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:20831] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will be quite brief as well on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not more than 10 minutes! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well I cannot be more than 10 minutes. Mr Mallard is quite correct. This is actually a good bill and it is doing something that the Opposition supports which is moving the census to March 2013. But I have not heard a single reason from any of the National members who have stood up and hurled abuse at the Opposition why this bill needs to be passed under urgency without reference to a select committee. Oh there was an earthquake. So that therefore gives them the opportunity to put whatever legislation through Parliament that they want without following the democratic process and without giving people the chance to have their say on it. I think that is absolutely contemptuous towards the people of New Zealand. There is not a single bill in this House that I have been involved with that has not been improved by going through the select committee process. Yet this Government seems to think that it knows absolutely everything and can learn nothing from listening to the public who might actually have a view on this and therefore it will push this bill through Parliament under urgency without sending it to a select committee and without giving anybody a chance to have a say on it. I think that sums up this Government. They know best; they do not need to listen to anybody else. They can do just whatever they like. They are so arrogant that they can do whatever they like and they do not have to listen to the public of New Zealand. 
Deferring the census until March 2013 certainly makes sense. It is a constitutional decision because the implications of this legislation are constitutional ones. I do not believe that this Parliament or any Parliament should change the constitution under urgency without giving the New Zealand public a chance to have their say on it. That is effectively what this bill does. I see no reason why it should not go to a select committee for further consideration. Labour will vote against this bill not because we do not see that the bill has merit but because we think the New Zealand public should be able to have a say on it. The bill should go to a select committee for further consideration so that people can make submissions the bill can be gone through in some detail and expert advice can be delivered. 
There is no urgency on this matter. Maurice Williamson has had the regulatory impact statement since April which means that if he had been an effective Minister this bill would have been before the House before now. It could have gone through the normal select committee process in that period of time if a competent Minister had been in charge of getting this legislation through the House. Maurice Williamson has not done that so Government members are now trying to make up for their total lack of competence by pushing the bill through under urgency and I think that is a disgrace.