Senate Economics Legislation Committee, , 3:56:13 to 4:26:52
The ABS discusses the administration of the Census, data collection for green jobs, and modeling for excess mortality.
Topics: Employment, Health, Emissions reduction
Speakers: Senator Susan McDonald, Dr David Gruen, Senator The Hon Tim Ayres, Senator Alex Antic, Senator Barbara Pocock, Interjection, Michael Smedes, Senator Lisa Darmanin
welcome back everyone. Um, the committee now welcomes representatives from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and I welcome Dr. David Gruen, the Australian statistician. Um, we have your opening statement here, Mr. Gruen. It has Dr. Gruen. Sorry, it's been circulated amongst uh all of the committee members. So I would very much appreciate it if you are happy to have this tabled and incorporated and we can move straight to questions in the interest of time.
>> Yes.
>> And senators will have had a chance to see what's in it.
>> Yes.
>> As well. Thank you very much. Uh we will go first to uh Senator McDonald.
>> Uh good morning. Oh no, I've just missed it. Good afternoon. Pleased to talk to you.
>> And my opening statement also says good
>> Well, good. We're all we're all on the same page. Um, I I noticed in your opening statement you made the comment about making paper copies available for the census as well. I want to thank you for that. I had some very animated feedback from people in my world about not being able to use the computer or finding it difficult. And so the fact that you had paper ones turn up was uh incredibly useful to um to to those people. So I thought that was important.
Senator, we're aware that there is a proportion of the population that is uncomfortable or just finds it difficult to use a computer. Uh the the online response rate is is going to be over 85% which is the highest in in the history of censuses, but I think it'll always be true that there will be some people who would prefer to fill it in on paper.
>> Yeah, I um look, this is just a fun question for my interest. I had I thought it was an anecdote that Jedi Knights had become the fastest growing religion in Australia.
>> I I think that's some time ago.
>> Oh, there you go. I'm just showing my age cuz I looked for it to see if it was an option. No, >> but uh it wasn't must have been one of You had to hand fill it in, did you?
>> We do not encourage people to to fill that particular option in.
>> Well, there you go. Thank you for that. Look, I've actually got some questions on uh on data. Um the net zero plan, I've asked some questions about that over this week. Uh it's claims to be a plan for the environment and a plan for the economy. Uh within that, it talks about jobs transitioning particularly from mining, coal, and uh and others in particular, but to green energy projects. Uh but I've been looking for an agency that would collect that data and I have been directed to you um by Minister Ayres just to do him in.
>> That's because I have a sense of humor
>> indeed. >> So I um >> Yeah. Well, I am I'm looking for the data that you have on uh or any of your team has and is collecting on um jobs in you know green hydrogen, green steel, green ammonia, whatever else it might be that you're classifying as um and I guess renewables, solar and wind and whatever else is is forming part of that
detailed answer on that, Senator, I think you'll we'll have to take it on notice, but we can probably provide you with some information.
>> Terrific. Thank you.
or not green. So people would need to make some judgments about what they consider to be to be green u for those industries but the data of um changes in employment by industry is available.
>> So specifically then because the the uh net zero plan talks about transitioning away from particularly fossil fuel jobs to green energy jobs or or green jobs. Um, I understand what you're saying about not being specifically categorized in that way, but how would the government then support that those statements with data if you're not classifying them in that way? Or could you identify sectors that would reasonably be classified in that way?
>> Well, the ABS would have, for example,
data back to Australia's Well, >> I've got the expert. I've got the I could talk to you any day of the week. Well, yes. I see you in the Senate. That's true. Call you up.
>> But but but the Australian Bureau of Statistics would have data going back to Australia's first green aluminium scheme, for example, in the 1950s in Tasmania.
>> Well, let's hear about that. You know,
from them, these are blue collar jobs that are that uh that uh defy the kind of characterization that you're giving them. Um they're blue collar jobs. Um good jobs.
>> Yes, Minister. Thank you. And very helpful. Yes. Thank you.
>> Always trying to help.
