Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

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 MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

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 Link to this

Do members think it was last week?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

Week before?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

Maybe a couple of weeks ago? Three weeks? Four, five?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

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 LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

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: Residential 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.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

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.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

No, I downloaded it from a Facebook page.

CHARLES CHAUVEL Link to this

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 Ohāriu 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 Māori electoral option? We heard from Te Ururoa Flavell that the Māori Party has had some sort of an assurance from the Minister that the Māori 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

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 TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

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 TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

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 TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

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 TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

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—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

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.