New Zealand will replace its traditional nationwide census with a new data collection approach from 2030.
Statistics Minister Dr Shane Reti said the new approach will use existing administrative records alongside a smaller annual survey and targeted studies.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Associate Professor Lara Greaves (Ngāpuhi, Pākehā, Tararā), political scientist, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“I am mostly concerned about the constitutional implications of this change. Census data is used in determining the number of electorates, and their boundaries, alongside calculating the number of Māori electorates. This aspect of the Census is not often mentioned or well understood, even in the consultation documents from StatsNZ on the change last year.
“However, there currently seems to be a lot of faith in the Representation Commission and the processes used to determine the electoral boundaries and number of electorates, it would be a shame to see this trust decline. New Zealand is fortunate in that we have seen less drama over the process of elections and their fairness than other countries – no widespread concern about unfair elections, counts, or gerrymandering. We need to ensure that high quality, well tested, robust processes and data are used for this part of our electoral system. The whole process needs to be transparent and well documented, otherwise we risk politicising an integral part of our electoral system.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts – but worth mentioning I was on the Independent Electoral Law Review 2022-2023 that looked at these issues.”
Professor Tahu Kukutai (Ngāti Tiipa), Professor of Demography, Te Ngira Institute for Population Research; Pou Matarua Co-Director, Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga Centre of Research Excellence, comments:
“It does not make sense to abandon census enumeration when we know there are glaring data gaps and quality issues in administrative data, especially for iwi, Māori and Pacific peoples.
“The main driver is to save money but there are massive trade-offs being made. One is the loss of critical information including iwi affiliation, language, religion, household living arrangements and childlessness. The most impacted communities will be the very ones that need good data in order to identify, rectify and monitor inequities. Minister Reti says he wants to measure things that matter, namely statistics that drive economic growth. But what and who else matters?
“Iwi will be hit particularly hard. Without census enumeration, the quality of iwi affiliation data will rapidly degrade. Stats NZ knows this because they do not have access to any other reliable population-wide iwi data source. The answer does not lie in getting government agencies to collect more iwi data. Frankly they have done a poor job and, in the current political environment, I doubt iwi would even want the government collecting more data about them. Investing in iwi-led data systems seems like a more strategic and practical response that will not only improve data quality, but also go some way to solving data sovereignty issues and building trust.
“Wider public trust is another concern in a post-Covid context. Stats NZ’s new approach relies heavily on the repurposing of New Zealanders’ personal information. Stats NZ says it has the ‘social licence’ to link and reuse individuals’ information without the need for informed consent. But independent research commissioned by Stats NZ shows that only about a quarter of those surveyed even knew the organisation well. If New Zealanders don’t know the organisation, how can they trust them to use their data for beneficial purposes?
“I am also sceptical about the extent of savings that will actually be made. There will need to be significant investment in agencies’ outdated data systems to get the quality data required. Even with major investment, it’s unlikely that the issues will be fixed in the next five years. Targeted surveys of the kind needed to plug the data gaps will be expensive. Aotearoa also has unique features that make the transition to an administrative census model challenging compared to other countries. The Netherlands, for example, uses administrative data to produce a ‘virtual’ census at the fraction of a cost of a traditional census. However, Statistics Netherlands is able to draw data from high-quality municipal records, the public has a solid understanding of how their data are being used, and the government does not collect ethnicity data. None of those conditions apply in Aotearoa where Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ethnicity remain critical to public policy, even if some political parties would wish it otherwise.
“It’s unclear whether the powers-that-be have really thought all of this through.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Member of the 2018 Census External Data Quality Panel, founding member of Te Mana Raraunga Māori Data Sovereignty Network, has undertaken work for Te Kāhui Raraunga and the Data Iwi Leaders Group.”
Professor Rhema Vaithianathan, Director of the Centre for Social Data Analytics (CSDA) at AUT comments:
“I think the census has become very expensive. However, there are a few areas where administrative data is really not doing well. One is in ethnicity. Most of these administrative data systems do not have good quality self-identified ethnicity. As one of the most ethically diverse populations in the world, New Zealand needs a very good understanding of what’s happening within its ethnic minorities.
“As we rely more on immigration and a greater diversity of nationalities, specific issues that arise for specific groups within our community need to be flagged early and responded to. Those sorts of trends are very hard to establish with administrative data because many of these administrative data systems do not reliably collect ethnicity. For example police data has around 30% of ethnicities missing.
“However, I do agree that there are many, many, questions that are asked in the census that could be more reliably collected from administrative data. For example personal income. We are much better collecting that from IRD administrative data than from the census.
