StatsNZ has illustrated some of the changes in spending through the decades:
StatsNZ has illustrated some of the changes in spending through the decades:
The Government Statistician and Chief Executive of Stats NZ, Liz MacPherson has resigned after the release of the report reviewing last year’s census debacle.
“As leader of this organisation, I take full responsibility for the shortfalls identified in the report,” said Ms MacPherson.
“We were too optimistic, placed too much emphasis on the online census, and did not have robust contingency plans in place for when things started to go wrong. When that happened, problems were not escalated to a higher level. We also failed our Treaty partners because we did not convert engagement with Māori into actual census responses.
“Put simply, we didn’t make it easy enough for everyone to take part and that will be a key focus for the next census.
“As the reviewers say, we got some things wrong at a time of great change during the switch to a more digitally-focused data collection approach. I accept the findings. We let ourselves and New Zealand down. . .
This is a commendable display of accountability.
Accepting responsibility is appropriate and appreciated by Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke:
“This is sad but the right thing to do in the circumstances. There has to be accountability in the public sector, especially in the case of a chief exec that earns over $400,000. Today we see an example of that.”
“Running a census every five years is Stats NZ’s largest responsibility. Taxpayers will expect the next chief exec to focus on this core service, which should mean directing resources away from the department’s more wishy-washy work like measuring ‘spiritual health’.”
. . .It is our view that weaknesses in overall governance and strategic leadership at the programme level led to a series of decisions, some influenced by the North Canterbury earthquake, that when taken together ultimately compromised the achievement of the investment objectives and several important key performance indicators. It is also our view that some elements of the programme design introduced unnecessary complexity that made it difficult to execute and for citizens to respond. . .
But shouldn’t the Stats Minister be accountable too?
Statistics Minister James Shaw needs to take responsibility for his part in the abysmal handling of the Census 2018 debacle, National’s Statistics spokesperson Dr Jian Yang says.
“The resignation of Chief Statistician Liz MacPherson is appropriate given how badly Census 2018 was botched. But she should not be a scapegoat for James Shaw whose failure to show leadership played a significant part in this mess.
“The Minister needed to be more involved in his department. He should have asked more questions of his Statistics NZ leadership team and demanded better results from them.
“But he chose to be a hands-off Minister instead. He was missing in action when things were going wrong – off on a Pacific Island junket while his officials were left to clean things up.
“He let things spiral out of control to the point where much of the data may no longer be useful. That creates enormous problems for the billions of dollars in funding for health, education, police and other vital services that depend on reliable Census numbers.
“This failure also has massive implications for the next election with reliable data required to draw accurate electoral boundaries and decide the number of seats in Parliament.
“James Shaw was too relaxed about the problem. He brushed off any criticism as ‘scaremongering’, but today’s damning report shows there were very real issues he wasn’t across.”
When a department is carrying out its major undertaking, and doing it differently, the Minister ought to take a much closer interest than he appeared to have done.
It would also have been better had Stats NZ taken a more cautious approach to expecting people to respond on-line.
We were in the area chosen for a trial of the on-line census in 2013.
Officially it went well but locals involved told me there were big holes, not least in central Oamaru where most of the large Tongan population went uncounted.
There ought to have been enough warning signs from that to have a lot more staff on the ground with paper forms and to ensure that at the very least households which didn’t return forms received personal visits.
Not everyone has access to a computer; some people who do, use them for little more than emails; others are loathe to use them for anything involving personal data.
The first nation-wide on-line census would have been better had people been given a choice between filling in paper forms or doing it on-line.
It wasn’t and so we’ve got huge holes in information and more than a year’s delay in the first release of data which includes the population numbers required for the updating of electoral boundaries.
That means that parties either wait to do candidate selection or risk having to re-do some close to the election when, as inevitable, at least one new electorate is created and others undergo major boundary changes.
Worse still, funding for health, education and social services are being compromised with no reliable population data.
This has been a very sorry saga the only good from which will be if lessons learned bring changes that ensure the next census results in a much better response rate and better data sooner.
Stats NZ is going to be working with phone companies to track our movements every hour:
The population density programme will launch next month and Statistics Minister James Shaw said he was aware there would be perception issues around every step being recorded.
