2001 CENSUS: ANCESTRY - DETAILED PAPER

(Census Paper No. 03/01b)

2001 CENSUS: ANCESTRY - DETAILED PAPER
(Census Paper No. 03/01b)

Chris Kunz & Liz Costello

Population Census Evaluation

June 2003
© Commonwealth of Australia 2003

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce
this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your
personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart
from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other
rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction
and rights in this publication should be addressed to:

The Manager
Intermediary Management
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Locked Bag 10
Belconnen ACT 2616

or telephone (02) 6252 6998 or fax (02) 6252 7102

or email <[email protected]>.

In all cases, the ABS must be acknowledged as the source when

reproducing or quoting any part of an ABS publication or other
product.

For general inquiries about ABS products and services please call
1300 135 070. Overseas clients please call +61 2 9268 4909.

INQUIRIES

For further information about this paper, contact the Assistant

Director, Census Evaluation by telephone: (02) 6252 5611 or
email: [email protected]
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The 2001 Census Papers on Ancestry, this Ancestry - Detailed Paper (03/01b) and the
separate Ancestry - First and Second Generation Australians (03/01a), evaluated the data
quality of the Ancestry question in the 2001 Census. Overall, the quality of Ancestry data has
improved over 1986 Census results.

! Nearly 21 out of every 22 persons responded to the Ancestry question in the 2001 Census
(see Section 6.2 Non-response). The non-response rate for Ancestry was 4.6% (down
from 6.8% in 1986). For those who had both parents born in Australia, the level of
non-response decreased to 4.1% (from 7.0% in 1986).

! The number of people stating Australian Ancestry increased, from 3.4 million in 1986
(20% of total persons enumerated), to 6.7 million (35.5%) in 2001.

! 22.1% of the population recorded multiple Ancestries, up from 12.6% in 1986 (see
Section 6.3 Multiple Response). However, while 21.5 million ancestry responses were
captured in 2001, a further estimated 1.9 million written responses were ignored. A
decision to code only the first two Ancestries encountered (while not stating this on the
Census Form nor in the Census Guide), resulted in the loss of an estimated 8.1% of all
ancestry responses written on forms. The issue of lost Ancestries was common to both
1986 and 2001 Censuses.

! Question design virtually precluded the prioritisation of multiple responses - except

where none of the seven response options listed on the form were considered appropriate.
The 8.1% of lost ancestries may have included the most important ones from an
individual’s perspective (see Appendix B: The Impact of Lost Ancestries for the estimated
loss by Ancestry).

! The majority of people who identified as indigenous in the 2001 Census claimed
Australian ancestry, as opposed to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry.
Indigenous Ancestry counts appear to have been significantly affected by the different
forms used in 2001. Section 6.5 Ancestry and Special Indigenous Personal Forms
provides more detail.

! Overall, the quality of 2001 Census Ancestry data is high, and an improvement over
1986. This assessment is based on the recorded improvement in response rates, the
introduction of a more comprehensive coding classification, and the increased propensity
of individuals to identify multiple Ancestries.

! Recommended improvements for processing an Ancestry question in a future census

