CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am very happy to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill.
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—
Well, there are not many people left in Pōmare, 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—
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—
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) Link to this
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—
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this
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
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this
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 Māori 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) Link to this
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 Māori Party received concerning the Māori electoral option—
Hon Rick BarkerWell, good on the Māori 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 Māori 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) Link to this
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, which 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 Māori 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.
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) Link to this
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 TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
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 DysonHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
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—
No. Cabinet can invite the State Services Commissioner to help, but there’s no obligation for him to be involved.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
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.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
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 TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
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.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
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—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
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.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
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) Link to this
We are actually debating clauses 1 and 2, not just clause 1.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
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.
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—
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) Link to this
I would like to hear what the member is saying, so please calm it down.
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) Link to this
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 HenareHon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
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.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the report be adopted.
Ayes 75
Noes 44
- New Zealand Labour 42
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Carter C)
Report adopted.