Census to be scrapped from 2030, replaced with administrative data and annual surveys
The Census has been taken in the same format for more than 70 years, but those days are over.
Photo:
RNZ
New Zealanders have filled out their last traditional Census form, with the five-yearly count scrapped from 2030,
Statistics Minister Shane Reti announced today that the Census - which has existed in a similar format for more than 70 years - will be replaced with a combination of administrative data from other government agencies and smaller annual surveys that a sample of the population will complete.
There will be no 2028 Census.
The change follows
a major review carried out last year
, after the 2023 Census.
Reti said the traditional Census was "no longer financially viable".
"Despite the unsustainable and escalating costs, successive censuses have been beset with issues or failed to meet expectations," he said.
An attempt to shift the Census online in 2018 was a failure, with
much lower than normal completion rates that affected Māori particularly badly
.
The fallout prompted the chief statistician to resign, and the 2023 Census was shifted back to a paper form.
However, completion rates were still lower than previous years, with only 88 percent of the population filling out and returning the 2023 form.
The Census does more than just provide
interesting insights
into how New Zealand is changing - it serves some crucial democratic functions.
It helps to determine how and where government funding is spent for basic services and infrastructure like hospitals and schools, now and in the future .
The population count also determines how many electorates there are, and where their boundaries should be drawn.
The Census is also the only nation-wide survey of housing conditions - collecting information on the size of each dwelling, the number of people living there, and which basic services like internet are available.
Reti said not only would the new approach save time and money, it would also provide "more timely insights" into New Zealand's population.
The most recent Census cost $325 million, and the data analysis involved meant the first results were not released until mid-2024.
"By leveraging data already collected by government agencies, we can produce key census statistics every year, better informing decisions that affect people's lives," Reti said.
A Census has been held in New Zealand every five years since 1851, with only a few exceptions - most recently following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake.
This will be the biggest change to how the Census is conducted since 1951, when the same Census form was filled out by Māori and European New Zealanders for the first time.
Administrative data would form the "backbone" of the new system, with surveys helping to fill in data gaps, especially for smaller populations.
The administrative data used would include information from tax records, education enrolments, health data, student loans and allowances and ACC injury claims.
Some statisticians and demographers have warned that any move away from a traditional Census that attempts to count and survey the entire population will need to be done carefully and transparently.
Last year, a group of senior researchers at the Public Health Communications Centre - many of whom rely on Census data for their work - said there was a role for administrative data.
However, it had been shown to "not be up to the task in many areas, such as understanding households or people's health and well-being, compared with survey data",
they wrote
.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
36 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Abuse in care survivors in line for under a third of government's $774m package
Photo: 123RF Less than a third of the government's $774 million abuse in care redress package will end up in the pockets of survivors . Figures obtained by RNZ revealed only $205m was earmarked for paying new claims with $52m to go towards topping up previously closed claims. In defence of the figures, Erica Stanford, the Minister leading the government's abuse in care response, said redress payments were not the most important thing for some survivors and some of the $774m in this year's Budget was going towards changing the care system and providing other supports. However, $92m was for the civil servants who administered the redress funds and another $37m would pay for operating costs like premises and IT. For every two dollars going to survivors, more than a dollar would be spent on administration. Cooper Legal principal partner Sonja Cooper, whose firm had acted for hundreds of abuse survivors and victims, said it was a disgrace. Sonja Cooper Photo: RNZ / Aaron Smale "We were really disappointed with the announcement in any event," Cooper said. "I think now when you break it down, it actually just gets worse. The more information that is received, the more cynical and disappointing what's been offered to survivors is. "I've been reflecting on this because obviously we've seen what other Commonwealth countries have done. We've seen what Australia has done, we've seen what Canada has done, we've seen what Ireland has done and we really are letting everyone down. This must be the worst redress scheme put in place by a government for survivors of abuse in care across the Commonwealth. "I just think that's a disgrace. New Zealand has no excuse for