Mr Shaw said cellphone companies and credit companies already held that level of detail, but for the first time Stats NZ was able to act as a data broker to identify trends and patterns with the anonymised information.
I find this a wee bit creepy.
Phone and credit card companies aren’t the government and we have a choice about whether or not we use them.
He told MPs at a select committee today, there would be concerns about people being able to hack into the system and get hold of people’s private details.
“It is very rigourous and we’ve had criticism in the past of people saying it’s really difficult to get access to that information to be able to use it for research purposes – well that’s because it’s under lock and key,” he told RNZ following the committee.
It was supposedly difficult to get Budget information last month.
However, Mr Shaw said the security of the information would require increasing attention over time.
The programme has been assessed by the Privacy Commissioner and a data ethics panel is being set up to keep watch.
Mr Shaw said the Census already asked New Zealanders where they were on a particular night and the tracking just an extension of that using information that was already collected.
I don’t go anywhere that would cause me any concern should the government know about it, but that’s not the point.
Filling in a census form once every six years is very different from tracking our movements every hour.
We’re required to fill in the forms, but are phone companies required to give this information and whether or not they are, shouldn’t they be telling us what they’re doing with any information they hold on us.
Are they going to ask us for our permission to share our information and can we say no?
Government Statistician Liz MacPherson is facing a contempt of parliament charge after refusing a select committee request for information on last year’s census:
In an unusual move, a select committee invoked a standing order compelling Statistics NZ chief executive to produce the number of partial responses were received in Census 2018.
This is not a partisan request, the whole committee is seeking an answer.
National state services spokesman Dr Nick Smith said the committee unanimously decided such an extraordinary measure was required after MacPherson again refused to answer on the basis it would require “extensive contextual information”.
“It is the first time ever that I have seen a select committee having to use its powers to require a public servant to provide an answer to a basic question.
“I can only draw the conclusion that Stats NZ has something to hide.”
This is public information. The refusal to supply it begs the question: what is she trying to hide and why?
Last year’s census was a shambles and the failure to provide parliament with the information requested does nothing to improve confidence in it.
The nine child poverty statistics that will be used as the baseline for improvement show released yesterday by Stats NZ show all but one have got worse under the current government:
David Farrar compares the stats under National and Labour:
Who would have thought it? Seven of the child poverty measures dropped under National, one was static and one went up.
And under the Labour/NZ First/Green government that purports to be compassionate and set reducing child poverty as a priority?
Seven of the child poverty measures worsened and only two improved.
What’s behind the difference?
Former Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bill English was determined to search out the risk factors which lead to poverty and the disastrous social outcomes that usually accompany it.
Having found them he used the social investment approach – spending more upfront on helping those most at risk. The higher short-term cost was justified by the expected reduction in the long-term human, social and financial costs should those at risk not be helped.
The compassionate and intelligent response of the Labour/NZ First/Green government would have been to continue and build on what was working.
The failure to do so is this government’s shame.
Instead it sabotaged business confidence, wasted money on policies including fee-free tertiary education and winter heating subsidies for people who don’t need them, and got soft on policies that used both carrot and stick for those who could be working but don’t.
Early days is no excuse, this government is almost half way through it’s first term.
It can’t blame National for what’s going wrong when under it, seven of the measures were improving, one was static and just one was going the wrong way.
The government has only itself and its ideological blindness to blame which will be no comfort at all to the families whose situation has worsened.
Lindsay Mitchell blogs on the causes of poverty:
The Canadian think-tank, the Fraser Institute has just released a paper which suggests an elegantly simple framework in finding three causes of poverty: bad luck, bad choices and enablement. The first two need no explanation. The third is described thus:
We can say that poverty is “enabled” when systems and structures are in place to discourage the kinds of efforts that people would normally make to avoid poverty, i.e., find employment, find a partner (especially if children are present), improve one’s education and skill set, have a positive outlook, and take personal responsibility for your own actions. Ironically, it is government programs (welfare, in particular) that are intended to help the poor but end up actually enabling poverty.
