The Forum > General Discussion > Statistics by other means
Statistics by other means
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 21 September 2008 10:34:56 AM
|
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
![]() |
![]() Syndicate RSS/XML ![]() |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
"Take for instance the inexact collection of data on Indigenous peoples by the ABS (inspired by the 1967 referendum) and how it failed to provide a solid foundation for the development of evidence based policy. And yet each successive government and their statistically trained bureaucrats - will return back to these same statistics without a second thought - and then wonder why policy failed to deliver."
highlights an interesting aspect of Australian population statistics.
If I understand Rainier correctly, he has noted inexactitude in the collection of statistical data on indigenous peoples AFTER the 1967 referendum. In matters unrelated to indigenous peoples policy formation, I did note a curious observation made in a submission to the Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Elections. That submission is not able to be reached directly with a link, but it can be reached from the List of Submissions page. See: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm . It is submission No. 123, and contains a document titled 'Australia - Aggregate Enrolment Levels 1947 - 1987'.
Pages numbered 19-22 in that document, under two headings, 'Retrospective Alteration of the 1961 Census Count', and 'Disregarding the Constitution?' contain an interesting perspective on population statistics collection around that time.
Interesting, too, the claim in a reference, at page 136 in Year Book Australia 1971, that "Aborigines have been enumerated in ALL censuses of the Commonwealth".
I'm not quite sure how to take what seems to have been the retrospective alteration of the statistics involved. I'd be interested in your view of it, Rainier. It might constitute published evidence for what you have alluded to as "[failure] to provide a solid foundation for the development of evidence based policy".
Returning to a more direct addressing of the topic, although not being a pollster, I have long felt especially in relation to political or electoral opinion polling that intention should be elicited by asking seemingly unrelated questions, the responses to which may be more accurately revealing. This may already be standard practice, for all I know.