Australian Bureau of Statistics: the pot of gold that is big data

The privacy concerns arising in respect of big data tend to have two foci. First, there are ethical questions about how private information is captured and subsequently used without the subject’s knowledge or consent. Second, there are concerns that the way governments and corporations store and secure this data fails to reach an appropriate standard, leaving the door open for private individual data to be accessed by unauthorised persons, or otherwise released. [NSW LC, Standing Committee on Law and Justice, Remedies for the serious invasion of Privacy in New South Wales, 3 March 2016]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has shown an interest in accessing the gold mine that is retail scanner data.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 15 May 2014:

Big data refers to the large volume of structured or unstructured data that organisations generate and store. It is characterised as data that generally contain high volume, high velocity and/or high variety information and demands cost-effective, innovative ways of processing for enhanced insight and decision making .

The opportunity that big data presents to statistical agencies is the potential to produce more relevant and timely statistics than traditional data sources such as sample surveys. As an input into official statistics, either for use on its own, or combined with more traditional data sources, Big data could help position National Statistical Offices (NSOs) to improve the accuracy of their measures or the quality of the statistics produced. It can also help improve the comprehensiveness of official statistics by addressing existing data gaps.

An example of Big data is transactions data from major retailers obtained from the electronic capture of product information at the point of sale. Transactions data contain detailed information about the business name and location of the transaction, date and time, quantities, product descriptions, values of products sold as well as their prices.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 15 October 2015:

ABS innovations will meet new and emerging data needs. For example, the ABS is developing a prototype known as the Graphically Linked Information Discovery Environment (GLIDE), which is a suite of tools using Semantic Web methods to help analysts explore and visualise linked data. GLIDE has linked personal income tax data with business tax data to explore new methods to manage, link and analyse cross-sectional and longitudinal data.

A pilot project to inform policy development through the combination of Census and social security information was established between the ABS and the Department of Social Services.

The ABS is already a user of big data - with considerable potential to use much more - as effective use of this government data reduces our need to collect information separately and directly from households and businesses.

ABS is moving beyond the public data environment to draw insights from retail scanner data, to explore options with other data sources such as investigating the use of satellite imagery to measure agriculture crop yields and new methodological approaches to using telecommunication location information.

The spatial opportunities of big data approaches are considerable and have the potential to fundamentally change how we produce population information - especially the extent to which we can measure temporal dynamics which have generally been beyond the reach of traditional approaches.

And this online article gives a strong clue as to why the ABS would like to link national census data on individuals and households to retail scanner data – it will increase the commercial value of the statistical data products it offers for sale.

Ad News, 5 September 2013:

One of the country's biggest advertisers, Woolworths, said it doesn't need big splashy ad campaigns to launch its insurance offering. Because its database tells it the people it needs to target directly.

Woolworths Limited director of group retail services Penny Winn said the company has been deliberately shying away from traditional mass advertising for its new insurance business.

Woolworths' combined insurance statistics database and frequent shopper database found those who buy milk and red meat are better insurance risks than those who have pasta, rice and liquor in their shopping baskets. As a result, Woolworths are able to target those good insurance risk customers directly with better insurance offers.

“What we've been able to do is take our insurer's car crash database and overlay it with our Woolworth's Rewards database. I rarely see actuaries get excited but they were very excited about what we found because it was so statically significant,” said Winn.

“Because you see, customers who drink lots of milk and eat lots of red meat are very, very, very good car insurance risks versus those who eat lots of pasta and rice, fills up their petrol at night, and drink spirits. What that means is we're able to tailor an insurance offer that targets those really good insurance risk customers and give them a good deal via direct channels instead of above-the-line [advertising]. And it helps to avoid the bad insurance risks.”

It seems that along with an individual’s name, address, marital status, income range, education level, ancestry, personal hygiene regimen, criminal or traffic infringement record, taxation liability and/or welfare payment history, medication and health status, the ABS would also like to have the option of assessing the individual’s alcohol consumption and insurance risk level.

What a treasure trove for those with a malicious heart and refined hacking skills or overly inquisitive police and national security agencies.

