Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20796] 
Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 I move  
That the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill is a very straightforward and I think practical response to two matters requiring quite urgent attention. Part 1 of the bill amends the Statistics Act to give effect to the decision to defer the Census of Population and Dwellings from this year to 2013. As the House will know the census was supposed to have occurred in March of this year but after the devastating earthquake on 22 February in Christchurch for a number of reasons it was decided to defer the census. One reason was that it would be very unfair to the people of Christchurch while going through the recovery process to force them into doing all of the work. Secondly there were huge dislocations of people so the numbers would have been very distorted. But more important the very hard one for us was that the actual office that did most of the census processing was based inside the red zone in Christchurch and was very very badly damaged. 
Part 2 changes the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act of 1920—an Act that I am sure every member of this House reads on a regular basis to keep themselves— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s actually a bit serious this. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes. Yes I understand that. Part 2 changes the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 to enable the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to delegate his or her functions responsibilities duties and powers. Both of these matters need to be attended to in a timely fashion. 
Part 1 of the bill amends the Statistics Act 1975. Section 23(1) of the Statistics Act 1975 currently requires a census to be undertaken “in the year 1976 and in every fifth year thereafter.” The amendment contained in the bill to omit the year “1976” and substitute “2013” removes the requirement that a census be undertaken this year and it puts everything back on to a new time frame. The bill needs to be enacted and enforced before the end of the year if the Government Statistician is not to be in breach of the statutory obligation to have undertaken a census in this year of 2011. 
The bill also obviates the need for the current proclamation process whereby the Governor-General appoints the day and timing of the census. The amendment enables the Government Statistician to appoint the day and timing of the census by notice in the  
Gazette 
 as soon as practicable after the legislation comes into force. This streamlined process is for the 2013 census only and is made in the light of public announcements already issued about the next census. It will allow notification of the actual day to be given in a more timely manner than the proclamation process allows. 
Some members may raise questions about the nature and frequency of future censuses—or censi I guess. Is it censuses? I think it is censuses. I think it is actually. We will have to get a definition later—censuses or censi? I have asked the same question: in this modern day of information technology and information processing is a 5-year cycle the right way to stay? It is a question I have asked; we do not know the answer. So I make it clear to members that this bill does nothing to preclude further considerations of how often and how we might undertake a census after 2013. This bill is just for 2013 and to get us back on to a 5-year track. Statistics New Zealand is currently completing its stage 2 business case Tomorrow’s Official Population and Social Statistics to provide Cabinet with a range of longer-term options and they will be considered. 
Part 2 of this bill amends the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920. The proposal to modernise the delegation powers of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission and it is consistent with the general position of chief executives under the State Sector Act 1988. Members will note that the amendment is achieved by inserting three new sections after section 8A of the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920: new section 8B “Delegation of functions responsibilities duties or powers”; new section 8C “Absence or incapacity of Chief Parliamentary Counsel or vacancy”; and new section 8D “Revocation of delegations”. 
This bill meets two well-established needs. Legislation is needed to change the requirement to hold a census in 2011 to 2013. The Chief Parliamentary Counsel needs an express power of delegation to enable the Parliamentary Counsel Office to be effectively managed during the period of his secondment in the United Kingdom. It is appropriate that this bill be considered under urgency and through all stages. I recommend this bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I must congratulate Minister Williamson on his success in introducing the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill under urgency. If it passes without going through a select committee—and I guess that is what urgency is all about—it will be the 21st bill so far to have gone through Parliament under urgency with no select committee deliberation under this National-ACT Government. In that regard my congratulations should be read in inverted commas. Labour would have supported this bill. We called upon National to agree to allow the bill to go to a select committee so that it could receive public input. It is unfortunate and it is regrettable that the National-ACT Government refused to do so. We have no other option but to oppose this bill. National is continuing a habit of rushing laws through all stages under urgency. Rushed law is often poorly considered and has unintended consequences. 
It is also interesting to note that National MPs have developed a habit of taking short calls. It is fitting for me as Labour’s spokesperson on statistics to report some statistics. In my observation on average National MPs take only a 3-minute call for a 10-minute speech and a 1½-minute call for a 5-minute speech. No wonder they are so passionate about ramming through legislation under urgency. On the one hand the National Government is moving at a glacial pace in finding a plan to grow our economy but conversely it is moving very fast on and is very fond of rushing through bills under urgency. No wonder its partner the ACT Party is such a climate change - denier because it is equally slow and moves at a glacial pace when attending to issues concerning our economy but in a similar vein it moves rather swiftly in rushing through legislation under urgency. 
I reiterate however that Labour agrees with the policy objectives of this bill but we cannot support the way that the Government is seeking to rush important constitutional changes through Parliament without giving the public a chance to have its say. Those who have read my media statement and the subsequent Red Alert blog on 25 February 2011 would appreciate that I supported Government Statistician Geoff Bascand’s decision not to hold the 8 March census. I supported the decision of Statistics New Zealand as we as a nation turned our efforts to help the people of Christchurch through their darkest hour. I also sent my best wishes to census staff based in Christchurch at that very traumatic time. 
One commentator whose name is conveniently “Unpleasantly Odouriferous” made a very interesting point: “I can understand the decision—but I am intrigued about the mechanism. The Statistics Act seems pretty clear about holding a census every five years and 2011 is the fifth year … so it’s a legal requirement. I know the Government is now looking at legislation to permit this post-poning of the Census—but cancelling the thing by Executive fiat and without that legislative authority seems to sail close to the Muldoon case. … I am not litigating the actual decision—just wondering about the constitutional niceties.” I agree. I am also not litigating the actual decision but I was left wondering about the constitutional aspects. 
There are other aspects however which I wish to touch upon at the first reading of this bill. Firstly there is an increasing demand for statistical information from iwi as more Treaty settlements are agreed. Statistics New Zealand is working with iwi to identify the types of statistics that will be most useful for the collective management of transferred assets. I wish that the relevant stakeholders such as iwi and those parties involved in the settlements can have their say and the bill’s referral to a select committee rather than ramming it through under urgency is the most appropriate way to achieve that. 
Secondly and this is more relevant to the Minister responsible for this bill the Minister of Statistics there are some operational issues with regard to Statistics New Zealand and rushing the bill through under urgency without properly addressing these issues would leave the stones unturned. That is not fair for Statistics New Zealand. In the Minister’s response to the standard estimates questionnaire he notes: “The statistical system has lacked coordination coherence and prioritisation.” There is $17.685 million sought in 2011-12 for the coordination of Government statistical activities. Statistics New Zealand is responsible for leading the official statistics system. The Minister’s statement will lead to more questions such as: in what way does the official statistics system lack coordination coherence and prioritisation; what will be the key challenges for the official statistics system in 2011 and 2012; and will Statistics New Zealand be ready for the 2013 census? 
Thirdly I understand that the information technology used by Statistics New Zealand is ageing and needs to be upgraded. When will the information technology systems be upgraded? What will be the total cost of the upgrade? What kind of impact will there be on the 2013 census? 
Fourthly there is some debate as to whether we should hold a census every 10 years or every 5 years. Without a select committee deliberation we will not have the opportunity to have these issues addressed. As the Minister just confirmed this bill will not be good enough to address those issues. 
From the regulatory impact statement by Statistics New Zealand we know that to defer the March 2011 census to March 2013 and hold 5-yearly censuses thereafter would incur a cost estimated at $54.5 million plus the $18 million not spent on the 2011 census. So with constitutional contractual operational and financial aspects in mind there are solid reasons for this bill to be referred to a parliamentary select committee. For those reasons Labour opposes this bill. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am absolutely dumbstruck and dumbfounded— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just dumb. 
JOHN HAYES 
: —or maybe just dumb probably like the last speaker—because it is just astonishing. We had an earthquake in Christchurch and we have a legal obligation to conduct a census every 5 years and that last speaker Raymond Huo said that Labour would not support the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. It is absolutely astonishing. That member is an accountant and he is locked up in the figure of $17.685 million of whatever. That is irrelevant. The core issue is this. It is very simple. We made a decision to postpone the census following the 22 February earthquake in Canterbury. The census collects vital information. We cannot do it at the moment because of the problems in Canterbury. That is why this legislation is before the House. This evening I have been using—and I just show my colleagues—a diagram I have discussed with the Prime Minister based on the 2010 statistics. They show how people from Masterton and provincial New Zealand are moving into our cities and we have a waist in the demographic of missing 20 to 50-year-olds in our workforce in the Wairarapa. This is very important information and this is why we need to have a census. As I said because of the legal obligation we must pass this legislation through the House tonight. Thank you. 
I seek leave to table this original piece of work on the floor of the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: What is the origin of that document? 
