Dalziel Lianne: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20808] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. I know that most of my colleagues will be utterly gobsmacked when the first thing I will refer to is the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill. I want to refer to that because the Minister for Regulatory Reform made an undertaking to this House that whenever bills were passed through all their stages under urgency due to the Government’s decision to remove the regulatory impact statements from the bills themselves the Government would make sure that the statements were tabled in the House. I personally went to the Bills Office to get some copies of this bill’s regulatory impact statement and placed them on the Table of the House. The regulatory impact statement was not on the Table for the first reading of this bill. 
I was deeply disappointed but I now know why. There is a reason why the Government decided to cover up the regulatory impact statement and keep it from the House’s consideration. It is because of the date it was signed. Perhaps members would like to know the date that Vince Galvin a Deputy Government Statistician signed the agency disclosure statement for the regulatory impact statement which of course would have gone to the Minister of Statistics. Would anyone like to know the date? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Do members think it was last week? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Week before? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Maybe a couple of weeks ago? Three weeks? Four five? 
Hon Member 
: Put us out of our misery. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: OK. How about 6 April 2011? Now of course we have the real reason that we are here under urgency. We have to deal with this urgently because the Government did nothing for month after month after month. We went from April to August and the Government did nothing. Now we are debating the bill under urgency and there is no opportunity for this bill to go to a select committee to be considered by anyone—the Legislation Advisory Committee or anyone. I just heard the Minister say how much he respects and values everything the Law Commission recommends yet he will not allow this bill to go to a select committee even for a week or two to allow such esteemed bodies to make a contribution to our lawmaking. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Maybe it was stuck on Maurice’s fax machine. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It might have been stuck on the Minister’s fax machine but I am absolutely astounded that he would talk about the urgency of this particular legislation when the regulatory impact statement was signed off on 6 April 2011. 
Unlike some of the other contributors to this debate I am a Canterbury member. I was in Christchurch on the day of the September earthquake which is about to have its first anniversary. I was in Christchurch in my electorate office on 22 February when the second earthquake struck. I have been in Christchurch for most of the very large aftershocks—the Boxing Day aftershock and of course the one on 13 June. I certainly have experienced along with my constituents the devastation that those have caused. I know that the Statistics New Zealand office has suffered as well. I know that it is the centre of New Zealand statistics and that therefore obviously the census had to be deferred. 
But the point I am making is that I am quite tired of Canterbury of Christchurch being used as an excuse—the earthquakes being used as an excuse—for the Government to walk away from its obligations to meet process. This is a process issue and if people do not understand why it is important that proper process is observed even in situations like this and that these challenges are met within the context of what this Parliament is designed to achieve then I wonder why Government members feel they are playing the role they were elected to perform. 
I feel quite strongly about this because a lot of what is happening in Christchurch at the moment does not evidence best practice internationally in terms of recovery from disaster. Part of what the Government has not managed to achieve is the sense of engagement with the affected communities that would make the recovery so much more accessible as it were and that would enable people to own their own recovery. I think that is absolutely fundamental. 
I have just received via the Facebook page of the Bexley Residents Association a copy of the  
CERA: R 
esidential Red Zone Offers—Summary of Sale Process—draft for discussion 
 marked “Confidential not Government policy”. I have just downloaded this from Facebook. This means that the Government through its Government department the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is consulting agencies outside this Parliament without even consulting members of Parliament or indeed a select committee which would have the ability to look over the fine print and detail of such an offer. 
I have to acknowledge the conflict of interest that I share. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What’s this got to do with the census? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will be receiving one of these residential red zone offers and I know that that member would like me to stop talking about things that really matter to people in Christchurch but I am saying that the relevance to this bill is that this Government seems to think that consultation with people affected by legislation does not matter. I am reflecting on the fact that this bill does not enable anyone to have any contribution to the discussion about whether this census ought to be deferred for 10 years or for 2 years—which is the Government’s decision that it has taken of its own volition without any reference to a select committee. Here is the Government putting out a discussion document for whomever—who I do not know— 
Residential Red Zone Offers—Summary of Sale Process 
. 
I think that is outrageous but it does show exactly what this Government is doing over and over and over again. Every time we deal with the Canterbury earthquakes we find ourselves in this situation: the Government does not consult with affected parties. We have got this again: Canterbury—Christchurch—is being used as an excuse for a change to the census legislation. But actually it is not the change to the census legislation that I object to. It is the lack of capacity for people to contribute to the discussion about what the decision might be that really frustrates me and all of the people who elected me to represent them. 
I find it incredibly frustrating to listen to members of the Government say that we have had an earthquake in Christchurch. Well I was there; I know exactly what that earthquake experience was like and I have also been there for my constituents who have literally cried in my arms and who have been through every emotion one could possibly imagine. I say to Government members that it really does matter that people feel utterly engaged in the process of decision making when it comes to their recovery. I find it extraordinary that the Government does not think that this is important. 
I might have agreed with the Government about the need for more urgency and maybe for the remaining stages of this bill to go through under urgency but when I read that the regulatory impact statement for this bill was written on 6 April this year I know that the Government has had time to do this properly. I know that it has had time to put this bill through the process. 
I know that the Minister of Statistics sort of put to one side the idea that we would put off the census until 2016 and I do not necessarily know whether I agree with that. But when I hear that it was just at the pleading of Aaron Gilmore that it be brought into effect in 2013 so that he could have the chance of having the Christchurch East constituency disappear then it really does not bode well for wondering why the Government chose that particular option. 
But I really just made that last comment flippantly. The serious comment I will make is that every single decision that will be made in relation to the recovery of Christchurch post that terrible terrible day of 22 February must involve every single one of those affected parties so that they feel utterly engaged in the process of decision making. This bill like the discussion paper that has gone out on the residential red zone offers was not even advised to this Parliament and was not advised to any of the local MPs. That just shows that this Government is not listening to people and is not willing to engage with them. I think that is a shame and it is a good reason to vote against this bill.