A matter of trust

An Essential Research survey of 1,041 respondents was conducted online from the 2nd to 5th September 2016 and, in theory, with a sample of this size there is 95 per cent certainty that the results are within 3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire population had been polled.

This is part of what this particular survey found:

40% don’t trust religious organisations

49% don’t trust political parties;

          

35% of people don’t trust either the federal parliament or state parliaments; and

24% don’t trust local government.

Total trust has fallen since October 2015 by:

-4% for religious organisations;

-2% for political parties;

-6% for federal parliament and state parliaments; and

-4% for local government.

It would appear that the old first and second estates may have well and truly fallen into disrepute with the Australian populace.

Image: Estates of the Realm

Australians continue to be uneasy concerning the Australian Bureau of Statistics increased intrusion into the private lives of the population

Australians continue to be uneasy concerning motives of the Australian Bureau of Statistics ahead of expanded data collection and retention from August 2016 Census information.

ABC News, 22 July 2016:

Privacy advocates are calling on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) not to collect names of individuals in next month's census, due to privacy concerns.

For the first time, the ABS will keep Australians' names and addresses on file for four years instead of 18 months.

Meanwhile, it has emerged the ABS has been using people's names and addresses to cross-reference data with records kept by other Australian departments since 2006.

Before this, they were largely used for administrative purposes, to ensure everyone completed the census.

The revelations have prompted concern on talkback radio and social media, with some people declaring they will boycott the census because of the changes.

The Australian Privacy Foundation is calling on the ABS to stop using people's names for data analysis.

"We all gave our names in good faith, thinking they'd be deleted," said the foundation's vice-chair Kat Lane.

"We've now since found out they're not being deleted at all, they're being stored and made into unique identifiers.

"We don't want the ABS to have very sensitive personal details like names. We want them to be deleted."….

The head of The Statistical Society of Australia, Dr John Henstridge, said he did not believe the ABS did enough to consult with the community.

"I think it probably needed more of a publicity campaign about this and being a bit more open," he said.

"If people don't want to cooperate with the census because they are concerned about how the data might be used then that is a real concern."

The 2016 census will be held on August 9.

Given it was only last year that an ABS employee was gaoled for three years and three months for unlawful use of statistical data after pleading guilty to four charges of abuse of public office, one charge of insider trading, and one charge of identity theft, I strongly suspect that everyone has a right to feel concerned.

Especially as the independent Review of ABS Sensitive Information Controls conducted once the fraud was discovered revealed an organisation which had grown rather sloppy about employee access and compliance.

Now that all names and addresses will be kept effectively in perpetuity by the Bureau, one can expect that the number of times staff are approached to unlawfully supply information (or seek unauthorised information on their own behalf) will rise.

Centrelink records highlight how staff with access to sensitive information are tempted to breach regulations and even break the law – for example in 2006 it was reported that  there had been 580 breaches in 2005-06, in 2011-12 there were 126 formal investigations for substantiated privacy breaches, in 2013 another 68 breaches were revealed and in 2014 sensitive information was removed from the agency and left on a railway station platform.

Misuse of information and communications technology is endemic across the public sector and the Australian Bureau of Statistics now appears intent on exacerbating this problem.

I'm so over the Nationals fudging unemployment statistics during this federal election campaign

This was what voters were presented with when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull came into the Northern Rivers to try and shore up Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan.

Echo NetDaily, 17 June 2016:

The prime minister will be campaigning in the marginal Nationals-held seat of Page on Friday, announcing a jobs and investment package.

Kevin Hogan holds Page with a 3.1 per cent margin over former Labor MP Janelle Saffin.

The coalition is desperate to hold Page, which is developing a reputation for being bellwether seat.

The region has one of the worst unemployment records in the state, with youth unemployment nearing 20 per cent in some areas.

The coalition hopes the $25 million investment will give businesses incentives to invest and help boost employment in the region, not to mention boosting their chances of re-election.

It includes providing business innovation grants to help adopt new technology, upgrading local infrastructure and delivering targeted skills and training programs for regional shortages.

Kevin Hogan quoted in the Echo NetDaily on the same day:

Page MP Kevin Hogan welcomed the announcement.