Dr. Gruen, sorry. Would you like to add
>> I think I'm sorry. Perhaps we were still with with um Mr.
>> M. Sme, I didn't mean to knock you off
course. >> Oh, my apologies.
>> I'm sorry.
>> I didn't mean to knock you off course. I
>> No, no, I know you didn't. You're always so helpful, Minister. Um, if we could return to how I would seek to understand what data has been collected to support the government's claims on this transition, please.
So as I said we have yeah a whole range of data going back yeah quite some time on employment by industry. Um we would and can work with different agencies about how do you allocate I guess those industries to different sectors of the economy but that's not something that we do ourselves. Um but the data under underpinning that is available.
So, uh, again, when I asked questions at DQ earlier this week, the secretary said that they wouldn't seek to unnecessarily duplicate the work of the Australian Bureau of Statistics um, with relation to uh, this this transition jobs, transition economy. So, is there any uh any data that you can point me to that would assist me to analyze and either acknowledge that what the government's saying is correct or not? Being the opposition, I'm probably more likely to go there, but but but to be able to base it in data and facts. That's what I'm really trying to get at. Is there anywhere in the Australian Bureau of Statistics data that would identify jobs that would particularly be newly created in a transition economy uh particularly around green jobs.
>> Um so the data is available by by industry by um sections of the economy and we can certainly um provide that data to you or point you to that data. um but then be I guess on on others to categorize those as um being part of a transition or or not.
>> Okay. It also uh the the plan talks about um higher paying jobs, well- paid jobs. Do you collect data on salary rates as well?
>> Yes, we do certainly do have wage rates by different industries and occupations.
>> Okay. And uh what about the exports of that in the data that you collect? Are you tracking uh green exports? And I'm just using that term because it's what you what is used in the net zero plan. Green exports tracking them next to you know existing commodity markets, coal, gas, iron ore, gold.
Um so we certainly have all the export data by commodity by different products. Um again it would be up to other people to decide whether to classify those as um as green or or otherwise but certainly the product level information about whether it's um coal, whether it's some type of machinery, whether it's an agricultural product that's all available. Yes.
>> Okay. So um just again being quite specific on uh on this concept of green exports um the minister just referred to green u aluminina you know hydro powered aluminina of the 19 uh60s what about um in in industries um that we're trying to develop like green hydrogen which you know by its nature is a category too uh because of the energy inputs. Do you track do you have the capability of tracking and dividing up industries by their
So we we do have um data our what we call our input output tables um that do show the inputs into the into the production process um and do articulate the the range of products and services that are used to produce a particular product um and and yes those tables are
>> Okay. Um, do you report on the emissions that are reported from each sector? Does the ABS track data on that?
>> Do we track data on that? No, not directly. Um, we use data from other sources. Um, we do provide some emissions data, but it's not collected by us.
>> Uh, I understand. Yes. No, I appreciate that it would be collected under different agencies. >> You're at 10 minutes. >> Oh, thank you. I'll just um this last comment. So um uh so I would be able to look to the ABS for emissions reporting from um from green sectors from new industry sectors.
>> You could see emissions by industry um by different sectors of the economy. Um
>> but we're not clear yet. I'll go away and look at that and see if if there is enough division for us to be able to uh well what I'm seeking to test is that I've done quite a bit of in uh questioning over the last few days on the net zero plan the intergenerational report and trying to ground truth it in data and uh and and so I will go away then to look at your um perhaps on notice you'd send me the the links to the best places for me to look um for data on these jobs that are being referred to by these sectors um uh under the the these plans because I'm I've got concerns that uh what is being modeled through Treasury not being grounded in just some nuts and bolts of things like jobs, salary rates, export development and emissions by these other sectors. But I will take a look at your data and
>> we can certainly provide that on. Thank you.
