This year complaints have arisen over the use of "New Zealand" in the New Zealand European "group" but not in the other categories.
Fair enough.
Why should New Zealanders of European heritage be given the qualifier New Zealand when, for example, those with Chinese ancestors are just given the choice of Chinese?
They might have also been in this country for generations.
Surely, as well, new immigrants who have committed to this country could be seen as New Zealand Samoan, New Zealand Indian or whatever.
People have spoken of feeling "othered", of a sense of not really being accepted as real New Zealanders. It seems the majority group can be labelled, in part, as New Zealanders, but others are not.
At the same time, to keep everyone unhappy, many New Zealanders with forebears from Europe or Britain resent the European tag.
They might have had no connection for generations to Europe.
They have no rights in Europe and their essence is rooted in this land and this place.
Ironically, Britain, where the majority of immigrants came from, is sometimes not considered part of Europe.
Brexit illustrated that England, at least, felt separate from the Continent.
It is little wonder many "Pakeha" put themselves in the "other" group and call themselves simply New Zealanders.
There was a campaign along these lines at a previous Census.
There are also issues with the concept of belonging to "groups".
What is it that makes a group and what does "belonging" mean? What is this based on? Is this type of identification and this categorisation more important than everything else that makes up an individual or family? Is class, interests, religion or education more significant to identity?
Are such questions — and potentially policies based on them — reinforcing division, racial stereotypes and racism itself?
Is it healthy to encourage group identity and, in turn, identity politics? Are we again being urged to categorise those we meet by their ethnicity (or gender) rather than as individuals?
Add the vexed question of what "ethnic" means and matters are cloudier still. How does it relate to the now mostly discredited concept of race? How is it related to culture, heritage, language, ancestry?
Census New Zealand defines ethnicity as the ethnic group or groups a person identifies with and is a measure of cultural affiliation in contrast to race, ancestry, nationality or citizenship. But how many answering the questions in the Census understand such matters? How many know what ethnicity means? How many will, in fact, change from Census to Census?
When the experts struggle to define ethnicity, it is little wonder the wider population fails to understand.
The Census over the years has struggled with these matters. Maori definitions were once via blood percentages, now discredited. Extensive intermarriage over generations, in particular, made this more difficult.
Self-identification with its strengths and weaknesses has become the model for the Census — although, understandably, iwi themselves have also developed whakapapa criteria.
Statistics New Zealand says a review on ethnicity standards has started. There will be public consultation this year.
Still, for all the imperfections and weaknesses, ethnicity questions and the statistics they produce are a tool in targeting and policy.
They are used for estimating the make-up of the population and for projections.
They are also used to compile ways for monitoring ethnic group wellbeing and "equity outcomes".
Another complication arises because people "belong" to multiple groups. It seems anyone who ticks the Maori group is considered Maori. If they also belong to the New Zealand European group then, to be consistent, they should also be considered New Zealand European.
The percentages would therefore add up to far more than 100%.
It is little wonder that the results from the Census ethnicity question, while part of the puzzle, need to be treated cautiously and with some scepticism.
