8. Census 2018—ParticipationHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of StatisticsCensus 2018—Participation8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he stand by his statements regarding Census 2018 that I am very confident that we will get to everyone" and "this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses" when it had more than 400000 people not counted?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): Yes in the context in which they were made. On 6 March census day I expressed my confidence based on advice from Statistics New Zealand that they were working very hard to get to everyone that they were aiming to get to on census day. On 12 April when I said "this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses" in answer to a question in the House from Dr Jian Yang the National Party statistics spokesperson I was referring to online response rates and other targets which at that point Statistics New Zealand advised me they were on track to meet or exceed. The assertion that there are more than 400000 people who haven't been counted is Dr Smith's extrapolation and is not a number from Statistics New Zealand nor one that I have confidence in. The final number will only be known once the post-census reconciliation is complete and published in March next year.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with Professor Lumley of Auckland University's Department of Statistics that the lowest turnout rate in more than 50 years for Census 2018 was "very serious" and the statement by Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters that the census result was "very disappointing"?Hon JAMES SHAW: It is important that New Zealanders have confidence in our national statistics agency and in the census. While the response rate to this census does appear to be lower than hoped for based on initial and partial information Statistics New Zealand will make use of reliable Government data to fill in the gaps. This method is called imputation and has been used to fill data gaps since 2001 in line with international best practice. The imputation methodology has been discussed with a group of international census specialists including members of the US Census Bureau and the UK's Office for National Statistics. The peer review will continue as the methodology develops.It is important to note that the imputation methodology was a core part of the census modernisation programme that was agreed to in the 2014 National Government Cabinet of which Dr Smith was a part. To express a lack of confidence in the output of that process months before it is complete would be to express a lack of confidence in the decision which he was a part of. Given that Dr Smith has been a member of this House for the last six censuses I would assume he would know better.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How would the Minister describe the performance of this census with the previous five he's referred to with a 90 percent return rate when in 2013 97.6 percent was the net coverage rate; in 2006 it achieved 98 percent in 2001 97.8 percent and in 1996 98.4 percent; and why does he not agree with statistical experts that say that this census was a shambles?Hon JAMES SHAW: Dr Smith is confusing his statistics. There is a difference between the coverage rate and the response rate. The methodology changed after the 2006 census and the only comparable data to this year's census is the previous one. The full and partial response rate for the previous census was 90.5 percent. The 90 percent figure that he's currently quoting is an interim figure of full and partial responses for this year's census which we won't know the completed number for until after the reconciliation is complete in March of next year.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with former Labour Party president Mike Williams when he said this year's census was "an industrial strength fiasco" and that the flawed data should be "dumped and the census done again properly"?Hon JAMES SHAW: Absolutely not. No Mr Williams is completely wrong. As Dr Smith would know having been a member of the Cabinet that signed off on the census methodology here this year's census is called a digital-first with mail second. Previously we were using mail first digital second. We have used supplementary information since 2001. The strategy for census transformation which his Government signed off on and of which this census is a part is part of a road map for using more imputation in the future. Dr Smith ought to know that because he signed off on it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he believe he did everything possible as Minister of Statistics to ensure Census 2018 was successful when he did not issue a single press release encouraging participation as compared to the 14 issued by previous Minister Maurice Williamson in Census 2013; when he chose to be touring the Pacific during the crucial census week; and when he dismissed the widespread concerns from members from this side of the House and the media when we raised them about this year's conduct?Hon JAMES SHAW: Again Dr Smith really ought to know better especially given that he's the spokesperson for State services and should understand that there is actually legal separation between the Minister and the agency. And not only that when I did go out doing promotional activities for this year's census I wasn't even allowed to touch the census papers because of the fear of it looking like I was interfering with the census. So the idea that the Minister can somehow interfere in the census process the way that he is implying would be a breach of the law and once again Dr Smith ought to know better. If he has any further questions perhaps he could direct some of them to his colleague Dr Jian Yang who is actually the National Party's statistics spokesperson and who in the 512 written questions he has asked about statistics this year 129 were about the census and I'm pretty sure many of those will answer the kinds of questions that Dr Smith is unable to answer for himself given his extensive experience."