>> I think I think the problem Senator is there's a
>> no problems only challenges minister
>> significant difference between what we expect to happen in export markets for coal uh and gas in particular. So that is we we see those things are likely trends and there's an argument about at what point do you see um a decline having a material effect in the economy. Is it in you know 2035? Is it in 2045? Is it 2055? So there is a prediction question there about well what what does the government treasury um DQ others think is going think the rate of change is going to be as global markets shrink um in some of our key exports and if you look across our export uh areas there are challenges in each of them. iron ore big contest in terms of the future security of our iron um markets um in uh coal and gas there are different kind of dynamics going going on there the question is not what I mean these are not things that the government chooses the question is how does Australia respond to that uh and that is what the work is that is that that you've been referring to is engaged in how Can we secure irrespective of whether or not these markets close off in 2035 or 2045? Well, we know we we we it it would be wildly uh reckless to deny that there is a change going on there. We can rail about it. We can kind of winge about it. We can kind of do whatever. But in the end, it's it's our agency. what do we do as Australians to shape new industry and new markets? And that is the effort that is going on here. Not a it's not the government twisting the dials here saying well, you know, this is this is how we're shaping the decisions that boardrooms in New York and uh and uh Europe and um and China and Japan and Korea, what decisions they make and how technological change is going to shape it. The question for us is how do we respond and make the country stronger?
>> So Minister, I guess the point of my questions is that I'm concerned that is exactly what's happening. We heard yesterday about reports showing that coal demand in our near neighbors will triple by60, not used in modeling by Treasury. We have a Treasury modeling that shows green exports exceeding fossil fuel exports by 2032. And yet here we are in 2026, quite close to 2032 for industry development. These are not things that happen overnight. I'm just seeking to ground truth those uh that arc or that trajectory in data like jobs >> specifically.
>> But that's the fallacy that that that I think that you're engaged in here.
>> It's not it's not minister because we are only 6 years from 2013. Let me finish please. Well started. I just
started.
>> You just called it a fallacy and I've just explained to you that in six years you can that green exports are going to exceed fossil fuels >> minister that's crazy and there is no data that supports it
>> without anyone talking over each other today if we can just have one at a time
>> I don't need rhetoric I need data that's why I'm asking the ABC rather than
thank you minister
>> it it would be a very fine thing indeed uh if we could have both uh And the government's policy settings allow us to continue to export in these areas for as long as there are markets. >> But if you deny the future, you
future generations and deny and deny jobs safeguards mechanism. >> You can kind of do your own research in this reason. I'm going to rotate the call now denying Australia. It'll make
the country weaker, not stronger.
>> We are um you have the call. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, chair. Thank you. I want to turn to the issue of uh excess deaths, excess mortality. Um the there have been three ways um since the co pandemic that the ABS has estimated best expected deaths. Um and each successive way has produced higher um numbers of expected deaths and there thus lower um excess deaths on the figures. And there have been unusually high levels of excess mortality since 2021. I think um prior to uh July of this year, the ABS was using a modeling system called surfling, the surfing model, which um showed that um in 2023, 8,744 more Australians than normal uh that would have been expected prior to the pandemic period had had died. Um, can you tell me I I understand that there's never been modeling done for 2024 and 2025 calculated using the ABS's official surfing based excess mortality model. Um, can you tell me what was the rationale for changing that modeling which it would appear uh factors in CO as a as a as a baseline? It effectively makes the figures um reliant on assumptions. Um can you tell me what the rationale for changing that mod model type and what the numbers of excess deaths in Australia for 2024 25 would be calculated using the old surfing model.
>> Uh thanks Senator. Um if you uh I I expect you've read the release that we released on the 3rd of July called excess mortality in which we explain the logic of why we have changed the model. uh and let me quote you from here. Uh uh this is the first publication produced by the ABS where excess mortality estimates are measured are measuring expected mortality in the current health context i.e. where co 19 is included alongside other diseases conditions and external causes as a persistent contributor to deaths in Australia. So the point being that the earlier uh approach was asking the question what would the number of deaths have been compared to a world in which the pandemic did not occur. That was the earlier research question and the earlier methodology was designed to answer that question. In other words, if we'd never had a if we'd never had a co 19 pandemic, what would you have expected deaths to have been? And then the excess deaths were those deaths over and above what would have happened without a pandemic. We used a um we used a baseline that was from 2013 to 2019 which is now a long time ago. And we are now in a world where the World Health Organization and other experts have made the point that we are no longer in a pandemic. I think that's pretty clear. uh and that co 19 is simply part of the background. In other words, it is one of the things that people can still catch but it is not a pandemic. So that is the logic for changing the research question from one which the previous one which was what would deaths have been without a pandemic to to expected deaths now include CO 19 as one of the background diseases along with all the others.
