The five-yearly, or thereabouts, census has seemingly had its day, Statistics Minister Shane Reti reckons.
He announced on Wednesday that New Zealanders had, for the last time, needed to scurry about looking for a pen to fill out the forms or pray that the more recently online documents would work as intended.
Citing the need to save time and money, Dr Reti signalled the census will be replaced with "a smaller annual survey and targeted data collection".
This will, according to the somewhat breathless Beehive media release, provide better quality economic data to underpin the government’s "growth agenda".
In line with this thinking, there will be no census in 2028, with the new approach starting in 2030.
The new method of collecting nationwide statistics will sharpen the focus on delivering "more timely insights into New Zealand’s population", the minister reckons. Good luck with that.
While we should not automatically kibosh something before it has had a chance to prove its worth, it is difficult to see how what may effectively be a scattergun approach will be superior to the system which has developed over more than 170 years.
The census has, of course, never been perfect. There were well-publicised issues with the 2018 and 2023 counts, and the five-yearly spacing has been interrupted several times, due to such events as the Depression, World War 2 and the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011.
There were also concerns about the robustness of responses when the 2023 census was held the month after Cyclone Gabrielle.
According to government figures, the 2013 census cost $104 million, but outlay for the 2023 one was $325m, and the now-ditched 2028 one was expected to cost around $400m.
The huge leap in price is certainly concerning. Based on those government numbers, there can be no doubt running a census is a very expensive business.
However, we need to remember, and perhaps remind the government, that the policies which are meant to benefit everyone across the country in healthcare, education, housing, transport and so on, actually cost many billions of dollars.
The price-tag for a census which informs those policies is definitely not chicken feed, but money generally well-spent.
Reaction to this week’s announcement has largely been negative and expressing surprise at the move.
There is particular concern about how cherry-picking data and using smaller sample sets will affect the rigour of information about Māori and Pasifika communities, and also people with disabilities, rainbow communities, and smaller ethnic groups.
Dr Reti’s promised land of a "sharpened focus on quality" when it comes to statistics will be extremely difficult to achieve.
There are crucial questions to answer around how people’s existing data within government agencies will be appropriately and sensitively used, who decides what to use and when, and who will oversee the process to make sure it is as comprehensive and fair as such a potentially fraught new system can be.
We are uneasy that this move appears to be another example of this government not being especially interested in the science or data necessary for good decision-making and for making policy which is evidence-based, instead careening ever-more wildly across the political landscape in pursuit of zealotry-driven outcomes.
We unapologetically support the census system we had, and believe in the provision of proper statistical data sets for modern-day needs and as a source of valuable information for the historians of the future
Beware the old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out."
