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

Thank you, Mr Chairman—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What’s your Tahitian greeting?

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.

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 Member: Growing.

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 Dyson: Michelle Boag had her way, eh?

Well, he has crawled back into his shell.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Perhaps the Attorney-General took it.

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—

💬 Charles Chauvel: It’s the opposite.

It is the opposite. So it is a normal chief executive?

💬 Charles Chauvel: No. Cabinet can invite the State Services Commissioner to help, but there’s no obligation for him to be involved.

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.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Or by the invitation of the Minister.

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 Simon Power: It’s the Governor-General, actually.

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.

💬 Charles Chauvel: It’s not statutory.

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—

💬 Charles Chauvel: I think it is.

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.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2