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

I am very happy to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re allowed four calls.

I say to my colleague Trevor Mallard that I am just getting warmed up, but give it some time, give it some time, and we will get there.

Part 1 enables the census to take place in March 2013. Without this bill the Government Statistician would be in breach of the Statistics Act if a census is not carried out by the end of 2011. The point I want to raise here is that I think this is reasonable legislation. It is not something that the Labour Party would normally be opposed to. It is not something that I would normally be opposed to. I fully understand the circumstances that have made it impossible for the chief statistician to conduct the census this year, as required by law, but in spite of that I think it is still important that the democratic process of this House is followed. In cases of real emergency where the House needs to act quickly, it has done so. This is not one of those cases. There is no good reason why this bill needs to go through all stages in the House tonight under urgency, and why the public should not be allowed to have its say through a truncated select committee process.

I have listened to all of the Government speakers. I have been here since this debate started. We have been through the first reading and the second reading and now we are in the Committee stage, and not one Government member, including the Minister of Statistics, has given us a reason why this bill must go through all stages under urgency. Not one Government member has given us a reason why the bill should not be referred to a select committee for, say, a week to allow people to make submissions. I do not think there has been a bill that I have been involved with in this Parliament that has gone to a select committee that has not been improved by the select committee process.

As much as everyone may think that we have covered off every possible avenue, one of the wonders of the democratic process is that anybody can have a view on a bill, anyone can raise a concern or an issue, and quite often they actually improve the legislation as a result. I do not think there is any reason why this bill should not go through that process and people should not be allowed to do that. We could still get the bill passed in plenty of time to let the chief statistician out of the legal requirement to conduct a census before the end of this year. The earthquake that triggered the census not being able to take place occurred in February. It is now August, and this is the first time the House is debating this legislation. That is absolutely ridiculous. This could easily have been dealt with before that.

Section 23 of the Statistics Act currently states: “The census of population and dwellings of New Zealand shall be taken by the Department in the year 1976 and in every fifth year thereafter.” This bill changes that wording, and in this case the census will not be taken “in every fifth year”; it will end up being taken in the seventh year after the last census. That does, of course, raise concerns about the compatibility of the data.

I disagree with my colleague Trevor Mallard, although it is very unusual for the two of us to disagree, because I actually accept the Minister’s point. I accept that the timing of the year is quite important and if we cannot take the census every fifth year, we should at least strive to take it at a time when the data will be the most comparable with the data of previous censuses. I say to my colleague Trevor Mallard that I am looking forward to his contribution on this issue. I think that taking the next census at the same time of year as the regular census would normally take place is a good thing. This bill allows for that; it allows for the census to take place in March 2013, which, I understand, was the preferred option recommended by Statistics New Zealand.

The other option was to move to 10-yearly censuses, as the US has done, but there are a whole lot of reasons why we would not want to do that. We have a relatively small and, in some cases, quite fluid population. I think that the 5-yearly census is the one that we should try to get back to. I hope that in every fifth year after 2013 we will continue to take a census. I would like the Minister to address that question. Will the next census take place 5 years after 2013, or will it happen sooner than 5 years after 2013?

I would certainly like the Minister to answer that question, because a lot of Government processes—our democratic and constitutional processes—rely on the census. The most readily cited example is the electoral boundaries. I had this discussion with the Minister of Statistics at the all-powerful—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Hoping to get Pōmare into my electorate!

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—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Do you want Naenae?

I am quite happy to relieve the member of the burden of representing the people of Naenae. I think that is an area that would fit very well within the Rimutaka electorate boundaries. But coming back to the issue—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They don’t even know how to spell “Rimutaka”.

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.

Just to deal with a couple of the matters that Mr Hipkins raised, all we are doing is changing the wording of the Statistics Act 1975. In the wording it says that a census will be held “in the year 1976 and in every fifth year thereafter.” All we are doing is substituting “2013” for “1976”. So yes, the wording “every fifth year thereafter” stays in the legislation, and therefore there will be a census 5 years on from 2013.

I also re-emphasise the point that Mr Hipkins gets and that Mr Mallard does not—that is, there are different times during the course of a calendar year in which people are distributed quite dramatically differently over the country. For example, members of Parliament would nearly always be back in their electorates from halfway through December to halfway through January, but would nearly always be stuck here in Wellington if we were to conduct the census some time—I do not know—when the House is not—

💬 Chris Hipkins: That’s the Minister’s problem: he is completely beholden to the bureaucrats.

Yes, I am beholden to the bureaucrats—that is right! I am beholden to the 4.2 million New Zealanders who like to move around. It is quite a clear problem if we were to take a census at a time other than March. There are also issues with regard to daylight saving. It is also about the enumerators wanting to be at the households, where they have to do the drops and the pick-ups, during daylight hours. We could not be doing it right now in June, July, or August. Then we have the Christmas rush, and so on. I do not think any great deal of explanation is needed about it.

The last thing that the member asked was whether I could give him an assurance that the census would allow for the electoral boundaries to be done. Actually, that has had tighter time frames in the past. If we think about the census that was conducted in March 2001, we see that boundary changes were made for the 2002 election. It is nearly 2 years: the census is in March 2013 and the election will be sort of November 2014. So there is plenty of time for the Representation Commission to get its work done, to get its draft boundaries—

💬 Hon Simon Power: Excellent contribution.

Thank you.

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.

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 Barker: Yes. What secret deals have been done?

Well, 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.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 and to ask a few questions. Ordinarily we would have at this stage of a bill a lot more information. This bill would have gone to a select committee, and a whole host of people with an interest in doing the census and in statistics, as well as people who use the data, would have given a lot of advice. We do not know what that advice would be, so I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Statistics, could explain the implications of deferring the census until 2013 and now having a 7-year gap between censuses. What are statisticians and demographers saying about that change? What kind of adjustments will need to be made to the data so that there is some comparability down the line, so that users of the data will have some way of knowing or working out what that is?

The data sets we currently have go back to 1975, so there is a 35-year data set collected at the same time at regular intervals. But that will be changed for ever, in a sense, by our going to a 7-year gap, and then resuming 5 years after that. I wonder what advice the Minister has received about those changes, and what the implications might be.

More fundamentally, a select committee would have given us the opportunity to examine, however briefly—and it could have been brought together quite quickly—the modern census, so to speak. The Minister said that he has asked some questions about a modern census, but he had no answers. What were the questions the Minister asked, and what was his thinking about the kinds of parameters a modern census might have? Censuses have not always been the same for the hundreds of years that censuses have been done. But now the technology has changed in this field. The data that is regularly collected in all kinds of ways is also available from different sources now. So what was the Minister thinking about that data?

Perhaps more fundamentally, there is also a move now not to hold censuses but to conduct surveys. Those surveys are almost like a series of cross-sectional studies that tell us what is happening to our population, and they are done more regularly. Why has the Minister not taken the opportunity—because it comes quite rarely—to have this kind of thinking done in relation to censuses and census change? There are new methodologies and new ways of using data. With the kind of consultation that we have in mind—and this is why members on this side are opposing this bill—even users of censuses would identify the different types of data that are now required. Here was an opportunity, through a select committee, to have that kind of discussion.

My colleague Raymond Huo talked quite a bit about the need for data in the 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.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920