The Government Statistician must agree with key users, population experts and statisticians on a process for Identifying the full range of due diligence critical for the proposed census change. My own view is that the Royal Society should be funded to lead an independent review of the scientific integrity and validity of what is proposed.
The other countries with which we compare ourselves (Australia, Canada, UK) have no commitment to changing their next census to anything similar to the proposed New Zealand model.
The countries which do use the records collected by the state in its health, welfare, taxation, policing and enforcement activities all began with a compulsory population registration process (Israel, the Netherlands, the Nordic Countries).
This should cause some hesitation about the new direction.
We need to know the effect of changing the way that people are counted in population statistics.
An enumeration-based census enables coherence and consistency within and between responses because of the common reporting period. Population-wide administrative data will not usually refer to the same period for all individuals.
I can understand why the Government said no to running a census that was projected to cost $400 million.
But the answer doesn’t have to be not having a census. The better question would be why does it cost $80 a person to do what is basically a poll of the entire population?
The last Australian census cost only $23 a person.
Costa Rica managed a census for $2 million!
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
2 comments:
National Identity Number by the backdoor.
Changes to the Data and Statistics Act allow for the linking of data. This is key, because it sanctions the creation of a persistent unique identifier that can track an individual in real -time through administration data.
What is the difference, between a persistent unique identifier and a national ID number? The ‘persistent unique identifier’ is the backdoor to achieve a national identity number. Stats don’t have overt legislation for a national identity number, so they are going behind our backs, linking info from the data they already have on us and making an ID for everyone, the same way they say they are not building a real-time statistical register.
One Register to Rule them All: what Stats NZ is planning behind closed doors.
https://bonnieflaws.substack.com/p/one-register-to-rule-them-all-what?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It is entirely predictable that privacy freaks would chant "One register to rule them all". "Remember the Stasi/Gestapo/KGB" they will warn.
But they ignore the fact that it's far too late for those hystrionics. For God's sake, Google already has that stuff. Any half-decent loyalty program knows more about its members' behaviour than any State agency. Anybody with a cell phone is already tatooed with an ID number, albeit digital.
Given the current concern about poor productivity, particularly by public sector staff, why shouldn't Government create a central identity register that holds key details about every individual resident within our borders. This common pool of data would then be made available to every agency of the State to more efficiently carry on its lawful activities.
If we accept Google's right to read our emails and social media posts, listen to our conversations, and keep a record of our very location on the planet, why on earth should we object to a rationalisation of the data already held by the State but currently dispersed over dozens of agencies.
The demise of the census recognises that there are far more efficient ways of harvesting and maintaining the requisite data already operating in our society. So let's just do it.
Post a Comment