In NZ, many of our current influencers (MPs and media) pooh,pooh the idea that bad choices are responsible for poverty despite this being self-evident. They base their disdain for the idea on a belief that greater systems, for example institutional racism, drive bad choices. Of course when they do this they excuse bad choices and even compensate the person making them. Undoubtedly, most of those sitting on the Welfare Expert Advisory Group would hold views of his nature. . .
The soft bigotry of low expectations is not a cliche, it’s a fact.
This government’s low expectations are enabling poverty and turning around the improvements that National’s policy of social investment were making.
The release of data from this year’s census has been delayed because not enough people participated in it:
Stats NZ has revised the date for first release of census information from October 2018 to March 2019.
We will confirm the exact response and the coverage rates for the census after we complete our reconciliation processes. Stats NZ’s interim calculations show that full or partial information for at least 90 percent of individuals was received, compared with 94.5 percent for the 2013 Census.
As with previous censuses, we will use statistical methodology to compensate for missing data. For the 2018 Census we are revising this methodology because of the lower-than-expected response. We are discussing this new methodology with our technical customers. We’re also undertaking analysis on how to improve data for small populations, subgroups, and small geographies. The new date for our first release will give us time to develop revised methodology for processing and analysing census data. We are committed to delivering a high-quality and accurate dataset.
There is a long term, international trend of declining census response rates. Because of this we have made a strategic decision to use more administrative data to improve the quality of census data.
Stats NZ is in a good position to adopt this approach as we have been investigating future census models that would supplement census data with administrative data.
How significant is the drop?
Over at Kiwiblog David Farrar says:
. . .The Minister of Statistics should call for an independent review of this failure, to ensure the next census has a much higher participation rate.
Also we should not be given spin for months about how great the census went and then find out only now, how bad the participation rate was.
The last Australian census had a 96% response rate. They regarded 93.3% as the minimum required.
The Canadian census had a 98.4% response rate.
A better way to look at it is the non response rate. In Canada is was 1.6% and in NZ it was 10% – six times higher.
The move to on-line forms was supposed to make it easier to complete the census.
We won’t know if completion would have been worse if Stats NZ had stuck to the paper-based system but there were lots of complaints from people about the difficulty of dealing with the call centre by those requesting paper forms.
We were in Queenstown on census night. Nothing was said at the hotel when we checked in but there were papers under the door when we left at 6:30 next morning. I picked them up, stuffed them in my bag and forgot about them until I got home when I found forms at the door.
We had breakfast with around 50 farmers from Australia and New Zealand so I did a census on census completion and asked everyone if they’d done it.
One of the hotels had run out of forms, none of the Australians had completed them and all of the New Zealanders had done theirs at home, as if they were at home.
A woman who gave forms to tourists staying at her B&B was told where she could put them.
A friend has a holiday home in Wanaka with two houses and one mail box. She presumes her tenant would have got the letter fromStats NZ that went to every household, but would have filled it in for only one of the houses.
Anecdotes don’t make good data but they do illustrate problems with this year’s census.
With the old system someone visited every house and some census staff went many extra miles. A friend was climbing in the Southern Alps on census night and was presented with forms by a worker who came to the hut.
The on-line census was easy if you have a computer and are comfortable using it but that’s not everybody and problems with the call centre didn’t help.
It would have been more expensive to have people calling on every house as they used to do, but it would have ensured a better count which is important for planning and funding.
It’s also necessary for working out electorate boundaries and the delay in the data release will delay the final release of new boundaries which in turn will delay the candidate selection process.
As National’s Statistics spokesman Nick Smith points out:
. . .There is over $10 billion of health funding allocated to the twenty DHBs each year based on census population data. The funding formula for the operating grants for our 2500 schools is derived from the census as are decisions about the allocation of resources in social services, police, sports, transport and many other services.
“It also has major implications for the Representation Commission. The number of general and Maori electorates in Parliament are determined by the Census and the process for determining the new boundaries was due to start in November.
“Changes in population figures as small as 1 per cent can impact on whether there is, for instance, an extra or the removal of one of the Maori electorates. This process will now not be able to start until April next year and the compromised statistics will affect the integrity of the make-up and boundaries for the 2020 and 2023 elections. . .