include: increasing the minimum number of Ancestries coded to four; stating the coding
limit on the form; redesigning the response area on the form; increasing coder support
during DPC processing; and extending the ASCCEG to include a dual Ancestry
classification listing.
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 About Census Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 This Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Background to the inclusion of an Ancestry question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3.1 The 1986 and 1991 Censuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3.2 The 1996 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.3 The 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. QUESTION DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Defining Ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Identifying Ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Census Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Other factors affecting the reporting of Ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 2001 Census question format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1 Household and Personal Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2 Special Indigenous Personal Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 1986 Census question format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Reduced Country of Birth for Parents in 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. COLLECTION ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Ethnic Enumeration Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. PROCESSING ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1 Description of Coding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.1 Data Capture (DC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2 Automatic Coding (AC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3 Computer Assisted Coding (CAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Index Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1 New and Revised Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2 Coding of Dual Ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.3 Inadequately Described, and Not Further Defined, categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3 Edits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.1 Special Ancestry coding rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4 Quality Management (QM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1 The QM Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.2 Discrepancy Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.3 Discrepancy Rates in final data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 4.4.4 Discrepancies requiring recoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. SAMPLE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1 Data Quality Investigation Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 DQI for Ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3 The Ancestry Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4 Lost Ancestries (The impact of coding only the first two Ancestries) . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6. FINAL DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1 Key Ancestry-related Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2 Non-response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2.1 Non-response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2.2 Characteristics of Non-respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3 Multiple Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3.1 Multiple Response by State, Age, and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3.2 Multiple Response by Birthplace, and Birthplace of Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.3 Propensity to report multiple Ancestries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.4 Ancestry multiple responses and the List Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.4 Australian Ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4.1 Australian Ancestry by State and Birthplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4.2 Aspirational Australian Ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.5 Ancestry and Special Indigenous Personal Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.6 Correlation of Non-Australian Ancestry with other census variables . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.6.1 Correlation for specific Ancestries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

7. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

8. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

9. OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

APPENDIXES
A: Ancestry-related information in the 2001 Census Household Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
B: The Impact of Lost Ancestries, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C: Multiple Response Rate to Ancestry, by Birthplace, 1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . 58

LIST OF CENSUS PAPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: The 2001 Census Ancestry Question (Household and Personal Forms) . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2: The 1986 Census Ancestry Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 1: Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2: Method of Ancestry Coding, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3: Inadequately Described and Other Undefined Responses to Ancestry,
1986 and 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 4: ‘Not Further Defined’ Broad and Narrow Groups, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 5: Overall Discrepancy Rates for ANC1 & ANC2, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 6: Discrepancy Rates for ANC1 and ANC2 by Coding Process, 2001
Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 3: Example of ‘Big Tick’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 7: DC Coding Errors: Chinese/Australian, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 4: Example of ‘Cross-out’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 8: The DQI Sample, by State, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 9: Key Ancestry-related Figures, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 10: Number and Frequency of People Reporting Ancestry, based on DQI
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 11: Persons Stating More Than Two Ancestries, based on DQI Sample . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 12: Number of Ancestries Lost, based on DQI Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 13: Frequency of Lost Ancestries (Top 10), based on DQI Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 14: Percentage of Ancestry Lost (Top 10), based on DQI Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 15: Three or More Ancestries, and Birthplace, based on DQI Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 16: Top 10 Birthplaces of Ancestry Losers, based on DQI Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 17: Key Ancestry-related Figures, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 18: Non-response to Ancestry and Related Questions, 1986 & 2001
Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 19: Non-response to Ancestry, by States/Territories & Australia, 1986 &
2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 20: Non-response to Ancestry Compared to Total Population, by Birthplace,
1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 21: Top 20 Non-response Rates to Ancestry by Birthplace, 1986 & 2001
Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 22: Non-response to Ancestry by Birthplace of Parents, 1986 & 2001
Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 23: Non-response to Ancestry by Language Spoken at Home, 1986 & 2001
Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 24: Non-response to Ancestry, by Sex, 1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 25: Non-response to Ancestry, by Age, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 5: Non-response to Ancestry by Age Range, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 26: Multiple Response Rate to Ancestry by State/Territories & Australia,
1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 6: Multiple Response Rate to Ancestry, by Age, Sex, 1986 & 2001
Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 27: Multiple Response to Ancestry, by Birthplace of Parents, 1986 & 2001
Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 28: Persons Responding: Percent Giving Multiple Response (and frequency) . . . . . . 33
 by Ancestry, Top and Bottom 30, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 29: Persons Responding: Percent Including Australian by Ancestry, Top and
Bottom 30, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 30: Key Ancestries with Irish, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 31: Significant Ancestries, Percent of All, 1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 7: Australian and English Ancestry, by Age, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 8: Permanent Arrivals: 1981-1999, Persons Born in China, Hong Kong and
Macau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 32: Persons Responding ‘Australian’ to Ancestry Question, by States,
Territories and Australia, 1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 33: Percent of Population Stating Australian Ancestry as a Response: by
Birthplace & Birthplace of Parents, 1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 34: Indicating Aspirational Ancestry, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 35: Maximum Aspirational Ancestry, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 9: Origin and Ancestry Questions on SIPF, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 36: Responses to Origin & Ancestry by Form Type, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 37: Correlation with Non-Australian Ancestry for Persons Born Overseas,
or With at Least One Parent Born Overseas, or Language Spoken at
Home Other than English, 2001 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 38: Large Non-English Speaking Groups: Comparison of Persons in Each
Group Based on Common Ancestry, Language and Birthplace of
Individual, 1986 & 2001 Censuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 About Census Papers

