By Len Cook
The Electoral (District Boundaries) Amendment Bill and the Data and Statistics (Census) Amendment Bill together propose significant changes to the information that we all have to trust when making decisions. These proposed changes will have far reaching impacts that have not been drawn to the attention of either Members of Parliament, or expert users.
Constitutional issues are not transparent
Both Bills ignore important constitutional issues. First, the proposed reliance on the Integrated Data Infrastructure of Statistics NZ essentially establishes a pathway to a compulsory population register. If the legislation is passed, we would be alone in the world in this experiment. Australia, Canada, the USA, Ireland and the United Kingdom continue with longstanding, proven methods. New Zealand would have to adopt the very different statistical methods and practices of countries such as Israel, Sweden and Netherlands, where compulsory registration systems provide the administrative records that underpin population statistics.
The census of population and dwellings is a critical national resource
The five yearly Census of Population and Dwellings is the single most used statistical survey in New Zealand, underpinning not only population projections and analyses about individuals, families, households and places, but also a huge array of other ways that people share common characteristics. Government statisticians are aware of a very small portion of how population information is used. This means that they cannot test whether the results will be fit for purpose by in-house studies.
StatsNZ proposals mean that information will in the future be gathered across a plethora of previous periods, rather than the same single point in time for everyone. We will need to aggregate population information into larger areas to achieve the same accuracy and detail as now – which will reduce the flexibility for population estimates used for electoral boundary determination. The changes in how populations are defined increases the range of arbitrary decisions of significance to electoral boundary setting that will be made, without the possibility of scrutiny except post-hoc judicial review. New definitions are being developed within electoral legislation that deviate from the past with unknown consequences.
There is not enough transparency about what we risk
Not only are we now in a population storm, but the Treasury reminds us that over the next two decades, our taxable capacity will fall short of what we need to fund existing public services by over 30 percent. This will mean governments will be called on to make critical decisions about the future of the welfare state, including superannuation, while seeking to reverse the huge outflow of young New Zealanders and manage the growth in the number of older kiwis. There are no common standards for administrative records that apply across agencies.
This is the wrong time to limit the richness of our ethnic statistics, cease many of our family and housing statistics, and drop much needed detail about the places where people live and work, including electorates, suburbs, towns and New Zealand’s diverse countryside. Measures such as Māori descent are in doubt.
Anchoring population statistics in the proposed de facto person register keeps New Zealand behind in geospatial innovations seen elsewhere to integrate information about environment, climate, housing, infrastructure investment and emergency preparedness. A compulsory population register may be the only viable solution when problems inevitably arise.
Trusted policies need to be underpinned by reliable evidence, and trust in that evidence must have been and expertly validated and independently assured. Validation of the census proposals by independent official statisticians has not yet occurred. This should be a requirement before Parliamentarians are expected to endorse them by changing legislation that is particularly critical for long term trust in the processes of government itself. This is especially important as at least four of the main arguments discussed below are either incorrect or unproveable
There is insufficient independent evidence for the idea that New Zealanders are not willing to complete census forms
The failure of the 2018 Census of Population and Dwellings resulted from poor management on the part of Statistics New Zealand. Their internal and external review processes for assessing major changes were poor. Just a few of the past well-established census practices were adopted and follow up was poor. The use of an externally contracted field force led to a reduced ability to follow-up non-respondents. The census for 2023 obtained the same poor results, but we paid twice as much per person to obtain those results, but are not yet sure why.
I can assure New Zealanders that this is the most momentous decision about official statistics in the last 50 years. We all have a duty of care to ensure that the change does not again put at risk public trust in government statistics. The proposals now with a Select Committee need independent expert review, to ensure that Parliamentarians are fully informed.
Len Cook
Len Cook is the former NZ Government Statistician (1992-2000) and UK National Statistician and Registrar-General of England and Wales (2000-2005).