The significant drop in completion rates and consequent delay in releasing data are concerning.
Having 10% of the population not counted is serious, especially when it is likely to include more people who for example have intellectual or mental disabilities, don’t speak English, are illiterate or for other reasons are more likely to be in need of publicly funded support.
A review must determine what went wrong and why, and ensure that it doesn’t happen again in 2024.
Another complaint about this year’s census is the stir over the options for ethnicity:
An Auckland man is pushing for the term Pākehā to be included as an ethnicity option in the census form.
Piha resident Peter Hosking was part of a Call me Pākehā online campaign, calling for the return of the term Pākehā in the census.
It was last featured in the 1996 census when it was bracketed next to New Zealand European, but was removed from the next census. . .
I don’t have a problem with calling myself a Pākehā but I won’t accept the ethnic category European New Zealander.
Ethnicity has several definitions including the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like; shared cultural practices, perspectives, and distinctions that set apart one group of people from another.
By none of those definitions would I claim to be European which is defined as relating to or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants.
It can also be someone of European descent and that could indicate the colour of my skin but it doesn’t apply to a common national or cultural tradition to which I have any connection.
All of the antecedents I can trace were Scottish or New Zealanders of Scottish descent. All those born there all either died, or left, Scotland long before it became part of the European Union. I am sure none of them would claim European ethnicity.
It is possible that many centuries ago the ancestors of those ancestors I know about came from a European country, but Europe is a group of different countries with different languages and cultures and I doubt if anyone from any of those many and varied countries would put European as their ethnicity.
Why then is is applied to people on the other side of the world, almost as far away as it’s possible to get from the European continent?
To add to the absurdity in the other category on the census form, Dutch is given as an example of ethnicity. If people from the Netherlands are Dutch rather than European surely New Zealanders should be New Zealanders rather than European.
That takes me back to Pākehā. While I don’t mind being classified as one, if I understand its meaning correctly I couldn’t categorise myself as one if my ancestors weren’t Scottish but were, for example Indian, Japanese, Iranian or Kenyan.
Or what if I was of Maori descent? The census allows you to tick more than one ethnicity box but would anyone who ticks Maori also tick Pākehā which can mean foreigner or not Maori?
We might well have lots of these people who consider themselves to be of New Zealand ethnicity but wouldn’t be comfortable claiming to be Pākehā.
If we were in Australia those of us who shared the cultural practices, perspectives, and distinctions that set us apart as New Zealanders could tick New Zealander as our ethnicity.
It is high time we could do it at home.
It’s census day and everyone is required by law to complete the forms.
As I posted a few days ago, the Waitaki District was used to trial online forms five years ago and the trial was declared a success.
As a result this year instead of hand-delivered paper forms, a letter is supposed to come in the mail giving instructions for how to complete the census online. Those who can’t or don’t want to do that can phone an 0800 census (236787) to request paper forms.
So far so easy, but Facebook, talkback radio and other media are full of complaints about the help line.
I can add an anecdote to that:
A friend called the number, waited a long time and when the call was finally answered found someone with a strong accent at the other line which resulted in difficulties at both ends.
At one stage the man who answered the phone told the called to press the hash key. The caller replied, “The only hash I know is a hash brown”.
It was a witty response but he wasn’t joking. He has never owned a computer or mobile phone and genuinely doesn’t know what a hash key is.
Things got a bit testy after that and he’s not sure if he’s going to get a form in the mail or not. It hadn’t arrived by yesterday and he won’t get mail again until tomorrow.
At least he got the letter with an access code, not everyone has.
Our sharemilker hadn’t got a letter by yesterday morning. His mail box is in a line with ours and ours came last week.
All the mail boxes have our RAPID number but ours is the only house at that address, some of the others are further up the road and one is on another road. I wonder if Statistics NZ understands that a RAPID number on a postal address isn’t necessarily where the people who get the mail live?
I took the electronic option offered last time and didn’t have a problem doing it again this time until I went to fill in a form for our crib.
I don’t remember getting a form there five years ago and as we don’t have a mail box wasn’t expecting one this year. However, when we got there yesterday there was an envelope with census instructions stuck in the door.
