Posts

I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) about the decision to include a question in the 2026 Census asking every Australian over 16 about their sexuality. One Nation believes that a person’s sexuality is not the government’s business and that there is no overarching need for the government to know. A person’s sexuality has no bearing on housing requirements, road usage, or the consumption of medical or educational services—areas which the Census is designed to address in order to plan infrastructure.

Families usually complete the Census together. Asking a 16-year-old about their sexuality could start a conversation the child is not ready for. Even selecting “prefer not to say” could expose a child to danger in a household that is not tolerant of LGB individuals.

This question should not be included in the Census, which needs to return to its core purpose—providing data to support government services.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Moving on to the 2026 census and referring to the table, ‘status of potential new topics’—it’s on your website—the sexual orientation of children aged 16 and up is listed as a new topic. Is that correct?

Dr Gruen: Sexual orientation of people 16 and over?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It says, ‘”sexual orientation and gender” will be included in the 2026 Census, for people aged 16 years and older’. It’s in—

Dr Gruen: That’s right. That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Families fill this form out together, I’d assume.

Dr Gruen: Sorry, could you say that again?

Senator ROBERTS: Families would fill out the census together.

Dr Gruen: That’s often the way it’s done, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So they can see each other’s responses. The question is, are you exposing a child to a conversation they may not be ready to have with their parents, or which they may not be ready to have with themselves yet?

Dr Gruen: That’s an important issue, Senator. The way that we handle this is that, for these forms, the household form, there’s always the option of ‘prefer not to answer’. That is an option for these sensitive questions, and the other important thing is that if a young person living in a household chooses not to discuss this with their parents but wishes to record answers that they do not wish to share with anyone else, they can fill in a private form and we will override the answers that they provide. So their form will take precedence over the family form.

Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t the other members of the family know about that? If a family member over 16 was reluctant to answer, then that might start a conversation that no-one’s ready to have.

CHAIR: This is the last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: What business is it of the ABS to know the sexual orientation of children?

Dr Gruen: The answer is it’s not our business. The answer is that we provide the option for people to fill in the form privately without having the conversation with their family, and they can choose to do that or not do it. We have an option in those questions of ‘prefer not to answer,’ so we have done the best we can to provide an environment where people do not have to reveal this information if they would prefer not to.

Senator ROBERTS: But just having the question there—

CHAIR: Senator—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Chair, I’m just following up on that.

CHAIR: Sorry. We’ve got three minutes.

I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) about their new publication, which compares excess deaths against a baseline using regression analysis. This approach is the proper method for reviewing excess deaths. The dataset relates to excess deaths DURING COVID, so it would make sense for the ABS to include vaccination rates in the analysis. This would enable a direct comparison of COVID vaccination rates and excess deaths.  

The claim that the data comes from other sources is specious. The ABS website is replete with datasets that combine data from multiple sources.  Furthermore, the ABS utilises data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), so the suggestion that “they do that” is not acceptable. In fact, in this case, the AIHW does not compare vaccination status to excess mortality or the increased prevalence of conditions like Alzheimer’s and cancer.  

Who is instructing the ABS and AIHW to AVOID producing data that allows direct comparisons between these datasets? I also highlighted a recent paper from UNSW, which made the comparison that found a strong correlation of 0.71 between booster shots and excess mortality.

I will not give up on my quest to get honest data on our COVID response so that we can all identify where the Senate went wrong and ensure the Government never repeats these mistakes again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just table this for my second question. My first question refers to your comparison of all-cause mortality—you’d be familiar with this—

Dr Gruen: Broadly, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: and COVID deaths against baseline using regression data. Firstly, thank you for the analysis. It provides a clear idea of where we are. I note that excess deaths are staying above the baseline, above the upper range of the baseline. It is something the monthly provision of mortality data also shows has continued into 2024. My question should be familiar to you. Is the ABS doing enough to produce the wealth of data the government and our health agencies need to review their decisions during COVID? Specifically, why haven’t you added vaccination rates to this data?

Dr Gruen: The mortality data we get from births, deaths and marriages from each of the states and territories—I will make certain that this is correct, but my understanding is that vaccination status does not come with the births, deaths and marriages data that we get and publish. This is the publication that come out two months after the period?

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not sure of the agency’s name. I think it’s the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or maybe the national institute of health and welfare—

Dr Gruen: No, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Senator ROBERTS: They are able to provide the vaccinations, I think.

Dr Gruen: Then they may well have done the analysis. Vaccination status exists, and it’s, for instance, in our integrated data assets, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare does analysis on our data and produces reports. So I’m not saying the data doesn’t exist. I’m saying it’s not in the form that we get from the births, deaths and marriages from each of the states and territories on which we base the mortality statistics that I think you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: So isn’t it just a matter of adding another dataset, getting that from somewhere—because this would be valuable information for health authorities.

Dr Gruen: The answer is that it requires analysis, and that’s not what we do for that publication.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the health departments and health agencies use your data?

Dr Gruen: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be helpful to them to understand the vaccination rates?

Dr Gruen: I think there’s been quite a lot of work on vaccination status and the implications of vaccination status for mortality. There was a very big study published in the Lancet that was done by the University of New South Wales which looked at that. It followed 3.8 million Australians over 65 in 2022. So there have definitely been studies.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. The scientific paper that I tabled—Melbourne university have done the work that you haven’t done, and they’ve used regression analysis to test for the relationship between COVID boosters, if you have a look at the abstract—

CHAIR: The committee tables the document.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. If you have a look at the abstract, it summarises what I’m saying. I’ve circulated their paper, published by the European Society of Medicine. This is their conclusion: ‘The results suggest a strong regression relationship with an adjusted R squared of 71 per cent.’ Correlation of zero is no correlation. One is a perfect correlation. In this paper, they found a correlation of 0.71. That’s very strong, and it suggests that boosters are linked to excess deaths. As you already do this work—that’s the graph again—why won’t you just add vaccinations and boosters to the data and give the Senate better information upon which to base better decisions?

Dr Gruen: I’ve already answered that question.

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t happy with the answer.

Dr Gruen: The point is—

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t explained it.

Dr Gruen: the data comes from somewhere else.

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you do that?

Dr Gruen: I explained. Those data come from births, deaths and marriages from all the states—

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Dr Gruen: Right. The vaccination status comes from elsewhere. It comes from the Australian Immunisation Register.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t merge the two together; you won’t do that?

Dr Gruen: We publish the data that is available to us. Others do analysis on that data. It is perfectly open to anyone who has a well-defined project to use the data that we have generated and to produce research on that. That’s completely up to them. We are an organisation that produces the data, and it is predominantly others who do the analysis.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So you collect data from various agencies, you summarise it and present it, and other people use that data to do the analysis.

Dr Gruen: Yes. There are circumstances where we do some analysis, but in this case it’s others who do the analysis on linking vaccination status and mortality.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you.

The Consumer Price Index shows inflation at just 3.8%, but how accurate is that figure? Every time I shop, it feels much higher.  

Recently, I was successful in getting a Senate Inquiry into how the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) maintain the inflation index and the answers were interesting—inflation is worse than the official figure suggests.

The ABS actually produce several different measures of prices changes. The media often cites one of them – the CPI, which serves economists, bankers and the treasury, who use it to see how the economy is going as a whole, but it’s not an accurate measure of price changes that affects consumers.  

To address this, the ABS produce the Living Cost Index (LCI), which looks at how much the cost-of-living has changed for different groups. The largest of these groups is for employees, which covers about 70% of Australians and reveals that inflation is actually 6.2%, significantly higher than the CPI figure of 3.8%. This difference largely stems from how house price increases are included in the index.

So, it’s clear: people are struggling more than the CPI suggests. If you feel like you’re working harder and getting nowhere, it’s because you are.  

One Nation is committed to reducing government spending, reducing inflation and making your pay stretch further.

