Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

I should add my thanks to Trevor Mallard.

When I realised the bill was to be debated under urgency, I posted my concern on his Facebook wall. He said he’d look into it and later stated during the debate in the House that he had received confirmation from the Minister that the Māori option would still occur in 2013, which was confirmed as the Minister’s view at the end of his third reading speech:

I’d still like it to be a little clearer, however.

Why don't they put a force majeure clause into the Statistics Act that lets any census be deferred in the event of a natural disaster that reasonably prevents it being conducted?

Then we'd have one less thing to worry about when the Big One takes out Wellington (or the Taupo supervolcano goes off again, converting the North Island into the Earth's second moon).

In fact, why don't we have a proper process of drafting some robust legislation that can kick in when disaster strikes, rather than legislating in panic at the time?

In fact, why don't we have a proper process of drafting some robust legislation that can kick in when disaster strikes, rather than legislating in panic at the time?

Some would say that it's the three-year term of Parliament :-)

I too was wondering why National sat on its hands for so long. Took three months until 27 May to announce the next census in 2013, and then another 10 weeks to introduce the bill.

There was plenty of time for a short select committee process.

The judicial review section of Matthew Palmer's Laws in the Public Sector course is fast approaching. 'Quinquennial' might be an interesting idea to discuss: what would happen if someone went for judicial review in 2013?

A select committee would also have been an opportunity for policy to be debated - is a five-yearly census of every household still the best way to gather information in the 21st century?

One op-ed writer earlier this year (and I haven't been able to find the piece) suggested that rolling surveys combined with a national register as done in Netherlands? South Africa? (I can't remember precisely) would give equally valid results at a lower cost. The current model costs $90M over the 5 year cycle.

And various institutions would have been able to put their views. Economists, corporates, unions, yada yada. The question could have been asked, what does the seven year gap do to the historical series - does it cause a problem? (I don't know.)

an opportunity for policy to be debated

I'm not sure the current government believes in that, on principle.

A select committee would also have been an opportunity for policy to be debated - is a five-yearly census of every household still the best way to gather information in the 21st century?

That may be a good discussion to have, but I don't believe this bill is the place for it.

Such a change would have wider considerations, including, for example, with the Maori option. I support the Maori option occurring only when the boundaries are re-drawn, but taking this out to 10-yearly may be a step too far for some.

We seem to be drawn inexorably to a second world status.

We seem to be drawn inexorably to a second world status.

We're being an advanced communist state?

Well, we're not first world in so many things now and it's untrue to say that we're third world, so where else does this leave us? Two and a half?

This country's first world status is not evenly distributed, is all.