I followed the instructions to sign in with the access number then struck a problem. The first task was to fill in the name or names of everyone who’d be there tonight.
We were there last night but won’t be there tonight and there was no option for nobody. I clicked continue and got a response telling me I had to fill in the names. I put nobody nobody and carried on to the questions on the dwelling.
When that was done I got a message saying the process wasn’t complete and everyone present tonight had to fill in a form.
I went back to the form for people and noticed a box which said resident, visitor or away. I clicked on away and got a message saying the form was complete.
What will happen when whoever processes the form gets to nobody nobody?
Why didn’t they ask how often people were in the house? If they’re planning for health and infrastructure the answer to that matters.
We can’t be the only ones with a crib that won’t be occupied tonight and is only used temporarily.
There will be other houses which don’t have permanent residents – we have a friend who lives part time on a farm in Southland, and part time in Queenstown – and also homes whose residents are away tonight.
Why didn’t whoever designed the form think of this and enable people to put not a permanent resident and usually resident but not at home on census night?
If talkback radio is to be believed, forms can be completed until the end of the month. After that someone will visit every dwelling for which forms haven’t been returned.
That might mop up many of those who wouldn’t or couldn’t fill forms in online and didn’t get paper ones.
But it would have been much better to have introduced the online option as they did for the trail in Waitaki last year, by visiting every dwelling and offering paper forms to those who preferred them and leaving the online forms as an opt-in for those who chose it.
This might be the 21st century but there are still a lot of people who either don’t have computers or have them but are concerned about trusting them with their data.
Central and local governments use information gathered from the census for planning and funding. It’s important that the information is both complete and accurate.
Making online forms the preferred option will be cheaper but its false economy if the data gathered is compromised by fewer people completing their forms, or as in the case with our crib, not being able to do so accurately.
DairyNZ points out the importance of getting job titles right on the census:
The census is our best opportunity to find out exactly how many people are working on dairy farms and in what roles. This is critical information that DairyNZ and government need so we can work together on things such as immigration policy, industry training, and ensuring we have capable people in the pipeline to do the work you need doing on your farm.
When you are filling in your census form on or before the 6th March PLEASE use one of the following job roles, and encourage your employees to do the same. Use the one that is the closest fit to the role you actually do. It will make a difference to us effectively working on your behalf. The job roles are:
The Waitaki District was used as a trial for the online collection of data for the census in 2013.
Everyone got a visit from someone who delivered the papers and explained there was choice of filling in the paper form or doing it online.
The trial was declared a success and this year the on-line census is being done nation-wide.
But unlike the trial in Waitaki, people will have to opt-out of the online option if they can’t or don’t want to do it that way.
Instead of someone calling with forms, everyone will get a letter explaining how to fill the census in online and what to do if they’d rather have a paper form to fill in.
That sounds easy enough but the ODT reported on concerns for elderly, those with poor sight and others who don’t have computers.
These concerns have been echoed on Facebook where people are complaining about the difficulties faced by elderly relatives who rang the 0800 number to request forms.
There’s also concerns about people who can’t read and write.
The slowness of the postal system is another problem.
Mail is delivered only three days a week, if people didn’t get a form by yesterday, it will be tomorrow before one arrives. Even if they phone for a paper form straight away it could well be next Tuesday, census day, or later before the form arrives.
Completing the census is a legal requirement. It’s important that everyone is counted or districts will get less funding for health, education and other services and infrastructure which are allocated on a population basis.
The 2013 census showed only a tiny increase in the Waitaki District’s population.
That is difficult to understand when irrigation has created so many jobs on farms and in businesses which supply and service them.
There were 4 houses on our farm and our two immediate neighbours’ before irrigation, now there are 15. We’re the oldest in any of those houses by more than 15 years.
Most of the occupants are in their 20s and 30s and many have young families. This pattern has been repeated all around the district.
Irrigation hasn’t just created jobs on farms there are more in businesses which service and supply them and most of the people in those jobs live in the district.
Intensification hasn’t just happened on farms, there’s been a growth in lifestyle blocks too. There’s also a lot of new building in town and there aren’t a large number of unoccupied houses.
Why weren’t these signs of population growth reflected in the census?