‘The jobless rate in the Clarence Coffs area has fallen to 4.2% – well below the NSW and national average (4.95% and 5.5% respectively),’ Mr Hogan said.

‘Since July almost 2500 people in Page have found on-going work through the Coalition’s Jobactive programme. But more still needs to be done.

‘I set up a local Job Strategy Group over six months ago to bring companies looking to expand to the North Coast. This package will certainly be an incentive for those businesses that have been thinking about making the move but aren’t ready to commit,” he said.

So is Hogan right about unemployment levels on the NSW Far North Coast and the Page electorate in particular?

Here are the facts which he appears to want to fudge by quoting the much broader statistical region – Clarence-Coffs – which extends as far south as the Bellingen area.

The March Quarter unemployment rate for all persons (released 10 June 2016) in relevant local government areas:

Tweed LGA – 7.6%

Richmond Valley LGA – 10.7%

Ballina LGA – 6.1%

Byron LGA – 9.3%

Kyogle LGA – 10.6%

Lismore LGA – 9.4%

Clarence Valley LGA - 6.5%

Coffs Harbour LGA – 5.3%

In the March quarter 2016 this is the number of people these percentages are estimated to represent in the Page electorate :

Ballina – 7,430 people

Ballina Region - 7,999 people

Casino - 5,044 people

Casino Region - 3,225 people

Evans Head – 2,180 people

Kyogle – 3,419 people

Lismore – 7,769 people

Lismore region – 8,166 people

Grafton – 8,756 people

Grafton Region – 7,406 people

Maclean-Yamba-Iluka – 6,880

Coffs Harbour North –  8,711 people

In April 2016 the Youth Unemployment Rate (15-24 years of age) for both the Clarence-Coffs and Tweed regions was 11.9%.

In May 2016 the Youth Unemployment Rate (15-24 years of age) for New South Wales was  11.4%.

The National unemployment rate for all persons in May 2016 was 5.6% and the NSW rate was 5.1%.

And if readers want to know all Coalition's Job Active "ongoing-work" - I refer them to an excerpt from this previous post:

For that amount of money the Abbott-Turnbull Government expects the Jobactive scheme to have placed 380,000 jobseekers in often wage-subsidised employment in 2015-16, at a cost of est.$2,500 per placement covering Employment Fund expenditure, service fees and outcome payments.

Unfortunately 68% of these placements are likely to last only 4 weeks before the person is unemployed once more. I suspect the percentage of temporary jobs is so high because this allows service providers to bill the government again and again for ‘helping’ those same job seekers find other temporary jobs once the initial placement dissolves into thin air and, via the $1.2 billion national wage subsidy pool potentially allows employers to 'churn' new employees on short term contacts so that employers receive financial benefits from the pool but employees are unemployed at contract's end.

None of the departmental employment sustainability measures encompass positions lasting longer than six months, so it is unclear as to whether there is a genuine expectation that job service providers will assist in finding permanent employment for anyone.

In July 2015 when Jobactive Australia commenced, the real national unemployment rate was probably running at est. 8.7% and by March 2016 it had climbed to est.11% according Roy Morgan Research vs ABS Employment Estimates (1992-2016).

In November 2013 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) seasonally adjusted combined unemployment and underemployment rate (underutilisation) was 13.5% and by February 2016 this combined rate was 14.2%.

In September 2013 the average number of weeks an unemployed person spent looking for a job was 39, with an est.134,400 people looking for 52 weeks and over.

Under the Abbott-Turnbull Government by March 2016 the average number of weeks had risen to 46.2, with an est. 181,700 people looking for 52 weeks and over. [Australian Bureau of Statistics, Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Mar 2016] 

In June 2014 an est. 123,800 15 to 24 year-olds were looking for full time or part-time work. By March 2016 the number of young people in this category had risen to 133,000. [ibid]

The Brotherhood of St. Laurence reported on 14 March 2016 that some rural and regional areas were grappling with youth unemployment rates above 20 per cent.

