Source: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/provision_of_name_and_link_to_ac
Timestamp: 2019-01-23 19:20:03
Document Index: 285193872

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'art\n201617', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'arts 2', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 3']

Provision of name and link to accuracy of Census data - a Freedom of Information request to Australian Bureau of Statistics - Right To Know
Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Australian Bureau of Statistics should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.
The Australian Statistician has said "we know that if people supply their name they're more likely to provide accurate information in the other parts of the census."
I request the research which supports this statement.
the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (ABS reference FOI 201617/10)
regarding research which supports the following statement made by the
Australian Statistician:
“we know that if people supply their name they're more likely to provide
accurate information in the other parts of the census.”
Your request was received by the ABS on 8 August 2016 and the 30 days
FOI 20161710 Estimate of Charges.pdf
(See attached file: FOI 20161710 Estimate of Charges.pdf)
Thank you for your letter (your reference 201617/10) dated 1 September 2016.
I contend that the charges have been wrongly assessed and should be either reduced or not imposed.
The Australian Statistician has made a public statement "we know that if people supply their name they're more likely to provide accurate information in the other parts of the census." In doing so, one would imagine that such a statement would only be made if it were true and supported in fact.
It follows then that the Statistician's source of supporting evidence should be readily accessible within a very short period of time, even if that means asking the Statistician himself where he obtained supporting evidence in making his claim. A search time of 5 hours therefore appears manifestly excessive.
I understand the ABS undertakes a wide variety of research. If research supporting the Statistician's claim exists, I imagine that it would have been stored in appropriate manner and therefore ready accessible by searching the catalogues or other information management tools the ABS uses to manage its information.
I kindly ask the Bureau to not impose any charge for this request. If a charge is to be imposed, I will need to employ the services of a crowd-funding website.
I refer to your email of 2 September 2016 in which you sought an
assessment of a decision made under section 29 of the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) relating to the imposition of charges and
amount charged for the processing of your FOI request (ABS reference
FOI201617/10).
Your request was received by the ABS on 2 September 2016 and the 30 days
FOI 201617 10 Review of Charges.pdf
On 2 September 2016 you requested that the ABS either 'reduce or not
impose' charges in relation to your FOI request.
Please find attached the ABS response to your request.
(See attached file: FOI 201617-10 - Review of Charges.pdf)
201617 10 Decision Letter documents within part 2.pdf
In response to your FOI request dated 8 August 2016, please find attached
part 2 of the formal response from the ABS.
(See attached file: 201617-10 - Decision Letter (documents within) - part
201617 10 Decision Letter documents within part 1.pdf
part 1 of the formal response from the ABS.
Please note, as the pdf document was quite large we have had to split the
response into three parts. I will send two further e-mails containing
parts 2 and 3 of the ABS response. The full set of documents disclosed
will also be released to the ABS Disclosure Log.
Please find attached part 1 of 3.
201617 10 Decision Letter documents within part 3.pdf
part 3 of the formal response from the ABS.
Delivered October 22, 2016
I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Bureau of Statistics's handling of my FOI request 'Provision of name and link to accuracy of Census data'.
The extent of redaction in the supplied document appears excessive. As I have no knowledge of the content of the redacted material, I am not in a position to comment on the validity of your reasons given for the redaction.
I refer to your email of 22 October 2016 in which you sought an internal
Act) relating to your FOI request (ABS reference FOI201617/10).
Your request was received by the ABS on 22 October 2016 and the 30 days
FOI 201617 10 Internal Review Decision.pdf
In response to your request for an internal review on 22 October 2016,
(See attached file: FOI 201617-10 Internal Review Decision.pdf)
The research you have provided is approximately 40 years old. Does the Chief Statistician think that societal attitudes may have changed during such a long period of time? Is there any more recent evidence to support the ABS' view that the retention of names and addresses have any real benefits to the integrity and completeness of ABS Census data?
the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (ABS reference FOI 201617/55)
o Is there any more recent evidence to support the ABS' view that the
retention of names and addresses have any real benefits to the
integrity and completeness of ABS Census data?
Your request was received by the ABS on the 21 February 2017 and the 30
days statutory period for processing your request commenced from that
date. If this request will take longer than 30 days to process, we will
contact you to negotiate an extension of time.
Please disregard the below email. This acknowledgement is intended for
your new FOI request and will be sent momentarily.