SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Mr Chair thank you. I'll just make the obvious point in response to David Seymour's last contribution that clause 15 is in a part of the bill that's already been passed. I appreciate he was probably making a political point and was just wanting to resurrect that debate so I won't respond further to that at this stage. But the Hon Michael Woodhouse I think raises a very good and important debate to have in this part of the bill albeit a conspiracy I don't subscribe to. It is very much the case that the Government Statistician is independent and proudly independent and rightly independent and that they produce statistics every week that may risk embarrassing a Government. Happily sometimes they are also cause for celebration—the record-low unemployment figures we have at the moment for example—but the Statistician produces those without fear or favour and this bill carries across the provisions that protect that independence and I think all members of this House really appreciate that. But what I don't subscribe to is singling out this one particular set of statistics in saying that somehow the chief statistician will be influenced in a way that he or she might not be influenced every other day of the week when they're putting statistics out and I do not see any reason there could be—to pick up another of the member's points—political embarrassment. I mean the last census was an obvious example of a framework that was put in place and not particularly well thought through by the previous National Government. So if it was an embarrassment to anyone it was certainly an embarrassment to the previous National Government. If the opportunity arises—and I hope we get it—to put out a census prepared for under the current Government's time where we can contrast with the kind of census that was put out under the framework created by the prior Government if anything it's an opportunity to draw a contrast between a competent Government and the one that went before.All levity aside I will repeat the comments I made admittedly at the start of my contribution in Part 1—so I do think it's worth canvassing them again because they are directly relevant to this part on the census itself. I in my introductory comments made reference to the fact that the census is a good example of the Statistician's independence. The primary consideration for deciding whether the next census is in 2023 or 2024 is the viability of the census operation and corresponding quality of the census data. Considering whether to proceed with the census as soon as all relevant information is available is part of due diligence and it should be done before investing time and money in activities that can't be recouped. Those kinds of activities are things like launching publicity campaigns and printing millions of forms all of which have a cost to the taxpayer. That is something that the Government Statistician has to weigh up—whether we are in a position to run a successful census. Importantly such decisions respect the time effort and goodwill of people and communities that come together to support census delivery and who rightly should expect Government to have considered whether the census was likely to be delivered successfully. Given the pandemic and the lessons of the Canterbury earthquake sequence frankly I think it would be irresponsible not to give the Government Statistician the necessary flexibility. Contingency planning is an important part of effective governance. So with those comments I push back and the message which the Government Statistician from what I've heard has put out there and from what I believe from my interactions are that at this stage—you know if it was my personal view and odds on I would be expecting that census to go ahead. But if there were another major strain in a pandemic or an earthquake of the magnitude of the Canterbury or the Kaikōura sequence on top of challenges from a pandemic and so on the Statistician may make other decisions. But ultimately that is the Government Statistician's decision—and rightly so—and the idea that we would put a political overlay to that is something that I think is quite unnecessary.