2940.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Details of Overcount and Undercount, Australia, 2016 Quality Declaration 
ARCHIVED ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 27/06/2017   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All

TECHNICAL NOTE 1: DIFFERENCES IN CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN THE PES AND CENSUS

1 Occasionally, the answers obtained for a person in the PES interview are not consistent with the answers obtained for the equivalent questions in the Census. There are a number of reasons why a response may differ, including:

  • a person may have difficulty answering a question for themselves or another household member, either in the Census or the PES
  • a person may interpret the question differently in the Census, where forms are self-enumerated for the majority of Australia, compared with the PES, which is administered by a trained interviewer
  • different people may provide Census and PES responses
  • the correct response could change between the Census and PES. Changes in age are taken into account using the actual date of birth, but other changes (e.g. if the person is married or divorced), may not be identified
  • the Census may contain a not stated or imputed response while the PES will have a valid response.

2 For data items collected in both Census and PES, this difference in classification is most prevalent for Indigenous status and Country of birth, as these are missing in a number of Census forms. Imputation is not carried out for either of these variables in the Census where they have been left blank or for those persons imputed into non-responding dwellings.

3 The two tables below contain unweighted PES counts of the differences in classification between PES and Census for Indigenous status and Country of birth responses. These tables are counts of all responding people in the PES who have been matched to their Census record.

4 The majority of person matches between PES respondents and their corresponding Census records show the same responses for Indigenous status. For example, 94.6% of matched people who reported as Indigenous in the PES also reported as Indigenous in the Census, and 98.8% of those who reported as non-Indigenous in the PES also reported as non-Indigenous in the Census.

Difference In Classification(a), Indigenous status, 2016

PES response






Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
Total
Census response
no.
%
no.
%
no.
%

Indigenous
5 741
94.6
381
0.4
6 122
6.0
Non-Indigenous
282
4.6
93 972
98.8
94 254
93.1
Not stated
45
0.7
803
0.8
848
0.8
Matched Persons
6 068
100.0
95 156
100.0
101 224
100.0

(a) Excludes 1,554 Indigenous persons and 8,942 non-Indigenous persons in the PES who were not matched to Census.


5 Similar results can be seen for Country of birth, where the majority of persons reported the same birth place in both PES and the Census. For example, 97.7% of matched people who reported as born overseas in the PES were counted as born overseas in the Census, and 97.7% of matched people who reported as Australian born in the PES were also counted as Australian born in the Census.

Difference In Classification(a), Country of Birth, 2016

PES response






Australia
Overseas
Total
Census response
no.
%
no.
%
no.
%

Australia
73 444
97.7
199
0.8
73 643
72.8
Overseas
385
0.5
25 461
97.7
25 846
25.5
Not stated
1 332
1.8
403
1.5
1 735
1.7
Matched Persons
75 161
100.0
26 063
100.0
101 224
100.0

(a) Excludes 7,078 persons who responded in the PES as Australian born and 3,418 persons who responded in the PES as born overseas, who were not matched to Census.


6 The PES used an estimation technique to adjust the weights of responding persons according to their PES-reported categories. This ensured that PES respondents not counted in the Census received the same weight adjustments as PES respondents who were counted in the Census. The Census categories were then used in producing sample-based estimates of the number of persons counted in the Census. The weighting ensured these estimates matched the actual Census counts for all benchmark categories.