4530.0 - Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2012-13 Quality Declaration 
ARCHIVED ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 12/02/2014   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All



In this survey, other theft is defined as the unlawful taking of money or goods owned by a household member (other than from motor vehicles owned by a household member) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the money or goods, without the use, or threat, of force or violence, coercion or deception. It includes:

    • property belonging to a member of the household not covered by the other types of crime included in the survey
    • property belonging to a household member stolen from a vehicle not owned by a household member
    • property stolen from a yard or garden (e.g. statues or plants).

Other theft excludes any incidents involving theft covered in other crime types in the survey (e.g. break-in or robbery).

Other theft is considered to be a household crime for the purpose of this survey.

PREVALENCE AND REPORTING RATE FOR 2012-13 (see Data Cube 1, Table 1)

In the 12 months prior to interview in 2012-13, an estimated 248,800 households (2.8% of all households) experienced at least one incident of other theft. Just over one third of all households (36%) that were a victim of other theft reported the most recent incident they experienced to police.


This section discusses characteristics of the most recent incident for households that were victims of other theft in the 12 months prior to interview.

In the most recent incident of other theft experienced by households:

  • an estimated 45,600 households (18%) had outdoor and garden items stolen, whilst 15% had bicycles and sporting equipment stolen (an estimated 36,700 households)
  • the most common location that other theft occurred in was the victim's home (50% of household victims, or an estimated 125,000 households), followed by the victim's place of employment (13% of household victims, or an estimated 32,000 households)
  • where the incident was not reported to police, the main reason given was:
    • the incident was considered too trivial/unimportant (32%, or an estimated 79,900 households)
    • it was believed there was nothing the police could do (15%, or an estimated 37,000 households).


1 All comparisons discussed have been tested for statistical significance with a 95% level of confidence that there is a real difference between the two populations being tested. Only data with a relative standard error (RSE) of less than 25% is referred to in the text of this publication. For further information, refer to the Technical Note.