JOHN HAYES 
: Me based on Statistics New Zealand data. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It is not a public document. It is a piece of information produced by the member. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think my colleague Raymond Huo summarised our position on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill relatively well. Given decent time decent briefings and proper process I think we would have been supportive of the legislation. Even the member for the Wairarapa Mr Hayes summarised the situation pretty well. There was an earthquake and we all know that there could not be a census in Christchurch this year. I think “munted” is the description of the centre of Christchurch. The office was stuffed and we could not hold a census for part of the country. Therefore it had to be deferred. I would have thought that Maurice Williamson if he was a good active Minister of Statistics would not go past the first week in March when he had advice to that effect. The decision to do it we are told was made in May and I think the announcements were made around that time. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The census was actually being held in March. We cancelled it back in February. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK it was cancelled. But the decision to take this process was made in May I understand. The question I have for the Minister is a relatively simple one because this bill is not complex. I think it is fair to say that when we get to the Committee stage there will be some holding of the Minister to account for what might be described as sloppy drafting. But we will work our way through that and that is one of the reasons of course why bills should go to select committees. The Minister is aware that I offered a process whereby the bill went to a select committee for the period of the adjournment and then went through its stages without much debate at all and quicker than we will do it today and tomorrow. There was an offer to do that because it meant that we could have had the statistician in and we could have had parliamentary counsel— 
John Hayes 
: Trevor you’re just playing games. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Not at all. I have been around this place for a while and I have respect for the institution. There has to be a very good reason for a bill not to go to a select committee. The fact that the member was late getting himself organised in this way is not a good enough excuse. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We had to get an appropriation through the finance Minister and that took some months. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the member is now pleading a lack of influence. The member is now pleading the fact that the Minister of Finance will not listen to him. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The Minister is saying it’s difficult to soar like an eagle when he is surrounded by turkeys. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to be a little bit fair to that Minister. If I was putting together a National Cabinet I would stick him in it because he has had experience and he knows practical stuff. If he was in there he would have been able to sort out the Minister of Finance and the bill would have been able to proceed. It could have been referred to a select committee for 2 weeks we could have had 2 or 3 hours of hearings and people could have been satisfied. The drafting could have been made slightly more fashionable than it is and we could have heard from the people who are interested in it. That would not have been hard. And as I said it would have taken less time than pushing it through this way under urgency. In fact we probably could have had one speech from either side in the first reading. It could have been off to the select committee by now if the Minister had decided to take that approach. 
I had one specific question which the Minister has answered privately that I would like to get on to the record as part of the exercise and that was to seek an assurance that section 77 of the Electoral Act is not offended by this bill. There is a requirement in there for 5-yearly censuses—and the word is “censuses”; I have looked it up. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s Latin-based. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. It is Latin not Greek and it means an assessment. The first thing it used to be was a traffic count. It was used to count the traffic. That was the first census. Then it was used for taxation in Roman times—[ 
Interruption 
]—and no like the member I cannot remember. I had to do some research in the  
Collins English Dictionary 
 in order to find that out. 
There is another question that I think is important and I am obliged to my colleague Charles Chauvel for highlighting the issue to me. Why when we have a Statutes Amendment Bill that has been through the select committee—and I think we also have the Legislation Bill somewhere in the process—are we amending— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Both back from committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They are both back from the select committee waiting for their second readings. Why are we taking a process to put through under urgency an amendment to the Statues Drafting and Compilation Act? I want to seek an assurance from the Minister that this is not legislation in order to make arrangements for a particular individual. I think it is very important that the House gets an assurance that this is a general piece of legislation and that we are not faced with the immediate situation of someone who wants to do another job for a period of time and come back. 
If that is the case that would be an outrageous abuse of Parliament because in the briefings we were given there was no such reference. There was no such reference at all. In the past chief executives have gone overseas to do other jobs—sometimes they are very important jobs—and have come back. They do not necessarily come back to the same job—they took their chances when they returned to the country. I think it is important to get that assurance and I think the time taken on the legislation will depend on the Minister being able to give that assurance during the select committee process. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Will we have that assurance under a polygraph test? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. Frankly if that Minister gave his word then I would take it. Of course inside this House we are obliged to. Behind the chair there would be one or two of his colleagues whom I would not be quite as trusting of including the Minister who has responsibility for parliamentary counsel. But within this House— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Never you! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Never me either. I think there is never a danger of my being Attorney-General. I think there is a certain amount of shuddering to my right at the very prospect of that. 
I compliment my colleague Raymond Huo who is leading the Labour debate on this issue for his work both on this legislation and generally as the Opposition spokesperson on statistics. I think it is fair to say that it is not normally a position that has a lot of profile but the member has made a lot of it. He has looked at a lot of the statements that have come out. He has inquired into the positions and workings of Statistics New Zealand and he has developed an understanding of statistics the way it works and the importance of the Government Statistician. I think the last person who had that level of understanding—I do not want to be too rude to Darren Hughes—was Michael Cullen. As well as being the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance he was at least early in his career the Minister of Statistics. He thought it was an important role and he wanted to guard the independence of it. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I’m going to tell Clayton you said that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh was Clayton the Minister as well? I will plead guilty to my friend and colleague Chris Hipkins for that one passing me by. It did not quite— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I was too Trevor. I was Minister of Statistics. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh dear! I do not care about that member; he will not be voting for the next Cabinet in November so I do not really care! But I say to Clayton that I am very sorry. The point I want to make is that Dr Cullen regarded the independence of the Government Statistician as vitally important. Frankly on occasions we used to get quite grumpy with him. There were some arrangements that we thought could have been much better from a taxpayer’s point of view. We thought we could have got better-quality information but over a period of time we had some statisticians who just would not be told. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. This bill is supposed to be non-controversial. However I am absolutely shocked that Labour is opposing it. 
We understand why this legislation has to be before the House. The census was postponed as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes. The earthquakes were devastating to our country. Over 180 people lost their lives thousands of people lost their houses and some people lost their limbs. This bill is about restoring our ability to hold that national census. Actually it is about restoring the heart of our democracy in this country. We know that many people have shifted between electorates and I am shocked that Labour does not support this legislation that will enable us to determine how many people are living in electorates. That cuts to the core of our parliamentary democracy. 
I commend this bill to the House because it is about restoring what happened as a result of Canterbury and ensuring parliamentary democracy reigns. I am shocked that Labour does not support this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora ano tatou katoa. This is just a short call from the Maori Party to say that we support the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. There are some requirements that we need to meet and the Maori Party is fully behind that. 
One of the concerns we had was around the possibility of the move of the Maori Option which has some links to the timing of the census. We were in discussions with the Minister of Statistics and he has assured us pretty much that that will not be affected. Therefore our concerns have been laid to rest. 
From that background I think it is fair to say that we are supportive of this bill all the way through every stage to make sure that that particular concern can be addressed and also that we meet the obligations required of us. Kia ora tatou. 
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. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I thank Mr Assistant Speaker Roy for the opportunity to participate in the first reading of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. This bill allows legislation to be changed in order to hold the 2011 census in 2013. The census of 2011 was postponed following the 22 February earthquake in Canterbury. 
This bill also includes amendments to modernise the delegation powers of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to enable the delegation of his or her functions responsibilities duties and powers. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 That is all very interesting but it is no defence of why the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill is being heard under urgency. We have not heard from the member who has just resumed his seat Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi the member on the opposite benches before that or any National member any defence as to why this bill should be passed under urgency. I have spent a bit of time as Minister of Statistics and the key feature of the issue of statistics is that it be treated with a certain arm’s-length approach by politicians. Process around statistics matters. The independence of statistics is important. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member got captured. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It may be that I was captured by the Government Statistician of the day. It is absolutely true that when one is a Minister of Statistics other Ministers want the Minister of Statistics to beat up a little on the Government Statistician and when one is a member of the executive other than as the Minister of Statistics one joins the other 19 in trying to beat up on the Minister of Statistics in order to try to usurp the independence of the Government Statistician. 
This however does not work and it is important that it does not work. It may be that there are some processes relating to release timing and the use of adjectives when improvement or reasonableness could prevail a little more from time to time—I am sure that people would argue that. But the underlying fact is that a Government that has an independent set of statistics is a believable Government. Conversely a Government that has a constrained or politicised set of statistics is not believable. We can all list nations on both sides of that. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How is this politicising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is an intervention of some sort from a humanoid opposite. A vaguely humanoid personage wishes to make an intervention. Let us hear from him. 
Tim Macindoe 
: I want to know how this is politicising it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is politicised by screwing around with the numbers—screwing around with the numbers—I say to the member opposite. That is what “politicised” means. 
When China says that its CPI is this that its population census has changed by that or that its GDP has altered by the other some people are unkind enough to say that that may be wrong because the statistics in the view of some commentators are not sufficiently independent in the People’s Republic of China. They do not say that about New Zealand however. The statistics in New Zealand even if they are subject to ongoing correction—and they are—are regarded as being free of political influence. Why does this matter in this debate? Because it is important—I think; we think—to have legislation like this referred to a select committee in order that the Government Statistician and people who work for that department can be taken into the select committee and their advice on the legislation can be received. 
We assume that this is what the Government Statistician wants. We assume that the Minister of Statistics is merely allowing a sensible decision to be given legal effect. That is what we assume. But the independence of statistics is sufficiently important that we ought to test it openly and a select committee process is how that happens. This select committee process is being denied the Government Statistician is being denied the New Zealand public and is being denied this House. Do members think the Opposition should roll over and let that happen? I do not think so. 
