Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

The national census could be scrapped and replaced with an “administrative census” that wouldn’t require everyone to fill out forms, under a plan being considered by Statistics New Zealand.

But civil libertarians should put the champagne on ice.

Statistics NZ said the switch would require a new compulsory “national population register” that would record where everyone lived and which could link to their tax and health records.

Additional socio-economic data normally gathered during the five-yearly census would be obtained from public databases and by a smaller survey that might cover about 5 per cent of the population. …

“Typically a national population register provides the essential population base and is linked to an address register, to birth and death registers, and to other administrative sources such as tax, health and education data.”

Kevin McCormack, secretary of the Council for Civil Liberties, said the lobby group would consider it important the register was used only for statistical purposes and that linked data did not identify individuals. “Otherwise, it is another form of creeping ‘Big Brother’.”

I find it amazing we don’t have this already. At any point in time we don’t have an accurate list of all NZ citizens, all NZ residents etc. The birth and death records are not linked to the immigration records. A register of residents and citizens would be very useful for electoral enrolment verification, as well as statistical purposes.

There are potential privacy issues, but I don’t see such a database as meaning the Government has any additional data on you – just that it is linked together, so that one can statistically analyse it.

Stats NZ has the latest life expectancy data:

• Life expectancy at birth is 83.0 years for females and 79.3 years for males.
• Life expectancy at birth has increased by 0.8 years for females and 1.3 years for males since 2005–07.
• Female life expectancy at birth is 3.7 years higher than male life expectancy at birth, down from the largest difference of 6.4 years in 1975–77.
• The gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy at birth has narrowed to 7.3 years. This compares with 9.1 years in 1995–97, 8.5 years in 2000–02, and 8.2 years in 2005–07.
• Life expectancy at birth is 76.5 years for Māori females and 72.8 years for Māori males, compared with 83.7 years for non-Māori females and 80.2 years for non-Māori males.

The closing of the gap between men and women, and between Maori and non-Maori is a good thing (so long as the gap closing is by both getting better, not worse!).

The average life expectancy for a 45 year old non-Maori male is another 37 years, so that may be 47 years of Kiwiblog to look forward to

If like me you are a male born in 1967, then there is a 96.4% chance you are still alive, and 3.6% chance you have already died. The chance of dying within the next year is 0.2%.

If you were a male born 65 years ago, there is a 12.8% chance you have died and a 1.1% chance you will die in the next year.

The age at which you have a 10% chance of dying in the next year if you are a male is 86 and at 90 you have a 16% chance of dying in the next year.

At age 67, the chance you have died is 28.1% for Maori men, 21.2% for Maori women, 12.2% for non-Maori men and 8.8% for non-Maori women.

Even a generation ago the infant mortality rate in New Zealand was more than twice what it is today, and post WWII was a massive 30 in 1000 or so.

The gap between Maori and overall infant mortality has also declined massively, which is good.

People often think of the 1950s as some sort of glory days. It is true that they were good times for many, but we shouldn’t overlook the progress we have had since then.

Stuff reports:

A proposal to shift to a 10-year census could seriously affect Christchurch’s recovery, critics say.

Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson said in July 2011 the Government was considering holding the census once every decade.

Currently conducted every five years, the census helps determine electoral boundaries and funding for services like district health boards, schools and the police.

I’m not sure how a comment made 18 months ago is a news story today, unless there has been some more recent development.

Labour earthquake recovery spokeswoman Lianne Dalziel said Christchurch was already living with the consequences of a delayed census.

“I’m not criticising the delay that we’ve had because obviously it was done for the right reasons. We would have got a very distorted view if it had gone ahead in 2011.”

However, delaying the census by two years did cause problems, particularly for this year’s local body elections, she said.

“The election will be based on boundaries that aren’t where people are living. I think that’s going to be a bit of a shake-up,” she said.

“I’d really want to see a good case put up for a delay. We’ve had the schools shake-up landed on the city without the benefit of knowledge about where the settlement patterns are going to fall and that’s wrong.”

Labour statistics spokesman Raymond Huo said a 10-yearly census would reduce costs to Statistics New Zealand, but it was “not that straightforward”.

“I think [Williamson's] idea is half-baked at best because it’s not that simple,” he said.

“The key drivers are cost constraints and the demand for more frequent detailed and accurate statistics. Particularly for the Christchurch area, we need more frequent and accurate data.”

I agree with Dalziel and Huo that a move from five to 10 years is not desirable. I’m a bit biased as I am a frequent and large user of census data, but I think it would impact many areas of activity.

The latest household income survey has some good and interesting news in it.

• Average annual household income from all regular sources increased from $79,256 to $81,067 – a 2.3% increase
• Average annual household income from wages and salaries increased from $77,843 to $82,029 – a 5.4% increase
• Total housing costs as a proportion of total regular household income decreased from 16.4 percent to 16.0 percent.
• The median annual regular household income went up 5.8% from $62,853 to $66,469
• The median annual regular household income from salaries went up 7.9% from $46,410 to $50,057
• The median annual personal income from salaries, for someone in employment, went up 5.9% from $37,673 to $39,889
• The average annual personal income from salaries, for someone in employment, went up 4.0% from $44,376 to $46,169
• The average household with a mortgage is paying $20 a week less than a year ago
• In Auckland the average annual housing cost has dropped from $17,619 to $16,654 while the average income has increased from $90,762 to $93,532 so the proportion spent on housing costs has dropped from 19.4% to 17.8%.
• Only around 20% of those in the two lowest income deciles say they are dissatisfied with their material standard of living, and 60% are satisfied.
• 10% of NZers have income of over $80,000. If you have a bachelors degree it is 24%, masters 26%, and doctorate 34%

It is always interesting to see how the stats measure up against the perception.