that." The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care had called for a new, independent and survivor-centric redress system. In announcing the $774m Budget package last month, the government also quashed any hope of establishing a new system, saying it would be costly and cause delays . But Cooper said the revelation so much of the government's package would be spent on administration had demonstrated why government officials should not have been trusted with the redress system in the first place. Officials were "taking so much away from the pockets of survivors, who deserve better than this", she said. "It's again, the system looking after itself. It's again, the system taking for itself and giving as little as it can to survivors, while the government continues to crow and pat itself on the back. "This is not a success. This is a failure, and it is a failure in so many ways. All of those who've been advocating for survivors, I've been doing it for 30 years now, I feel like we are back at the start. "This is not going to make survivors go away. It is a temporary fix and all I can hope is that at some stage we have another government that will actually do the right thing for survivors, because this is not." The Royal Commission investigated the cost of abuse in care and estimated it totalled between $96 billion and $217 billion - the vast majority of that was borne by survivors. The government's $289m of funding for financial redress and targeted supported represented just over 1.5 cents for every dollar of harm borne by survivors. In May following the announcement, Stanford called the $774m an investment into redress. "The announcement on Friday was significant," she told the House. "Let's start with that. More than three-quarters of a billion dollars - $774 million, as a pre-budget announcement; the single largest investment into redress in this country's history." Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Stanford was not available for an interview on Tuesday, but in a statement emphasised the funding was not only about redress. "To be clear, the $774 million investment in Budget 2025 was made to improve the redress system and [emphasis added by the Minister's office] improving the safety of children and vulnerable adults in care today. Many survivors have shared that their highest priority is for the system to change so what happened to them is prevented in the future," the statement said. "This includes important investments in initiatives like improving care workforce capability, improvements to safeguarding to reduce abuse and harm to children and young people in care, upgrades to mental health units to improve safety and dignity, more funding for oversight of compulsory mental health and addiction care, funding through the social investment model to fund effective initiatives that prevent entry into care, and upgrading systems to triage and respond to complaints. "It's important to note, that redress is about more than just monetary payments. The $485.5 million redress investment encompasses not only payments, but targeted supports, accessing records, being listened to and apologised to, funding for legal representation, and implementing improvements so that survivors have access to equitable redress regardless of which agency is administering it. That is what survivors have told us is important to them. While there are survivors who may be only interested in receiving financial redress, there are many others for who other aspects are just as important to them as a payment, if not more." The changes announced in this year's Budget would result in the average abuse in care claim payment rising from about $20,000 to about $30,000 - just over one month's salary for Minister Stanford. Keith Wiffin, a survivor who entered state care at 10 years old and sat on the Redress Design Group which provided a report to the government in late 2023, said survivors were grateful for the redress they received but it fell short of the promises the government had made. "Once again it's just not the investment required to bring about resolution and solution," he said. "Obviously, a lot of that money is not going to where it was originally indicated it would go to. It's just not going to bring about resolution - the investment required is more than that. "And I don't want to seem ungrateful because it's taxpayers' money and I am grateful for anything they put in. But it's just a small top up to an existing system which has fundamentally failed in the past." He was also outraged by how much of the funding would be spent on administration of redress. "It just highlights how unjust the whole thing is and how much how much of a misleading presentation by Erica Stanford and co, when they've clearly indicated that that money is to go to survivors," Wiffin said. "It's always the case with state sector redress programmes. There's so much of it gets sucked up by administration costs and various other associated costs and it's just another unjust thing for survivors to have to carry." Wiffin was also still waiting for an explanation as to why the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were dismissed, he said. "It was fairly blunt in terms of dismissing the independent process, just dismissing it," Wiffin said. "I've had no reason why they have done that and I think we are owed that. So that it feels very disrespectful not to offer that explanation. Others may have had some indication, but certainly I haven't."
