Kiwiblog

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Moving to a 10-year census could make trans-Tasman comparisons tricky and create problems for historians, a populations expert says.

Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson said yesterday that the Government was considering pushing out the five-year census, after this year’s was delayed because of Canterbury’s earthquakes.

But Waikato University’s professor of population economics Jacques Poot said the shift would put data out of whack with Australia, which also collected information every five years. “New Zealand has a history that we have a census every five years and we do this in the same year as Australia.

“It has huge benefits for cross-country comparisons as well as for historians to look at long-term trends. We’ve been doing this since the late 19th century.

I think it would be regrettable to move from every five years to every ten years for the census.

A huge number of decisions are made on the data we get from the census, and in my experience the data gets stale fairly rapidly. For example if you even compare the sub-national population projections after five years with the results of the next census, you’ll see significant deviations from the projections.

NZPA report:

The next census will be held in March 2013.

The Government and Statistics NZ had considered holding the census in March 2012, but agreed the time period would be too short to ensure accurate planning.

Mr Williamson said there were benefits in holding the census in 2013, including being able to revise the electoral boundaries and holding a Maori electoral option ahead of a 2014 general election.

It is a pity they couldn’t do it in 2012.

By having the census in March 2013, it means the boundary process won’t start until late 2013. They have to wait for the Maori option to be run first. If the boundary process starts late 2013, it means we won’t have final boundaries until the 1st half of 2014.

The boundary changes in 2014 could be quite significant.  Parties will probably not want to select candidates until the new boundaries are known. So it will mean electorate candidate selections will be delayed until 2014 also and will have to be rushed through in just a few months.

I agree with the Dom Post Editorial:

Statistics New Zealand has a problem. It is trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes.

The square pegs are the people who identified themselves as New Zealanders in the 2006 census. The round holes are the ethnic categories into which it wants New Zealanders to divide themselves.

Three years ago 400,000 people ignored the categories set out in the census form and wrote New Zealander in the “other” category. By using other sources of information, Statistics NZ has been able to build up a picture of those who refused to tick its boxes. It says more than 90 per cent were of European origin and they tended to be male, slightly older, better off and better educated than the general population.

However, the government statistician warns, in a discussion document issued this week, that if the number who ignore its official classifications continues to grow, the data collected in future ethnicity surveys will be rendered unusable. Good.

I don’t go so far as to say that is good (as I am a major user of said statistics) but I think that many in society are saying they do not regard themselves as purely European. And in fact over time many New Zealanders will have a mixture of European, Asian, Maori and Pacific ancestry. As a country we inter-marry between ethnicities far more than others.

I know people who have British and Maori ancestry. They don’t identify as either European or Maori.

According to Statistics NZ, the data is vital for the development of public policy. It is used to address social and economic inequality associated with membership of particular ethnic groups. Perhaps policy makers could try just addressing disadvantage.

Statistics NZ also suggests those who define themselves as New Zealanders are confusing ethnic and national identity. They are not. It is Statistics NZ that is confused.

According to the government statistician, an ethnic group is one which shares some or all of the following characteristics: a common proper name; elements of common culture such as religion, customs or language; a unique community of interests, feelings and actions; a shared sense of common origins or ancestry; and a common geographic origin.

The reason growing numbers of people are choosing to identify themselves as New Zealanders is because that is what they are, not just in a legal sense, but in a cultural sense.

I think a reasonable case can be made that “New Zealander” is a new emerging ethnicity – not just a nationality.

They are a group whose members have a common proper name, New Zealanders; share a common language, a version of English in which Maori terms and phrases are becoming increasingly common; share common values and interests; and share common origins and ancestry. The majority were born in this country, as were the parents and grandparents of many. There is nowhere else that they call home and no other group of people with whom they identify more closely.

Many Maori words have become “mainstreamed” as part of NZ English.

If what Statistics NZ really wants to know is the racial composition of those who identify as New Zealanders, that is what it should ask for although it might not like the response.

And that may be the way forward. Ask one question on ethnicity and another on racial composition.

But if it is genuinely interested in the ethnic makeup of New Zealand, it should open its eyes. A unique national identity is taking shape. It is one that incorporates elements of Maori, European, Pacific and now Asian culture. Home for its members is not on the other side of the globe. It is here. The language that is spoken is not the Queen’s English or Samoan or Cantonese, it is New Zild. And the values held by its members are not the values of London or Apia or Hong Kong, but of the Hutt Valley, South Auckland, Southland and Wellington.

That is something to celebrate, not to fret about.

Not all New Zealanders would see their ethnicity as New Zealand. Many Maori identify primarly as Maori. First generation Asian immigrants indetify as Asian. The second and third generations far less so, I would say.

An interesting article in the NZ Herald on the issue of whether there should be a question in the census on sexual orientation.

As someone who uses census data a lot, it would be incredibly interesting to have reliable information on sexual orientation demographics. There is almost no “hard” data anywhere in the world on how many people are gay, lesbian or bisexual. The old “common” figure of 10% is now widely seen as too high and 4% is thought to be closer.

Some will say, why should we even have demographic data on sexual orientation. Well for the same reasons we have data on gender, age, ethnicity, income, and location.

Now I’m one of those who wouldn’t care a fig if the census asked me my sexual orientation. However I can understand that it would be seen as pretty intrusive or worse by many respondents, and could affect the overall Census data.

And there is some potential for real problems to be caused in families. If you are bisexual and haven’t got around to mentioning this to your wife, then having her see you having ticked it on your census form isn’t the best way to let her know

Even if one got over the issue of alienating some respondents with such a question, a complicating issue is how do you define heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

Many homosexuals (well of those I know) have had sex with women. However they do not see themselves as bisexual. It was just a phase they say

The Dominion Post looks at this issue:

“Behaviour” describes whether someone’s partners are of the same or opposite sex; “identity” – their view of themselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual; and “attraction”, which sex or sexes they are attracted to.

Again it is not as simple as people may think. A surprisingly high number of women (again based on people I know) have actually had sex or made out with another woman. But they don’t regard themselves as bisexual. It was just experimenting for many of them.

If I was designing the census I guess I would use the “attraction” definition as identity is so variable and behaviour may just reflect lack of opportunity or follow through.

Also please don’t turn this thread into a debate on what you think of homosexuals or lesbians. This is about whether we should have reliable data on the prevalance of various sexual orientations.