Transcript

I rise to take note of the Economic References Committee report into the Australian Bureau of Statistics production of inflation statistics. This inquiry was called on a Senate motion that One Nation introduced. I thank the committee for their time and I thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics for their honest, direct and professional answers. In an answer to my question in Senate estimates, the Reserve Bank governor advised that it uses many other indicators to get a clearer understanding of the cost of living affecting everyday Australians, not just the CPI. This was the comment that led to last week’s inquiry. Many people assume the CPI is an accurate picture of the cost of living for everyday Australians. What we learned from the ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is the consumer price index is a macro economic indicator useful to the government, Reserve Bank and industry to show how much prices have changed. That’s not the same as asking how much cost-of-living spending has increased for everyday Australians. That cost-of-living data is trapped using other indexes called selected living cost indexes. These are produced for subsets within the economy based on source of income. The largest group is employees, comprising 15 million current wage and salary earners. This is more than 70 per cent of the Australian adult population. This index shows the rate of inflation affecting the largest cohort of the adult population in Australia is actually 6.2 per cent. That feels much more accurate than the official CPI rate of 3.8 per cent. Even at 6.2 per cent, the figure is not entirely representative. The living cost index for most Australians does not include the insane increases in house prices, as Senator Rennick and I pointed out in questions. 

The ABS traps the increase only in building costs, not the increase in land cost. The average home price in Queensland in 2020 was $524,000. In 2024, it’s now $815,000. Most of that inflation is in the land price. Unless home price inflation is included in the living cost index then Australians are quite honestly being misled—badly misled. The ABS is not misleading; it’s producing the statistics the government asked it to produce. 

So I wonder who decided to use the CPI rate as the official picture of inflation in Australia, because it’s wrong. Why don’t the media report the living cost index showing 6.2 per cent inflation affecting most Australians, and that it doesn’t represent costs including houses? All except one of these living cost indexes shows a higher rate than the 3.8 per cent CPI. Why is the media misleadingly reporting the lowest figure instead of the real figure covering most Australians? 

I have been using adult Australians here for a reason. This inquiry confirmed the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data for inflation affecting the cost of raising children. The latest data my office could find was from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which found it cost $340 a week to provide for two children, a girl aged six and a boy aged 10. That data was from 2018. We don’t know what it is today. There’s not time-series data, no inflation rate over time for children and that seems pretty poor. There are 5.7 million children under 18 here in Australia. It would be useful to know how much the cost of raising those children is increasing. 

As I travel around Queensland I hear so many parents saying how expensive life is becoming—the cost of living under Labor—and how expensive raising children is becoming. The failure to provide data to government on the outcome of government policies on the cost of raising children and an accurate figure for the cost of running a family is a massive failure, a failure which rests with the minister, not the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I call on the government to task the ABS with providing an accurate figure for inflation affecting families. It worries me that it is the figure of 3.8 per cent, not the much more accurate figure of 6.2 per cent, that’s used for wage increases. According to the OECD’s economic outlook report, real wages in Australia are now five per cent lower than they were in 2020. 

Remember, those house prices I mentioned, up from $524,000 to $818,000 in Queensland in four years? After adjusting for inflation, everyday Australians looking to buy their first home are trying to afford that mortgage on five per cent less income. No wonder homeownership seems an impossible dream for young wage and salary earners. Wages should reflect the real cost of living under Labor. Government spending and handouts reduce the inflation rate yet this money started in the hands of employees, who paid that to the government in tax, and the government gives it back to people in subsidies, less the government’s cut for administration. Is this the much-touted Greens circular economy? 

I’ll finish with an idea. Reduce the size of government. Let people keep more of their own money. If everyday Australians feel they’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because they are. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave is granted; debate adjourned. 

I recently succeeded in a Senate motion to bring in the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to explain how their inflation statistics (CPI) is calculated. Their answers show that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is not a measure of how much it costs everyday Australian to live. Instead, it serves more as an indicator of where prices in the economy are heading, a useful tool for the Reserve Bank and Treasury.

The ABS also provides a set of other indicators, known as Cost of Living Indexes, which give a clearer indication of how price increases affect different groups. The largest of these is aimed at wage and salary earners, which encompasses 16 million Australians. This indicator shows that inflation for this group is running at 6.2%, rather than the official inflation rate of 3.8%.

The cost of living for most Australians is much higher under Labor than what Prime Minister Albanese and the Treasury acknowledge.   If it feels like you’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here. CPI has been discussed informally as something that is very important to a lot of people around Australia. A lot of things are based on it. So let me just check my understanding. The Australian Bureau of Statistics produces a set of indices called living cost indexes. These are designed to show the inflation facing specific demographics within the Australian population. As I understand it, your latest indexes, released on 7 August, showed the following. Pensioners and beneficiaries have a living cost index of 4.1 per cent. Employees have a living cost index of 6.2 per cent. Age pensioners have a living cost index of 2.7 per cent. Other welfare is at 4.6 per cent, Self-funded retirees are at 2.8 per cent. I don’t know if they are getting self-funded in part or wholly or whatever. Perhaps we can explore that. And the consumer price index is 2.8 per cent. Are they all correct?

Mr Goldsworthy: They are all correct, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: My concern is this, Mr Goldsworthy. Is your CPI representative of the inflation that adult working employee Australians are experiencing? The ABS dataset 6336 working arrangements as at August 2023 shows there are 14 million people working for a wage or salary in Australia, including owner-managers of their own business entity. Does that mean small businesses are included in that figure of 14 million and, if so, how many?

Mr Goldsworthy: Sorry, I might need you to repeat the question.

Senator ROBERTS: The ABS dataset 6336 working arrangements as at August 2023 shows there are 14 million people working for a wage or salary in Australia. That includes owner-managers of their own business entity. Does that mean small businesses are included in that figure of 14 million?

Mr Goldsworthy: I’m not sure off the top of my head. We don’t have those figures to hand.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know how many small businesses there are?

Mr Goldsworthy: No. We came prepared to talk about questions in relation to the consumer price index.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s where I’m heading. I’d like to know how many people depend upon the CPI figure.

Mr Goldsworthy: We can certainly take that on notice for you.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the employees figure include the one million contractors as listed in your characteristics of employment page?

Mr Merrington: The employee households represent wage earners.

Senator ROBERTS: Purely wage owners, no small businesses or self-employed owner-managers?

Mrs Marquardt: It’s wherever the main income of households is. If you are a household and you maybe have a wage earner and somebody who receives a pension, if the main income for the household is wages then they would be counted in the living cost indexes for employees.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will just go through the living cost indexes again. The jargon gets me, so just bear with me, please. There’s pensioner and beneficiary. So there’s no small business in that.

Mrs Marquardt: That is a household whose main source of income is government pensions.

Senator ROBERTS: Then there are employees who are adult working employees. Is that including owner-managers of their own businesses?

Mrs Marquardt: No, I think it would be employees, not business owners.

Senator ROBERTS: In the figures I’ve got—one of my staff has done the research—there are 14 million people working for a wage or salary in Australia, including owner-managers of their own business entities.

Mrs Marquardt: We can come back to you on it, but I believe it’s just whether or not they are earning a wage or a salary as an employee, not—

Senator ROBERTS: As an employee of somebody else?

Mrs Marquardt: As an employee of somebody else, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we may be wrong there. Then the next group is age pensioners.

Mrs Marquardt: They receive an age pension from the government. That’s the main source of income for that type of household.

Senator ROBERTS: Then there’s other welfare and self-funded retirees. As I said, I don’t know if that’s partial income or it is their main source—

Mrs Marquardt: It is their main source of income if they are a self-funded retiree—that is, they are not on the age pension.

Senator ROBERTS: So where would small businesses, owner-managers and contractors fit?

Mrs Marquardt: They don’t really fit into the consumer price index or the living cost indexes because it is about households. It’s not about businesses; it is about expenditure by households.

Senator ROBERTS: What about a small business owner that has a house? How do you capture them?

Mrs Marquardt: I’m not sure. I’d have to check.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to get a feel for how many Australian people are in an employee category and then where the other working people, including small businesses, owner managers and contractors, fit. I’m trying to get a feel for how many Australians are affected by these figures, the CPI—

Mrs Marquardt: Or covered by them.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mrs Marquardt: From memory, off the top of my head, I think it’s about 24 per cent. Let me take that on notice. I’m not 100 per cent certain.

Mr Goldsworthy: We can come back to you. It’d certainly be the vast majority. My understanding of the origin of these indices is we have sought to capture the major household types dependent on their main source of income, as Mrs Marquardt went through and, indeed, you went through in asking your question. The main source of income is the pension for many people. For others it might be earning a wage or salary. Others might be retired but don’t use the pension and are self-funded. Others rely on government welfare payments. They are the main categories of income for household types. We have built the selected living cost indices around those. But we are certainly happy to take on notice if we can provide you with a detailed breakdown of the composition of Australian households.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please. I’d like to know about owner-managers, because they are employees but they are not in any of the other groups, and contractors and small businesses who pay themselves. I’d like to know how many people are in that employees group. How many Australians are affected? When they hear that their living cost index is 6.2 per cent, how many people does that apply to?