RNZ News
36 minutes ago
- RNZ News
National's Erica Stanford clashes with Labour MPs over redress system for survivors abused in state care
Erica Stanford, left, and Jan Tinetti Photo: RNZ National Minister Erica Stanford's scrutiny hearing descended into a political slinging match between the minister and two Labour MPs as they clashed over the redress system for survivors abused in state care. Stanford, who in charge of the government's response, faced a grilling from Opposition MPs at Parliament on Wednesday over why an independent agency hadn't been set up to deliver on a recommendation from the Royal Commission and survivors, and why ministers considered limiting redress for gang members . Labour's Jan Tinetti told the committee a "key fundamental recommendation that survivors asked for" was an independent entity so that the state - the abuser - wasn't dealing with survivors directly as part of the redress. "The Crown had been the abuser and we are hearing daily, and we heard it today, the survivors are still feeling like the Crown is abusing them because their voice has been taken away," Tinetti said. Tinetti asked Stanford why the government didn't take that into account and commit to a new system . Stanford said "many people going through the system are very happy with the service they're getting, of course there are some people who are not". When advice was sought on a new independent agency she said she was told: "It may not be any better than we have now and I wasn't prepared to go through that huge cost, huge time, and huge complexity to maybe not have a better outcome". Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone But Stanford noted an independent agency wasn't off the cards completely in the future. However, she went on to say, "it's bewildering to me that you have such an obsession with these large complex independent agencies when the experience of late has been, when we have set these up - like Te Pukenga" the outcomes have been worse. Tinetti was education minister under the previous government that oversaw Te Pukenga, which the coalition government is unwinding. "I'd also like to point out the redress report that was delivered was in 2021, the previous government had a very long time to act on that - it called for an independent agency back then," Stanford said. Jan Tinetti Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver That remark prompted Labour's Willow-Jean Prime to interject and say a working group was set-up to design it under the previous government. Tinetti then called a point of order to mount a defence. "I'd just like to remind that this is estimates looking forward and Chris Hipkins did apologise during his speech on the 12th of November in the House, and offered to work with the government on this. "We don't need to go backwards... We want to know what the minister is doing, we don't need to know what the previous government didn't do, we've already acknowledged we could have moved faster. We've already made that apology," she said. Speaking to the point of order, Stanford said she had been "directly challenged" and wanted to respond. A back and forth of jabs continued between Stanford, Prime, and Tinetti. "I know you don't like to hear this," the minister commented, which Prime responded to by saying, "you're disingenuous, let's be honest", while Tinetti muttered in the background "appalling, you are disappointing minister". The National and New Zealand First members of the committee sat in silence as the war of words played out. Earlier in the hearing, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson raised questions about why advice had been sought on whether to limit redress for gang members. Ultimately, ministers chose to treat gangs the same as any other survivor, but create a new pathway for serious offenders. Stanford said she sought advice on a range of things. "Everyone has different opinions and ideas and views. We took everything into account, I sought advice on a range of different things - it doesn't necessarily mean I believed that thing or wanted that thing - but it's important as a lawmaker... when you take your job responsibly to look at every possible thing," she said. "I needed to make sure I had all of the evidence at hand." Davidson queried why she even needed to ask about limiting redress for gang members when it "sends a message that the real violence that happened is only validated for some people and not others". Stanford responded saying she went out of her way and "called gang members and invited them personally to the apology, into Parliament... that tells you everything you need to know about my beliefs". Without all the evidence though, Stanford said she would have exposed herself to being an "uninformed lawmaker".
Newsroom
42 minutes ago
- Newsroom
Govt decision-less as court approves more coastline titles to Māori applicants
Māori have been granted rights over more of the southern North Island coastline under tighter new Supreme Court criteria, while the Cabinet enters its seventh month of indecision over an amending law. The latest High Court ruling over the coast from Kāpiti to Manawatū (Paekakariki to the Rangitikei River, and including Kapiti Island and islets) is unique because it takes a pivotal late 2024 Supreme Court ruling into account. It still makes a series of grants of customary marine title (CMT) at a time when the Government wants to restrict such coastal rights. The coalition has a bill before Parliament that would make it harder for iwi and hapū to prove continuous and exclusive use of waters under tikanga since 1840. The bill is designed, the Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith reportedly claimed, to mean only about 5 percent of the coast could be subject to CMT. It contains a provision making any judgments delivered since its introduction moot and would return such cases to new hearings. But after an urgent decision delivered by the Supreme Court went some way to meeting concerns the Government had over an earlier Court of Appeal judgment, Goldsmith paused the law change. Having promised to pass it by the end of 2024, he and colleagues have been seeking advice on whether it is still needed, with that process beginning in December. A High Court judge awarded six new areas of customary title that month on the other side of the North Island, down the southern Wairarapa coastline. She invited lawyers to submit to her on how the Supreme Court ruling in November might change her findings. Now another judge, taking into account the Supreme Court's refined and extended criteria, has done the same for the Kāpiti to Manawatū coast on the other side of the island. A spokesperson for Goldsmith said no decision had been reached by the Government on whether to progress its bill. The minister told Parliament's Māori Affairs select committee during Scrutiny Week on Tuesday he could not commit to a timeframe, even to say the Government could decide the bill's fate this year. 