There will be opposition to this legislation only on the basis of process. It seems sensible to delay a census by 2 years or perhaps 1 year or 3 years; I am not sure. It seems sensible to do that because of the earthquake. If it is sensible it is certainly the case that we need to do it by statutory amendment. It cannot be done otherwise. We accept that. We can read black-letter law like anyone else. But it is not OK— 
Sandra Goudie 
: They can read! They can’t add. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is not OK I say to the “Orange Roughy” for an earthquake that is 6 months old next week to be the cause of something that only now comes to the House. It is not OK. It is 5 months since we were told that we would have to delay the census—5 months. What has the Minister of Statistics been doing? Is this a big piece of legislation? It is not. Is it difficult legislation? It is not. Does it involve some expense? Yes a little. Did he have trouble getting money from the Minister of Finance? Apparently— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A little? It’s $94 million. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is $94 million. OK now we are going to quibble. So because it is so costly—here is the logic now. The logic as offered by way of interjection goes like this: there is a delay the delay is caused by the cost and the delay is absolutely unavoidable because of the cost. On the other hand delaying the census itself is unavoidable because we cannot make any sense out of a census when we have a bombed-out second city of the nation. Therefore the one conclusion we can draw is that the Minister of Statistics failed to properly make that argument to the Minister of Finance and took 5 months to fail—5 months to achieve no progress on this. All he needed to do was say: “Bill what about the idea that you’ve got no choice? What about that Bill? Has there been a rattle down in Christchurch? Verily there has. Do we need to delay the census? Verily we do. Will it cost money? It does; it does. Therefore cough. There ain’t no option.” That is the end of the debate. 
The Minister of Finance may have asked for the cost to be brought down a bit. I would have if I were the Minister of Finance. But you see can I just say to the Minister of Statistics that he does not need 5 months to bring his costs down; he needs 5 weeks or 5 days. It is not a major exercise. There has been diddly-squat going on here. The Minister of Statistics has been sitting on his hands. The Government Statistician has perhaps been sitting on his hands. Everything has happened too late. It has been brought to the House in a bit of a hurry. Everyone is in a bit of a blind panic about it. We have been asked to roll over and our answer is no thank you. 
If the Government wants to govern badly it should wear it. If the Government wants to govern slackly it is the Government’s problem. If the Government wants to govern without the disinfectant of daylight then it is on the Government’s head but the Government should not invite the Opposition to roll over and say that it does not matter because it does. It does matter if the Government wants to play fast and loose with the processes of the House. It does matter if the Government wants to cut public viewpoint out of this legislation. It does matter if there will be no hearings in front of the media. It does matter that we are debating this bill at this hour of the night under urgency. It matters. It is not OK. We are not putting up with it. 
Is there any part of that that the Government does not understand? Let us see. I will pause. There is silence from members on the Government benches. They have now understood that the Opposition’s job is to make sure that process is followed properly. That is what we are paid to do. One of the many jobs of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to ensure that good process is followed and that urgency is used when urgency must be used—not when it is convenient to use it; not when it is a cover-up for slackness in earlier months; not when it is due to dilatory behaviour by officials by the Minister by the Cabinet committee in question or by whomever; and not when there has been a bit of debate over $94 million. Not for any of those reasons; we do not roll over for any of those reasons. If there is a good reason for urgency we will be very happy to support it but this legislation is not such a reason. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to get up and talk to the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. I commend the Minister of Statistics for making the sensible decision to postpone the census following the 22 February earthquake in Canterbury. This census could not have been successfully completed given the national state of emergency in Christchurch and the probable impact on census results. Of course there has also been significant impact on census staff and extensive damage to Statistics New Zealand buildings in Christchurch as well as upheaval for the people of Christchurch. 
I note the example of the hypothetical family of Cherie Richard Cherise and Darien who have had to relocate from their home and who have no idea when they may go back into their home. That would affect a census whenever it was held and I commend the Minister for his excellent response to this crisis. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be supporting the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 I move  
That the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill makes legally necessary and urgently required changes to two different Acts the Statistics Act 1975 and the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920. 
The changes to the Statistics Act arise from decisions taken to defer the taking of the census following the Canterbury earthquake in February this year and subsequent decisions to conduct a census in 2013. Can I just say to members on the other side of the House that they are welcome to have a few slings and arrows and take a few shots at me but at the time of the deferral of the census the first question asked was whether we needed to do one at all or whether we should just have a 10-year break and bring the next one on as planned for 2016. That type of deferral has happened twice in the history of this country. It happened in 1931 because of the Napier—actually it did not happen because of the Napier earthquake even though that was during that year; it happened because of the Great Depression. The Government of the day decided not to hold a census and there was a 10-year break. The deferral happened again in 1945 during the Second World War; the Government decided to defer it. 
So one of the options that we had to consider—it went to a Cabinet committee and Ministers put a lot of thought into it—was whether we should just can the census for 2011 and pick it back up again in 2016 as was planned and as is in the programme. But of course a number of things flow from the census. I know that the Maori Party is very concerned about the Maori electoral option which is driven off a census being taken. I know that the Minister of Health is very concerned about population-based funding for all of the different district health boards. If we get those numbers wrong over a 10-year period it might be that he indeed is overfunding certain parts of the country and underfunding others. So population-based funding is affected. I know that there are members here in the House who say to me that they really hope they can get some new boundaries for the next election. Holding this census in 2013 will mean that the new boundaries can still be drawn up in time for the 2014 general election. 
The deferral is achieved by amending the current formulation in the Statistics Act 1975 for a census to be undertaken. I find it bizarre that this was ever put into an Act in this way. Section 23(1) states: “in the year 1976 and in every fifth year thereafter.” This legislation— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Who was the Government that did that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well it just does not sit well with modern drafting practices that the exact year is locked in stone. The Act could have said that a census was to be taken every 5 years and maybe provision could have been made for a Great Depression - type situation a war or indeed the Canterbury earthquake. But the Act did not so we are amending it and substituting “2013” for “1976”. The fact is that it does not change anything from that point on. We go on to a 5-year cycle from 2013. The amendment does not preclude the continuing analysis of options for the frequency and sequencing of the census but it does lock in place a census for 2013 and if no changes are made further out into the future another census will take place 5 years from there. 
The bill also obviates the need for the current proclamation process—that is just for the 2013 census; I need to remind Charles Chauvel about that—by enabling the Government Statistician not the Minister of Statistics or anyone else to appoint the day and notify it in the  
Gazette 
 as soon as practicable after the bill comes into force. I heard someone—it might have been Pete Hodgson—say that it could have been a 1-year delay. Well frankly a huge mechanism needs to be geared up for it. Until this decision was taken if we were looking at taking a census in March 2012 the Government Statistician advises that we simply would not have been able to get the infrastructure the personnel who have to be hired and so on in place. We would not get it done in the time frame and be able to guarantee a smooth census. That is why we have moved it to 2013. 
The Government Statistician puts that in the  
Gazette 
. The rationale for this latter provision is to facilitate the timely announcement of a census and provide certainty in the planning process—and believe me certainty is vital for Statistics New Zealand when it is going about ramping up its budgets quite an amount for that census year and bringing in a lot of staff and personnel who come in only for that short period like all the enumerators and then go again at the end of it. 
The changes to the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 are a little bit different. I am not an expert on this and it is not even part of the statistics portfolio. It deals with an urgent issue of providing for the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to be able to delegate his or her functions responsibilities duties and powers. In November 2009 the Cabinet legislation committee noted the recommendation of the Law Commission—and I am a big fan of always going with what the Law Commission recommends—in its report  
Review of the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 
. I am sure all members know that the Law Commission reviewed that Act. The report recommended “That the legislation should confer on the Chief Parliamentary Counsel express power to delegate his or her functions.” It currently does not. 
The inclusion of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel’s delegation powers in the bill allows the House the opportunity to deal with the matter expeditiously. This is important because it enables the Parliamentary Counsel Office to be effectively managed while the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is on secondment in the United Kingdom from the end of August of this year. 
The Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and other Remedial Provisions) Bill deals with both of these urgent matters in a straightforward and in my view practical way. It alters the statutory duties of the Government Statistician by requiring him to conduct the Census in 2013— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The truth has been flushed out. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I cannot have been flushed out; these are the speech notes that I was given by the Attorney-General I say to Mr Mallard. I got them last week so it is a bit hard for him to claim that he flushed me out. The Government Statistician is required to conduct the census in 2013 instead of 2011 and the bill confers the power on the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to delegate his or her powers functions and duties. I commend the bill to the House. 
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. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. I am very pleased that this bill has widespread support except for Labour. It is interesting to note that both Chris Carter and the Greens support this bill. I also think it is interesting that one of the lines I took from Mr Hodgson’s speech was that there has been diddly-squat going on here. This bill is about ensuring that we are able to hold a national census. That is non-controversial. Members opposite have raised the fact that this is being done under urgency. I will raise a couple of points about that. Ms Dalziel raised the issue of the fact that the regulatory impact statement was produced in April. In April what was decided was to defer but there has been a whole lot of work between April and now to make the decision to have the census in 2013. That is why there have been those couple of months. 