Richmond-Tweed (including Tweed Heads, Byron Bay, Lismore, Mullumbimby) in the NSW Northern Rivers region had a youth unemployment rate of 14.5% in January 2015 and by January 2016 this rate had risen to 17.4% [Brotherhood of St Laurence, Australia’s Youth Unemployment Hotspots: Snapshot March 2016, p. 3]

Mike Seccombe on NSW Premier "Teflon Mike" Baird

Journalist Mike Seccombe writing in The Saturday Paper on 11 June 2016:

People tagged him “Teflon”, because nothing stuck to Mike Baird.

Called to leadership in inauspicious circumstances two years ago, he was clean, shiny and charismatic. And also bold. He determined to privatise the state’s electricity distribution system. Many other governments had foundered on the issue, but Baird took it to last year’s election and still won a thumping majority.

He was one of those rare politicians who transcended his party. He became not just a state premier but also a national political role model to many. When the federal Coalition government was going badly under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Mike Baird was most often cited as the alternative ideal.

And no wonder. For almost two years he was by far the most popular political leader in the nation.

But no more. According to the most recent Morgan poll of national leaders, Baird has been bested for the first time since he became premier of New South Wales…..

Baird is not under imminent threat, but he is “Teflon Mike” no more.

These days he is more commonly described as “Casino Mike”, a reference to his government’s endlessly obliging approach to James Packer’s plan for the giant development at Barangaroo. Since it was originally, controversially approved under former premier Barry O’Farrell, the development has grown 100 metres in height and its floor space has more than doubled in size.

It has not escaped the critics’ attention that the Packer family are among the biggest donors to Baird’s party. Nor that the state’s controversial lockout laws, intended to stop late-night, alcohol-fuelled assaults, do not apply to the very violent precinct around the city’s existing casino, The Star, and also excise Barangaroo.

But there is a lot more to his decline than that, as was evidenced a couple of weeks ago when thousands of protesters descended on central Sydney. They came with a smorgasbord of issues, ranging from the local – the route of contentious WestConnex motorway, the axing of scores of ancient fig trees to facilitate construction of a light rail project – to the general – the sacking of 42 local councils across the state, draconian police powers and anti-protest laws, cuts to school and TAFE funding and the government’s extensive privatisation agenda.

Quite suddenly, an awful lot of things are sticking to Baird. The punters are increasingly questioning his motives and the insiders are questioning his political judgement.

In February, when the federal government was floundering about seeking a tax reform agenda, there was no stronger advocate of an increased GST than Baird.

“I am convinced our political leaders and our community are ready to take the right, hard decisions for our future,” he said…..

It’s not just that Andrews read the wind better. It’s that the GST business served to underline something about Baird that people were already starting to realise: this “moderate” Liberal is actually very hardline on matters economic. The former investment banker is a deep neoliberal.

The government’s record of privatisation tells the story, says the Greens’ David Shoebridge.

“He’s sold the big ticket items: electricity generation, electricity transmission, ports. And now they’re looking around for things people would have thought immune.”

It is quite a list. Care services to 50,000 elderly and disabled residents living in their homes have been privatised. Three hundred inner-city housing commission properties have been sold for some $500 million, to fund the building of new accommodation miles away in the outer suburbs of the Illawarra and Blue Mountains.

And, most recently, the state’s land titles service has been privatised.

“The land titles system delivers about $60 million to the state each year. It’s a profit centre for government, but it seems any profit centre, any service they can identify they are ideologically committed to selling,” Shoebridge says.

“It puts a corruption risk at the heart of land titles in NSW.”

Of course, such criticism is unsurprising from a political opponent, particularly from the Greens. But it is echoed by the Law Society of NSW.

The sale should not proceed, said society president Gary Ulman, out of concern about “adequate protection of sensitive data, the continued implementation of best practice anti-fraud measures”.

The Baird government’s determination to guard the interests of the private sector is nowhere more obvious than in its approach to those who protest against coal and coal seam gas developments.

Legislation passed in March increased tenfold the fines faced by protesters to $5500 and provided for jail for up to seven years for “unlawful aggravated entry” to mine sites. The new laws also gave police new search and seizure powers and allowed them greater latitude under “move on powers” to break up demonstrations.

“This changed laws in place since 1901,” the chief executive and principal solicitor with the state’s Environmental Defenders Office, Sue Higginson, says.