'We are actively turning our mind to it and we do want to resolve these issues sooner rather than later. 'Broadly we are concerned about the whole framework that's developed. I'm worried that we could see the way it's currently set up we could continue having court case for many, many years and could still be testing it in 2040. We are turning our minds towards how we could come up with a more efficient process.' Goldsmith said it could either leave the law as it is, with the Supreme Court's view prevailing, or could amend the Government's bill to continue to change the existing law but 'recognising' elements of that court's views. In CMT cases, a process the Crown made Māori undertake when Parliament passed the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act in 2011, iwi or hapū apply via the courts or direct to a minister to have customary rights over inner waters and coastline recognised. Rights of the public to access, swim, use boats and fish are not affected. But the commercial fishing industry has been an 'intervener' in various Marine and Coastal Areas Act cases before the courts, arguing local Māori either did not have exclusive use, or continued use of water under tikanga (custom) since 1840. Industry lawyers have argued that commercial fishing fleets have lawfully fished in these zones, making the exclusivity criteria redundant. The fishing-industry-friendly coalition Government has taken notice and its amendment law, which has already gone through the select committee process, is an attempt to make Māori claims to CMT more difficult. Now, with a tighter criteria on the table via the Supreme Court, the Cabinet must decide if its law and its restrictions are even needed. One line of thought is that the Government should now back off the law and avoid more controversy with Māori after the intensity of opposition of the Treaty Principles Bill. A map provided to the High Court by the Attorney-General's lawyers showing overlapping claims in the Kāpiti to Manawatū coastline. In this latest Kāpiti-Manawatū coastline case, Justice Christine Grice has in a 600-page judgment weighed the Supreme Court's definitive views on tikanga, exclusivity and undisturbed use of waters into account and made CMT orders in favour of five groupings. Two, Te Ātiawa and Ngāti Raukawa, win exclusive customary rights, and to share rights with other tribal groupings. One iwi, Muaūpoko, is granted shared rights with two individual hapū or whānau claimants. The applicants' rights to CMT over waters beside the coastline are, however, all restricted down from the 12-nautical mile limit sought to between a kilometre and a nautical mile only. That is despite the marine and coastal area being legally the area between the high-water springs and the 12 nautical mile limit of the territorial sea. A bid by Te Ātiawa for exclusive CMT over Kapiti Island was rejected by the judge, who found Ngāti Toa had clear rights to the island, although Te Ātiawa succeeded in winning shared rights over the 5km channel between the island and its area on the facing coastline. Justice Grice's judgment follows hearings between March and November 2024 and late submissions in February 2025. She says it considers 'historically contested events and the groups' circumstances, in particular their relationships with the takutai moana and how those relationships have been expressed through to the present time – in the context of the application of the statutory test for CMT as recently reformulated by the Supreme Court. 'The final determination recognises that five applicant groups are entitled to either shared exclusive, or exclusive CMT as various specific locations across the hearing area.' Another 10 groups claiming parts of the coastline areas have chosen not to go through the courts, but made applications to ministers and officials under what is known as the Crown engagement pathway. Attorney-General Judith Collins is represented in the court actions, with her lawyer telling Justice Grice she acts 'in the interests of all the public (including Māori) to assist the court to interpret the MACA Act, assuming an 'independent aloofness''. Witnesses and claimants told the High Court that for their ancestors there had been no line between land and sea. 'From the Kāpiti Coast they looked seaward to Kapiti Island and beyond to the top of the South Island. The moana which took their waka to those places was a continuation of the land – it was a highway,' Justice Grice writes. The MACA law was the National Government's response in 2011 to the highly controversial 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act brought in by Helen Clark's Labour Government after the appeal court at the time found Māori could claim customary ownership rights of their shoreline and inshore waters. The 2004 law extinguished any customary rights and vested the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, leading to widespread Māori protest and ultimately the formation of the Māori Party. National's compromise MACA law seven years later declared no one owned the foreshore and seabed – not Māori and not the Crown. It restored any customary rights extinguished by the 2004 law, and provided instead for Māori groups to apply for Customary Marine Title recognising that certain areas were held by them and giving them influence over uses in those zones. It covers the area between high-water springs and the 12 nautical mile limit of the territorial sea. Iwi and hapū around the country have lodged more than 200 court applications for customary marine title. About 390 groupings had separately chosen to seek CMT in direct negotiations with the Crown but a Waitangi Tribunal report this month recorded none had been concluded and just seven were near completion. Timeline
