On census boycotts
Professor Fiona Stanley Distinguished Research Professor, University of Western Australia; Professor Terry Nolan, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health and Professor John Mathews, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health write: Re. “What you risk when you boycott the census” (yesterday). Most Australians would expect that personal information, collected at public expense, would be routinely aggregated, de-identified to protect privacy, and used to the fullest extent possible for public benefit purposes.
However, there have been recent media comments and concerns that the use of census records by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) constitutes a breach of privacy and a breach of trust in “tracking” individuals. On the contrary, privacy has not been breached, as the Australian Statistician has a legal obligation to collect information for public benefit purposes, and he has been scrupulous in protecting the names and identifying details of all individuals. ABS has simply linked census records to other records collected at public expense to create an aggregated but de-identified data set that will be even more valuable for the planning of services and other public benefit purposes.
Other ground-breaking work in Australia has already used aggregated but de-identified data to document important risks that would otherwise have gone unnoticed or been imperfectly understood. These include risks from folic acid deficiency in pregnancy, risks of blood clots from long-haul air travel, and the increased cancer risks after CT scans (medical x-rays) in childhood.
In our increasingly complex world, members of the public should be reassured that, without risk to privacy, the personal information collected from them can be aggregated and used in such ways to inform and protect them, and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Indeed by understanding, approving and monitoring the use of de-identified information in this way, citizens are extending the social compact that that they have made with each other and with government for their mutual benefit.
The Productivity Commission is currently exploring issues around the availability and use of data in Australia. The Commission will realise that the use of Australian data for public benefit purposes is lagging behind what is possible in UK, Canada, New Zealand and other democracies. Australian developments have been inhibited by concerns about whether it is possible to guarantee privacy protection. However, the experiences in Australia and overseas show that data aggregation projects have not led to breaches of privacy, and that any theoretical risks are more than justified by the countervailing public benefits.
Thus with support from the public, and with stringent legal penalties for any attempt to breach privacy, Australia will be poised to make major advances in its use of data for public benefit purposes. We congratulate the Australian Statistician for his leadership in this important area of public policy and practice.
‘Other ground-breaking work in Australia has already used aggregated but de-identified…’
No doubt much of this useful information was gleaned prior to 2006 when names were not required on the Census form. Names do not enhance statistics.
What purpose does this empty letter serve?
No-one ‘defending’ the Census has yet once justified the collection of names and addresses as far as I can see.
Dear Professors, you diminish your own reputations with this meaningless foray into the privacy debate.
+1
I have yet to hear anybody present a valid reason – let alone a good reason – why this personally-identifying-information needs to be retained for any long period of time.
Congratulations Fiona Stanley and colleagues for your calmly argued response to the over-hyped panic being whipped up by people who should know better (the usually eminently reasonable Bernard Keane I’m looking at you).
They have calmly ignored the actual criticism – that the ABS has *changed* policy to retain names and addresses – and provided mere platitudes. Anyone who considers that an “argument” should be ashamed of themselves.
The Muslim community would be quaking in their boots that their answer to that one little question is going to make them a government target in the future if their names are not removed. Prime Minister Pauline will welcome such handy information.