor Mallard that I am just getting warmed up but give it some time give it some time and we will get there. 
Part 1 enables the census to take place in March 2013. Without this bill the Government Statistician would be in breach of the Statistics Act if a census is not carried out by the end of 2011. The point I want to raise here is that I think this is reasonable legislation. It is not something that the Labour Party would normally be opposed to. It is not something that I would normally be opposed to. I fully understand the circumstances that have made it impossible for the chief statistician to conduct the census this year as required by law but in spite of that I think it is still important that the democratic process of this House is followed. In cases of real emergency where the House needs to act quickly it has done so. This is not one of those cases. There is no good reason why this bill needs to go through all stages in the House tonight under urgency and why the public should not be allowed to have its say through a truncated select committee process. 
I have listened to all of the Government speakers. I have been here since this debate started. We have been through the first reading and the second reading and now we are in the Committee stage and not one Government member including the Minister of Statistics has given us a reason why this bill must go through all stages under urgency. Not one Government member has given us a reason why the bill should not be referred to a select committee for say a week to allow people to make submissions. I do not think there has been a bill that I have been involved with in this Parliament that has gone to a select committee that has not been improved by the select committee process. 
As much as everyone may think that we have covered off every possible avenue one of the wonders of the democratic process is that anybody can have a view on a bill anyone can raise a concern or an issue and quite often they actually improve the legislation as a result. I do not think there is any reason why this bill should not go through that process and people should not be allowed to do that. We could still get the bill passed in plenty of time to let the chief statistician out of the legal requirement to conduct a census before the end of this year. The earthquake that triggered the census not being able to take place occurred in February. It is now August and this is the first time the House is debating this legislation. That is absolutely ridiculous. This could easily have been dealt with before that. 
Section 23 of the Statistics Act currently states: “The census of population and dwellings of New Zealand shall be taken by the Department in the year 1976 and in every fifth year thereafter.” This bill changes that wording and in this case the census will not be taken “in every fifth year”; it will end up being taken in the seventh year after the last census. That does of course raise concerns about the compatibility of the data. 
I disagree with my colleague Trevor Mallard although it is very unusual for the two of us to disagree because I actually accept the Minister’s point. I accept that the timing of the year is quite important and if we cannot take the census every fifth year we should at least strive to take it at a time when the data will be the most comparable with the data of previous censuses. I say to my colleague Trevor Mallard that I am looking forward to his contribution on this issue. I think that taking the next census at the same time of year as the regular census would normally take place is a good thing. This bill allows for that; it allows for the census to take place in March 2013 which I understand was the preferred option recommended by Statistics New Zealand. 
The other option was to move to 10-yearly censuses as the US has done but there are a whole lot of reasons why we would not want to do that. We have a relatively small and in some cases quite fluid population. I think that the 5-yearly census is the one that we should try to get back to. I hope that in every fifth year after 2013 we will continue to take a census. I would like the Minister to address that question. Will the next census take place 5 years after 2013 or will it happen sooner than 5 years after 2013? 
I would certainly like the Minister to answer that question because a lot of Government processes—our democratic and constitutional processes—rely on the census. The most readily cited example is the electoral boundaries. I had this discussion with the Minister of Statistics at the all-powerful— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hoping to get Pomare into my electorate! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well there are not many people left in Pomare because Phil Heatley is demolishing all the houses and leaving the land empty so it would not be much of an inheritance. At the all-powerful Government Administration Committee’s hearings on the statistics estimates I raised with the Minister Maurice Williamson the issue of electoral boundaries and he assured me at that time that holding the census in March 2013 will still allow sufficient time for the boundaries to be redrawn in time for the 2014 general election. I am sure that members will be interested in that matter although given that there was bound to be some to-ing and fro-ing between myself and my colleague Trevor Mallard on where the boundaries should go— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Do you want Naenae? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am quite happy to relieve the member of the burden of representing the people of Naenae. I think that is an area that would fit very well within the Rimutaka electorate boundaries. But coming back to the issue— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They don’t even know how to spell “Rimutaka”. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I tell Mr Mallard that that is a terrible thing to say about the people he purports to represent! 
I come back to this issue of why we are debating all stages of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill under urgency. We have had the first and second readings tonight and we are now in the Committee stage and I understand we are doing the third reading immediately after that without having given the public even a small opportunity to make comment without having given the select committee an opportunity to receive advice. I can say that this could have been dealt with very quickly by the select committee and it could have gone through the process required. 
One of the reasons why I think this bill should go through the process is that our statistics system is part of our constitutional framework. I think it is quite outrageous that the Government is proposing a change even in this emergency situation that prompted it. It is quite outrageous that the Government is proposing a constitutional change without following any sort of democratic process in doing so. I was concerned about the process that we followed in the House immediately following the earthquake with regard to the emergency legislation that this Parliament passed. I was willing to let those concerns go on the basis that that was a very urgent emergency and Parliament needed to do something. But having said that I think we can learn a few lessons from the process that was followed there. That legislation undoubtedly could have been improved if there had been time for it to go to a select committee and for people to have a say on it. It did not and Labour accepted that because the legislation needed to be passed urgently. This bill does not need to be passed urgently and actually better management on the Government’s part would have avoided the need for this bill to go through under urgency. 
The bill is still not urgent now. We still have until the House lifts for the election to pass this legislation so we have another couple of months. Yet the Government is trying to put it through under urgency this evening. I think that is of real concern. There is no reason why the bill should not go to a select committee. There is no reason why it could not be improved through public submissions and through the select committee having the opportunity to get some advice from experts on the matter. I think that could have been done very quickly. The Minister of course had the regulatory impact statement on this legislation back in April. I think it is somewhat of an indictment on his effectiveness and influence that he has waited until August to bring this bill before the House. When he was confronted with that comment earlier he mumbled something about Bill English. Then all the pennies dropped all the bits fell into place: we understand of course that Bill English and Maurice Williamson are the two closest colleagues in the National Party caucus! So of course we fully understand why this legislation has not come before the House until now. 
Finally this bill should have gone to a select committee. There is no reason for it to be pushed through under urgency. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer to the question that I have just raised with him and I look forward to contributing further as the debate progresses.