Mr Goldsworthy: Certainly.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know that offhand? I’m not necessarily expecting you to. I know you’ve got a lot—

Mr Goldsworthy: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So it doesn’t include contractors, which are listed in your characteristics of employment page, but purely employees?

Mrs Marquardt: I need to check because I haven’t looked into that for a while. I need to check where those people are classified or whether they are just not covered by any of those indexes.

Senator ROBERTS: As I said, the dataset 6336 on working arrangements shows there are 14 million people working for a wage or salary in Australia. That, I presume, is the largest group within your living cost indexes. Is that correct?

Mrs Marquardt: That would make sense.

Mr Goldsworthy: Yes, I would assume so.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the next largest group of the ones I called out—pensioners and beneficiaries, employees, age pensioners, other welfare and self-funded retirees?

Mrs Marquardt: Again, I’d have to check because that information actually comes from the Household Expenditure Survey and the Survey of Income and Housing. In those surveys we go out and ask people what they earn from a whole bunch of different income sources. That might be superannuation or it might be wages or it might be all the different sorts of income you can have. Then, from there, we aggregate all those things together to see what the main source of income is for that household. So I’ll have to go back and have a look at those particular surveys to figure out what the actual numbers that fit into each of those categories are.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve agreed that the employees category of the living cost index contains the largest number of Australians—that’s 14 million. What would be the second largest, roughly? Would it be pensioners and beneficiaries, age pensioners, other welfare, self-funded retirees or small businesses? There are millions of small businesses?

Mr Goldsworthy: Rather than taking a stab at that, I think it’s probably better, if you’re comfortable, for us to give you the figures on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I value accuracy, so I’m happy with that. This is not a trap or a gotcha. So it would be around—I’m just pulling a number out of the air—14 million people plus other pretty large groups. So three-quarters or two-thirds of the Australian adult population is looking at the CPI, which is 3.8 per cent, and thinking, ‘What’s going on?’ because their inflation rate is actually 6.2 per cent.

Mr Goldsworthy: It might be useful, I think, if we take a step back and just briefly talk through the differences between the CPI and the selected living cost indices. I’ll get my colleagues to expand on the detail, but I think one point to keep in mind is that no single index will serve every purpose. Indeed, that is why we produce many different indexes of inflation. What the CPI does is measure the change in the prices of goods and services purchased by households. A lot of people use that as a proxy for change to the cost of living, but the concepts are actually a little bit different. That’s precisely why we produce these separate selected living cost indices. I think we’ve been doing that since the late 1990s.

There are two principal differences at a higher level between the selected living cost indices and the CPI. One is the weights we use to aggregate the prices of individual goods and services into an index. For the CPI, we use weights based on household spending patterns in the eight capital cities. Whereas, for the living costs indices, we use weights that reflect the spending patterns of the particular household type. We went through those different household types. The other big difference—and it gets a little bit technical—is about using an acquisitions approach for the CPI versus an outlays approach for the cost-of-living indices, but the key point of difference is the treatment of housing. I think we might have discussed this at estimates previously.

Senator ROBERTS: And I’ll come onto that again.

Mr Goldsworthy: For the CPI, we separate the cost of housing. We think about there being two components. One is land, which is an asset or an investment which isn’t included in the CPI. The other is the cost of building new structures, so a new house. That’s what we capture in the CPI. We also, of course, capture the rents for those that are renting properties. The living cost indices, as I said, follow the outlays approach. For that we include the outlay a household needs in order to acquire the house, and for many households that involves a mortgage. So we include the mortgage interest costs in compiling the—

Senator ROBERTS: But not the cost of the house, just the mortgage interest costs?

Mr Goldsworthy: That’s right, just the mortgage interest costs. I don’t know whether you want to correct the record or expand on any of that detail.

Mrs Marquardt: No, I think that’s fine. One concept is that you’ve bought it at the time. You bought the house in the first period that you’re trying to measure and comparing to the next period, and the assumption is that you’ve bought the whole house then, but obviously most people don’t pay for the house upfront. That’s the difference in the living cost indexes, because the living cost indexes are how much you are paying to continue to have that asset. People who’ve bought it using a mortgage have to pay interest charges on that mortgage. They are the big differences, as Brenton said.

Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in thinking that it’s misleading for so many people? I’m guessing two-thirds, three-quarters, 80 per cent of the Australian population is actually facing a 6.2 per cent cost increase, whereas the CPI tells them it’s 3.8. When they go to the supermarket they think, ‘This is not right,’ and when they think about their home payments they think, ‘This is not right.’

Mr Goldsworthy: I certainly wouldn’t say it’s misleading. They measure different things. So, when it comes to supermarket prices, for example, they’re measured the same because CPI and living cost indexes—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I accept that. But most people, overwhelmingly, would say that CPI tells them how much it’s going up by, but they’re saying it’s going up by way more than 3.8 per cent. Without an explanation of the CPI versus employee living cost index, most people are saying that this is not right.

Mr Goldsworthy: One way I think about it is that, when mortgage interest rates are stable, CPI and living cost indices broadly move in line with each other. But, because of the different treatment of housing, when mortgage interest rates are either going up or going down, there will be a divergence between the two indices.

Senator ROBERTS: Without explaining it to people so that they understand what’s going on, how can we justify using a measure that does not reflect the actual inflation rate for a significant proportion of the population?

Mr Goldsworthy: Like I said, it really comes down to the purpose behind the particular index. One way of thinking about the CPI is that it’s a macroeconomic measure to inform government and the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: These are economists and people making policy decisions in the industry.

Mr Goldsworthy: That’s right. And what we try and pick up there is the pure price change. Previously, we’ve talked about how we capture things like shrinkflation and other quality adjustments.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that one again, too.

Mr Goldsworthy: So, it’s very important that we capture the pure price change, which is what the CPI tries to do. We’ve gone through the different treatment in housing as well. Which indices you should use really comes down to what question you’re trying to answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m guessing most Australians would think, ‘I want to know how much it’s affecting me,’ so they’d go to the CPI, but the actual living cost index is much higher.
Can we come to something else that’s a big cost burden on people and also joy: children? Looking through your methodology, we didn’t see a lot there about children. The Australian Institute of Family Studies put out a measure in 2018 of how much it costs to raise a child, finding that it cost $340 a week to raise a six-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy. Was that Australian Bureau of Statistics data, and is there any inflation time series around the cost of raising children?

Mr Goldsworthy: I’m not personally familiar with that data.

Senator ROBERTS: So, the ABS doesn’t—

Mrs Marquardt: I think you gave us the source, and it wasn’t the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Senator ROBERTS: No, it was the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Did they rely upon you?

Mrs Marquardt: They may do. Again, I’m not sure without looking at their thing. I go back to the price indexes. This doesn’t have a level of spending in it; it’s obviously about the change in prices. So, to the extent that people are buying things for their children like toys, child care or anything like that, all of that is covered by the CPI and the living cost indexes.

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell how much inflation is around the cost of raising a child? You can’t pull that out?

Mrs Marquardt: No. We don’t put out a separate index that’s just for things that are bought for children.

Senator ROBERTS: How does your data help a family quantify how much the inflation rate is impacting on their household?

Mrs Marquardt: If you really wanted to, you could pick out different parts of the index and combine them together. So, if you wanted to combine food, childcare expenses and toys or whatever else it is that’s related to having a child, then you could do that. But, really, the bottom line is that the CPI is not actually about individual types of households or individual people; it represents the whole household sector.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering how parents judge their spending forward plans, wage and salary demands, and decisions around having children on that measure of how much kids cost. How do parents understand their inflation rate from your data? I would think it would be a very good KPI for politicians to assess how much it costs to raise a child, but that’s not possible.

Mrs Marquardt: There are two different things. There’s how much it costs to raise a child, which is the dollar amount of things—that’s kind of a level; it’s that you pay $20 for a toy—versus the price index, which is saying how much the price for that toy has changed. So there are two different things.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand.

Mrs Marquardt: One of the things that you can do is look at your household budget. If your household is spending X per cent of its budget on food, then you could use our indexes to show how much the prices that your particular household is paying are changing.

