Next census target 70% online

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.

About 65% of people used the online option which was nearly double the national rate.

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.

 

If NZ was a village

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

were born.

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.

Cunliffe’s gloom not supported by stats

Labour leader David Cunliffe dashed out a media release on Monday saying the census would show a regional exodus under National.

Census data being released tomorrow will depict a widespread exodus from the regions as provincial New Zealanders flee small towns forgotten by the National Government, Labour Leader and Regional Development spokesperson David Cunliffe says.

“Labour understands data being released tomorrow will show Kiwis are leaving towns that have been gutted by the hands off approach of this National Government.. .

But his understanding was wrong and his gloom is not supported by the statistics.

Results from the 2013 Census shows Labour and its leader have been caught making stuff up with population growth spread right across the country, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says.

“Population growth occurred in 15 of the country’s 16 regions between 2006 and 2013 – hardly the widespread exodus from the regions as claimed by the Leader of the Opposition,” Mr Joyce says.

“Mr Cunliffe claimed people were leaving regions such as Taranaki in droves. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Taranaki grew by 5.3 per cent between 2006 and 2013 and has 5484 extra people now living in the region.

“He is also way off beam with his claims that incomes in the regions have fallen.

“Mr Cunliffe stated that real median weekly incomes have dropped by $24 in Taranaki. Wrong again. Since the 2006 income survey, real after tax weekly incomes in Taranaki have increased by $85. And the other examples he used for Southland and Waikato are also totally incorrect.

“This is a stunt that has backfired. There will be red faces all round in Labour following David Cunliffe’s embarrassing exaggerations and made up statistics.

“Labour will clearly stop at nothing to talk down the good progress being made across our regional economies.

“It confirms a bad start in the integrity stakes for the new Labour leader. He’ll have to do a lot better than this if he wants the public to trust him.”

The media release from Statistics NZ says Auckland grew fastest and South Island Districts grew most.

. . . “After Auckland, Nelson was the next-fastest-growing region, followed by Waikato. Southland turned around a declining population, growing by over 2,000 people in the seven years since the last census,” Ms MacPherson said. . .

The three fastest rates of population growth in district or city council areas were:

• Selwyn district, up nearly a third to 44,595 people
• Queenstown-Lakes district, up 23 percent to 28,224 people
• Waimakariri district, up 17 percent to 49,989 people.

These three areas were also the fastest-growing between 2001 and 2006.

Earthquake refugees will have boosted population numbers in all three of these Districts but that’s not the only factor as they were growing before the quakes.

There is a case for slower growth in Auckland and faster growth in the regions.

But contrary to Cunliffe’s gloomy forecast, the regions are growing and National’s policies have done far more to help that than Labour’s high tax, high spending agenda would.

Why and where’s Waitaki grown?

Population projections for the Waitaki District have been gloomy for years.

The trend has been for fewer people and the average age of those left getting higher.

But yesterday’s announcement by Statistics New Zealand of electorate populations from this year’s census shows that the Waitaki Electorate’s population has increased from 60,135 to 64, 962.

The electorate includes not just the Waitaki District but most of Central Otago, all of Waimate and Mackenzie Districts, part of Queenstown Lakes and part of Timaru City.

QLDC was expected to increase in population because of Queenstown’s growth but that town is in neighbouring Clutha Southland electorate, not Waitaki.

Wanaka, which is in Waitaki, has grown but more than 3,000 extra people would almost have doubled its population which is unlikely.

There’s been a mini boom in grape growing in Central which will have brought more people into the area but again I’d be surprised if it’s thousands.

Both Waimate and Waitaki Districts have had a big increase in dairy farming which increases employment opportunities on and off farm.

Could it be that anecdotal evidence of a population increase, and a lowering of the average age, because of dairying is reflected in official statistics?

The answer to why Waitaki has grown and where will come when more census data is released.

One of biggest electorates will get smaller

Statistics New Zealand’s release of census data yesterday gives the first indication of changes in electorates.