“They have turned them into laws that privilege a particular component of society, the business community.”

The new anti-protest laws, in force from this week, are but one aspect of the progressive erosion of civil liberties under this government, Shoebridge says. 

“They have criminalised protest. So many police powers have been extended, so much court oversight has been removed that we have the machinery in place for a police state… A police officer can prohibit you from going to a club, to your church or mosque, your political meeting.”

Shoebridge’s critique might sound extreme were it not for the fact that the legal community – the Law Society and Bar Association – concur.

In a statement in April, the president of the NSW Bar Association, Noel Hutley, described the serious crime prevention orders legislation as “an unprecedented attack on individual freedoms and the rule of law”. 

“The bill creates broad new powers which can be used to interfere in the liberty and privacy of persons and to restrict their freedom of movement, expression, communication and assembly,” he said. “The powers are not subject to necessary legal constraints or appropriate and adequate judicial oversight and in many cases basic rules of evidence are circumvented.”

His detailed critique was utterly swingeing. His reflection on the attitude of the government to civil liberties was damning.

This is a government not averse to applying blunt force to opponents. The saga of local council amalgamations provides another example.

Leaving aside the matter of whether amalgamating small councils into bigger ones is desirable – though there has been strong community resistance – it is the way the government went about it that is troubling.

They simply sacked them and installed in their place administrators who will run the councils until September next year. The administrators are in many cases the same people who advised amalgamation or political fellow travellers of the government – former conservative politicians or party apparatchiks…..

The giant accounting firm KPMG was employed as an independent arbiter of the financial benefits of the mergers. Documents have since surfaced suggesting the firm was not independent at all, but was engaged specifically to make the case for amalgamations.

The Land and Environment Court has ordered the government to provide documents about the role KPMG played in implementing the council amalgamation agenda.

Baird faces a long succession of legal actions.

Then there is the environment, where further changes are imminent under legislation due for introduction in the spring session of parliament.

“We’re talking about wholesale changes to an entire suite of environmental laws,” Sue Higginson says. “We’re talking about simply throwing out some of the global leading-edge laws dating back to the Carr government. Our view is that this is a catastrophic step backwards.”

The new laws, she says, open the way for broad-scale land clearing by rural landholders.

Jeff Angel, of the Total Environment Centre, takes up the story: “It allows clearing for almost any purpose, with minimal consent and monitoring. It’s appalling.

“Frankly, the more we look at it, the more it looks like [the laws introduced by the former Campbell Newman government in] Queensland.”……

Read the full article here.

Looooong federal election campaign appears to underwhelm many voters

Essential Report, 7 June 2016:

Australian Bureau of Statistics intends to hold the personal information of citizens for as long as they live or possibily longer if this has a purpose

First Dog on the Moon, 30 March 2016

On 18 December 2015 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) announced that in the national census to be held on Wednesday 8 August 2016 it would be retaining personal data of all respondents for the integration of census data with other survey and administrative data.

It the same month it released the Privacy Impact Assessment: Proposal to Retain Name and Address Information from Responses to the 2016 Census of Population and Housing.

Rather predictably this assessment concluded that; In relation to the proposed retention of names and addresses from responses to the 2016 Census, a small number of potential risks to personal privacy and public perception have been identified. This Assessment concludes that in each case, the likelihood of the risks eventuating is ‘very low’. It also concludes that the ABS has implemented robust processes to manage data and protect privacy, and that these arrangements effectively mitigate these risks. Any residual risks are such that the ABS is capable of managing.

The risks it is talking about are: (i) ABS staff may inadvertently or maliciously identify an individual; (ii) the database may be hacked; (iii) there may be accidental releases of name and/or address data in ABS outputs or through loss of work related IT equipment and IT documentation; and (iv) in the future, name and address information from responses to the 2016 Census may be used for purposes beyond what is currently contemplated by the ABS – such as the creation of mandatory national identification cards.

The “robust processes” being contemplated are predominately of the closing-the-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted variety.

The ABS also states that; For the 2016 Census, the ABS will destroy names and addresses when there is no longer any community benefit to their retention or four years after collection (i.e. August 2020), whichever is earliest.