Mr Goldsworthy: To expand on that, we have 11 groups and 87 expenditure classes in the CPI, so you can certainly look up the ABS website and look through the price change for each of those 87 expenditure classes. I think I’m right in saying that we also publish the weights for each of those classes, so you can see the weight that is used in the CPI, and people can make their own assessment as to whether how much they spend is higher or lower.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to housing. The ABS dataset entitled ‘Residential property price indexes’ has been discontinued. I can see an index called ‘Total value of dwellings’, with the emphasis on ‘value’. The summary page doesn’t provide any usable information to anyone trying to find out how much the average price has gone up. We can get that data if I download the spreadsheet 6432 and work it out for ourselves, yet that’s not reported. Is there a simple visual representation of house price inflation in each state to which the people can refer?

Mrs Marquardt: We discontinued that because there are a number of other sources that give that very similar type of information. CoreLogic is one; Domain is another.

Senator ROBERTS: They’re private companies, aren’t they?

Mrs Marquardt: That’s right, but they use the same methodology as we used to use when we did the residential property price indexes. So, effectively, they were putting out the same information a bit earlier, so we were getting all of our information from them and then republishing it.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you republish it now?

Mrs Marquardt: No. We’ve discontinued the residential property price indexes publication.

Senator ROBERTS: Why did you stop? Could they do it more quickly?

Mrs Marquardt: That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: What are the hurdles there? I would have thought that no-one would be able to do it more quickly or better than the ABS.

Mrs Marquardt: They get information from all of the sales that are made either through the valuer generals or other data sources like realestate.com.au. They basically were able to put it together much faster than us. In fact, the source of the information in the residential property price indexes and the total value of dwelling stocks is CoreLogic.

Mr Goldsworthy: It’s also the case that we need to make prioritisation decisions, and we make a judgement as to where we can add the most value. Given the private sector sources available for residential prices, we made the judgement that we could add more value by reallocating resources.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no problem with the government saying, ‘Leave it to the private sector,’ if that’s the way they see it. If the mean price of a home in Queensland in 2020 was $524,000 and that same figure in 2024 is $815,000, per your dataset 6432, column AE, line 42, has that housing price inflation been captured in the CPI? I’m guessing not.

Mr Goldsworthy: A large component of that price inflation would reflect the increase in land prices, and, as I said before, land is treated as an asset or investment, so that component isn’t captured in the CPI.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we break out land from housing construction or housing prices? You said that it’s not captured.

Mrs Marquardt: We price project homes—

Mr Goldsworthy: We price the cost of building a new home, and the change in the price of building a new home reflects changes in the cost of building either through materials or through labour.

Senator ROBERTS: I remember running an economic summit in my office. We hired a room in the Queensland parliament building in 2017. Dr Alan Moran gave us some figures. He said that the cost of building a house in Houston, Texas, at that time was the same roughly as the cost of building a house in Sydney. The huge differential in house prices was due to land. Is there some way that people can capture that? The mean price of a home in Queensland in 2020 was $524,000, and that same figure now in 2024 is $815,000. That’s a hell of an increase.

Mrs Marquardt: There’s another part that goes to this. The CPI is about the changes in prices of the household sector—for example, what the household sector is purchasing from the business sector or the government sector—so the sale of existing houses between one household and the next effectively nets out. There’s no weight. They’re not in the CPI because they’re being sold, for example, from me to Brenton.

Senator ROBERTS: So what you’re saying is that someone gets more money for selling it and someone has to pay more money for buying it?

Mr Goldsworthy: That’s right.

Mrs Marquardt: That’s right. But they’re both household—

Senator ROBERTS: But the one who’s now buying a property for the first time, compared to 2020, is now facing a 55 per cent increase compared to their peers in 2020.

Mrs Marquardt: But there’s somebody else in the household sector who sold it to them, so it nets out.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that.

Mrs Marquardt: What remains are brand-new houses, which are what we price. We price brand-new project homes and exclude land, as Brenton said, because that’s an asset. Existing houses are excluded because the sale is between one household and another household, and new households are represented by pricing project homes but not the land.

Senator ROBERTS: What about someone who bought a house in 2020 for $525,000 and sold it in 2024 for $815,000? So someone’s paid the extra money, and they’ve received the extra money for selling it, but then they have to go and buy another place. It’s going to be captured anyway. It needs to be captured anyway.

Mrs Marquardt: It just keeps netting out because it’s between households. You need to think about the CPI as representing price change for all households.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s not really representative of the individual.

Mrs Marquardt: That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: The CPI is not representative for an individual.

Mrs Marquardt: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I think that would be a surprise to many Australians. It’s not a criticism. If that’s the way your formula works, that’s fine. But a lot of people are relying on your CPI figure.

Mrs Marquardt: It’s not because, for example, it has rents and new homes by owner-occupiers. Conceptually, you can’t actually rent and buy a house for yourself. So, conceptually, the CPI does not represent any individuals because it represents what all households in Australia are spending.

Senator ROBERTS: But it’s in the aggregate of all Australian households.

Mrs Marquardt: It’s in the aggregate. That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: So some people are doing really well, or not suffering, and other people are suffering and sleeping under bridges in Queensland. That’s not your fault. I’m not trying to imply that. But you do capture mortgage cost changes. Let’s consider that. If the average mortgage in the employee living cost index in 2020 was $500,000 and in 2024 is $800,000, do you show that as an increase in interest charges?

Mrs Marquardt: Yes, to the extent that mortgages have gone up, so that would mean that you need to pay more interest. There are two things that can make your interest payments higher: one of them is the interest rate and the other one is the size of your mortgage. To the extent that people’s mortgages have gone up or the interest rates have gone up, both those things show up in the changes in the mortgage interest charge costs.

Senator ROBERTS: So both the interest rate and the higher mortgage?

Mrs Marquardt: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Moving on to land tax. Victoria has increased their land tax by creating a $975 surcharge—wow—and a 0.1 per cent increase in the rate. Does that increase factor into the CPI or LCI?

Mr Merrington: Yes, we include property rates and charges in the CPI and living cost indexes.

Senator ROBERTS: So not just rates but all government charges stay with the local council?

Mr Merrington: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move on. In the June Senate estimates I asked about the change to the weighting for recreation and culture. Mr Gruen took that question on notice and I have not received an answer, so I’ll ask again. I’ll read the question as I stated it back in June. In the last change of weighting, the weighting for the category of recreation and culture increased by 16 per cent. That category happened to be one of the leading disinflationary categories dragging down the CPI figure. Is the ABS telling Australians that, in the middle of the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades, they’re spending 16 per cent more on recreation and culture than a year ago?

Mrs Marquardt: First of all, I’d say: apologies for not answering that question. I’m not quite sure how we missed it, but the main driver of that increase in the weight for recreation was people’s travel overseas. During the COVID pandemic, obviously not very many people were travelling overseas, so its weight came right down. But, if you look at the overseas arrivals and departures data that we publish, it shows that levels of overseas travel have returned to almost the same level as they were before COVID. Consequently, the weight for travel has gone back up to being similar to what it was before COVID.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s gone up off a low base because of COVID?

Mrs Marquardt: Yes, that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: So in that sense it is misrepresenting what’s going on. I’m not questioning your methodology, but, just for people to understand, it would be better to compare it with something just before COVID. It’s difficult what you’re doing, I take it.

Mr Goldsworthy: I don’t know whether you’ve got a copy of the submission we provided to this hearing, but we’ve—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I haven’t. My apologies.

Mr Goldsworthy: When you get a chance to have a look at it, we’ve got a table that shows the weights.

Senator ROBERTS: One of my staff is up the back; we didn’t get it.

Mr Goldsworthy: It’s on page 5.

CHAIR: While you’re comparing that, can I take the opportunity to share the call?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’d like to come back on shrinkflation.

*** *** ***

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute, but I’d like to ask you some questions about shrinkflation. Food is an important element of how the public perceives the cost of living. Can you tell me what percentage of the CPI basket is occupied by food, and how has that weighting changed over the last five years?

Mr Merrington: Our food and non-alcoholic beverages category represents around 17 per cent of the CPI.

Senator ROBERTS: Seventeen?

Mr Merrington: Seventeen. That includes restaurants and take-away food as well.

Senator ROBERTS: I said all food, so that’s good, thank you. Food has been subject to what is commonly called shrinkflation. This is where the pack size reduces but the price remains the same. If, for example, a product in your basket reduces in size from 500 grams to 400 grams but the price remains the same, is that 20 per cent inflation recorded as 20 per cent inflation in your index? It’s actually 25.

Mr Merrington: Yes, that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s recorded?

