Review of 2021 Census Topics

Identification of significant time spent living in another dwelling/residence
Publication of usual residents in non private dwellings at small area level (not just numbers usually resident on Census night)
Publication of private dwelling occupancy by small area

People who spend significant amounts of time in more than one residence has been an issue in the compilation of accurate usual resident population counts, de facto population counts, as well for gaining a better understanding of population mobility.
The increasing number of fly-in-fly-out workers, 2nd home owners, consultants, contractors, seasonal workers, tourists, long-term housesitters etc present particular problems for understanding population (and consequenlty planning) tied to place. In these circumstances people’s perception of usual residence might differ from the formal definition.
Populations affected include:
• Non resident workers (e.g. fly-in-fly-out workers)
• Residents of boarding schools or accommodation supporting post school study such as university colleges
• Mobile Indigenous Australians
• Children in shared care arrangements
• Australian workers who maintain an overseas base when not working
• Amenity and lifestyle migrants who may alternate between residences based on seasons or other factors.
Understanding these dynamics are particularly important for places which are disproportionately affected by circulation of these population groups between residences. These include:
• Rural and remote Australia where population numbers are small and dual residents may create major impacts for housing and infrastructure (especially towns at or near resource industry activity)
• Remote Indigenous communities where short term mobility impacts on service provision and access

The 2011 UK Census included a question that explicitly asks whether the responder/s spend/s time at another address for a period of 30 days or more in the year (see question examples below). An additional question could be asked to identify the time, regularity or season which would be useful in determining seasonal patterns and could help determine the responder/s’ usual residence should be assigned. Whether the person lives at another address, where they are counted in terms of resident population, and how service populations can be identified are the key issues. The addition of these questions allows for the computation of service populations and has the potential to greatly improve the accuracy of usual resident counts for small areas and sub-population groups.




A related issue is whether private dwellings were occupied or unoccupied on a usual residence basis at the time of the Census. Besides the ABS, a number of other agencies and consultants compile and publish population projections for very small areas or for minority population groups using dwelling-led projection methods. Census publication of private dwelling occupancy by small area would assist in improving the accuracy of these projected populations.

An additional challenge associated with improved population estimates, particularly for small areas, is knowledge of non-private dwellings and their number of usual residents (rather than the number of persons who happen to be present on census night). Again, publication of the classification, occupancy and geocoding of NPDs would improve the accuracy of population projection methodologies by minimising assumptions made about the input data.

Accurate population estimates, accommodating outputs based on usual residents and service populations has the potential to improve electoral representation, but also policy and practice associated with workforce planning, productivity and the identification of skill shortages.

Research supporting issues around the non-resident workforce often cites data limitations as a barrier to better understanding of current workforce challenges and strategies associated with FIFO arrangements.

The Australian population is highly mobile. The current Census questions leave the decision of where someone usually lives to the responder with the prompts around usual residence complex and the idea of “home” often compounding the misunderstanding of the importance of accurately identifying usual residence in terms of the current definition. There are also cultural considerations associated with “home country” that can interact with concepts such as homelessness and mobility for the Indigenous community. These issues can lead to both over and under enumeration.

It is suggested that the concept of usual residence is not easily understood and the question status quo impacts negatively on the quality of population estimates. The addition of a question set asking for information about the other residence (or residences) has proved successful in other countries but may require some tweaking for the Australian circumstances.

Sensitivity or concern about the question is not generally anticipated, however there may be issues associated with domestic violence refuge shelters that could be accommodated in the enumeration process.

See responses previously provided.

The experience of living in more than one residence is common, and indeed may be on the increase with highly mobile workforces already playing a role in workforce planning strategies.

The publication of Census data that accommodates the need to understand how people are living, the dwelling stock, and population mobility is important to the compilation of improved population estimates and population projections. The need for this data is expansive as policy based on the circumstances of place becomes imperative to the efficient and effective delivery of population services.

There are currently no adequate sources of information on multiple residences, occupancy rates of private dwellings at small areas, and the stock and spatial distribution of non-private dwellings and associated usual resident counts.