But let us just remember again what the point of this legislation is. There is a technical part about the Parliamentary Counsel Office and there is a part that enables members of Parliament to have representation in their electorate. We know that as a result of the devastating earthquakes in Canterbury people have shifted around the country. I know that in my electorate in particular we have had quite a large number of people come in over the last several years. I believe that if we cannot hold that census it means that we cannot do our jobs properly because we do not know how many people we are representing. Secondly and also very importantly it is very difficult for many local government authorities to do their job because they do not know the number of people living in their electorates. Many businesses and community organisations also rely on census data. 
I am very pleased to support this very crucial legislation and commend it to the House. I believe it is fairly non-controversial. I am shocked that Labour is not supporting this legislation. I think there are some very good reasons to support it. If legislation supporting a census is not something that can be taken under urgency as a result of our largest natural disaster in this country then I do not know what would be more worthy. I am very pleased to support this legislation and I commend it to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I apologise; I meant to do this after my contribution to the debate. I seek leave to table the draft document for discussion marked “Confidential not Government policy”— 
CERA: Residential Red Zone Offers—Summary of Sale Process 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Chris Tremain 
: Can I seek clarification about this document? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Clarification? 
Chris Tremain 
: Is this document previously available in the public domain? So it has not been presented by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in the public domain. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I downloaded it from a Facebook page. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Ni hao; thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The National member who just resumed her seat Nikki Kaye should not be shocked because I listed a number of reasons but largely in respect of constitutional concerns as to why Labour has no other option but to oppose the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel has just said it is about process. It is about the core values our Parliament operates under and members opposite simply cannot claim the high moral ground in shutting down the democratic process. Having said that it is fitting for me to touch upon some aspects of this bill at its second reading. 
Part 1 enables the census to take place in March 2013. The bill amends section 23 of the Statistics Act 1975 by replacing the date “1976” with “2013”. This was the preferred option recommended by Statistics New Zealand. Another option was to go to 10-yearly censuses as in the US and other OECD countries starting in 2013 but this option was rejected by the Government. Part 2 amends the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 to allow the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to delegate his or her functions responsibilities and duties and powers. Part 2 therefore creates delegation powers similar to those in section 13 of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988. 
Given that the Minister of Statistics believes that this bill is so important that it has to be rushed through under urgency it is very important for us to look at other aspects. Some developed countries including the Netherlands have given up on censuses. The logic for this is that censuses are expensive are not comprehensive and are slower to produce data whereas surveys for instance can produce data that is just as useful at a lower cost and in a much tighter time frame. Therefore as my colleagues Trevor Mallard and Charles Chauvel said earlier the select committee process was warranted. 
There are some further points of interest I wish to share with members and the general public who are watching the high-rating Parliament TV. I must thank our wonderful Parliamentary Library and in particular Lee Taylor who provided us with such valuable and thoughtful advice. The first census in New Zealand was carried out in 1851 and it was not until 100 years later—that is in 1951—that Maori were given the same census questionnaires as the rest of the population. Then in 1996 the option of completing the form in Maori or English was introduced. There have been only three occasions when the census was not held as scheduled. In 1931 the census was abandoned because of the Depression in 1941 it was postponed because of the Second World War and again in this year it was postponed because of the impact of the 22 February Christchurch earthquake. 
There are some debates in terms of the length of the census period. Among OECD countries there are six countries including New Zealand and Australia that hold a census every 5 years. There are 10 countries that hold a census every 10 years so there are valid reasons for us to consider our statutory arrangements. France is an exception. It holds a partial census each year and the results are published as an average over 5 years. Of course there pros and cons. According to a population expert from Waikato University moving to a 10-year census could make trans-Tasman comparisons tricky and it could create problems for historians. The strongest argument against holding a census every 5 years is the huge cost. The budget for the 2011 census was nearly $90 million which is approximately equal to Statistics New Zealand’s annual budget excluding the census of course. Without a 5-year census there would be more resources available to collect all of the other types of data that are relevant to work and life. 
Mr Andrew Whiteford an analyst originally from South Africa asked whether we were able to use a 10 percent sample of households. Why bother collecting data from every single household and why not just collect the information from every 10th or 100th household? On that note I wish that the Minister responsible for this bill would take as many calls as possible to enlighten us on these issues. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 That last 10 minutes of this House’s time was a very good reason why nobody in New Zealand should vote for the Labour Party in the next election. The issue in the second reading of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill is about two points. The first point is that a sensible decision was made to postpone the census following the earthquake in Canterbury and the second point is that the census needs to be held again as soon as possible within the law and this bill provides for that. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I have listened with great interest to the contributions to the debate on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill from Government members and I have heard the professions of shock from Nikki Kaye and others. They were not terribly convincing but I say well done to Nikki Kaye for her attempt. I am shocked at the process abuse that we are seeing here with the Canterbury emergency yet again being used as an excuse. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is the guy who broke the electoral laws. This is the guy who’s been referred to the police. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is ironic coming from a Minister who was in contempt of court but we will leave that one for later on. I am shocked that members opposite continue to try to wrap themselves in the flag and say Canterbury is in a terrible state so they can do anything they like with regard to process and it does not matter. 
I thought that the second reading contribution from the Minister in charge of the bill the Minister of Statistics was quite commendable. I know it was tempting to go off on a frolic and for Maurice Williamson to make little jokes about the Ohariu census. Ha ha! Good on you. But this bill is really important and I hope that we can have a sensible debate about it. As the Minister said in his second reading contribution there are concerns. What happens to the Maori electoral option? We heard from Te Ururoa Flavell that the Maori Party has had some sort of an assurance from the Minister that the Maori electoral option will remain intact notwithstanding the deferral of the census by 2 years. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister how that is because on my initial calculations the maths starts to get quite difficult in terms of the 5-yearly option. 
Similarly it would be useful to hear from the Minister about the effect of the deferral of the census on the population-based funding issues that he referred to. He said his colleague the Minister of Health was concerned about that because as we all know district health board funds are calculated on the basis of population movements. If we are to have a 7-year block now rather than a 5-year block what will be the effect of that on those sorts of movements? What will be the effect on the Budget? What will be the effect on the fiscal position? 
These may or may not be major issues but they are proof. The fact that they were raised in the debate by the Minister indicates the sense of following the Standing Orders and sending this legislation to a select committee even for a brief period of time so that these sorts of technical questions can be addressed. This is our job; it is not an optional extra. It is what we are here to do: to scrutinise legislation to make sure that we get it right and to deal with these sorts of issues. This is why the public pay members of Parliament what they pay us. I am shocked that members opposite can just brush these concerns aside as if they are minor procedural issues—all justified because there has been an emergency in Canterbury and we do not need to think about the details. Members should just reflect on the fact that too often in this House we deal with legislation to amend and undo Acts that we have passed in the relatively recent past. I hope for the sake of members opposite—because all these speeches are on the record—that we will not be in a similar position with this legislation. 
I am disturbed as I said earlier about some of the legislation’s language. I referred to the “obviation of the proclamation” language earlier but there is also a very very interesting justification advanced in the explanatory note for the deferral of the census. We have the statement reassuring on its face that “This streamlined process relates only to the 2013 census …”. But then we have the quite alarming statement: “and is made in light of public announcements already issued on the next census …”. It is settled law in this country which I hope every member knows that just because a Minister announces that a statutory requirement will not be followed it does not mean that that statutory requirement should not be followed. I am a bit taken aback to see in an explanatory note of a bill that one of the reasons for the bill is that a Minister has already publicly announced that something should be so. That is not how we make law in this country; it is still the role of this House to make laws. I think all members should be a bit disturbed that that has crept into the drafting. 
The other point I think it is worthwhile to make is that there is another part to this bill and it has not received terribly much attention to date. I hope the Minister of Statistics feels that he is fully briefed and competent to have carriage of this part of the legislation through the House. He said he had speech notes from his colleague the Attorney-General and I am pleased about that because I think he will need to draw extensively on those notes in the Committee stage. I repeat there is nothing in the proposal to allow an acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel to be appointed that disturbs the Opposition. We voted for such a position when we agreed to report the Legislation Bill back to the House. But that bill is just languishing on the Order Paper. Why is it not being brought forward for a proper debate and discussion? It would do a lot of good things to make our parliamentary procedures more effective. Instead we have this provision plucked out of the Legislation Bill and sought to be advanced under urgency. The Minister has not addressed in any of his contributions why that is being done. 
How long can we have a Chief Parliamentary Counsel on an acting basis under this legislation? Is it proposed that it might be for 6 months 1 year 18 months 2 years or longer? There is no limit on the face of the provisions in the bill on how long a person might act in the very important capacity of Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I think we need to hear from the Minister about why that particular provision is being advanced under urgency and we need to be assured that it is not a provision that simply exists and is sought to be advanced because the Minister seeks to benefit any particular individual. If the position were reversed and it were an attempt to act to the detriment of any individual for hidden reasons then it would clearly be unconstitutional. The reverse position must therefore also apply and Parliament is owed disclosure as to why these provisions are seen to be so important on this occasion. 