The Anny blog observes; The introduction by ABS of Australian Census Longitudinal Dataset (ACLD)…..proves that mass re-tracing and re-linking is quite possible and achievable. Since 2006, Australian census is no longer just a “snapshot of a nation on census night” as ABS keeps telling us, it is a tool capable of continuous, life-long surveillance of every person in Australia. During 2011 census, ABS randomly chose 5% (over a million!) of Australian population and managed to link a staggering 82% of “de-identified” files between 2006 and 2011 censuses within that sample. 

To the best of my knowledge only two other OECD countries retain the personal census data of their citizens, permanent residents and overseas visitors, however a number keep permanent registers of residents’ names and addresses and/or use their nationals surveys for date integration.

The Canberra Times reported this on 20 May 2016:

Former ABS public servant Ross Hamilton says the bureau is no longer the trustworthy institution many Australians believe it is and he is prepared to face the full force of the law rather than participate in the 2016 census.

The Canberra resident says the ABS engaged in a dodgy process to obtain the unprecedented power to retain personal information gathered in the census to be taken in August and its promises that the data will only be held temporarily are worthless.

Since 1961, all names, addresses and other identifying information supplied in census forms have been destroyed once all the other data was saved.

But this year will be different with the ABS claiming its plan to keep the identifying data will enable "a richer and dynamic statistical picture of Australia".

Privacy activists have already warned of the dangers of retaining information, despite Chief Statistician David Kalisch insisting that names and addresses will be stored securely and separately from other census data. 

Now Mr Hamilton has added his voice to the protests, writing to Mr Kalisch and demanding answers about the bureau's claims that collected data would be over-written in four years.

"If the personal identifier address data-sets are to be over-written or replaced by data-sets from the 2020 census and so on, then to claim the retention of the 2016 data as only temporary is in fact a load of rubbish as it would have become continuing, updated data-sets," Mr Hamilton said. [my red bolding]

There are some common ways of avoiding filling in census forms according to the Australian Privacy Foundation:

o   Being absent from all households on the night of Tue 9 Aug 2011. (Although it may be cold that night)

o   If others in the household are submitting a return, telling them to leave you off it. (This may be a concern to one or more of the other people in the household)

o   Getting an envelope and a form, and sending a blank form in. (This will very likely result in successive re-visits from the collector, followed by threatening letters from the ABS. But if enough people were to do it, the volume might be such that the ABS may not be able to follow everyone up)

o   Getting an envelope and a form, and filling in nonsense data, at least in response to the questions you object to. (This is not appropriate for people who do not like to be forced to lie in order to protect their privacy)

o   If all persons in the household object to providing data, avoiding being at home when the Collector calls. (This will require great persistence, because Collectors and their supervisors are paid to chase, chase, and chase again)

o  Asking a series of questions about the security of the data, and saying that you'll provide the data once you have satisfactory answers. (The ABS is likely to eventually reply with carefully-composed and vague text that does not answer your questions. Ask the questions again. You may need to sustain your patience over many months until one side or the other gives up)

o   Refusing to provide the data. (The ABS has the power to prosecute, and to seek fines that the magistrate could choose to apply once, or for every day that the data is not provided)

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.

Also according to the Australian Privacy Foundation; In 2001, non-contact-dwellings were 156,460 (2.0%) [missing 1-3 people each = 300,000]…..

The ABS told Queensland Pride that 4,955 formal notices were sent to people directing them to fill out their census this year [2006]. Of these, approximately 4,000 completed forms were returned. Of those that weren’t, 278 people were later prosecuted. [No information was provided about the outcomes.] Penalty for failing to fill out the census form range from Good Behaviour Bonds to fines of up $500 plus court costs.

An ABS spokesperson said: “A person cannot simply pay the fine at the time of receiving the notice and not complete the form as the fine relates to an offence and, as the offence is a criminal one, it must be proved in a court of law.” (Qld Pride, 2 Nov 2007)

The legislated response to non-compliance is set out in the C’wealth Census and Statistics Act 1905 which states:

14  Failure to answer questions etc.

             (1)  A person commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the person is served a direction under subsection 10(4) or 11(2); and

                     (b)  the person fails to comply with the direction.