Mr Merrington: As a price increase, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Clothing, I understand, is also tracked like for like—for example, a 100 per cent cotton dress, or by utility, such as an adult female dress. I’m curious how do you track clothing over time.

Mr Merrington: We do make attempts to price the same item each period. When the quality of that item changes, we make an attempt to adjust for that quality change, whether it’s an improvement or a decrease in quality. It is very challenging and something we put a lot of effort into. But, as my colleagues have said, we’re trying to capture the pure price change, which removes any change in quality.

Senator ROBERTS: If someone is buying a cotton dress regularly and the price of cotton dresses or dresses generally increase, they could change to polyester. Would that be captured?

Mr Merrington: We would look at it on a case-by-case basis, and we would make an attempt to adjust. You’ve got to try and quantify a quality change. It’s not always possible but we do make an attempt to adjust for quality changes.

Senator ROBERTS: So it would be hard to say, ‘We’ve noticed that,’ that the price of clothing is increasing—as are groceries and housing—and people are buying polyester instead of cotton. It would be hard to know that, wouldn’t it?

Mr Merrington: It would be, yes. We wouldn’t have that level of information on the type of spending at that level of detail.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve always just accepted the CPI. It’s a per cent. That’s good. It represents things. It represents the cost increase. But it all depends upon your product—you’ve got a difficult job, so I’m not criticising you for this. Is the ABS thinking about the fact that your CPI is different things to different people? If someone is on a living cost index—for employees it’s 6.2 per cent, from memory—they’re finding a lot more inflation than someone who’s just looking at the CPI.

Mrs Marquardt: That’s correct.

Mr Goldsworthy: The CPI has always been a macroeconomic measure of inflation or an economy-wide measure of inflation, so individuals will have different experiences of inflation.
Senator ROBERTS: This is possibly a policy question. Is there any thought given within the ABS as to whether your product is suitable, as it’s evolved over the years to various different uses that it’s now being put to? It’s used by journalists, either to create headlines or to smash the government or smash the opposition or whatever. It’s used by politicians to justify or to attack. It’s used by parents who are thinking, ‘How the hell can we afford to live?’ It’s used by businesses. There are many different users and many different customers. Is there any consideration in the ABS to amend that or explain the different indexes?

Mr Goldsworthy: From time to time, we do reviews of the CPI, as you’d be aware. We are in the process of producing a full monthly CPI, which we’re on track to deliver by the end of next year. As a part of that, we had a consultation period, towards the end of last year, from memory. We engage with a wide range of stakeholders whenever we release the CPI. Certainly, the feedback we’ve had through the reviews and the informal feedback through the casual consultation we have when we release the CPI is that everybody is very supportive of the current practice.

Senator ROBERTS: How much do they know of the current practice? I appreciate what you’re saying. They like the full monthly one; it’s a good product. But if they don’t understand that it might not represent their reality, they’re just going to rubberstamp it and say it’s good.

Mr Goldsworthy: We’re extremely transparent about the methodology we use to produce not just the CPI but also the other indexes. The information is certainly on our website, and we try to make it as easy to understand as possible.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not easy. What do you think the chances are of employees knowing that they’re facing a living cost indexes increase of 6.2 per cent when the CPI, they’re being told, is 3.8 per cent? They’re thinking, ‘No, it’s much more than 3.8 per cent.’

Mr Goldsworthy: We tell employees, through the release of the selected living cost indexes, the different rates of inflation for the different household types. All that information is released in the public domain. The CPI is measured appropriately for its primary use as a macroeconomic measure of inflation used by government, RBA and others.

Senator ROBERTS: I think most people would be surprised with what you just said. I know I am, and I’m fairly well informed. I’m told by a member of my staff that the employees category, facing a 6.2 per cent cost-of-living index, includes owner-managers. I want to know the answers to the other questions. How many people in Australia are facing 6.2 per cent in their living cost index?

Mr Goldsworthy: Yes, certainly, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s all I had. Thank you very much.

I don’t speak the bureaucratic jargon used in Canberra, so sometimes the bureaucrats struggle to grasp a straightforward question in plain English. It took some time for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to understand my question, which was about our high migrant intake from a health perspective.

For years, Australians were mandated to get vaccinated. They couldn’t access certain places or participate in activities without being vaccinated. The latest COVID mandates were only lifted for firefighters and healthcare workers just last month.

The ABS is responsible for maintaining official records on these matters, particularly provisional and final mortality reports. I asked whether they have records of the vaccination status of new arrivals so that vaccination rates of all Australians (both new and existing) could be graphed against known health outcomes. I sort of received a response, but the reality is the ABS does not know the vaccination status of the 2.3 million new arrivals, rendering any data they generate inherently inaccurate. This also applies to births by vaccination status, suggesting that new arrivals from countries where vaccination wasn’t pushed have a higher birth rate compared to vaccinated Australians.

This data is really important for two main reasons: first, to understand the harm our COVID response did to Australians and second, to assist in the planning and resourcing of the next response. I will continue questioning the accuracy and relevance of ABS data.

Transcript

CHAIR: I might share the call and come back. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Dr Gruen. Do you know the COVID vaccination status of the 2.3 million new arrivals under the current government? Is that data you’re provided with?  

Dr Gruen: No, I don’t think we know the vaccination status of immigrants—at least, not that I’m aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think so. It’s just striking that we locked down the whole population and mandated a shot that’s still experimental—in fact, for some people it’s still mandated—yet we’re letting people in without any question.  

Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, there isn’t a mandatory vaccination program now in the country. It’s a voluntary vaccination program.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, there are still some states and employers that are doing it. 

Senator Gallagher: As a requirement of their employment?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Senator Gallagher: Well, the Commonwealth vaccination program is a voluntary program.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not if you’re in the Department of Defence, Australian Electoral Commission or aged care. It doesn’t exist anymore—I accept that—but it was never voluntary. If someone on a temporary visa, people who can be here for 20 years, has a baby, does that count as a domestic birth? 

Dr Gruen: I’m not quite sure. You mean it’s a birth in this country?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m sorry; I didn’t make that clear. People can be here for 20 years on a temporary visa. If they have a baby while they’re in Australia, does that count as a domestic birth?  

Dr Gruen: I’m not sure that we have a category called ‘domestic births’.  

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re all lumped in?  

Dr Gruen: No, I’m just saying that I’d have to look at exactly what the categories are in our birth data. I haven’t got our birth data with us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice, please?  

Dr Gruen: Certainly.  

Senator ROBERTS: If we got a temporary arrival in this country who was not vaccinated and had a baby, they could be providing an inaccurate picture of the Australian domestic birthrate post COVID. If there’s a problem—and some gynaecologists are saying that there certainly is—then that would be covering up a decrease in the birthrate.  

Dr Gruen: I don’t think I understand. Most people are free not to get vaccinated if they choose, whether they’re immigrants or whether they live here. 

Senator ROBERTS: There are studies and also anecdotal reports of a significant decrease in birthrate.  

Dr Gruen: I think we’ve had this discussion before, when you were suggesting that the birthrate in December had plummeted, and we explained to you that that was preliminary data. I think I said to you at the time that people who give birth have got other things on their mind than making sure that their reports are up to date with births, deaths and marriages. As we demonstrated to you at the time, there is no decline in birthrate in December. That was simply a function of looking at preliminary data, and, when the data was more complete, that effect went away.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I understand that. But, if we don’t trap immigrants by their vaccination status and they have a baby here, then it could be covering up any decrease in birthrate.  

Dr Gruen: We measure the birthrate.  

Senator ROBERTS: If we’re bringing in foreigners who are having babies her, and we’ve had a domestic decline in birthrates, then that’s covering it up. That’s the reason for my question. How do you categorise people?  

Dr Gruen: We look at the resident population and we also record births. But I don’t understand the implication of whether people are vaccinated or not, because the same statements would be true of people who grew up here and chose not to be vaccinated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but we don’t know because we don’t really have an assessment of the population now because of the inference—  

Dr Gruen: I think I do. We have just as good an assessment as we ever did, I think.  

Senator Gallagher: Births would be captured through state hospital systems that wouldn’t discriminate on visa status.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s my point. Do you know what I’m getting it?  

Senator Gallagher: Okay.  

Dr Gruen: All the people who usually live in Australia, regardless of visa status, are included in the statistics.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you trap any data by COVID vaccination status—births, deaths, illness, employment—anything at all?  