I look forward to the remainder of the debate including the Committee stage because those matters and in particular the last one to which I have adverted are ones that we will continue to seek answers on. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I will start my contribution on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill by acknowledging my appreciation of my Opposition colleague Raymond Huo for providing a lot of information about the census and the importance of the census. Charles Chauvel also mentioned that the funding of district health boards and Government decisions are based on the census. So when two members of the Opposition are telling us that it is important to have a census I do not know why Labour is opposing the bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is sad when we have new members with so little to contribute to the House. The idea that members like Nikki Kaye and the member who has just spoken Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi fought so hard to get in here and then they get in here and make contributions that are frankly pathetic—frankly frankly pathetic—and show no understanding of having read the bill in question show no understanding of the principles behind the bill— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They’ve got the notes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well if they had borrowed the rather inadequate notes of the Minister in charge of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill the Minister of Statistics—who I am sad to say was in a manner that was unusual for him reading them in a relatively pedestrian manner during his second reading speech—then that would have shown some initiative. It would have shown them to be members who wanted to be here and who were vitally interested in the matter before them. 
As I indicated in my speech in the first reading debate the first part of this bill is not very objectionable. Clearly the census had to be delayed. There is a debate about whether it could have happened at the end of next year or whether it had to be held till 2013 on— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They must be held in March. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. Actually I say to Mr Williamson that we are changing the legislation now. The census does not have to be held in March just like it did not have to be held in March this year. We are changing the year; we could actually change the month as well if we wanted to. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No it’s to make all the censuses so that they can be compared by year. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh so the Minister wants to break the 5-year cycle but he thinks the month is sacrosanct. Well I accused my colleague Pete Hodgson earlier of being captured. I accused the member of being captured. The Minister is being led along by a little ring through his nose by the Government Statistician if he thinks that when there is a gap of 2 years between censuses the 6-month difference is absolutely vital. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s called seasonal—seasonal workers. If you did it in December you’ve got a totally different set of seasonal workers in different places. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That might have been a very good argument in the 1930s; it is probably less of an argument now as our population has changed. Unlike the member I have had some relatively recent experience in doing seasonal work. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Asparagus. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes that is right—very slow picking of asparagus. I am prepared to say that within most areas there is some continuity of seasonal work. The fact that the Government cannot organise arrangements to make sure that people are properly paid to do that work is probably not quite relevant to this legislation. 
I concur with the comments that my learned colleague Charles Chauvel made with regard to the other remedial provisions. That is a lovely way of putting it. I think this is better described as a rort for an individual that is an abuse of process and something that should be frowned on. My colleague used a long word that I have never heard before but it was explained to me about the role of Parliament and that just as we should not pass a law to imprison— 
Sandra Goudie 
: You mean you didn’t know Trev? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No there are plenty of words I do not know. I am sure the member could educate me. The “Orange Roughy” is offering. No I do not want it—no education from the “Orange Roughy” for me thank you. But just as Parliament should not pass laws to imprison an individual my colleague explained to me we should not pass laws to benefit an individual as we appear to be doing now. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I support the previous contributions made by my colleagues and reiterate the fact that the Minister of Statistics has quite clearly explained this Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. It would have been helpful to the House if the Opposition had actually listened to the Minister’s very good explanation and actually read the bill so they understood it. I am delighted that the Minister has brought this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
The Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Statistics Act 1975 
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. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Just to deal with a couple of the matters that Mr Hipkins raised all we are doing is changing the wording of the Statistics Act 1975. In the wording it says that a census will be held “in the year 1976 and in every fifth year thereafter.” All we are doing is substituting “2013” for “1976”. So yes the wording “every fifth year thereafter” stays in the legislation and therefore there will be a census 5 years on from 2013. 
I also re-emphasise the point that Mr Hipkins gets and that Mr Mallard does not—that is there are different times during the course of a calendar year in which people are distributed quite dramatically differently over the country. For example members of Parliament would nearly always be back in their electorates from halfway through December to halfway through January but would nearly always be stuck here in Wellington if we were to conduct the census some time—I do not know—when the House is not— 
Chris Hipkins 
: That’s the Minister’s problem: he is completely beholden to the bureaucrats. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes I am beholden to the bureaucrats—that is right! I am beholden to the 4.2 million New Zealanders who like to move around. It is quite a clear problem if we were to take a census at a time other than March. There are also issues with regard to daylight saving. It is also about the enumerators wanting to be at the households where they have to do the drops and the pick-ups during daylight hours. We could not be doing it right now in June July or August. Then we have the Christmas rush and so on. I do not think any great deal of explanation is needed about it. 
The last thing that the member asked was whether I could give him an assurance that the census would allow for the electoral boundaries to be done. Actually that has had tighter time frames in the past. If we think about the census that was conducted in March 2001 we see that boundary changes were made for the 2002 election. It is nearly 2 years: the census is in March 2013 and the election will be sort of November 2014. So there is plenty of time for the Representation Commission to get its work done to get its draft boundaries— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Excellent contribution. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Ni hao. I say a big thankyou to the Minister of Statistics for that valuable contribution—that excellent contribution. My colleagues Chris Hipkins Trevor Mallard and Charles Chauvel spoke earlier in a detailed way as to why Labour believes that it would have been very important to have a select committee hearing on the bill. There are lots of important issues that will not be addressed so it is not only about the process but also about the essence of the bill. 
For instance as I said in my first reading speech there is an increasing demand from iwi for statistical information as more Treaty settlements are agreed. Statistics New Zealand as I understand is working with iwi to identify what types of statistics would be most useful for collective management of transferred assets. I have two questions. Given that we are ramming the bill through under urgency and there is no avenue for us to debate this issue at a select committee I would be very grateful for the Minister to enlighten us. I am wondering whether the Minister has ever considered firstly whether the issue could be addressed in consideration of the 2013 census and secondly what types of statistics would best serve Maori to support the management of assets obtained from Treaty settlements. Those are my two questions and I would be very grateful if the Minister could enlighten us. 
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. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 and to ask a few questions. Ordinarily we would have at this stage of a bill a lot more information. This bill would have gone to a select committee and a whole host of people with an interest in doing the census and in statistics as well as people who use the data would have given a lot of advice. We do not know what that advice would be so I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Minister of Statistics could explain the implications of deferring the census until 2013 and now having a 7-year gap between censuses. What are statisticians and demographers saying about that change? What kind of adjustments will need to be made to the data so that there is some comparability down the line so that users of the data will have some way of knowing or working out what that is? 
The data sets we currently have go back to 1975 so there is a 35-year data set collected at the same time at regular intervals. But that will be changed for ever in a sense by our going to a 7-year gap and then resuming 5 years after that. I wonder what advice the Minister has received about those changes and what the implications might be. 
More fundamentally a select committee would have given us the opportunity to examine however briefly—and it could have been brought together quite quickly—the modern census so to speak. The Minister said that he has asked some questions about a modern census but he had no answers. What were the questions the Minister asked and what was his thinking about the kinds of parameters a modern census might have? Censuses have not always been the same for the hundreds of years that censuses have been done. But now the technology has changed in this field. The data that is regularly collected in all kinds of ways is also available from different sources now. So what was the Minister thinking about that data? 
Perhaps more fundamentally there is also a move now not to hold censuses but to conduct surveys. Those surveys are almost like a series of cross-sectional studies that tell us what is happening to our population and they are done more regularly. Why has the Minister not taken the opportunity—because it comes quite rarely—to have this kind of thinking done in relation to censuses and census change? There are new methodologies and new ways of using data. With the kind of consultation that we have in mind—and this is why members on this side are opposing this bill—even users of censuses would identify the different types of data that are now required. Here was an opportunity through a select committee to have that kind of discussion. 
My colleague Raymond Huo talked quite a bit about the need for data in the Maori community and appropriately so. New Zealand’s ethnic diversification is now quite advanced but we have only so much data about that. In the last 6 months or so I have been going through data and I can see the holes in that data. Here was an opportunity to reflect on the kinds of data required by our ethnic communities and those who provide services to and engage with them etc. Has the Minister not given any thought to that? What advice has the Minister received about the kinds of data that would help us understand that diversification in greater depth? Maybe the Minister has thought about that. Maybe he can give us some reading on what his thoughts are essentially on different types of methods different types of data and the views of key people out there—not only the experts like demographers and statisticians but also the users of that data. Could the Minister tell us what was their thinking? If there has been any conversation with them then what concerns of theirs have been identified at this stage? We would like to get some idea of that. Finally there is the question of the implications of the 7-year gap. Thank you. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What’s your Tahitian greeting? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Iaorana. The Minister in the chair the Minister of Statistics did not deign to reply to the concerns I raised about Part 1. I hope he will not take that approach to Part 2 given that this is the only scrutiny as I have said that this bill will get. I spoke to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel a couple of weeks ago. He is a fine man and he does a fine job. He told me that he was undertaking a task back in the United Kingdom and that he would be there for some time but that the Government had kindly agreed to facilitate his temporary return to the United Kingdom Public Service by arranging for him to continue in the role of Chief Parliamentary Counsel and for there to be an Acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel appointed in his place. 