Penalty:  One penalty unit.

             (2)  Subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note 1:   For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

Note 2:   A person commits an offence in respect of each day until the person complies with the direction (see section 4K of the Crimes Act 1914).

             (3)  Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a person’s failure to answer a question, or to supply particulars, relating to the person’s religious beliefs.

Note:     A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

15  False or misleading statements or information

                   A person commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the person:

                              (i)  is required, requested or directed to fill up and supply particulars under subsection 10(2), (3) or (4); or

                             (ii)  is requested or directed to answer a question under subsection 11(1) or (2); and

                     (b)  the person makes a statement, either orally or in writing, or provides a document containing information, in connection with the requirement, request or direction; and

                     (c)  the person knows that the statement or information is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty:  10 penalty units.

Australian Federal Election 2016: polling at the beginning of Week 4 of the campaign

News.com.au, 28 May 2016:

Three weeks into the two-month campaign, the 7News-ReachTel poll, released on Friday, has Labor ahead 52-48 on a two-party preferred basis.

Earlier in the week Newspoll and Essential had Labor leading the coalition 51-49 per cent, reversing the Fairfax-Ipsos result from the previous weekend.

For those who place more faith in the punters here are Sportsbet markets covering NSW Northern Rivers at 8am 29 May 2016:

Sitting Nationals MP Kevin Hogan since 2013 vs Labor candidate Janelle Saffin

Sitting Labor MP Justine Elliot since 2004 vs Nationals candidate Matthew Fraser & The Greens Dawn Walker

Sitting Nationals MP Luke Hartsuyker since 2001 vs candidate “Any Other” & Labor’s Alfredo Navarro

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton never lets facts get in the way of a good dogwhistle about demmed furriners

This was Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald on 18 May 2016:

"They [refugees] won't be numerate or literate in their own language, let alone English," Mr Dutton said.

"These people would be taking Australian jobs, there's no question about that.

"For many of them that would be unemployed, they would languish in unemployment queues and on Medicare and the rest of it so there would be huge cost and there's no sense in sugar-coating that, that's the scenario."

This is a copy of a Peter Dutton media release published by My Sunshine Coast  on 18th of May 2016:   

Labor and Greens jeopardise refugee outcomes

Labor and Mr Shorten's arbitrary doubling of Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Programme is all about politics and was a crass attempt to win over the left on boat turn backs.

About 70 per cent of Australia's migration programme is made up of skilled migrants and Australia's annual net migration figure is approximately 190,000.

In addition under the Refugee and Humanitarian Programme we accept 13,750 people per year. We provide services to applicants who by definition come from war-torn countries and situations where people face persecution.

Our Government provides significant funding on settlement services to help people within the humanitarian and refugee programme with services such as education, training, accommodation, English language lessons and trauma counselling.

Our programme grows gradually from 13,750 per annum. Labor's decision to just double the figure was done solely for political purposes. There was no science in doubling the figure – it was purely done to try to win over the Left during the debate at ALP conference on boat turnbacks.

Here are the facts on people coming in through the Refugee and Humanitarian Programme:

* 44 per cent of the female arrivals and 33 per cent of males do not understand spoken English prior to arrival
* 23 per cent of female arrivals and 17 per cent of males are illiterate in their own language
* 15 per cent have never attended school
* 46 per cent have never undertaken paid work

Data from the Building a New Life in Australia study, the Longitudinal Study of Humanitarian Migrants (BLNA) which remains ongoing, indicates that humanitarian entrants face considerable economic and social challenges to settling successfully in Australia. The BNLA found humanitarian settlers fill low skill and low paid occupations.

Other studies have found that humanitarian entrants generally have poorer employment outcomes than other migrants, particularly in their early years of settlement.

The Australian Census Migrants Integrated Dataset shows that for humanitarian entrants 32 per cent are recording as being 'in the labour force' while 45 per cent were 'not in the labour force'. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found that in March the general Australian population had a Labour Force Participation Rate of 65 per cent.