• The number of electorates will increase from 70 to 71 at the next general election.
• The number of North Island general electorates will increase from 47 to 48.
• The number of Māori electorates will remain at seven.
• The number of general electorates in the South Island is set at 16 by the Electoral Act 1993.
• In a 120-seat parliament (excluding any overhang seats), a total of 71 electorates will result in 49 list seats being allocated. This is one less list seat than in the 2011 General Election.
• The Representation Commission can now review the electorate boundaries for the next general election.

The excel sheet under downloads on the link above shows population changes in electorates.

Kiwiblog has checked that out and found:

Since the 2006 census, the SI electoral population has grown by 3.7%, the NI by 6.6% and the Maori electoral population by just 0.9%.

The seats that are the most over quota and must lose territory are:

1. Auckland Central 70,406
2. Hunua 68,951
3. Helensville 68,026
4. Selwyn 67,818
5. Rodney 67,134
6. Wigram 65,433
7. Waitaki 64,962
8. Hamilton East 64,577
9. Waimakariri 64,454
10. Wellington Central 64,374
11. Rangitata 64,142
12. East Coast Bays 64,005
13. Maungakiekie 63,274
14. Epsom 62,990
15. Tāmaki 62,779
16. Tauranga 62,741

So those 16 seats must shrink. What seats are under the 5% tolerance and must grow:

1. Christchurch East 45,967
2. Port Hills 53,667
3. East Cost 53,960
4. Christchurch Central 54,104
5. Rangitikei 56,364

The other 49 seats can stay the same size in theory. But it is likely many will have some change because of flow on effects from neighbours.

The migration after Christchurch’s earthquakes is probably the reason for most of the growth in Waimakariri and Selwyn.

They will lose some ground to boost the Christchurch electorates which now have too few people.

Selwyn might have to push south into Rangitata which will then extend into Waitaki, both of which are over quota. It would make sense for the area closest to Timaru which moved from what was the Aoraki Electorate into Waitaki, to be in Rangitata.

Waitaki will have to shrink. It is now 34,888 square kilometres in area, the third biggest general electorate in the country. Any reduction in its size will be welcomed by its MP Jacqui Dean and her constituents.

Who am I?

Who am I is a fundamental question of identity.

Ethnicity is a fundamental piece of the jigsaw that provides the answer.

For census purposes an ethnic group is defined as:

 . . . people who have some or all of the following characteristics:

• a common proper name 
• one or more elements of common culture which need not be specified, but may include religion, customs, or language
• unique community of interests, feelings, and actions
•  a shared sense of common origins or ancestry 
• a common geographic origin.

The group into which I best fit with that definition is New Zealander.

But those of us who consider ourselves to be of New Zealand ethnicity will have to tick other and write New Zealander in the box because the census doesn’t consider it important enough to have a category of its own.

At least this year we will be counted under that category. Until the last census anyone who wrote New Zealander was considered to be a European New Zealander. That gross act of official and discriminatory presumption must have miscounted a whole lot of people of all sort of descent who considered their ethnicity to mean a lot more than where there ancestors happened to come from.

But it is ridiculous that still New Zealander can only be a self-selecting after thought and not a category in its own right as it is in Australia.

If we can’t count in our own country how can we answer who we are – or should that be whaddarya?

Make census important for NZers

Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson says the census is important for all communities.

It is.

It’s just a pity that one of those communities – New Zealanders – is an afterthought in the ethnicity category.

The NZ Centre for Political Research has a poll asking people if New Zealander should be an option in the census.

Muriel Newman explains that a change in the ethnicity questions in the 1980s means that the number of Maori is exaggerated.

I don’t know if she is correct. My concern is that the current choices are discriminatory.

What message does having European New Zealander at the top of the list of choices and having to tick other send to people who consider themselves New Zealanders but happen to be of Maori, Pacific Island, Indian, Chinese, Malaysian, African . . . or any other descent?

If statisticians want to know about race, that is what the question should ask. If they really want to know about ethnicity then New Zealander ought to be an option.