Australian Privacy Foundation home

The association that campaigns for privacy protections

Public Information Statement

Census 2011

2 August 2011 (revisions 4 Aug 11 and 22 Jan 12)


Background The Number of People Who Decline to Provide Data
Why So Many People are Concerned The Possible Consequences of Not Providing Data
How to Complain
What Concerned People Are Doing The Retention of Personally-Identified Census Data


For many decades, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) was highly trustworthy. The data that it collected in the Census was quickly de-identified and quickly aggregated into statistics, and the Census did not involve significant risks to people's privacy. Unlike other agencies, the ABS has had a strong reputation of not leaking personal data.

Unfortunately, a significant change occurred in 2005.

Commencing with the 2006 Census, the ABS is now keeping personal data, which can be associated with the person's real-world identity, without the person's consent. Some information about what the ABS calls the SLCD program is provided at the end of this document.

In 2005-06, the ABS was forced to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), and made adjustments to its (originally, extraordinarily privacy-invasive) plans, following considerable efforts by APF and some other organisations.

The APF is not aware of any PIA being conducted in 2010-11, and can see no evidence anywhere on the ABS site of any such activity. This is despite the Privacy Commissioner making abundantly clear that the importance of doing a PIA is indicated by "the significance or scope of a project, and the extent to which a project involves the collection, use or disclosure of personal information", and expressly recommending "the introduction of a statutory requirement on public sector agencies to undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for [major] projects". Nor was the APF briefed, nor invited to provide any submissions, about the 2011 Census.

The APF's strong impression is that:

Why So Many People are Concerned

Most people consider it to be a good idea to count people within geographical areas, and very few consider such counting to be an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, a great many people consider it not to be reasonable for personal data to be forcibly collected, kept identifiable, and linked from one Census to the next. And some people find the whole idea completely unacceptable.

What Concerned People Are Doing

Here are examples of approaches that the APF is aware of that such people are adopting in order to avoid their personal data being captured and abused during the 2011 Census:

The APF neither encourages nor discourages any of these approaches. (And it would be unwise for anyone to actively encourage their use, because that might be interpreted as an incitement to break the law).

But the APF believes that the information should be widely published, so that people are informed about the situation.

The Number of People Who Decline to Provide Data

It does not appear that the ABS publishes any clear data about refusals. The following is available, however.

"Refusal by householders to complete the [1986] census form [was] not a significant cause of underenumeration and account[ed] for less than 0.012 per cent of households [c. 6.75m?, so c. 800 in 1986, long before the abuses began in 2006]. in about 70 per cent of these cases the number of occupants was able to be estimated by the collector from information obtained orally from a member of the household or other persons, and this estimate was included in the census count [But presumably what was made up was a count, not data about the missing people. Note that very few people would be likely to object to merely being counted. The privacy concern is primarily about the data collection and retention]" (ASSDA ?1986).

" ... System Created [i.e. dummy] Records are created where the collector has not been able to make contact with the household, yet believes that the dwelling was occupied on Census Night. Smaller numbers of System Created Records are due to situations where people indicate a desire to mail back a census form but do not do so, and where people refuse to complete a census form. The term 'non-contact' dwelling is used in this paper to refer to all these situations ...
In 1996, non-contact-dwellings were 62,234 (0.9%) [missing 1-3 people each = 125,000]
In 2001, non-contact-dwellings were 156,460 (2.0%) [missing 1-3 people each = 300,000]
[A search of the ABS site unearths no such figures for 2006, so everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, and extend their own extrapolations] (ABS 2970.0.55.019 - 2001)

"Refusal by householders to complete the Census form is not a significant cause of undercounting"
[But 'significant' has a meaning in statistics. If the undercounting is evenly spread, it can be quite large but not significant] (2901.0 - Census Dictionary, 2011)

The Possible Consequences of Not Providing Data

The APF is aware that:

Here are samples of the kinds of letters that are sent to people who refuse, called in order a 'passive refusal letter', an 'active refusal letter', a 'pre-NOD (Notice of Direction) letter' and a 'NOD (Notice of Direction)' letter, mirrored here.