If that is the reason that the National-led Government is rushing these provisions of the Legislation Bill through the House then I would have thought it would be incumbent on the Minister and on the Government to advise the House of that fact. There has been no such disclosure and no such attempt to explain that that might be the reason for this apprehended urgency to deal with the provisions in Part 2. I will recap those provisions. They update an antiquated piece of legislation and everybody agrees it is antiquated. It is legislation from the 1920s when Government departments were run in a very different way from the way in which they are run now. As I said earlier the Labour Opposition has no problem in substance with these provisions. We reported the Legislation Bill back to the House from the Regulations Review Committee unanimously and with support after having heard evidence from a number of senior officials former Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney-General as well. So there is no issue with the provisions themselves. 
Our question is why it is intended that these particular provisions of the Legislation Bill should be severed and brought to the House to be passed under urgency in the way that the Minister has brought them forward dressing them up with the legislation relating to the census in a bill entitled the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. I say well done to the Minister on his imaginativeness; it is always entertaining. But on this occasion it would be nice to know why it was thought necessary to deal with the matter under urgency. 
As Mr Mallard said in an earlier contribution we do not in this Parliament legislate in respect of individuals to their detriment. That would be a bill of attainder or legislation of that nature. It is unconstitutional; we do not do it. But if that principle is correct then also it would be inappropriate to say the least to legislate for the private benefit of any individual unless we were very clear about why that was being done. As I said earlier if that is what is being done here it ought to be done openly rather than in some sort of covert fashion. 
I would like to hear from the Minister about why the urgency is attached to the provisions concerning an Acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel and I would also like to know as would members on this side of the Chamber how these provisions might apply in practice if for example the current holder of the office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel is away for some time. What is the intended tenure of any Acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel? Might we be contemplating quite a long period of that person’s tenure: up to say 2 years? Is that not something that ought to be disclosed declared and debated openly at least in this Committee? As numerous speakers have pointed out this is the only occasion on which that discussion will be able to occur. I urge the Minister to use this one and only opportunity in the process that he has invoked to advise his fellow members of Parliament of the position in respect of this particular part. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am getting slightly anxious about the habit of this Minister of Statistics—and it appears to be a growing habit and one that is unusual for him to have— 
Hon Member 
: Growing. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes it is a growing habit. The Minister used to be quite forthcoming in the House. I think it is fair to say that the Minister used to be forthcoming in places other than the House as well. It seems to me that the Minister has lost his tongue. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Michelle Boag had her way eh? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well he has crawled back into his shell. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Perhaps the Attorney-General took it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will get on to the Attorney-General relatively soon. I was not planning to take a call now but the fact is that the Minister has not answered the questions my learned colleague Charles Chauvel asked on the first part of this bill—the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill—and he has not yet placed on the record his response to the questions I asked him in the first reading debate in relation to the Electoral Act. I am somewhat surprised that the member is not giving those responses and is thereby extending the debate in a way that frankly does not seem absolutely necessary. But it is the responsibility of the Opposition to hold the Minister to account. 
I request or suggest that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to make a contribution in this debate. The Parliamentary Counsel Office works under him. I understand he has been somewhat unusually involved in the terms and conditions of employment for the current Chief Parliamentary Counsel in a way that many of us would think would be unwise. If it is correct that an offer was made to have this sort of arrangement developed for an individual for a period of up to 2 years that would be remarkable and it would be good if we did have the Attorney-General in the Chamber in order to explain the position and I hope put paid to what is quite an unfortunate positioning for the chief legal officer of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
The other person I am somewhat concerned about is the State Services Commissioner. During my time as Minister of State Services there was an appointment to the position of Chief Parliamentary Counsel but frankly because there were probably 50 or 60 such appointments during that time this one has not stuck in my head. I know that with the Government Statistician there is an unusual arrangement. It is one where the State Services Commissioner has the right to appoint and the normal veto right of Cabinet does not apply. What I am not sure of— 
Charles Chauvel 
: It’s the opposite. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is the opposite. So it is a normal chief executive? 
Charles Chauvel 
: No. Cabinet can invite the State Services Commissioner to help but there’s no obligation for him to be involved. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh so in this case it is apparently a bit like the Commissioner of Police and the Defence Force where there has been a developing tradition—and I think an important one—of the involvement of the State Services Commissioner in running a process. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Or by the invitation of the Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: By the invitation of the Minister or in some cases actually by the invitation of the Prime Minister. Certainly the senior police position is one that is done by the invitation of the Prime Minister and it may— 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s the Governor-General actually. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the recommendations go to the Governor-General but they go from the Prime Minister as with most chief executives and certainly most of those that I was involved with when I was the Minister of State Services. I effectively signed off those recommendations after consultation with colleagues on the Cabinet committee. We certainly never had the position where we reversed out a recommendation that had come through. That is a matter for notification under the Act and that certainly did not happen. But as my colleague has informed me in the case of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel it is something that appears to be in the gift of the Minister. 
Charles Chauvel 
: It’s not statutory. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: And there is a question there. I think that raises another issue—that is whether that is an appropriate position and whether in this day and age it is appropriate to have someone who is effectively chief executive of a small but important department of State whose process involves a gifting of a position from a Minister to that particular individual. That is I think the way things used to be done back before 1912. Again I am looking to Simon Power. He does not remember either. There have been some clear processes since the State sector reforms in 1987 or 1986—one of those years. One was the State-owned enterprises and the other was the State Sector Act; it was one of those. There have been clearer processes since that time but we have had a tradition for a long period of effectively the decisions on these positions being made by the State Services Commissioner. 
But that appears not to be the case and I am searching—and possibly my colleague could be drafting as I search—as to whether there is any possibility of importing into this legislation even at this late stage such an arrangement whereby the Chief Parliamentary Counsel has proper process around his or her appointment. 
Can I get some indication from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Statistics as to whether he is prepared to reply to the comments that my colleague Charles Chauvel has made? No—in fact there is no indication that the Minister is alive. I know this has not been the most exciting debate. The Chief Parliamentary Counsel is not quite as exciting as the Government Statistician— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I think it is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well there is a bit of debate here between two members I respect. If it is just as exciting then why is the Minister in the chair going to sleep when he has been asked to respond on his own behalf or when he could ask his colleague the Attorney-General to respond? I never thought I would be saying that. I never ever thought I would be asking for the Attorney-General to get off his backside and make a speech in this House. The idea that I would ask Chris Finlayson to get off his backside and make a speech is something that feels relatively foreign to me and I am concerned at the very thought that I should be making such a suggestion. 
The next question is this. If in fact the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is going away for a couple of years should the gifting of his—in this case his but in other cases his or her—replacement be in that individual’s hands? Although I view with some disdain the arrangements as to the appointment of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the lack of involvement of the State Services Commissioner and the lack of a proper process around these arrangements having had these arrangements the question then is whether it should be appropriate especially for an appointment of 2 years. 
We have had chief executives appointed for 2 years or sometimes shorter times—down to 18 months on particular occasions. If we are having appointments that are so long—2 years—should it be in the hands of the individual to appoint his or her own replacement? At the end of this speech I will give the Minister a chance to answer or I will call on my learned colleague Lynne Pillay to make her contribution. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The question now is whether the bill is appropriately titled. I think it is not. I think the title is an indication of a rort. It is called the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. Actually to be fair it should be titled the “Census Deferral Bill” or the “Ability to Appoint Your Successor for a Period of 2 Years Bill” as far as Part 2 is concerned. There could well be a number of better titles for this bill. 
I think part of the title works pretty well. The end of the title has the year “2011”. I think that is appropriate and I think it is pretty much unanimous that we will support that. But I invite the Minister in the chair the Minister of Statistics to consider even at this late stage whether he has a mind to—it is a bit like truth in sentencing; we could ask Rodney Hide whether he had a better name for it—give us a title for this bill that more accurately reflects its contents. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are actually debating clauses 1 and 2 not just clause 1. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh I could have gone on for longer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am just making it very clear. We will put the clauses separately when it comes to the vote but the question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I agree with my colleague Mr Mallard— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And that is an unusual thing. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It is not necessarily a usual thing. But it is correct that the bill is not aptly titled. As I suggested earlier to try to cloak what is being done here in the innocuous title of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill is to actually obscure what is being attempted. Two things are going on here. 
First of all there is the deferral of the census. As has been said members on this side of the Chamber accept that that had to be done. Our argument is with the process. It should have gone to a select committee for a couple of weeks. We should have heard— 
Hon Members 
: Why? Why? Why? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Members opposite ask why why why. The tragedy of this is that we have had the current Standing Orders in more or less their current form since 1986 and still we have to educate National on process. We are a unicameral Parliament. Our select committees are the only place where reasonable scrutiny can occur and still we have the question years and years after—25 years after—1986 asking why bother with select committees. Well actually process matters because what it does in the end is assist the Parliament to make better laws. One of the tragedies of the New Zealand Parliament over years and years is that National’s contribution to it has been flawed laws because National thinks always that the end justifies the means. Well it does not. There were very legitimate questions raised during the debate and the discussion around whether the deferral of the census as proposed by the bill was a useful and justifiable thing to do and what the effect of that deferral would be. But we will never know the answers because Maurice Williamson Minister of Statistics knows best and this bill was never going to go to a select committee. That is really what is going on here and the innocuous title of the bill obscures that. 