Could it be that a lot of people didn’t bother to fill in their forms, whether on paper or online five years ago?
With no one visiting each house as they used to do, it will be far easier for those who don’t want to fill in a form to ignore it, and far more difficult for those who would but can’t without help, to do so.
It will be much cheaper if more people do their census on-line but coverage is much more important than cost.
The on-line option should be the opt-in one rather than the paper one.
Stats Chat discusses the cost comparison for the pavlova here.
Note: 1 hectare ≈ 1 international rugby union field.
As at June 2014 there were 660 hectares of cherries planted across NZ.
A coroner says the perception tourist drivers are causing mayhem on our roads is unfounded.
. . .Coroner Gordon Matenga released his findings into their deaths and found both accidents were caused by inexperience.
However, fewer than 6 percent of fatal and serious crashes in the past five years were caused by international visitors.
While many crashes involving foreign drivers were highlighted in the media, the reality was many more people were killed on the roads by New Zealanders, Mr Matenga said. . .
Six percent is a small percentage of all accidents but the conclusion that tourist drivers aren’t a problem can’t be made without knowing what percentage of all drivers are tourists?
When we drive in countries where we’re driving on the opposite side of the road from New Zealand we reckon it takes both of us to drive.
Even then there’s a real danger of habit creeping in – looking right when we exit a petrol station, seeing no approaching traffic on that side of the road and forgetting it’s coming from the left; remembering to look left, look right, look left but then turning on to the left-hand side of the road . . .
Even without the complication of driving on the other side of the road, New Zealand roads have multiple hazards for those not used to them, including the temptation to marvel at the scenery instead of concentrating on driving.
Author Hannah August was interviewed about her new book “No Country for Old Maids” on Q + A yesterday.
The intro said there are 65,000 more women than men in the 25-49 age group.
That might have been the norm after World War I and II when so many young men were killed. But it’s 70 years since WWII ended and there hasn’t been any plagues or
petulance pestilence that struck males harder than females.
The birth rate of boys is usually slightly higher than that for girls. Death rates for boys and young men are usually a bit higher than those for girls and young women as a result of suicide and accident.
But neither or those explain this big difference.
Graphs here on the numbers of males and females in each electorate .
Could the difference be due to something as simple as young men being far less likely than women to fill in census forms and enrol to vote?
If not, where have all the young men gone?
Statistics New Zealand is consulting on the next census which will take place in 2018.
Statistics NZ wants to hear your views about the next census and is inviting you to take part in an online discussion forum open from 30 April to 10 June 2015 via www.statistics.govt.nz
This is the first time Statistics NZ has engaged online with the public about the content of census, and it is an important step in ensuring the 2018 Census is relevant for New Zealand.
Statistics NZ has developed a ‘Preliminary view’ of content for the 2018 Census based on its review process to date. The online forum will be structured around these topics, with current thinking – including proposed changes – a starting point for discussion.
Statistics NZ is encouraging people to respond to its initial recommendations, share their views and discuss issues that matter to them with other Kiwis.
The best opportunity to influence census content is to make a formal submission, via www.statistics.govt.nz. The formal submission period will be open from 18 May until 30 June.
Statistics NZ welcomes all engagement and will listen carefully to everyone’s views, but will need to find the right balance between making changes to better reflect New Zealand today and being able compare data over time. Factors such as the length and complexity of the questionnaire will also need to be considered.
Following consultation, Statistics NZ will analyse the submissions and aim to confirm final content for the 2018 Census in early 2017. . .
You’ll find a link to the discussion forum here.
I want the census to recognise New Zealander as an ethnicity instead of just allowing people to choose it under other.
If you’re in Australia you can be a New Zealander but it’s not a distinct category in the New Zealand census.
People who are European can choose distinctive ethnicities such as Dutch. But those of us of non-Maori descent are supposed to choose the broad and inaccurate category European while people of other descent such as Asian or African aren’t recognised as New Zealanders even if their families have been here for generations unless we opt for the after-thought category of other.
Statistics NZ has produced an infographic commemorating Armistice Day :
“The First World War was a significant event in New Zealand’s history — it helped define us as a nation and it continues to have a lasting impact,” Mr Foss says.