Dr Gruen: The Australian Immunisation Register records vaccination status for people who are vaccinated, and that data is linked in our integrated data asset, which goes by the name of Person Level Integrated Data Asset. Researchers have done an analysis using the link between the Australian Immunisation Register and other datasets to examine all sorts of questions of relevance. The department of health used that link to find out which language groups in the community had low-vaccination uptake during COVID, and there have been researchers at the University of New South Wales that have looked at mortality by vaccination status. That was a paper published in the Lancet. So the data exists, and it is available to researchers who are doing research that is assessed to be in the public interest, but it’s individual data that has been de-identified and is kept in a secure environment to be worked on. It’s not data that gets published on our website.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. Given the minister said there are no vaccine mandates at the moment—  

Dr Gruen: I think she said there were no Commonwealth government vaccine mandates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s true. I’m taking it from what you’re saying then that you don’t trap data by COVID vaccination status, births, deaths, illness, employment or anything else like that.  

Dr Gruen: The answer would be that you could uncover that by linking the Australian Immunisation Register to other datasets that capture that information. But, for instance, in our labour force survey we don’t ask about vaccination status.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your data on COVID deaths shows deaths by ethnicity, and people were saying that that was very handy to have and it’s significant, with some nationalities having three times the death rate from COVID as the Australian average, as you pointed out.  

Dr Gruen: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I hope our health officials are now trying to work out why they’re different outcomes— and some of them are. I notice, however, that you are removing ethnicity from the 2026 census. How is that helping—  

Dr Gruen: We’re not removing ethnicity from the 2026 Census. We never collected ethnicity in any of the censuses, so it’s not a removal.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, my mistake.  

Dr Gruen: That’s okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Moving on to inflation—  

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’ll be one of a series. I’m just flagging that I’ll come back to this topic when we come back again. Moving on to inflation, your official interest rate does not agree with the perception everyday Australians have—  

Senator Gallagher: That’s not—  

Dr Gruen: Hang on. The official interest rate is the Reserve Bank; we publish the CPI.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a correction. Your CPI—  

Dr Gruen: The Consumer Price Index. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your CPI does not agree with the perception everyday Australians have of how much things are going up. Let’s unpack that: the measure you use for inflation is a basket of goods—  

Dr Gruen: Yes, and services.  

Senator ROBERTS: thank you—which changes more frequently than people might realise.  

Dr Gruen: The basket?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the components in the basket. What’s in the shopping basket?  

Dr Gruen: The basket is enormous. For instance, we capture every item—in a de-identified way—that is sold in the four major supermarkets. It’s a very extensive measure.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the last change of weighting, the category of recreation and culture increased by 16 per cent. That category happened to be one of the leading disinflationary categories dragging down the CPI figure. Are you telling Australians that in the middle of the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades they are spending 16 per cent more on recreation and culture than a year ago?  

Dr Gruen: I don’t have the weights for the CPI in front of me, but I’m happy to take that on notice. Do you mean 16 percentage points or 16 per cent?  

Senator ROBERTS: The weighting of the category of recreation and culture increased by 16 per cent.  

Dr Gruen: We can check that. I can tell you that we update the weights every year so that they are an accurate reflection of expenditure by average households in the capital cities. That’s the point of the exercise. Most of the time, those weights change gradually, but I don’t have in my head the particular weight that you are talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll return to that topic in the next one. 

At Senate Estimates I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about the accuracy of the data they publish.

Many Australians, politicians, government officials and media should be watching the ABS data for signals that there could be a problem with our COVID response. Births and deaths would be the main indicators.

The ABS are slow in producing this data and don’t appear to understand that these datasets should be produced faster than pre COVID times.

In addition, the ABS has been loading incomplete data and not labelling it as such. After this was pointed out to them during our last senate estimates, the dataset referenced was changed to include the label “incomplete”.

How many other datasets are labelled as final when in fact they are incomplete?

The answers showed that the data for Provisional Mortality only includes doctor-certified deaths (which we knew) but that the comparison baseline includes ALL deaths, including coroner-certified deaths (which we didn’t).

This means the ABS has not been comparing apples with apples, and the figure for Provisional Mortality understates actual deaths by 15%.

What this means is that unexplained deaths in Australia is over 30,000 in 2022. Around 10,000 of those are attributed to COVID.

What are the other 20,000 deaths?

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you all for appearing today. My first questions go to accuracy of data. In the last estimates session, we had a conversation around the accuracy of one of your datasets. I want to follow up on that.  The dataset is births by year and month of occurrence by state. It’s available in your Data Explorer. The conversation was around the reduction in births shown towards the end of 2021, and that reduction was quite dramatic. I accept your position that this effect is caused by delays in reporting of birth, and a lot of December’s reports came through in January. Is this correct so far?

Dr Gruen: That is correct. There’s a pattern, which is repeated every year, which is that the first unrevised estimate of births in December is of the order of 6,000 or 7,000, and then, once you have the final numbers, the final numbers are of the order of 22,000 or 23,000. So, there is an enormous revision for precisely the reason you just mentioned—namely, not everyone has recorded the birth of their child. I think they have other things on their mind than making sure that the ABS gets its numbers right.

Senator Roberts: The dataset is titled ‘birth by month of occurrence’, not ‘births by month of reporting’.  2021 data was not available until 19 October 2022. Why was 10 months insufficient time to completely compile the full 2021 calendar year? I note that December is still showing 6,600 births against an expected 20,000 in your Data Explorer, as you’ve just said. Why is this data still incomplete 17 months later—and still wrong?

Dr Gruen: It’s unrevised; I wouldn’t use the word ‘wrong’. The answer is we have a schedule of births which has been the same schedule for an extended period. We haven’t yet got the revised numbers for 2021, but, when we do, we have a pretty good idea of the order of magnitude that they’ll be. This hasn’t changed. We’ve be doing it on this timetable for many years.

Senator Roberts: The database now carries a warning—thank you for this—’incomplete data’. Have you made a note of where else incomplete data is being loaded into your Data Explorer and ensured incomplete data warnings are attached as you load that data?

Dr Gruen: We provide preliminary data for a range of series, and we did more of that during COVID because we thought it was important for people who were making decisions to have the most up-to-date data that they could possibly have. So, we brought forward some releases, understanding that they would not be complete, and we were transparent about that. It is certainly the case that revisions are part of producing statistics, whether it’s births or the national accounts. The national accounts also get revised. It’s a common feature. We do not revise the quarterly CPI because there are legislative indexation arrangements. Again, it’s a longstanding practice that we do not revise the CPI, but, for many other series, revisions are a standard practice.

Senator Roberts: I don’t think anyone would complain, Dr Gruen, about data needing to be revised.  Maybe the speed of it might be something we might inquire about, but what I was getting to was: are there any other datasets on your Data Explorer that need the words ‘incomplete data’ as a warning? Bad decisions are made off bad data, and it becomes misinformation. 

Dr Gruen: I don’t think it’s misinformation. We are as transparent as we can possibly be about the nature of the data. For instance, we put out provisional data for deaths, which we have actually discussed in previous estimates hearings.

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Dr Gruen: That is based on the available information two months after the end of the reference period, and those are also revised subsequently. When we first started producing that data, again, that was during the early phase of COVID. We did it purely on the basis of doctor certified deaths, which is about 80 to 85 per cent of overall deaths. We’ve managed to include some coroner certified deaths in that series, but it’s still incomplete when it’s first published two months after the period. So there are several datasets where we are very clear about the fact that they’re not the final data and that extra data will come in for the period that we’re talking about.

Senator Roberts: I’m advised that the incomplete data warning arrived after our session last time.

Dr Gruen: That is possible.

Senator Roberts: So I’m just wondering if there are any others. The dataset ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ for calendar year 2021 was released in October last year. Can you confirm that 2022 will be released no later than October this year?

Dr Gruen: I’m sure there’ll be someone here who can tell you for sure. Around October is when we publish the annual data for the previous year, but we can take that on notice and give you an answer, for sure.

Senator Roberts: The provisional mortality figure is still showing that deaths are running above the previous known range. Has the ABS received any request from any minister or department—federal or state—for an explanation of where the increase is or what data the ABS has which could cast light on that substantial increase in mortality?

Dr Gruen: We do talk about provisional deaths, and we do talk about what proportion of those are people who died with, or of, COVID and from other causes, so I don’t think there’s a mystery about what is happening.  We get lots of requests for our data, so I can’t answer the question. Since it’s on the website—

Senator Roberts: They wouldn’t need to ask you.

Dr Gruen: That’s right.

