Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak in this urgent debate. The question I have for this House today is: is there a genuine desire to get good-quality data in New Zealand? Is there a genuine desire in this House to give New Zealand the truth information about what's happening in our country? I would say on this side of the House there is a Minister and a genuine desire to get things right and when there have been issues in terms of delivery there has been a comprehensive review on how that transition to digital needs to happen more effectively and an accurate plan how we can move towards that.We have heard good information tonight from the Minister about how there were active steps in place to make sure we do have good-quality data here in New Zealand. But from that side of the House it's not quite the same thing. First of all there has been absolutely no recognition of the fact that there were issues in the set-up that went right back to 2014—that there was a real problem back in 2014 under the different Ministers who have administered this project over time. The different Ministers and people involved—[Interruption] Let me read them out for you once again to those members opposite. Maurice Williamson number one. Number two Nicky Wagner. Number three Craig Foss. Number four Mark Mitchell. Number five Scott Simpson. These are five different people that've had responsibility for coordinating and shepherding one piece of work. So how can we expect that there is consistency and accuracy in how we deliver these issues?One of the main issues raised by the report that's so quietly being mentioned on the other side right now is that the issue was with the testing that was agreed to by Mark Mitchell—the tests in place—and it was the real apparent lack of understanding how those tests would translate into practice. The problem with the delivery was the fact that the plan which was not even tested back in 2014 is one of the underlying reasons that this report found that the issues we received when delivering were not fulfilled. That is the truth and that is the truth that New Zealanders deserve to hear when this issue is being debated because there is more to this. There's not just an inaccuracy in terms of what's being said on the other side of the House; there is a deliberate purposeful misrepresentation of information and that is systematic of a wider agenda by those members opposite. That also is typified in the behaviour of the Hon Dr Nick Smith in the Governance and Administration Committee when considering this issue and hearing from key officials and the chief executive over this time. I would say that the leaking of information by the Hon Dr Nick Smith over this time got to the point of being farcical. Instead of actually having to—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has alleged that I leaked documents from the select committee. That has been the subject of a privileges complaint by that member. That was dismissed by the Speaker and it was found that the information that was released was entirely appropriate. I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from the member and the reply from the Speaker regarding the information concerned.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to deal with the first part first. I apologise to the House; I was slightly distracted on another matter at the time but I'm going to ask the member Ginny Andersen whether that is correct.GINNY ANDERSEN: I would like to be able to table the Stuff article which was published after the—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No no that's not what I asked. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has said that you made an accusation; is that correct or not?GINNY ANDERSEN: That is correct.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member will stand withdraw and apologise.GINNY ANDERSEN: I withdraw and apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you. And to the second part the seeking of leave—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the letter from the member seeking to keep the Statistics decision around the 700000 people who didn't comply secret and the response from the Speaker saying that it was appropriate for the information to be released.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The document can be tabled. Are you continuing with your contribution?Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It was also interesting to note that there was good coverage in the media around that time that was always readily available and sometimes instead of reading my agenda for the Governance and Administration Committee that night I would just turn on Radio New Zealand and would hear Dr Nick Smith telling us exactly what would be considered in the committee the next day and that was often a much quicker way—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That's not part of the independent report or the resignation of the Government Statistician. So come back to the motion on the Table.GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. So what we were hearing from the issues—[Interruption] And it's interesting to hear that there are concerns because there was a lack of good information available and that is right. The problem is that there is a deliberate attempt to give misinformation about the history of this issue and that is what has got the backs up of the members opposite. There is truth in the fact that National has no credibility to call this decision now into question and the idea even that there should be a consideration in this area needs to be revisited for the fact that there is a history that goes right back. That is obviously a very sore point for those members opposite in fact. The history is that there was a long time when decisions were taken under a previous Government that were contributing factors to where we have been placed right now and the report quite clearly points that out.There are some significant issues and when you come back to what we have actually heard today what we have actually heard is that there have been two main points made in terms of what the National Party considers should happen next. The first one is that they have concerns that the Minister wasn't in the country at the time the census was happening. Now I fundamentally fail to see how that relates to any of the issues in terms of transitioning from a paper to a digital platform any foresight into how we can make this process better; it is simply making one statement of fact that has absolutely no ramifications on the outcome of this issue. The second point made by those members opposite is that there weren't enough press releases issued over this time—that somehow we would all be in a better position right now and there would be no problems if the Minister of Statistics had whacked out a few more press releases. So I am assuming that there is a tally of the number of press releases released by the Hon Maurice Williamson under his watch and we've got a tally kept there that that's included in the National Party key lines today that you've won out on press releases and that that somehow demonstrates a greater transparency on that side of the House.The key area is that yes there have been some delivery details in place and that is why there has been accountability at the highest level from this side to make sure such errors do not occur again. It is important the other point that we heard Scott Simpson mention today. It was also about this backfill data and a more accurate term you might find for backfill data" is the fact that it's administrative data. In that report when you go back in terms of those previous Cabinet decisions taken by the last National Government there was an agreement in there to acknowledge that administrative data can be used quite accurately. So it is an inaccurate comment and it contributes to the ongoing issues—that National wilfully misrepresents what the problems are and that there is a high level of scaremongering and this has a negative effect in the sense that it undermines the public confidence in Statistics. There's a burn the house down let's say it's all gone approach without trying to move forward and have a good outcome. I do believe that New Zealanders have a general expectation on issues of such importance—of data of reporting about what's happening in people's lives—that there is some good cross-party coordination in this there are some levels instead of playing petty politics and not actually looking at what the facts were in this situation. That is quite clearly what has happened here. It has quite clearly happened.Look I am looking forward to coming into an era when we do have good-quality data but the important fact that we need to take away is that the work is being done to use administrative data—that we are in a good space to have good-quality information moving forward. National members knew back then that that was a possibility and it has always been able to be used as a backup to get good data when it's required in those areas. That is the misinformation that those members opposite have continued to perpetuate in this area. Thank you Mr Speaker.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Often reports of this sort become part of the parliamentary record. On this occasion it's a report to the Minister and the Government Statistician. I think it is of sufficient moment that it should be tabled in the House. I seek the leave of the House to table the review of New Zealand's 2018 census.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That document is publicly available so it can't be tabled. It is available for all members to read at their leisure.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed."