Ever since those times, countries have counted their populations. For those filling in the forms, it is a nuisance, to be sure. But governments need reliable figures to plan public services.
Australia has just gone through this exercise again. In August, Australians filled in census forms asking where they were born, what they earn and how they get to work. Some 30,000 Bureau of Statistics field staff are still knocking on the doors of those who did not.
Still, one might wonder why, with tax files and Medicare records already available, a separate census is even needed. Does the government not know most of what it is asking its people about?
New Zealand considered the same argument and last year decided to stop holding traditional censuses.
New Zealand has tax records, hospital enrolments, school rolls and a research database linking them. So why not base the census on them?
Problems with the previous two censuses made the idea more tempting.
The 2013 census cost $104 million and about 93 per cent of New Zealanders filled it in. Five years later, Stats NZ made online completion the default, but roughly one person in seven did not respond. Among Māori, the response rate dropped to 68 per cent. The outcome was so disappointing that the Government Statistician resigned.
By 2023, the bill for the census had reached $325 million, more than three times the 2013 figure. The response rate improved to 87.6 per cent. Even at that price, though, an estimated 116,000 people were missed.
Australia, for comparison, managed a 96 per cent response in 2021, and Ireland, a country of New Zealand’s size, did the same a year later.
So, in June last year, the New Zealand government announced there would be no census in 2028. Instead, from 2030, New Zealand would infer its population data from records collected for other purposes: Inland Revenue for income, the Ministry of Education for schooling, the health system for where people live. To fill the gaps, an annual sample survey of about five per cent of the population would still be conducted, but most New Zealanders would never have to fill in a census form again.
It sounded like a bold plan, but there were doubts about its feasibility. Government databases contain errors, and a traditional census is hardly error-free either, as the 2018 count showed. But administrative records also miss things a census asks about. On languages spoken or religion, for instance, they hold very little.
The question is whether an annual five per cent survey could both check the records and fill those gaps, including for smaller communities.
Germany shows the problem is not theoretical. If you live in Germany, you must by law register your address with the local council. There are fines if you fail to do so. Germany also gave up the traditional census years ago. Its censuses, held roughly every ten years, now use those registers alongside a survey of about one resident in ten.
The 2011 census found 1.5 million fewer residents than the official estimates suggested. The 2022 census cut the estimated population by another 1.4 million. Berlin and Hamburg each turned out to have 3.5 per cent fewer residents than estimated.
New Zealand has no German-style population register. Could its proposed annual survey produce reliable figures from the records we do have? That needed a convincing answer before the law changed.
Whatever the merits of the new model, the plan hit a constitutional obstacle in Parliament in early August, just seven weeks before Parliament rises for this year’s election.
Normally, changing New Zealand law requires only a parliamentary majority. But some provisions of the Electoral Act need more. They can be changed only with the support of at least 75 per cent of MPs or a majority in a referendum. One ties the drawing of electorate boundaries to the last census.
And so, abolishing the census meant changing a provision that is constitutional law in all but name. When Labour withdrew its support at the select committee stage, the numbers for this change were not there. Labour said it was not confident the new model would be accurate enough for Māori, Pasifika and rural communities, and wanted an independent review with costings before Parliament voted. At this stage in the parliamentary calendar, there was simply not enough time left to complete that review.
The government knew the risk of not passing the legislation before the end of the parliamentary term. In February, a Cabinet paper said that if the bill failed, Stats NZ would be legally required to hold a census in 2028 with neither the time nor the resources to do it properly. Stats NZ now faces the problem Cabinet was warned about.
The result leaves Statistics New Zealand in an unfortunate position. Its new chief executive, only in the job since January, inherited a plan to replace the traditional census. Cabinet had endorsed it, a bill had been drafted and $227 million had been appropriated for the replacement model.
But the necessary legislation has not passed. Under the existing law, the agency must prepare for a traditional census in 2028. The government still hopes to change that law in the next Parliament.
Except it lacks the resources to do so. In the past few years, the agency has also lost about 300 staff and had its budget cut by seven per cent.
Len Cook, a former Government Statistician who went on to run Britain’s statistics office, thinks a 2028 census can still be done if the costs are managed “quite brutally”.
The statistics minister, meanwhile, has confirmed the agency must run one, regardless. Asked whether it had the money, he said no.
Two millennia ago, Augustus counted his empire because he wanted to know what he ruled. In 2028, New Zealand will count itself because the parties could not agree on how to stop.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
Still, one might wonder why, with tax files and Medicare records already available, a separate census is even needed. Does the government not know most of what it is asking its people about?
New Zealand considered the same argument and last year decided to stop holding traditional censuses.
New Zealand has tax records, hospital enrolments, school rolls and a research database linking them. So why not base the census on them?
Problems with the previous two censuses made the idea more tempting.
The 2013 census cost $104 million and about 93 per cent of New Zealanders filled it in. Five years later, Stats NZ made online completion the default, but roughly one person in seven did not respond. Among Māori, the response rate dropped to 68 per cent. The outcome was so disappointing that the Government Statistician resigned.
By 2023, the bill for the census had reached $325 million, more than three times the 2013 figure. The response rate improved to 87.6 per cent. Even at that price, though, an estimated 116,000 people were missed.
Australia, for comparison, managed a 96 per cent response in 2021, and Ireland, a country of New Zealand’s size, did the same a year later.
So, in June last year, the New Zealand government announced there would be no census in 2028. Instead, from 2030, New Zealand would infer its population data from records collected for other purposes: Inland Revenue for income, the Ministry of Education for schooling, the health system for where people live. To fill the gaps, an annual sample survey of about five per cent of the population would still be conducted, but most New Zealanders would never have to fill in a census form again.
It sounded like a bold plan, but there were doubts about its feasibility. Government databases contain errors, and a traditional census is hardly error-free either, as the 2018 count showed. But administrative records also miss things a census asks about. On languages spoken or religion, for instance, they hold very little.
The question is whether an annual five per cent survey could both check the records and fill those gaps, including for smaller communities.
Germany shows the problem is not theoretical. If you live in Germany, you must by law register your address with the local council. There are fines if you fail to do so. Germany also gave up the traditional census years ago. Its censuses, held roughly every ten years, now use those registers alongside a survey of about one resident in ten.
The 2011 census found 1.5 million fewer residents than the official estimates suggested. The 2022 census cut the estimated population by another 1.4 million. Berlin and Hamburg each turned out to have 3.5 per cent fewer residents than estimated.
New Zealand has no German-style population register. Could its proposed annual survey produce reliable figures from the records we do have? That needed a convincing answer before the law changed.
Whatever the merits of the new model, the plan hit a constitutional obstacle in Parliament in early August, just seven weeks before Parliament rises for this year’s election.
Normally, changing New Zealand law requires only a parliamentary majority. But some provisions of the Electoral Act need more. They can be changed only with the support of at least 75 per cent of MPs or a majority in a referendum. One ties the drawing of electorate boundaries to the last census.
And so, abolishing the census meant changing a provision that is constitutional law in all but name. When Labour withdrew its support at the select committee stage, the numbers for this change were not there. Labour said it was not confident the new model would be accurate enough for Māori, Pasifika and rural communities, and wanted an independent review with costings before Parliament voted. At this stage in the parliamentary calendar, there was simply not enough time left to complete that review.
The government knew the risk of not passing the legislation before the end of the parliamentary term. In February, a Cabinet paper said that if the bill failed, Stats NZ would be legally required to hold a census in 2028 with neither the time nor the resources to do it properly. Stats NZ now faces the problem Cabinet was warned about.
The result leaves Statistics New Zealand in an unfortunate position. Its new chief executive, only in the job since January, inherited a plan to replace the traditional census. Cabinet had endorsed it, a bill had been drafted and $227 million had been appropriated for the replacement model.
But the necessary legislation has not passed. Under the existing law, the agency must prepare for a traditional census in 2028. The government still hopes to change that law in the next Parliament.
Except it lacks the resources to do so. In the past few years, the agency has also lost about 300 staff and had its budget cut by seven per cent.
