Who is a "New Zealander" II

My short sharp summary of who responded as a "New Zealander" in last year's census has raised some hackles over at Kiwiblog among self-proclaimed "New Zealanders" in denial. But contrary to DPF's assertions, I did read the entire report, and I think my summary is entirely accurate. For "dead", we have only to look at the age distribution in figure 3 (reproduced below), which shows a markedly higher response among the culturally insecure older generations (and a markedly lower response among those who have grown up since the passage of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975):

For "white", the report notes that "it seems likely that there has been a response shift to New Zealander from New Zeland European, decreasing the size of both the New Zealand European category and the European grouping in the 2006 census". It's also worth noting the strong correlation in response with whiter areas, particularly in the South Island.

Finally, for "male", 51.9% to 48.1% doesn't sound very impressive, but it is almost the exact opposite of the overall gender ratio in the population - something the report describes as "striking", and all the more so as the response is most strongly male where the population is most strongly female.

I think these facts speak for themselves. And so, apparently, do StatisticsNZ. According to my sources within the department, the result of their analysis is a recommendation that the "New Zealanders" be included with "NZ Europeans" in data analysis. The response may indicate a political opinion, but nothing more.

Who is a "New Zealander"?

The Department of Statistics has released a report on who responded as a "New Zealander" at the last census [PDF]. Unsurprisingly, it shows that "New Zealanders" tended to be older, whiter, more monolingual, and are more likely to be men and live in rural areas or the South Island. In other words, it's pretty much as we suspected: they're overwhelmingly dead white males with a stick up their arse.

The secret of wealth

According to Lance Wiggs' analysis of census data, it's having a doctorate and living in Gisborne...

The effects of a Labour government

Statistics New Zealand has released the income data from last year's census, which includes the following graph about changes in personal incomes:

I think this speaks for itself about the effects of a Labour government. Increases to the minimum wage and in income redistribution through the tax system have seen people move out of poverty and up the income scale. The median income has risen from $18,500 to $24,400 - an increase of 32%, well above the 13% rise in the CPI. Compare this with the effects of the 80's and 90's "reforms", which saw the median income fall and people actually made worse off in real terms for the sake of the ultra-rich. As an ordinary New Zealander, who cares about the incomes of real people rather than just those of the ultra-rich, I know which policies I'd rather live under.

The fate of the Jedi

A couple of people were wondering what happened to the Jedi in the census religion stats. A story in the Dominion-Post has the answer:

And for those of you who were wondering what happened when you wrote down "Jedi", the cheeky reply was lumped into the "response outside scope" category.

However, census general manager Nancy McBeth told The Dominion Post there were more than 20,200 followers of the force - down from 54,000 in 2001.

No news on the Cthulhu cult, however.

Increasing diversity

After the last census, the Department of Statistics noted the rapid growth of non-Christian religions. In case anyone is wondering, here's an updated version of the table:

And in case anyone else was wondering, the census recorded 1,167 Satanists, 2,316 Exclusive Brethren, and no Jedi.

A secular country

The 2006 census is out, and while the media is focusing on our changing ethnic makeup and the shortage of suitable partners for 30-something straight female journalists, I thought I'd look at something different: religion.

The usual census religion commentary talks about the decline of "traditional" Christian denominations and the rise of fundamentalist groups, or the startling growth in non-Christian religions (which matches the increasing diversity of New Zealand society). I'm not so interested in that. Instead, for me the most obvious feature of this year's religion statistics [Excel] is that 1,297,104 - just over 35% - of us are now godless. And this is part of an ongoing trend. Putting together this years data with a compliation from the previous three [Excel] gives a very clear picture: we are becoming an even more secular country. The proportion of the godless and actively (as opposed to the passively) irreligious has risen from 22% in 1991 to 35.7% today. Meanwhile the proportion of Christians has dropped from 74% to 57%. The change is clearly visible in the graph below:

(These percentages exclude "object to state" as it was not included in the 2006 figures).

This is a tremendous change which has happened in my lifetime; unfortunately many Christians don't seem to have caught up with it yet. We are no longer a Christian country (if indeed we ever were), and they can no longer impose "Christian values" on the rest of us. Instead, Christians are going to have to get used to being just one faith among many. I wonder how long it will take them?