“I am proud to be able to tell the story of this important event through statistics.”
The First World War – Changing the Fabric of our Nation infographic has been developed by Statistics New Zealand in partnership with the WW100 Programme Office.
“Communities, towns and cities rallied to the call for ‘King and Country’ in 1914. Just over 100,000 New Zealand troops served overseas from a population of barely one million,” Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Maggie Barry says.
“The WW100 centenary honours the sacrifice of those who fought and will also tell the story of those who remained at home.”
The infographic uses historical census data to highlight key events prior, during and just after the war.
The infographic is too wide for the post, you can see it all here.
We developed the First World War – Changing the fabric of our nation infographic in partnership with the Ministry of Culture and Heritage WW100 Programme Office, and with valuable assistance from the New Zealand Defence Force, to mark the First World War centenary from 2014 to 2018. The First World War was one of the most significant events of the 20th century and we are proud to commemorate this important event through the statistics we’ve been gathering about New Zealand for over 100 years.
The infographic aims to present key information about the war and its impact on New Zealand. With the limited space available on an infographic, depicting all factual information relevant to this significant historical event is difficult.
We developed this infographic for any organisation or group to use in their commemoration activities and events. We are happy to share relevant files with these groups for republication.
The WW100 programme and other resources are available at WW100.govt.nz
Statistics Minister Nicky Wagner has announced that a new internet first model will transform how the next census is delivered and collected, and will increase the use of administrative data.
“The 2018 Census will have a target of 70 per cent of forms completed online, a workforce half the 7,500 used in 2013, and investment in systems and processes that support a future model that further utilises administrative data.
“A modernised census will deliver more timely and relevant data, which is important for regions that are changing rapidly and it will help inform decisions on how billions of dollars of government funding is spent.
“Modernising what was a dated model is also consistent with, and will contribute to, the government’s ICT Strategy, Better Public Services and the New Zealand Geospatial Strategy. . .
A trial was carried out in Oamaru with last year’s census to encourage people to fill in their forms online, although they could request paper versions which were delivered and collected.
This shows the online version was more convenient for the majority.
It shouldn’t take much to encourage most people to use the electronic version and it will result in a considerable saving in time and money.
The seasonally adjusted value of exported goods rose 2.1 percent to $13.6 billion in the March 2014 quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today. This follows rises in the previous two quarters.
“Meat and fruit led the increase in seasonally adjusted exports,” international statistics manager Jason Attewell said. “This is the second consecutive quarter that both values and quantities for these two commodities have risen.”
Seasonally adjusted meat values rose 8.7 percent in the March quarter, and quantities rose 6.8 percent. Fruit values rose 27 percent, and quantities rose 20 percent.
The rise in meat and fruit was offset slightly by a fall in milk powder, butter, and cheese, down 2.4 percent. The fall in dairy follows 26 percent increases in both the September and December 2013 quarters. Despite the small fall this quarter, dairy remains at high levels and is the leading contributor (31 percent) to total exports.
Imports rose 1.5 percent to $12.5 billion in the March 2014 quarter. The increase was led by a rise in capital goods.
The seasonally adjusted trade balance for the March 2014 quarter was a surplus of $1.1 billion. This follows a surplus of $986 million in the December 2013 quarter.
Exports rose $671 million in the March month, to $5.1 billion. Milk powder, butter, and cheese led the rise in exports, up $474 million (45 percent) compared with March 2013.
“This is the first time monthly exports have exceeded $5 billion, and annual exports have exceeded $50 billion,” Mr Attewell said. “Record dairy exports pushed the values past these thresholds.”
Imports rose $483 million (13 percent) to $4.2 billion, which was influenced by a one-off large capital item. The trade surplus was $920 million. This is the highest recorded surplus for a March month. . .
These figures underline once again the importance of primary production, and dairying in particular.
The increase in value has happened in spite of the high value of the New Zealand dollar.
Statistics NZ has produced a graphic based on census data showing what New Zealand would look like if it was a village of 100 people.
Forty nine of the people are male, 51 female.
Fourteen of them are Maori and five of those are aged under 15.