Senator Roberts: I was just wondering, in particular, whether Health had asked, but, as you said, they don’t need to. Do you send reports routinely, or do you just publish on the website?

Dr Gruen: We publish, and we answer media inquiries. We have outposted people in many of the departments in Canberra, and we have continuing discussions with them. If a department had a specific request, it would be straightforward for them to ask us.

Senator Roberts: There’s a disparity between datasets that I would like to ask about. Starting with the publication ‘Provisional mortality statistics, Jan 2020-Dec 2021’, which was released on 30 March 2022, the key statistic is that 149,486 doctor certified deaths occurred in 2021. If I then go to your Data Explorer, the figure for ‘Deaths and infant deaths, year and month of occurrence’, shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891.

Dr Gruen: Is the subsequent number published? The number you first quoted is the number that was available from doctor certified deaths up until the end of March, and then the second number you quoted comes from more recent data. Is that correct?

Senator Roberts: I don’t know when that was published, but it shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891, which is higher. So, I understand the difference in deaths because some would be autopsy certified and take time to come through; is that correct?

Dr Gruen: Yes, that’s right. As we say when we publish those provisional death numbers, they are provisional. They are the data that we have available on the date at which we finalised the numbers. As I said earlier, doctor certified deaths are something like 80 to 85 per cent of all deaths, so the number goes up when you add the coroner certified deaths.

Senator Roberts: It includes the autopsies. Is the figure on this graph for the baseline average calculated using provisional mortality or using final data from the ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ dataset?

Dr Gruen: We can check, but I’m pretty confident that it’s final.

Senator Roberts: Would that then include autopsy deaths?

Dr Gruen: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Provisional mortality is a widely shared dataset that informs much debate around our COVID response. It’s running well above our historical range. From today’s exchange, we know that the figure for provisional mortality understates actual rates of mortality. Your dataset does make that clear, so this isn’t a criticism.

Dr Gruen: No.

Senator Roberts: What I would like to know is: by how much does provisional mortality understate actual mortality in percentage terms on average? I think you’re saying 85 per cent?

Dr Gruen: I think the number that we get two months after the reference period is about 85 per cent of the final number.

Senator Roberts: I’d like to go briefly to data collection. A constituent of mine in Queensland has contacted me in person during a listening session in Rockhampton just recently. This elderly lady, who is single—widowed—and lives alone had a terrifying interaction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics that raises questions about either the staff training or your understanding of the fair exercise of power. The ABS maintained a dataset called the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which apparently involves Australians being selected at random to participate. The survey consists of an Australian Bureau of Statistics officer visiting the selected person’s home and taking their height, weight, blood pressure and waist measurement, which is compulsory. Then the citizen has the option of submitting a voluntary blood and urine sample. Is that correct?

Dr Gruen: I think so. I think that is correct.

Senator Roberts: The constituent in this case advised the ABS worker that she lives alone. After receiving a series of letters they thought was a joke, an ABS field worker came by her home in the dark at 6.30 pm, showed her credentials, asked for her by name and advised that the constituent must submit to the government mandated physical. When the constituent declined, she was threatened by your worker with a fine of $220 per day until she submitted to this physical examination by a complete stranger. Is that how the ABS runs its survey?

Dr Gruen: Well, I can’t comment on a specific event. We obviously do our best to treat people in a dignified way. It is true that the surveys that we run are compulsory, but we also allow for the possibility that people who have extenuating circumstances can apply not to be part of the survey, and people do do that on occasions. It is important, in order to be able to collect data that is representative, that we can indeed choose a representative sample, but it is also true that, for people who are in circumstances in which they find it particularly difficult or who are in the circumstances that you described, we are understanding.

Senator Roberts: That goes to my next question. Why can’t you get this information from hospital records for admitted patients with de-identified data? Why pull names out of a hat, knock on their door, call out for them by name and terrorise them into submission? It seems like a massive overreach when there are alternative ways of doing it. Maybe the alternative ways are not entirely random, but they could be made so, couldn’t they?

Dr Gruen: Just to make it clear: our aim is not to terrify people.

Senator Roberts: This lady was terrified.

Dr Gruen: Well, I’m sorry about that. We obviously train our interviewers to be sensitive to people. On the general issue of being able to find alternative ways to get the data, we are very much alive to those possibilities.  What you’re talking about is an example of using big data instead of surveys, and there’s a worldwide move from national statistical offices to do precisely that both because the big datasets that are becoming available—there are increasing numbers of them. For instance, early in COVID we started using single-touch payroll from the tax office to be able to give high-quality, up-to-date information about employment. That’s an example of a big dataset. But it is also true that response rates around the world are falling because people are, for whatever reason, getting less happy to respond to the surveys of the national statistical offices. That’s another push factor to lead us to do precisely what you’re suggesting. Now, we haven’t accessed the particular dataset that you have talked about, but the general proposition that we are moving in the direction of using big data and taking the burden off individuals and businesses is very much a journey that we’re on.

Ms Dickinson: For some of the surveys that we run, there are not alternative sources that we could avail ourselves of, and the survey that you referred to—the nutrition survey—has quite a range of questions that we ask people before we come to the physical measurements. It’s things like diet. We ask people to recall what they have eaten and sometimes do a food diary. That’s the type of thing that we can’t get from big data and in which there’s quite a range of interests from users, including the Department of Health, Treasury and so on.

Senator Roberts: By big data you mean data that can be automatically collected or harvested from existing datasets?

Ms Dickinson: Yes, such from the example that you gave, such as hospital data.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Have you ever fined someone for refusal?

Dr Gruen: Yes. And we fine a small number of people for not filling in the census.

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Dr Gruen: But not a large number. We have 10 million households fill it in and the number of people we fine is very small.

Senator Roberts: Minister, are you happy that this elderly widow was terrified?

Senator Gallagher: I’m sure the ABS and Dr Gruen would be very happy to follow up an individual matter, if you’re able to support your constituent to raise that—if she felt vulnerable over that. I think that resolving these issues is important and there are ways to do that. I’d certainly encourage you to think about how you could facilitate that. I also totally support the need to seek this information, because it helps in so many ways to understand what’s going on. Currently, for example, I’ve been selected for one of the household surveys—I think it’s for nine months. Do you get selected for that—

Ms Connell: Eight.

Senator Gallagher: Eight months—

Chair: You can—

Senator Gallagher: It was made very clear to me when I inquired about having to do it—the compulsory nature of it—and the consequences for not filling things out every month—

Senator Ruston: They didn’t believe you when you said you were too busy, did they?

Senator Gallagher: I had very helpful advice from the ABS when I rang to try to get out of it! I was told, politely, that those were not grounds for getting out of it. But that’s how we get information about what’s happening across the country.

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Senator Gallagher: And I don’t think that anyone who’s sitting here would say that they took any comfort in thinking that an elderly woman felt terrified by it; that’s not the intent, and I’m sure there are ways to work through that.

Senator Roberts: I applaud your comments about the need to use data in government but I don’t see much of it—and I’m not talking about this government on its own, I’m talking about previous governments as well. One of the sad things is that government doesn’t use data when making policy and legislation, in my view.

Senator Gallagher: But it’s not just for government. So many people rely on the ABS datasets for their work.

Senator Roberts: Dr Gruen, you mentioned something that I took to mean people are becoming more reluctant to share data—

Dr Gruen: More reluctant to participate in surveys.

Senator Roberts: Is that due to the pushback because of—well, what is the cause? Is it due, partly or maybe majorly, to the intrusion into people’s lives during COVID?

Dr Gruen: It’s a phenomenon that predates COVID, and it’s global. It happens in all countries. I’m aware that there has been a gradual decline in response rates to surveys. We have higher response rates than most advanced countries for many of our high-profile surveys, like the Labour Force Survey, which I think must be the one the minister is enrolled in.

Senator Gallagher: Mine is the household one.

Dr Gruen: Oh, can I—

Senator Gallagher: They want to know how many people in my house, what we’re doing and how hard we’re working. I’m skewing the statistics!

Dr Gruen: That’s the Labour Force Survey.

Senator Gallagher: Is it?

Dr Gruen: We have the labour force expert behind us.

Senator Gallagher: Okay!

Senator Roberts: In which way are you skewing the statistics?

Senator Gallagher: Because I work so much! I’m off the scale!

Senator Roberts: Oh, off the scale.

Senator Gallagher: And it’s, ‘Why are you working so hard?’ I fill it all out.

Dr Gruen: On the web?

Senator Gallagher: Yes.

