Thread: LOL Census...they said it wouldn't happen!

Originally Posted by woodPixel

They know all. Apparently. Or don't they? Either they are incompetent, we are being lied to, or this is all a giant smoke screen.

Census. My left cheek.

Personally, I agree with what you are saying, census is just a way of confirming what they know. Bit like stock taking in a business.
By the way, it's not "my left cheek", its "Bacon" (Pigs A.....) !!!

Originally Posted by ian

having working inside the bureaucracy, I wish this were true. Those who think Utopia is fiction are blissfully unaware of how these decisions are really made.

as one senior infrastructure minister put it -- "I don't need a plan, I know where [the votes] are needed!"

Hi Ian,
As you have worked within the bureaucracy you would be fully aware of the Census alone based SEIFA index ..... and its extensive application in the assessment of needs based funding applications by all levels of government ... also in its use in commercial decision making for capital investments.

Moreover, the Tax Sharing Arrangements / Financial Assistance Grants are primarily based on population (Census bases) and the Fiscal Equalisation Grants and Local Government Financial Assistance Grants are both are heavily influenced by the SEIFA index outcomes.

Ministers may make determinations based on lobby groups ... this is not always evidence based ... but determinations based on Census data is and this is where the big money is.

If people don't complete the Census (for whatever reason) then they are disadvantaging their State and community ... and this is not really a community benefiting thing to do.


Regards

Rob

Well I finally got to do my part for the country's data collection. Now they know that they have a 35yr old bloke living alone which needs no assistance from others, and gives no assistance to others freely

And if you stick around for 99 years, you can view all of my top secret answers and steal my identity.

Originally Posted by Tahlee

How un-Australian ... and anti-social

On the contrary - very typically Australian to flip the bird when the Govt (or anyone else) is doing a lousy sell job of a patently obvious unfolding fiasco. I see it as becoming one of those situations down the track - "oh, sorry, the data got out - well, what data we have".

I did mine on paper but they won't know who I am - can't for the life of me see why they need to anyway, and totally apart from the four year thing and the obvious data protection concerns (paper or not).

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I did mine on paper but they won't know who I am - can't for the life of me see why they need to anyway

I figure they need to know who you are, just the same for elections. So they know who not to fine for non-particpation. I realise that they probably wont fine many people anyways. but as the online thing becomes more and more dominant, it will be an easy thing to fine 10,000s of people by clicking a button, just like speed cameras.

If you return something, it should not be possible to fine you as the information is supposed to be confidential.
Half the information should be available from the Tax Office anyway.

Originally Posted by Tahlee

Hi Ian,
As you have worked within the bureaucracy you would be fully aware of the Census alone based SEIFA index ..... and its extensive application in the assessment of needs based funding applications by all levels of government ... also in its use in commercial decision making for capital investments.

Moreover, the Tax Sharing Arrangements / Financial Assistance Grants are primarily based on population (Census bases) and the Fiscal Equalisation Grants and Local Government Financial Assistance Grants are both are heavily influenced by the SEIFA index outcomes.

Ministers may make determinations based on lobby groups ... this is not always evidence based ... but determinations based on Census data is and this is where the big money is.

If people don't complete the Census (for whatever reason) then they are disadvantaging their State and community ... and this is not really a community benefiting thing to do.


Regards

Rob

Hi Rob
I worked in infrastructure, not health or social services.

We spent much of our time backing up our minister's political decisions as to project priorities and, where the Commonwealth minister's project priorities differed, providing evidence as to why our minister was "right" and the other bloke "wrong".

At one time I even worked on a paper explaining why the SEIFA funding allocation, based as you say on Census data, was an inappropriate basis for distributing infrastructure funding.

Originally Posted by Kuffy

I figure they need to know who you are, just the same for elections. So they know who not to fine for non-particpation. I realise that they probably wont fine many people anyways. but as the online thing becomes more and more dominant, it will be an easy thing to fine 10,000s of people by clicking a button, just like speed cameras.

