Chauvel Charles: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20812] 
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.