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

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): We are actually debating clauses 1 and 2, not just clause 1.

Oh, I could have gone on for longer.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): 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.

I agree with my colleague Mr Mallard—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And that is an unusual thing.

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—

💬 Hon Members: Why? Why? Why?

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): 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.

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 Henare: No, there’s no need. We know what it’s about. It’s about counting people.

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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.