Seventy people in he village were born in New Zealand, 24 were born overseas and six don’t know where they
Seventy are European, 14 are Maori, 11 Asian, 7 Pacific, 2 are described as other and 1 is Latin American/MIddle Eastern/African.
Ninety people speak English, three speak Maori, 2 each speak Samoan or Hindi, and 1 each speak Northern Chinese, French, Yue, Sinitic not further defined, German, Tongan, Tagalog, Afrikaans, Spanish or Korean.
Sevens peak other languages including NZ sign language.
Eighty people are aged 15 or older.
Four out of 5 have a formal qualification and three out of 5 Maori aged over 15 are in full time work.
The village has 10 professionals, 8 managers, 5 clerical and administrative workers, 5 trades people and technicians, 5 labourers, 4 community and personal service workers, 4 sales workers and 2 machinery operators or drivers.
Three men and one woman earn more than $100,001.
Four men and two women earn $70,001 – $100,000.
Thirteen men and 12 women earn $30,001 – $70,000.
Fifteen men and 25 women earn $30,000 or less.
Four men and four women didn’t state their earnings.
The difference in median income for men and women is $13, 400. The median for Maori is $22,500 with a median for Maori men of $27,200 and Maori women $19,900.
Two things stand out: there are no New Zealanders in the village and no-one involved in the agriculture, horticulture or other food production.
The three-year Household Economic Survey (HES) released by Statistics NZ shows incomes increased a bit more than expenditure.
. . . Results from the latest three-yearly Household Economic Survey (HES) show that average weekly household expenditure increased 9.1 percent, to $1,111, between 30 June 2010 and 30 June 2013.
Over this three-year period, there was an 11.5 percent rise in average annual household income, up from $76,733 to reach $85,588 in 2013.
“Both income and spending have risen over the last three years, and Kiwi households continue to spend most on food, and housing and household utilities,” standard of living acting manager Ian McGregor said.
The results released today show that average weekly household expenditure on:
This is the 40th year of the HES. Collection began in 1973, and since then the HES has been measuring how the spending habits of New Zealanders have shifted.
Stats NZ has analysed changes in spending between 1973 and 2013.
On average, Kiwi households spend over twice as much of their total expenditure on rent now, compared with 40 years ago, according to the latest Household Economic Survey (HES).
In 1974, on average, 3.3 percent of a household’s total expenditure was spent on rent, compared with 8.6 percent in 2013.
Back then, on average we spent over three times as much of our total expenditure on clothing and footwear as we do today, according to HES.
Our households spent an average 9 percent of their total expenditure on clothing and footwear in 1974, compared with 2.8 percent in 2013, according to the latest results.
Can we credit the removal of tariffs for this?
And 40 years ago, our households spent, on average, almost a third more of their total expenditure on fruit and vegetables, and over twice as much on meat, fish, and poultry compared with today.
Kiwi households are spending almost the same proportion of our total expenditure on food now (17.3 percent) as 40 years ago (17.6 percent), according to HES results. However, on average, 2.9 percent of a household’s total spending was on fruit and vegetables in 1974, compared with 2 percent in 2013. Additionally, 5.5 percent of a household’s total spending was on meat, fish, and poultry in 1974, compared with 2.5 percent in 2013.
Spending less on food now? That’s contrary to the perception .
Food costs more but it takes less of our total income to buy it .
We’ve also got a much greater variety of food available now than there was in the 1970s.
I don’t remember eating pizza until 1975 – and then it was scone dough topped with tinned spaghetti and grated cheese. Yuk!
Households spent over twice as much of their total expenditure on cigarettes and tobacco 40 years ago as we do today, according to 2013 HES results. The proportion we spend on alcohol has also decreased, by a fifth since the 1970s.
In 1974, on average, our Kiwi households were spending 1.6 percent of total expenditure on cigarettes and tobacco, compared with 0.7 percent in 2013. Similarly, we see a fall from spending 2.4 percent of total expenditure on alcohol in 1974, compared with 1.9 percent in 2013.
This is in spite of increased taxes. I suspect fewer people are smoking but are we drinking less or is alcohol less expensive now?
Whatever the answer to that question, someone’s still smoking all my tobacco and drinking most of my alcohol.