The Personal Income Tax Migrants Integrated Dataset indicates humanitarian visa holders reported income of around $25,000 well below the national average of just under $50,000 for Australian taxpayers.

During the data matching period less than 20 per cent of these humanitarian migrants submitted a tax return.

What this shows is that it is vital to be able to provide the housing, employment, health and integration services that provide the base for these migrants to build a new, happy, healthy and successful life in our country – a process that can take years, even a generation.

A doubling of the Refuge and Humanitarian Programme annually as committed to by Labor would cost an estimated $2.5 billion dollars over the four year period of the Forward Estimates.

The Greens proposal to quadruple the intake to 50,000 annually would come at an estimated cost of $7 billion dollars over the Forward Estimates.

Australia is already one of the most generous nations in resettling refugees.

We rank in the top three nations for providing permanent resettlement of those most in need from around the world.

Refugees and humanitarian entrants are selected not because they have skills, but because they face persecution or serious discrimination. Many will have been denied basic services such as health and education in their own country and will have suffered trauma or torture for years.

Given those circumstances, we should not be surprised that entrants under the Refugee and Humanitarian Programme need considerable and specialist long term support to settle into our country.

That is why the Government is committed so strongly to funding settlement services, but it comes at a cost.

The size and composition of the Refugee and Humanitarian Programme is carefully considered annually to ensure sufficient resources are available to successfully process and integrate those fleeing persecution.

The Labor/Greens proposals risk jeopardising settlement outcomes.

Australians support an organised migration programme; Australia is a nation of immigrants.

But the programme needs to remain manageable and acceptable to maintain that support from the broad Australian population. Australia has proudly and successfully resettled more than 825,000 refugees and others in humanitarian needs since World War II and we have the capacity to continue this generosity in a managed process.

To assert that virtually overnight you can double (Labor) or quadruple (The Greens) – on an annual basis – this intake of vulnerable people with many special needs is the height of irresponsibility and jeopardises the current community support for the refugee programme.

One only has to look at the influx of more than 50,000 people illegally on boats during the last Labor Government to see how unrealistic both the Labor and Greens proposals are.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will take at least the next three years to simply process these people.

The special intake of 12,000 Syrians and Iraqis from the war-torn Middle East will take a number of programme years, simply because we cannot cut corners in regards to the various checks, but particularly security checks, that we must carry out on people before we offer them the opportunity to resettle in Australia. The Government has committed over $800 million to this special intake alone.

We live in a dangerous and uncertain world in terms of security and we need appropriate processes in place to ensure we are assisting those most in need with the least prospect of returning to their previous lives.

One only has to look at the recent events in Europe to realise that secure borders and organised migration are vitally important to the security of any nation.

Only the Coalition is committed to strong border protection policies to keep Australia as safe and secure as is possible.

THE HON. PETER DUTTON MP
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

So what are voters supposed to conclude from this election campaign spiel?

Apparently it’s that we are all supposed to be concerned that refugees will take our jobs or become a burden on the welfare system because they are illiterate and unemployed.

What Peter Dutton is careful not to say about the incomplete longtitudinal study he is quoting is that it is examining the lives of 2,399 recently arrived humanitarian migrants – 64 per cent of whom had been in Australia less than six months and 83 per cent less than one year.

Anyone fleeing from war-torn countries to an essentially monolingual country (where unemployment is running at 5.8%) who finds permanent full-time employment in under a year is likely to be an exceptional person, so it is hardly surprising that in those first months on Australian soil a number are unemployed.

However, when it comes to looking at humanitarian refugees 15 years of age and over with labour force status recorded in the 2011 Australian Census, what Dutton does not mention is that (using New South Wales as the example) 79.34% of Iranians, 78.6% of Iraqis, 78.4% of Afghans and 66.3% of Sudanese were in employment.

Nor does he draw attention to the fact that those refugees classified as 'not in the labour force'  would include children under 15 year of age. Of those recent humanitarian refugee units arriving in Australia 50% contained children.

As for recent humanitarian refugees having incomes of around $25,000 a year – well so do an est. 1.365 million other people according to Australian Bureau of Statistics published data.

One would have to be profoundly stupid to take Peter Dutton’s demmed furriners spray at face value.