Dr Gruen: Good, I like to hear that.

Senator Roberts: Because a pesky senator is asking questions in Senate estimates! Thank you, Chair.

Chair: I’ve got distracted and entirely lost control of the committee!

Senator Roberts: No, you’re still in control.

Recently the Government changed its tune, but you used to be a conspiracy theorist for pointing out there was a difference between dying with COVID or from COVID. Now with the official release of Australian Bureau of Statistics data we have it confirmed just how many of those who died had other contributing factors.

It’s just another tick on the list of things “conspiracy theorists” been saying all along that the Government has tried to deny the truth of.

Transcript

[Malcolm] Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here. My questions have to do with death data, particularly from COVID and information gathering. Can I reference your diagram entitled, Data Flow for Doctor Certified Deaths? I think that’s it there. It’s off your website.

[Committee Member] Do you need a copy of that, Mr. Gruen?

[Dr. Gruen] It’s a question of whether it’s in this publication or not but I know a copy would be helpful.

[Committee Member] Not sure this is speeding things up.

[Malcolm] Multitasking.

[Dr. Gruen] So just in summary, it’s a really simple workflow. So it’s a data flow for doctor certified deaths. The workflow is, someone dies, death event, doctor certifies, or it goes to a funeral director, but that’s only a small percentage. And then from there it continues to where the doctor then sends a certification sent to the state births, deaths and marriages. And then from there, the state officers send data weekly to the ABS, that’s broad summary.

And of course Senator, it doesn’t include deaths that would go to the coroner, so it’s not all the deaths.

[Malcolm] Correct, but that’s a small number.

[Dr. Gruen] 20 percentish, I think.

[Malcolm] 20, okay.

[Dr. Gruen] I believe so.

[Malcolm] But they eventually get entered in later, when the coroner has resolved.

[Dr. Gruen] Yes.

[Malcolm] And we’ve also got the Queensland process here, but that just verifies what you’re saying. Can I have copy back please?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes, certainly.

[Malcolm] So is that correct?

[Dr. Gruen] If it came from our website, it’s correct.

[Malcolm] And my summary, which is backed up by the-

[Dr. Gruen] I think the summary, I didn’t hear anything in the summary that I would take exception to.

[Malcolm] Thank you. When a doctor certifies a death, they certify a cause of death, thank you. If the cause of death is unknown, the matter is referred to the coroner to decide. Between 86 and 89% of deaths are doctor certified, meaning we know the cause of death at the time we know of the death. So my question is, the transfer of doctor certified death data from the state to the ABS, how long does that take? And has this reporting time changed over the last three years?

[Dr. Gruen] We can take that on notice exactly how long it takes but certainly what we have started to do, and we started doing this, I think in 2020, was to start publishing deaths data purely on the basis of deaths certified by doctors. So before that, we had an annual publication of all deaths but it was very substantially delayed. So the annual publication would come out something like 10 months after the end of the year for which it was reporting. One of the other things that we did as a consequence of COVID, was to see whether we could provide useful information on mortality much faster, and so we instituted a new publication, which is monthly, which is called Provisional Mortality Statistics. And what we do is report on doctor certified deaths that we have collected up to that point in time.

[Malcolm] And then if they come in later because the doctor is slow, whatever, you add them.

[Dr. Gruen] Exactly, so in other words, if you look at the subsequent month’s publication, it will have slightly more of certified deaths in the previous month because new ones have been added, that’s correct.

[Malcolm] Okay. So referencing your website, the causes of death in Australia, the last data release, I think you may have explained this, was September 2021 for the period calendar 2020. That’s what you said, it was about nine or 10 months later. Is this the most recent data, other than the COVID data released on the 15th of February? That’s this one here, COVID mortality in Australia.

[Dr. Gruen] I’ve got it. So the answer is, the annual data is the deaths from both doctor and coroner certified. That’s the annual data, but we are as well as that, doing a monthly publication of just doctor certified deaths. Those come out monthly.

[Malcolm] So the annual is accurate in terms of, it got the coroners.

[Dr. Gruen] It’s complete.

[Malcolm] Complete, thank you. Yeah, they’re all accurate. So, let’s continue. So referencing the COVID-19 mortality in Australia which you have in front of you, issued 15th of February, 2022. Quote, it says, “COVID-19 deaths that occurred by 31st of January, 2022 that have been registered and received by the ABS.”, end of quote. So here we’ve got death data, and cause of death data that’s only two weeks old. Not three months old for single mortality figure or 10 months for the cause of death. Could you go through that report on the bottom of the first page, Mr. Gruen? 2,639 deaths where people died with or from COVID. What do you mean by with or from, specifically?

[Dr. Gruen] So that’s explained later in the document. The vast majority of them are from, a small number are with. So if you look at page three, it explains, there were 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. Sorry, I’m reading from a doc point in the middle of page three.

[Malcolm] No, no, I’ve got it sampled.

[Dr. Gruen] 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. The person died with COVID-19, confirmed or suspected, but it was not the underlying cause of death.

[Malcolm] So COVID was not the underlying cause, it was something else.

[Dr. Gruen] That’s right. So just to be clear, there were 2,704 deaths that were either with or from COVID, and of those, only 83 were with, the rest were from. So the vast majority are from.

[Malcolm] The cause of death was COVID, okay. So if we turn over to page two, at the top of page two, you have chronic cardiac symptoms with the most common preexisting chronic condition for those who had COVID-19, certified as the underlying cause of death. That goes back to the previous page, the second bullet point, the majority of deaths had an underlying cause. So where would that fit in, the 83?

[Dr. Gruen] No, no. So there were a substantial proportion of the people who died from COVID had preexisting conditions, right? But the preexisting condition didn’t kill them, but the COVID was the underlying cause of death. But the fact that they had a preexisting condition, was material.

[Malcolm] So is there any percentage of those who died with or from, who had chronic cardiac conditions?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes. It’s a good publication, Senator. It’s worth reading.

[Malcolm] I haven’t read it all.

[Dr. Gruen] No, that’s okay. Associated causes conditions in the a causal sequence, page eight. That will tell you about all the… Hang on, preexisting conditions, sorry. Preexisting conditions, page nine. And there’s a chart on page 10, which shows you what the conditions were and the proportions.

[Malcolm] So that’s percentages, are they?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes.

[Malcolm] Okay, so these are percent of the 83?

[Dr. Gruen] No, percent of the 2000. We’re talking about people who have… Yes, that’s it. Preexisting conditions were reported on death certificates for nearly 70% of the 2,556 deaths due to COVID. That’s a sentence at the bottom of page nine. And then the conditions, that chart-

[Malcolm] On the graph.

[Dr. Gruen] The chart shows you the proportion of chronic conditions that were reported on the death certificate. And you can have more than one, cheerfully.

[Malcolm] Cheerfully, right. Okay, so turning now to birth data…

[Dr. Gruen] That’s not gonna help.

[Malcolm] The Australian Bureau of Statistics releases birth data at the end of the year following. This data could influence the debate around the effect of vaccines on reproduction and may provide reassurance to vaccine customers. Why does it take so long to report on a simple metric like births? I understand the delay in the deaths for the getting the accurate annual figure, but why does it take so long for births?

[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, so I don’t know the answer to that question.

[Malcolm] I will take that on notice, Senator.

[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, we can certainly take that on notice.

[Malcolm] So the Australian Bureau of Statistics budget has grown 18% in the last year from 497 million in 2019/20 to 588 million in 2021. Is that enough to get your data out in a timely fashion?

[Dr. Gruen] So as you would be aware, the bureau publishes data across a very wide range of topics, economic, social, environmental, demographic. And so, obviously timeliness is one of the things that we care about, and in answer to Senator Walsh’s questions, I was talking about some of the new products that we have produced that have been much more timely to help decision makers in the pandemic, but there’s no question, there’s a limit. And the other thing that we care critically about is accuracy and making sure that what we produce is correct. So some of these things do take a substantial amount of time, that we are cognisant of that, and we do our best to publish them as quickly as we can, and it ultimately is a function of the resources available to us.

[Malcolm] Last question. What you’re saying, and I would agree if this is the case, is that it is better to have accurate data a little delayed, than timely data that’s not accurate.

[Dr. Gruen] It depends on the circumstances. In a situation where a pandemic has just broken out, we made the judgement that we were happy to produce data that was somewhat less accurate, fast. So there are circumstances where you are willing to accept that trade off.

[Malcolm] Is there any way we can get that