>> Right? So that that requires um the ABS concluding that CO 19 was the main key or key contributor to excess deaths. that that really depends um on a very on a very important implicit assumption that every death from or with CO was automatically an excess death. I mean, you've had to make that assumption.
>> No, it doesn't.
>> But you So, the figures though have had to rely on an assumption that the ABS has made about about the current state of affairs.
>> Excess deaths do require uh you you to come up with an estimate of expected deaths. That is certainly true. And if you're going to come up with an estimate of expected deaths, you have to have some mechanism for doing that. that that doesn't come from it doesn't come like mana from heaven. Uh you have to actually have a way of calculating what your estimate of excess of est of expected deaths is that's true. We used a baseline that that that took us up to 2019 which is before the pandemic. So to the extent that there were de higher well there actually lower levels of deaths in 2020 than you would have expected and but in 21 and 22 there were higher levels but it doesn't make the assumption that those deaths are from COVID. It simply asks the question if there was a continuation of trends from before the pandemic what would you have
expected? So on what basis have you have you reached that conclusion or what's the scientific basis for for reaching that conclusion that you know every CO death is automatically an excess death? >> We didn't reach I didn't say sorry let's put that the wrong way. What what is the what is the scientific background for changing the model in those terms or is that just a a statistical um value judgment for one of a better
uh, are you I'm I'm not clear about the question. Well, I mean, let me let me explain why I'm not clear about the question. The WH and various other bodies called it called CO 19 a pandemic. We accepted that scientific judgment and we asked ourselves the question, what would deaths have been if there hadn't been a pandemic? So, I guess if the if you're asking me the question, on what scientific basis did we claim there was a pandemic? I'm going to rely on the WHO.
>> The WHO. Thank you. That's what I'm looking for. Um, what then can can you then address the issue of what would the numbers of excess deaths in Australia for 24 and 25 be using calculating the use the old surfing model? Like what what what do those figures look like? So
I I I think that's something I have to take on notice because I'm not confident that we've that we've done that calculation. >> But it does ask a question which we are making the judgment is no is not not as not relevant in the sense that uh the pandemic has passed.
>> But how can that not be relevant? I mean we were using those figures up until a year ago. They must have some historical relevance even if it's just to to baseline against what it was like prior
to co. So happy to take it on notice and uh and get back to you about that.
and I mean do you do you accept that the figures as they currently are now show since that new modeling has been done now show lower um excess mortality figures than they otherwise would using the surfing model?
>> Well, we'll we'll have to get back to
you on that. Well, they have well even yeah even prior to and has the ABS done any work to understand and explain the the decreases I mean on the numbers as they currently are using the old and the new method there is a decrease in the excess mortality figures um has it done any has the ABS done any work to understand or explain those decreases in mortality
>> well as I say we're answering a different question because the world has changed and we made the judgment that the the old baseline which was 2013 to 2019 uh is is a long time ago now and is is not uh is is not the best way to to uh estimate excess deaths in the modern
>> did you have a lot of interest and a lot of hits on the website around the time of the pandemic you have more more than usual activity on the um I think you had a you were running provisional data I think on excess mortality um I recall there being a lot of interest in those provisional figures at the Uh has that dropped off now?
So uh I think we uh um so I think the answer is yes because at the time of the pandemic there was a lot of interest in one of the things we did as a as a result of the pandemic was to introduce that provisional uh publication because we wanted to be able to provide highquality information about deaths much more in m much closer to real time than we did previously. So we did that was a innovation that uh the team um introduced in the quite quickly in the pandemic so that uh the community would have uh high quality information about deaths a couple of months out rather than um after a year. Um uh so uh I think there was a lot of interest at the time and I think the the level of interest I think you're correct the level of interest has tailed off because the pandemic is no longer the thing everybody's talking about.