Labour MP Phil Twyford doesn’t know the difference between a trend series and a seasonally adjusted series. So what did he do when a data series from Stats NZ showed a positive trend in the trend series? He attacks Stats NZ and accuses them of political bias.

Stats NZ is probably the most neutral agency in the public service after the Auditor-General. Attacking their integrity is very stupid and desperate.

Stuff reports:

Labour’s candidate for the Auckland electorate of Te Atatu yesterday suggested Statistics New Zealand had “massaged” the latest figures on building consents to paint a rosier picture than was correct.

Statistics New Zealand had released building consents for September which found a 17 per cent seasonally-adjusted fall and a 14 per cent fall when apartments were excluded.

“But the headline on the Statistics New Zealand press release read: Trends for new home approvals continue to rise,” Tywford said.

“Talk about spin!”

Statistics New Zealand’s “enthusiasm” could be excused in less partisan times, he said.

“But during an election period when National is patting itself on the back for doing as good a job as anyone could in terms of keeping the economy ticking over, it is impossible not to see a lack of neutrality in the department’s media release.”

Trying to make a 17 per cent decline look like an increase was the “sort of behaviour” expected of Prime Minister John Key or National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce, Twyford said.

“It’s not what you expect of an organisation that has always – until now – prided itself on being fiercely independent of political bias.

“It is inexcusable for Statistics New Zealand to give even the appearance of bias during an election campaign.”

However, Statistics New Zealand chief executive Geoff Bascand said the government agency took seriously its responsibility to explain and present statistics in a meaningful and accurate way.

“As Government Statistician, I am fiercely protective of my statutory independence in the production and release of statistics.”

Volatility in building consents over past months had caused Statistics New Zealand to judge its trend series of figures as the most useful indicator of movement in building activity, he said.

It had also reported the seasonally-adjusted figures within the first paragraph of its statement and more detailed information had been included.

Maybe someone with a stats degree could explain to Twyford what a trend series is.

Is anyone else getting this error when trying to access Stats NZ website:

403 – Forbidden: Access is denied.
You do not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials that you supplied.

Very annoying.

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.

Stats NZ have released their monthly migration statistics. They note:

• 500 more PLT departures in September 2008 compared with September 2007
• In the year ended September 2008, there were 82,300 PLT departures, up 7,600 (10 percent). (an all time record)
• Net PLT migration was 4,400 in the September 2008 year, down from 8,300 in the September 2007 year. The latest figure is the lowest since the October 2001 year (1,700).
• A net inflow of 40,800 non-New Zealand citizens and a net outflow of 36,400 New Zealand citizens were recorded in the year ended September 2008.
• Compared with the September 2007 year there were 5,900 more PLT departures of New Zealand citizens and 1,700 more PLT departures of non-New Zealand citizens.
• The net PLT outflow to Australia was 33,900 in the September 2008 year, compared with 26,200 in the September 2007 year. This is higher than previous peaks in the January 1989 year (33,700) and the December 1979 year (33,400).

The above is all from the Stats NZ commentary. Now let’s look at some data over time.

This shows that the number of permament and long-term departures is at an all time high. As a percentage of the population it is not yet at the peak but has climbed from 14 per 1,000 to almost 20 per 1,000.

That is quite high. Over a generation (30 years) that is 600 out of 1,000 people who would have left – and most won’t return.

If we look at just the last five years – since the current trend began, we see a few things:

• PLT departures up from 55,000 to over 82.000 in five years – a 49% increase
• PLT departures of NZ citizens up from 38,000 to almost 60,000 – a 57% increase
• Net PLT departures of NZ citizens up from 10,000 to around 36,000 – a 254% increase

I don’t show the net PLT figures for all travellers as the rate of inbound migration of non citizens is decided by Government policy and can be set as high or low as the Government wants.

Labour is making a habit of leaving office with economic problems for the new Government.

Stats NZ reveals that inflation for the year to September 2008 was 5.1% – its highest level since June 1990. Major contributors:

• Household Energy 7.5%
• Hospital Services 7.1%
• Private Transport 21.5%
• primary and secondary eduction 5.7%

The monthly food price index also came out today – and it is also at an 18 year high of 10.8%. Major contributors:

• Vegetables 22.3%
• Mutton/Lamb 17.3%
• Bread 16.5%
• Pasta 18.2%
• Cheese 42.3%

All fairly common items, to say the least.

Most people won’t know what Infos is. It was a database supplied by Stats NZ that had all their major data series in and allowed you to query different data series over time etc.

When I worked at Parliament I was a major user of Infos – one of the few that had it installed on my PC. Most people just asked the Parliamentary Library to dig the data up for them. I have missed Infos (and the Library) since I left.

Stats NZ has now made Infos free to the public, as Infoshare. This was actually due to happen in July – it is a pity it has been delayed, but better late than never. Information the Government holds should generally be made freely available to the public (who do not get paid for filling in the surveys in the first place), and it is good to see this happen. I will be using it often.