“Also the census does not ask about lots of interesting things such as wealth – as wealth inequality is a much more concerning phenomena in modern society. A new survey on wealth would provide better information and be much more useful.
“I do feel that it would be valuable to continue the census with a much smaller number of questions being asked, and possibly less frequently. However an overlapping couple of decades with a stripped down census and using administrative data for intercensal years would help us to triangulate between the administrative data and the census data, and then ensure that where we see weaknesses in administrative data those are made more robust before we drop fully the census.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Bill Kaye-Blake, Principal Economist, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, comments:
“The decision to rely on administrative data rather than a full Census is a blow to vulnerable communities and rural Māori communities.
“Our analysis of two Censuses found that the most reliable predictor of deprivation for rural communities was the proportion of residents who are Māori.
“We further found that the 2018 Census was more likely to rely on administrative data from these communities rather than getting information from them directly.
“The announced change says, ‘we don’t want to know’ to struggling rural Māori communities.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Jesse Whitehead, Senior Research Fellow, Te Ngira: Institute for Population Research, University of Waikato, comments:
“The announcement is disappointing. High quality data is important, and administrative data has its own challenges, biases, and inconsistencies, which means it is not the same quality as census data. Data from the Census is important for checking the quality of administrative data, and this will no longer be possible under the proposed changes. The changes will impact data equity and have a disproportionate impact on Iwi-Māori, Pacific peoples, Rainbow communities, Disabled communities, ethnic communities, and other numerically smaller populations, as well as the availability of geographically granular data which impacts all population groups and particularly rural communities.
“There are significant issues around social license, and it is not clear whether New Zealanders are willing to trade off not having to complete a census form once every five years, with having their data from service interactions, collected and used in this way. It is also unclear whether agencies are ready to provided the quality, and consistency of administrative data required to replace a full enumeration census, and whether these agencies are resourced to make the changes needed.
“This decision does not align with the views of the Future Census Independent Evaluation Panel report, which evaluated Census options for 2028 and beyond, and outlines 83 recommendations for StatsNZ to follow.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I was an active member of the ‘Future Census Independent Evaluation Panel’ – the report we produced has been released in conjunction with this announcement.”
Dr Liza Bolton, Professional Teaching Fellow, Waipapa Taumata Rau the University of Auckland, comments:
“To have health, tax and education data collected about you, you need to interact with these services. While accessing marginalised and vulnerable people is already hard with the traditional census, the investment in surveys and collaboration and consultation with communities required to maintain quality data under this new paradigm should not be underestimated. The ways we measure ourselves evolve — see past changes to ethnicity and recent changes to sex and gender — to match our needs as a society. A census is an incredibly focused tool for this.
“I was disappointed to see no direct mention of te Tiriti o Waitangi and indigenous data sovereignty responsibilities related to the census in the announcement. I will be looking to researchers and leaders in this area for comment with significant interest, e.g. members of Te Mana Raraunga.
“An area I am hopeful about is that Aotearoa New Zealand has many leaders in data linkage and research with administrative data. The census linked with admin data (death records) has been part of my own research, and in many ways, the census has been the backbone of an already modern data system that effectively informs decision-making.
“A “a modern, efficient, and reliable data system” is a good goal, but I fear the loss of research lifeblood and the injury of slashing cuts to vulnerable people that this “sharpened” tool may inflict.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Previously conducted research reliant on the census, but no current research activities, or personal or professional relationships related to Stats NZ or the census.”
Dr Gerard Sonder and Dr Debbie Ryan, Pacific Perspectives Ltd, comment:
Note: This comment is excerpted from a Public Health Communication Centre Briefing.
“Pacific peoples have been consistently undercounted in Aotearoa’s official statistics, distorting population estimates and undermining equity in health, services, and resource allocation. Stats NZ’s shift to an admin data-first census, after two censuses that failed to equitably represent all New Zealanders, risks worsening these gaps by relying on fragmented records and flawed probabilistic linkages. This method falls short of Stats NZ’s accuracy benchmarks, especially for mobile and underserved groups like Pacific communities, and key issues, such as ethnicity misclassification, remain unresolved.
“This Briefing argues that the admin-first model cannot support equitable health outcomes. It proposes a centralised, event-based population IT system with standardised demographic fields. Such a system would improve accuracy, reduce duplication, lower costs, support data sovereignty, and enable future-proof planning. It would also strengthen survey design through smaller, more precise, cost-effective samples. A robust, person-centred statistical foundation is essential to restore trust and achieve fairer outcomes for Pacific peoples in Aotearoa.”
No conflicts of interest declared.