The form I completed (and I guess all census forms) is tied to an address.
The person completing the form "volunteers" who they are, and at the end of the form "certifies" that the information provided is true and complete.

Without matching the supplied data to the identity and address of the person supplying it, I'm not sure how the ABS can identify who has or hasn't completed the form.

However, what I found disturbing was that the form I completed had no provision to list a person as retired.
You could be employed, employed but on holiday/ stood down/ on strike, unemployed and looking for work, or unemployed not looking for work. There was no provision to nominate "retired" (i.e. have left the workforce) or to identify as a "pensioner".
Likewise, if you were under about 20, the assumption seemed to be that you would be in education. I don't recall if a person could record not in education not in employment.

Just now, two full days after census night we were for the first time since the crash, able to log in to the census website so that person 5 could complete and submit the form. Well there may have been some savings but I think they are claiming too much.

On submitting the webform for the household, Person 5 was asked if we wanted a receipt. well after all the fuss and bother I said "yes, print one out so we have a record we did it just in case anything goes wrong."

THe full text of the receipt was:

"Thank you
Your form has been submitted
Receipt number
xxxxxxxxxxxx"


Two pages came out of the printer for the sake of four lines of text taking up an inch of paper.

So, it wasted a page. Big deal, The government did not have to pay for it - we did. No real cost financially to each person, but multiply it by a few million and there goes a big part of the forest they claim to have saved.

All because of sloppy computer programming.

Cheers

Doug

Now speaking theoretically, if they need my name to tie to an address etc for whatever reason, and I don't supply it, then theoretically they wouldn't know who to issue the fine to. However, if they know who to issue the fine to and where to send the fine. they didn't need the information in the first place

Originally Posted by ian

The form I completed (and I guess all census forms) is tied to an address.
The person completing the form "volunteers" who they are, and at the end of the form "certifies" that the information provided is true and complete.

Without matching the supplied data to the identity and address of the person supplying it, I'm not sure how the ABS can identify who has or hasn't completed the form.

As I understand it, forms or logins are allocated to an address, not an individual. If the census is not completed for a given address, how do they decide who at that address to fine? Everyone? The head of the family - if so how is that legally defined? What about a shared house?

If no census data is received for a particular address, what if nobody was at home on the designated night?

It would be impossible to make a fine stick if anyone decided to contest it and had half a brain

Originally Posted by ian

However, what I found disturbing was that the form I completed had no provision to list a person as retired.

Yes, I noticed the retired anomoly too. but then there is also another one for relationships.

My wife died 15 years ago, and I now am in a de facto relationship for nearly 13 years. As person 1 on the form I had no opportunity to identify as in a de facto relationship, only to say that I am widowed. That is not how I regard myself. I am in a de facto relationship as far as I am concerned. My de facto partner was able to identify as "In a De Facto relationship with Person 1, rather than as a divorcee, but poor old person 1 could not select a de facto option. I think it is extremely unfair that I could not acknowledge my current relationship status correctly on the form.

Cheers

Doug

Doug, why didn't you print to PDF?

If they decide to fine me (I think the might be a bit busy to trifle with such things to be frank) then I will go to court (assuming thy can set a date this decade with the backlog).

"Did you get a form from xxx address?"
"Yes"
"And was the person named as N.Ottelling?" (think about it)
"Yes"
"Well there you have it. Are you fining me for not filling it in, which I did, or for not providing my name, which you don't need?"

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Doug, why didn't you print to PDF?

Form was submitted by person 5 not me (person 1) so I did not print anything. Person 5 has an Apple. no further explanation should be needed.

But, if we ever need it we will need it in hard copy anyway. Saving it to pdf format on some hard drive somewhere does not guarantee that you can print it out when you need it.

Cheers

Doug

The moron who set up the questions could take a few lessons in diplomacy, as Doug said relationships, retired, etc. Not very enticing to do the right thing.