When the census comes up short
Even if you are the kind of libertarian outlier who thinks the state owes you nothing and you owe it nothing in return, a population census is a vital tool for gathering information to guide policy and spending in areas such as health and education. It is more than just a national roll call.
Census controversies usually involve the wording of delicate questions around gender and ethnic definitions and, less seriously, whether Jedi can really be considered a religion. But the 2018 census is already proving notorious for another reason. It seems that a much-vaunted ‘‘digital first’’ strategy has largely failed.
In 2018, Statistics NZ urged New Zealanders to complete their census forms online, with old-fashioned paper versions seen as second best. The paradox is that Statistics
NZ still relied on hard copies when it came to delivering access codes.
Statistics NZ hoped that 70 per cent of forms would be filed online. A result of 82 per cent seems to have exceeded expectations, thanks to a prodigital marketing push. However, even Statistics NZ has said there were teething problems.
The agency admitted in a low-key press release on Tuesday that the release of census data will be pushed back from October 2018 to next March. Why? Because the harvest of national information actually caught fewer of us, rather than more.
The press release confirmed ‘‘interim calculations show that full or partial information for at least 90 per cent of individuals was received, compared with 94.5 per cent’’ in the 2013 census. This is the lowest participation rate in more than 50 years.
In short, one in 10 New Zealanders are missing, which is a ‘‘very serious’’ oversight, according to Auckland University statistics professor Thomas Lumley, quoted at website.
Statistics NZ said it will backfill information from the previous census and use sources such as the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Education and Inland Revenue to plug gaps in the data.
The delay in information means that, among other things, the drawing up of new electorate boundaries cannot start in November as planned, but must wait until April next year.
The Opposition has brought attention to ‘‘serious concerns about the excessive reliance on online census returns’’, and ‘‘reports that high-need people including the elderly, those in rural communities and those with disabilities faced greater problems in participating’’. It failed to add that the ‘‘digital first’’ strategy was devised under the previous government. However, it is clear questions must be answered by Statistics Minister James Shaw.
Media companies such as were inundated with reports from the public that access codes were either late or did not appear. Field teams were sent to some areas after Census Day to look for those who missed out.
Concerns were raised about Statistics NZ’s information technology systems long before the census went live, in a report posted at the
website. More than 5000 addresses were missing from the address list, according to another account. The overall impression is of a bold experiment that was both under-resourced and poorly planned, with serious real-world consequences.
Concerns were raised about Statistics NZ’s information technology systems long
before the census went live.