Len Cook, a former Government Statistician who went on to run Britain’s statistics office, thinks a 2028 census can still be done if the costs are managed “quite brutally”.
The statistics minister, meanwhile, has confirmed the agency must run one, regardless. Asked whether it had the money, he said no.
Two millennia ago, Augustus counted his empire because he wanted to know what he ruled. In 2028, New Zealand will count itself because the parties could not agree on how to stop.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
14 comments:
In 2023, I didn’t complete a census for the first time in my life.
During Covid, I, along with many others, were treated as second-class citizens by New Zealanders and the New Zealand government in particular, because we chose to remain unvaccinated. We made a decision that as the government had un-personed us, that we were no longer going to be counted by the census.
It was not a small number of people who refused on this basis.
I believe that the government was well aware that this was a factor in the dire 2023 completion rate, but chose to make Stats NZ the scapegoat regardless.
Regardless, the die has been cast now, so best of luck to Stats NZ if they’re required to perform another physical census.
You immediately ruin your argument by repeating a fairytale about a carpenter and his wife which every authoritive biblical historian has discredited
Well anon@6.28, nothing like putting hurt feelings and self-interest before country.
'2028 census can still be done if the costs are managed “quite brutally”.'
It has been a long time since any government department managed costs sensibly, let alone brutality.
Allegory - obviously lost on some.
Someone called the Biblical 'census' a fairy tale. It isn't. It was an enrollment for the 25th anniversary (Silver Jubilee) of Augustus Caesar. Most people haven't looked into this.
BUT............ (from Google AI)
"According to historical records kept by the Roman historian Josephus, the real provincial Census of Quirinius occurred in 6 or 7 AD. However, both the Gospels of Luke and Matthew state that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC—creating a gap of roughly a decade."
MODERATOR said...
Interesting for history boffins but does it have anything to do with the NZ census?
"Well anon@6.28, nothing like putting hurt feelings and self-interest before country."
It is more than hurt feelings. People were demonized, lost their careers, their homes, their family and friends. They also lost all trust in the government. This was directly responsible for the last census result. People no longer want the government to be involved in their lives and it didn't matter which party was in charge because all of them were complicit in the human rights abuses of the COVID era.
How many tens of millions of dollars to separate out the Maori people on the census when we are all one people ?
And having separated them out, how do they justify allocating hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer " support " for these people with fractional Maori genes ?
Anmon@12.06, I think was bit harsh in my original assessment and accept that life was extremely difficult for many at that time. I just have the view that the census really has little to do with it and governments can be equine buttocks without the use of a census, an instrument that can be useful to help 'good' governments strategize.
Allen heath, good on you for being a good man with your second post.
Re census, I will not be contributing to any future census. All govts really want to know is how to steal from people like me and give to the non contributors. I refuse to aid and abet in my own destruction....but you are all welcome to do so if you see the $227m dollars of value you get from it.
Anon@9.18, I take your points but line up the census cost with the over combined $400 million for cycleways/walkways between Wellington and the Hutt Valley. It's very much a toss-up which is the least valuable, but with me facts beat window-dressing hands down.
Hi Allen, (im 9.18) - but not 6.28 or 12.06.
I agree. I'm sick of these people spending my hard earned dollars on projects that pretty much no one really wants or add little to no value for 99% of the country.
Regarding our chat on the Wellington cycleways—I originally thought the costs fell strictly on local ratepayers rather than the national tax base.
It is incredibly frustrating to think that wider taxpayer funds might be subsidising what many, probably the majority of us see as poor local government spending, especially when Wellington has clear infrastructure challenges to fix.
If they choose to elect council leadership that prioritises these stupid projects, as opposed to fixing infrastructure, they should foot the bill locally. END OF.
Fortunately, the city i live in hasn't reached that point yet, and moving away from race-based seats is a step in the right direction. We just need to stay focused on putting competent people in charge of the decisions that matter.
Back to the census. Save the money, do away with it. Spend it on implementing psyche and competency tests for future politicians. That is a much better use of money (imo)
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.