The other thing that is going on here is what I referred to when I spoke about the position of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I make it clear that there is no criticism of David Noble here. He has been a terrific Chief Parliamentary Counsel and I hope he continues for a long time in that office. I think it is an excellent thing if he has been given some development opportunities by way of some further work experience in the United Kingdom provided that proper administrative arrangements are being put in place back at the Parliamentary Counsel Office so that its duties can continue to be discharged. But we do not know anything about that and we never will because again the Minister has not taken a call on those issues. The public and the New Zealand Parliament are not deemed worthy by this Government to have these issues disclosed to them. This is just all about the Government saying it will take the provisions that suit it out of bills then ram the bills through under urgency and basically the public’s right to know be damned. That is the attitude we saw today from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Statistics—that is if he even knows about these arrangements. 
I suspect that one of the issues that might be going on here is that the Attorney-General has made these arrangements and not bothered to tell his ministerial colleague. Otherwise why would we not have heard from the Minister on what surely are proper administrative arrangements for the conduct of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel’s office? So I say that this bill is not well named. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I would like to hear what the member is saying so please calm it down. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: As I was saying this bill is not well named. To talk about the duties of statutory officers when in fact what is going on here is the census deferral without any expert advice or public testimony in a select committee along with the regularising of an arrangement with the Parliamentary Counsel Office which the Minister is very very reluctant to talk about for some reason—if he even knows about it—indicates that calling the bill what it is called is all part of an attempt to cloak it in mystery and subterfuge. That is a real shame because these are matters that should have been openly debated and ventilated. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The reluctance of the Minister in the chair the Minister of Statistics to take a call in response to the wonderful contributions from my colleagues has prompted me to also take a call. But I want to acknowledge something that was chipped across the Chamber from the other side. It was a rare occasion when Tau Henare said something that was quite funny. I usually do not acknowledge what the member does but he has been at my select committee the Commerce Committee on the odd occasion and he has behaved in a rather mature and sensible way so I want to acknowledge the very very funny statement that he chipped across the Chamber in respect of the “Sensible Census Trust” which he felt would be prompted to react by the disgrace of this Government passing this bill through all of its stages under urgency. I congratulate that member on an amusing little aside. 
The serious issue that all of the speakers on our side of the Chamber have raised is in respect of a bill that has a title like this one—namely the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. Here we are as parliamentarians with duties to undertake our obligations in a particular way and they are being completely ignored. That is why I find the title of the bill somewhat ironic. The fact that the legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent is equally an issue for me because this bill as we know could have been prepared with sufficient time for it to go to a select committee and have all manner of individuals contribute to the discussion on it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No there’s no need. We know what it’s about. It’s about counting people. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have already explained to this Committee and I will explain it again for the member because I know that he is interested in everything that I am saying and he is hanging off every word. The agency disclosure statement of the regulatory impact statement was signed on 6 April this year. I am sorry but is it not August now? How many months is that? April May June July August—that is 4 months ago. What has the Minister been doing for 4 months in order to bring this legislation before us? 
The decision not to hold the census was made in March. It was due to be held on International Women’s Day 8 March and it was deferred for a very good reason. We all agree with its being deferred. Of course we could not hold the census. The census office was completely devastated by the earthquake so the duties of statutory officers and census officers could not be undertaken. I understand the title of the bill in respect of that element but I think we could have had a discussion a public debate about what the alternative was. 
Although the regulatory impact statement talks about three options I think there were in fact only two: the one that the Government has chosen and the other which was to defer it altogether so that the next census would be held in 2016. The Minister has not really described in detail why this particular option was taken and why it had to be done in this manner so that there was no opportunity for any public debate. That is why in an earlier debate on the bill I tried to table a copy of the document titled  
CERA: Residential Red Zone Offers—Summary of Sale Process—draft for discussion 
 which is marked as “Confidential—not Government policy”. Now I have downloaded a whole lot of other documents from the New Zealand Law Society website. Perhaps the Government whip will allow me to seek leave again at the end of my contribution. I have several other documents that are all on the New Zealand Law Society website none of which have been consulted on with any of the people who will be receiving offers from the Government in respect of the red zone. I think it is completely out of order but completely in line with the way that this bill has been approached. 
This bill is entitled the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. The duty of a Government is to consult with affected parties before putting together details of such an agreement and I think it is a tragedy that this Government treats us with such disrespect and does not follow its duties as it should otherwise be obliged to do. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 I move  
That the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill be now read a third time 
. Although the Leader of the House has been insisting that I take the full 10 minutes I will not do the full 10 minutes. All I will say—and this is offered by way of a bit of advice to Labour and I genuinely mean it—is that I understand why it digs in on some things; I think it is right for an Opposition to dig in. But this bill tonight does one thing: it changes the date of the census from 2011 to 2013. It does not change the scope of it it does not change the questions that will be asked it does not change the mechanisms or functions and it does not change anything else. 
But Labour dug in tonight to say this legislation should have gone to a select committee. Can members imagine the questions? “Twenty-one-three—is that how you spell 2013? Ah yes. What else could I ask? ” The select committee would be struggling for anything else. I know they got it wrong on the voluntary student unionism bill and the media gave them a smack for it but I advise the members on the other side of the House to pick their fights. This was not one to have a fight on because this is simply about putting a new date on to the statute book because we were committed under the current law to hold a census in 2011. 
I thank my colleagues for the support in getting this bill through the House tonight. I think it is a very good step forward. It will mean that the electoral boundaries can be redone in time for the 2014 election. It means that the Maori electoral option can be conducted. It means that absolutely everything that we were ever planning to do in 2011 will happen 2 years later. Thank you very much. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I listened rather attentively to the contributions from the National MPs on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. It is fair for me to say that the best contribution was from my Asian colleague Mr Bakshi who just commended the bill to the House without claiming the moral high ground in attacking Labour members. 
For many National MPs when there is a problem there is an excuse. For instance the National-ACT Government has failed to present any plans to grow our economy. They say: “Oops there is a financial crisis worldwide.” There was a 6-month gap or so between when the decision was made not to hold the census and when the Government said “Oops there is urgency.” because without the bill the Government Statistician would have been in breach of the Statistics Act. That warranted the Minister to ram through the bill under urgency without referring it to the select committee. 
It is very satisfying however that in my earlier speech I said that National MPs had built up a very good habit of taking short calls and that they would take short calls during this debate. They have taken turns to take short calls; I cannot be convinced that they have taken this bill very seriously in respect of either its contents or its process. 
The process is very important. It is about the core values of how Parliament operates. That is why I ask members opposite to please exercise some forbearance in claiming the moral high ground on shutting down the democratic process. It is disappointing that the Minister of Statistics—a very willing and able Minister—did not answer some very important questions that were asked particularly those questions of my colleague Charles Chauvel. Again as my colleague Charles Chauvel said this is our only opportunity for some important issues to be addressed given that the bill is being rammed through under urgency. I reiterate that I am not litigating the actual decision but I am left wondering about the constitutional niceties. 
We agree with the policy objectives of this bill but we cannot support the way in which the Government is seeking to rush important constitutional changes through Parliament without giving the public a chance to have their say. 
Simon Bridges 
: I thought this was going to be a short call. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I say to that member that in my speech at the first reading I said that National MPs had built up a very strange habit of taking short calls. You guys just took turns to take short calls. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Don’t use “you”. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Sorry; I apologise to the Deputy Speaker. It is not good enough to try to convince the public that National MPs are very serious about this bill either in respect of its content or in respect of its process. 
During the debate some National MPs said they were shocked that Labour did not support this bill. There are some issues that are very shocking and they could have been addressed in a timely manner if the bill had been referred to the select committee. For instance Statistics New Zealand’s statement of intent for 2011 stated that Statistics New Zealand has “a high proportion of inexperienced staff [which] poses a risk to the production of timely and accurate statistics.” I am sure the public wish to know about how Statistics New Zealand is managing the risks posed by the high proportion of inexperienced staff and what steps will be taken in 2011 and 2012 to recruit more staff with the necessary experience in leading up to the 2013 census. The Minister cannot say that “Oops that’s an operational matter.” and that his job is just to get the bill rammed through under urgency. That is not good enough. It is not fair to Statistics New Zealand and it is not fair to the general public. 
There are some important issues that I wish could be addressed properly. For instance should we hold a census every 5 years or every 10 years? Among OECD countries at least 10 countries hold a census every 10 years. It is also argued by some experts that we could collect data by way of a survey for instance. Although congratulating the Minister on ramming through the 21st bill under urgency under this National-ACT Government I say to the Minister that the general public of New Zealand have just lost another good opportunity. Thank you. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the third reading of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. I acknowledge the support right across this House for this legislation including National the Greens the Maori Party Tau Henare Simon Bridges and Todd McClay. In conclusion basically everybody supports this bill except for Labour. This legislation is one of the briefest bills I have seen since I have been in Parliament. The purpose of it is to enable the 2013 census to actually happen. 