>> You're almost at time.
>> Uh that's thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you. Thank
>> Senator PCO. One quick question before we break.
>> Couple of quick questions on the census. Um huge effort. Thank you Senator to all of you your staff as well. um why have you not scheduled a housing expenditure survey given we haven't had one since 2015 >> I think 1415 and given that it's a crucial basis for the waiting of the
CPI. So um the answer to that is that um we did schedule one uh we were we were in we were um doing preparations for a uh for a um a household expenditure survey and then COVID turned up uh and we made the judgment that the that that results that we would have got from us from a household expenditure survey at the time would have been sufficiently distorted by the pandemic that we thought it was not a good use of public money. But you are quite correct that the last one of these that we've run is in 20 was in 2015 16 and we have made the judgment that with the available resources we have we do not uh it it is something that um that we have uh been unable to run but we uh remain keen to run it when when we have when we have the financial resources to do so. I
asked you some time ago about whether you had the resources to do your job. Um, and you were very positive about the resources you had. It seems to me that the expenditure uh on a whole lot of items has really shifted in the Australian household. We look at private education relative to 2015 16. Now the pattern of that is really different and we have no information really about the regressive nature of tax impacts on a whole range of products now because we don't know what people are buying what. So what's your plan uh ahead and minister do you share concern uh before I hear from the minister how do you think it's affecting the quality and reliability of the CPI?
>> So the CPI is looking at um aggregate uh uh the the aggregate spending of the community and we have information on aggregate spending. The household expenditure survey gives you detailed disagregated information by household type. for the CPI what you need is um information on spending patterns by the whole community. So that is less that is less affected than um detailed information by household type.
>> So um what about funding this given the very long period of time and the critical nature of the information? I
think we've been in here for a day and a half and that the records show that this is the first time over the course of this day and a half that Senator PCO has suggested to an agency that they need more funding and you should feel very special. Um, uh, Dr. Gruen, uh,
>> to argue for more funding for ASET. >> I suspect I might have I suspect I might have invited you. >> I don't come in with that job, but >> So, what's your response, Minister? >> Well, of course, doesn't have enough
money to do it. every every agency could do more with more resources. That's true. >> Uh every agency uh and um we are operating in an environment where we have to uh encourage agencies to do the very best they can with what they've got to find uh opportunities to use technology to engage with their staff to deliver um more. uh we have made uh decisions to um provide additional funding to agencies um uh like the CSRO for example um and the government will continue to consider those issues at every budget and advance of every census.
>> Thank you. Um uh just one other matter the uh home ownership statistics on the 12th of August the ABS published a really interesting article about are you really a homeowner if you're living in your parents place. Are you familiar with the argument in that article? No,
I'm not.
>> Uh what what it discusses is the home ownership rates data point and how the real rate of home ownership is possibly much lower than we than the way we currently calculate it. As we calculate at the moment, we calculate the share of dwellings lived in by an owner as opposed to the share of adults who own the home including with a mortgage uh uh own the home they live in. and they're very different things and the rate of difference is you know around I don't know more than 10 percentage points on the latest calculation you have all of the elements uh I'm told uh to calculate um that superior rate what the difference is that if I have my 25-year-old son living with me and they tick the census box which say they're in a house that's owned we're picking up the number of houses that are owned not the number of people that are in home ownership it's a critical element of understanding our housing circ circumstances would you consider uh the development of a population measure rather than a per dwelling measure?
>> So let let us take that on notice senator.
>> Great. Thanks very much. Thanks chair.
>> Thank you. We will now suspend for a break and we will be back at 10 2 and I think a senator has further questions for you for the abs. So you will have to remain over the lunch break.
>> Right.
>> And we'll see you again after lunch.
>> 10 past 2.
>> 10 2. Thank you.