Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) Link to this
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 Māori 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) Link to this
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 BridgesI 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 HenareSorry; 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) Link to this
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 Māori 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 PillayI 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 Link to this
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 DalzielWe 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) Link to this
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 Māori Party member and by the Minister that there has been a guarantee that the Māori 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 GoudieYes, 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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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.
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.
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 PowerWell, 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 (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
I will be quite brief as well on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Matters) Bill.
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 Link to this
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
Noes 44
- New Zealand Labour 42
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Carter C)
Bill read a third time.