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:20801] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to begin by repeating something that my colleague Trevor Mallard said which was to pay tribute to the careful contribution that was made in this debate by my colleague Raymond Huo. This is not usually a portfolio area or a spokespersonship that is seen as fascinating or high profile but it is very important. I certainly enjoyed that careful contribution to the debate. 
I want to say a few things about the two parts of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. The first is the proposal to defer the census by 2 years. Members on this side of the House accept immediately that given the situation in Canterbury it is very likely that it is sensible to defer the census. We heard from the Minister of Statistics in his contribution that there was a problem because one of the chief offices of the Government Statistician is located in Christchurch. As Mr Mallard said we are obligated to accept the Minister’s word on that. But it would have been useful for members on this side of the House and for the public to be able to have confidence in the administration of the Government and in particular given the pretty extraordinary proposal to defer a census to have had a short period where this matter could have gone to a select committee. 
It would have needed only 2 weeks—the next adjournment. It could have come back to Parliament in a couple of weeks and we would have had the assurance of process that the Standing Orders suggest ought to be the standard that this Parliament works to. We all know that we do not have an Upper House; we have just this Chamber. The only scrutiny that this legislation will receive and the only scrutiny that the Minister’s assurances to us will receive is in the Committee stage which we are about to embark upon because thanks to this bill being included in the urgency motion it will be put through all its stages in this sitting of Parliament. So there will be no opportunity to test whether it is necessary to have a deferral of the census for 2 years no opportunity to test the assurance of the Minister that the location in Christchurch of one of the chief offices is a problem and no opportunity to test the concern raised by Raymond Huo that there is real redundancy in the technology being deployed by the Government Statistician for census purposes. All those important issues will simply remain in the ether and that is just not satisfactory. 
I am also concerned about the ramifications of deferring a census. For a long time the census has been held on a 5-yearly basis so we have a body of material a body of data that is able to be compared 5-year block against 5-year block. I do not know because I am not a statistician what the effect of suddenly introducing a new time period into the process will be. Again it would have been useful for members of Parliament and for the public to be able to hear from experts—from at least the Government Statistician but also from others with an interest and expertise in this sort of area—on what we are doing to the nation’s data mine by agreeing to this proposal. 
I am also concerned about some of the language that is deployed by the draftsperson in the bill. I will use the Committee stage to ask the Minister a little bit more about this but I signal the concern now because I can see he is paying close attention to the debate and it would be useful to hear more from him in the Committee stage. The drafters talk about obviating the need for the proclamation process and that is a useful reminder about the constitutional position of the Government Statistician. Under the State Sector Act he has a degree of independence as far as his appointment is concerned and there is good reason for that just as there is good reason for a proclamation process as to the date of the census. It puts beyond the ordinary reach of a Public Service chief executive and of Ministers to whom the chief executive reports the question of when the census date should occur. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This change is only for this 1 year. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The Minister says as he said in his speech that this change is only for 1 year. We have all seen in this House how precedents can be made through drafting like this. The proclamation process is done away with because there is said to be an emergency on one occasion. Then guess what? When the Minister has his way and defers the census from every 5 years to every 10 years as he is on record saying he wants to do when we get such legislation in the future lo and behold will it be a surprise to anybody if the proclamation process which is a careful check and balance that has been thought out over years suddenly disappears? Well again we will never know because there is not the opportunity to hear from for example the Legislation Advisory Committee on that sort of question. We would have that opportunity no doubt if the Minister had acceded to Mr Mallard’s very modest request that there be a 2-week submission period so that the public and experts could tell us a little bit about the true ramifications of this proposal. 
The second part of the legislation is of equal concern. Happily we will not be able to have grandstanding from members about Labour not caring about Canterbury on this question at least as we have had from them so far on the first question. It is true that the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 is unusual. It does not contain any of the provisions we would expect to see in modern legislation relating to the administration of a Government department. We know this because the Regulations Review Committee considered the Legislation Bill pretty extensively. I see the hard-working deputy chair Tim Macindoe on the other side of the House; I hope he will take many calls in this debate because I know he will have a great contribution to make on the question. We had the Attorney-General in we had past Chief Parliamentary Counsel in and we had the current Chief Parliamentary Counsel address us on the problems that that office currently faces because of the antiquated provisions in the Act. We have reported back to the House a revised Legislation Bill that would fix many of those problems. 
So why has one part of that Legislation Bill been plucked out and put into urgency and why are we being asked to pass it tonight? I want to know whether the Minister actually knows the answer to that question. Are we doing something here as Mr Mallard asked him that is to the peculiar benefit of an individual? What is the urgency for this piece of the Legislation Bill being taken out of its context and passed through all its stages in Parliament? Is the Chief Parliamentary Counsel for example still in the country or is there already a delegated arrangement de facto in place which we are effectively being asked to validate without a true and accurate picture of the position—which again we would have if this legislation were sent to a brief select committee process? 
What ought to be a relatively straightforward process by virtue of the Minister’s refusal to agree to a truncated select committee process becomes more complicated and unfortunately more controversial. Unless we can get some answers during the Committee stage to the sorts of issues I have raised then the Opposition will remain disquieted by this legislation.