I just want to briefly traverse the arguments we have heard from the Opposition. Firstly Raymond Huo went slightly off the reservation when he opposed this bill because I saw members opposite in a slight state of shock. Secondly Lianne Dalziel and Pete Hodgson said that the reason they opposed this bill was that it was being passed during urgency. We have been very clear that this is in response to what has been the largest natural disaster that New Zealand has ever seen and that is one of the reasons why we need to defer the census and pass this legislation. Thirdly we heard from Lianne Dalziel that one of the big issues she had with this bill was that the regulatory impact statement was passed in April but the point we have made is that two other decisions had to happen as a result of that: whether to hold the census and the date on which to hold the census. Finally we heard a number of contradictory speeches from Labour. Lianne Dalziel was suggesting 10-year censuses and Trevor Mallard proposed holding the census in December not March. Then we heard the trifecta from Chris Hipkins. He totally disagreed with both Lianne Dalziel and Trevor Mallard. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Four times now we have seen Lianne Dalziel have the indignity of having her name mispronounced. I would ask the member to use it properly. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Points of orders are held in silence. Well the member is in the Chamber and if she felt offended by it—she is shaking her head. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I am offended! 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is up to the member to take offence. We will leave it at that. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: We have heard very contradictory speeches from Labour. That is not unusual. 
In conclusion we support this legislation because we believe it is very important to hold a census in 2013. It is very important so that we do not have over-representation or under-representation in our electorates. It is very important that the businesses and the community organisations of this country have accurate information. We support this very non-controversial legislation. I am shocked that Labour is not supporting it. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture gave some advice at the beginning of his third reading speech. He said: “Don’t dig in on this legislation.” I will explain just briefly for his benefit why we did dig in. If the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill was about the census only—because the Minister did not address half of the bill; he addressed only the proposal to defer the census—then our criticisms would have been around only the failure to have a short select committee process. 
Members opposite earlier yelled out and asked what we would do in the select committee. There are a number of questions that were ventilated in the debate. Members who have been here for the entire debate will know this. Those questions include the question of what the effect is of moving from a set of data collected over 5-year blocks and then trying to compare that data with a 7-year block. It is a matter of vital importance for the national data mine. We do not know the answer. We have never heard the answer. We do not know the answer to that question. If there had been a select committee process with some experts coming along to tell members of Parliament about the effects of comparing a set of 5-year data and a set of 7-year data on our economic statistics and on all sorts of other information of national importance I suspect that would have been pretty reassuring assuming that the answer was that it would not have a major deleterious effect on the ability to compare those data blocks. 
We would have asked whether it was still feasible to set electoral boundaries on time. We heard from the Minister an assurance that it will be and he quoted two precedents. Again we probably accept that the Minister is well advised but it would have been useful to drill into that question with the advice of the officials. We heard an assurance repeated to us by a Maori Party member and by the Minister that there has been a guarantee that the Maori electoral option will be unaffected. Again it would have been useful to hear the detail of that rather than having to rely just on a ministerial assurance which is all we have. 
Then there is the issue that I raised; the precedent-setting effect of doing away with the proclamation process which puts the setting of the date of the census at arm’s length from the executive. The Minister told us that that provision was not an attempt to set a precedent but again to have been able to record that in a select committee report back to the House rather than simply relying on an offhand comment in the  
Hansard 
 from the Minister would have been much more reassuring. 
As I said the Minister did not address a whole half of the bill. I reiterate that it makes— 
Sandra Goudie 
: A whole half? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Yes a whole half of the bill I say to Ms Goudie—the bit that relates to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. As I said earlier we have no argument with the incumbent in that office. He is an excellent Chief Parliamentary Counsel and we have no concerns about the substance of the proposal. Of course it makes sense that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel ought to be able to delegate his powers in this day and age. Of course it makes sense that he ought to be able to have a deputy to act on his behalf in his absence. We supported those provisions in the Legislation Bill. But the question we posed was why we should pluck these particular provisions out of that bill and put them through under urgency. Why do that when it is proposed that the current Chief Parliamentary Counsel be absent from the country for a significant length of time? Why the secrecy? Why does the Government not want ordinary New Zealanders to know what is being done with taxpayers’ dollars in the administration of the office that drafts our laws? That is what I do not understand. If the answer is that this Minister just does not know the answers then he should not have come to the House with carriage of this bill. 
In the end this bill reeks of bad process. The lesson we should have learnt by now in this House is that bad process leads to bad outcomes and that is the reason members on this side of the House have dug in and will not support this bill. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. I have to refute those comments by the previous speaker Charles Chauvel. This bill is absolutely straightforward. It will do two things. It will shift the date of the next census to 2013 and as the last speaker just said it makes some very sensible recommendations around the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and delegations during a period of absence. 
There is nothing underhand about this bill. We have had to put up with 2 hours of nonsensical filibuster. If I have learnt one thing in this life it is that saying from Confucius: “When you’re in a hole stop digging.” With those words I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 That was quite an arrogant statement from the previous speaker John Hayes—that we have just spent 2 hours doing nothing. National members have been sitting here since the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill was introduced and they are the ones who have treated this House with contempt absolute contempt. Reasonable questions have been asked. National members have not been able to see through a very simple bill and answer the kinds of questions that one would logically ask because there is an opportunity to ask them. In fact National members have come to the House with a proposal and expected us to simply rubber stamp it just because they say so and as if we have no right to ask questions or to have those questions answered. In fact National members have simply taken meaningless calls that last a few seconds. One call was barely two sentences long. 
Simon Bridges 
: This man was born in the first census. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That is absolute contempt I say to Mr Bridges. If the member felt strongly about anything he would rise take a call and make his point but there are no points to make. The census is an important activity and we should take it seriously. We should take the opportunity with every clause in every bill that comes to the House to look through it to look beyond it and to ask questions. We expect to have those questions answered. Those things become even more important when there is no select committee process. But no members opposite simply thought that this would be a simple process. They rammed it through under urgency and we are supposed to sit here like I do not know what. I simply say that. 
The Minister in the chair the Minister of Statistics began to simply treat us with contempt. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Be nice. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I am normally very nice to the Minister but on this occasion he either did not have the answers or refused to give them to us. Very sensible questions have been put forward by Charles Chauvel this evening—very sensible questions—and they have not been answered. 
I will tell members that the heart of contempt was this: Maurice Williamson knew the reason for the second part of this bill. The Minister knew the reason. It would have been reasonable to tell the House that we have an issue—a delegation is not there or a person is going overseas—and we need to have that provision put in place. But that had to be dragged out of him by Charles Chauvel through questions. The Minister defended himself by saying it was not in his notes. That should have been in the first reading speech and that should have happened but it did not. 
We are not happy with the process this bill has gone through. We blame the other side. National is responsible for the process and it should have run this thing far better than it did. All National members wanted to say to us was that they were disappointed that we were asking questions. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Not angry just disappointed. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well it was stronger than that I say to Mr Power which he would know if he had been here. Actually Mr Power has been here most of the evening so he knows the kinds of questions I am posing. There is contempt from members on the other side. They have not really done their job on this particular bill. Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel have asked very reasonable questions. Those questions should have been answered. 
But the biggest disappointment is that we have not had the opportunity to think through what a census would look like in the modern world and to have a select committee process that would have given us the answers. It was contemptuous not to take that opportunity and it is highly objectionable when National members stand up and say that members on this side of the House are doing the kinds of things they said we are doing. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 If anyone was in any doubt about the impact of natural disasters on the psyche the well-being and the functioning of a nation a cursory look at  
Hansard  
for this year would put a stop to it. If one was in any further doubt one would just need to listen to members on the other side of the House and the way they have been filibustering these last 2 hours. The census of population and dwellings scheduled for 8 March 2011 was cancelled because of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The Canterbury earthquake utterly affected the viability of the census in 2011 so the Governor-General has since revoked the formal proclamation of 8 March 2011 as the census date. The Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill responds to that situation and sets in place also the infrastructure and the administration required to run the next census which is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 5 March 2013. This bill amends the Statistics Act 1975 to enact the Government’s decision to defer the census to 2013. Basically the amendment in this bill removes the requirement that a census be undertaken this year. It is a mere technicality. There is no reason to drag this out any further. I commend this bill to the House. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Matters) Bill. This is a non-controversial bill and I commend it to the House. 
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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Simon Power 
: You have got to be joking. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am seeing a level of anxiety on the part of the Acting Leader of the House and the spectators who have come in to sit behind him. Some of them are looking in a certain state of disarray I might say. I cannot tell whether they are reaching for their Compaqs or their tweets. 
The Opposition supports the bill but abhors the process. It is a sad day when an offer to put a bill through in much much less time than this was turned down by the Minister in charge of the bill—all for the sake of sending it to a select committee for a couple of hours. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.