[The following paras. were added on 4 August 2011:]

The APF is aware of only two sources of information about cases arising from failure to provide information to the Census:

It is understood that following the last UK Census, there were 78 prosecutions, but those were predominately people who were abusive or troublesome to field staff.

People can draw their own conclusions about the relationship between the number of instances of non-provision of data, notices, prosecutions and successful prosecutions.

How To Complain

The APF has never had so many contacts from the public about one topic.
We don't have the resources to help. But here are some channels for complaints.

1. To the ABS

See the ABS's Census Service Charter for the 2011 Census. It points to the Census Inquiry Service on 1 300 338 776 (08:30-20:00,7 days).
There are some additional possibilities on the the ABS's normal Contact page.

2. Then to an ABS Liaison Officer

Population Census Liaison Officer
Population Census Field
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Locked Bag 10
Belconnen ACT 2616
[But they offer no email or phone.]

3. Then to an ABS Review Officer

Complaints Review Officer
Strategic Liaison and Risk Management Section
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Locked Bag 10
Belconnen ACT 2616
[But they offer no email or phone.]

4. Next to The Ombdusman or the Privacy Commissioner

See the Ombudsman's Complaints page.
No email.
Phone Enquiries 9am - 5pm (AEST) Monday to Friday - 1300 362 072.
The online form option requires a (very?) recent Adobe Reader.

During the last 6 years, the Privacy Commissioner has been of very little use to us, the public; but you can try at the Privacy Commissioner's Complaints page.

5. And/or to Your Local MP

This is a channel that's always open to you. You can find your local MP here.

6. And/or the Media

Unfortunately, most of the media are hard-pressed, and just regurgitate the 'good news' stories about the Census that are fed to them by the ABS's Public Relations machine. But if your argument is straightforward but sound, some media outlets may be interested.

The Retention of Personally-Identified Census Data

There are two programs under which identified Census data is kept.

1. The Forms Only, Stored With Consent, Inaccessible for 99 Years

If the ABS receives a form with all of the Yes boxes at the end of the form ticked (Q.60. on p.17) – whether or not everyone in the household has actually agreed – the whole form will be kept at Australian Archives and released after 99 years. ABS says that many forms are ticked in this way.

The UK has kept all forms, securely, for 100 years, since 1841. On the other hand, the data collected up to 1911 was very limited, and nothing like as detailed and intrusive as forms in recent decades.

The UK recently compromised the 100-year rule a little, by releasing one set of forms a few years early. It's unclear whether that may turn into the thin end of the wedge, with shortened disclosure times.

The APF considers that a program of this kind is appropriate, provided that it is carefully-controlled, and only to the extent that the consent of each adult individual actually is free and informed (which in the present situation, we very much doubt).

2. All Data, in Electronic Form, Without Consent

A project commenced in 2006, called the Statistical Longitudinal Census Dataset (SLCD).

This applies to "a random sample of 5% of persons in the 2006 Census of Population and Housing".

You have no choice, and you don't know whether you're in the 5% sample or not.

"Wave 2 of the SLCD will endeavour to bring together the wave 1 records with their corresponding records in the 2011 Census".

The data is identified. Expressed in bureaucratese (by the ABS, not the APF): "in the absence of name and address, inclusion of a non-identifying grouped numeric code when linking records can improve accuracy and efficiency".

The Census Form glosses over this with a constructively misleading statement.

It says "A person's name-identified information will not be kept ...".

That statement obscures (and appears to have been devised in order to obscure) the following:

APF thanks its site-sponsor:     Hosted by GoWeb image This web-site is periodically mirrored by
the Australian National Library's Pandora Archive
and by the Wayback Machine since March 2000

Created: 2 August 2011 - Last Amended: 22 January 2012 by Roger Clarke - Site Last Verified: 11 January 2009
© Australian Privacy Foundation Inc., 1998-2016  -   Mail to Webmaster
Site Map   -   This document is at  -   Privacy Policy