The ABS has a corporate objective to provide for informed and increased use of statistics.
This Paper is part of a series produced after each Census by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics' Population Census Evaluation team, whose role is to review the data quality of the
5-yearly Census of Population and Housing. The aim of Census Papers is to inform users of
issues that have been identified as impacting on the quality of the census data, which they
should keep in mind when utilising the data. Analyses such as this are a critical factor in the
continuous quality improvement of the Census Program. The ABS welcomes your feedback
and suggestions.

1.2 This Paper

The focus of this Detailed Paper is Ancestry - a question that has only been asked in two
Australian Censuses: in 1986 and 2001. Between those years, significant research, testing and
refinement have resulted in the 2001 question content and format shown in Section 2.3 2001
Census question format.

This Detailed Paper analyses Ancestry data quality in terms of question design, field
operations, and processing issues, with a particular focus on areas that underperformed in
2001 and require further improvement. To provide a comparative measure, this paper makes
regular statistical references to 1986 data. Together, information from the two snapshots
provide an insight into the changing backgrounds of the Australian population. Differences
between question phrasing, coding, or the classification structure have been noted.

A complementary Census Paper, titled 2001 Census: Ancestry - First and Second Generation
Australians (03/01a) is also available from the ABS.

1.3 Background to the inclusion of an Ancestry question

1.3.1 The 1986 and 1991 Censuses

A question on each person's Ancestry was asked for the first time in the 1986 Census. This
resulted from an investigation in 1984 by the Population Census Ethnicity Committee of the
need for data on ethnicity other than Language, Birthplace of Individual, or Birthplace of
Parents. The question was designed to identify the person's origin or ancestry, rather than the
ethnic group with which that person identified.

The aim of the 1986 question (see Section 2.4 1986 Census question format) was to measure
the ethnic composition of the population as a whole. Evaluation showed that it was not
useful for this purpose as there was a high level of subjectivity and confusion about what the
question meant. Very little use was made of the data from the 1986 Census and as a
consequence, Ancestry was not included in the 1991 Census. Refer to the ABS publication
Census 86: Data Quality Ancestry (Cat. no. 2603.0, 1990) for more detail.

1
1.3.2 The 1996 Census

In the lead up to the 1996 Census, two questions on Ancestry were tested to determine the
extent to which the results were compatible with, and augmented, data collected in existing
questions. One aspect of the assessment was the degree of compatibility with the 1986
question results. The testing program and results of the August 1993 Census Test for
Ancestry can be found on the ABS Website (see www.abs.gov.au/census/ under Working
Papers, Census Working Paper 94/4 - Ancestry). The analysis indicated that data quality for
both question formats was unacceptable and that the results were difficult to interpret due to:

! an unacceptably high non-response rate for the second question format;

! the proportion of responses for Australian-only ancestry for both question formats was
more than two times greater than for 1986 Census results. Analysis of Australian-born
respondents with one or both parents born overseas indicated that many of these people,
who clearly had an Ancestry that was not Australian, did not either report, or identify as
such;
! more people responded in the affirmative to the question format which asked if the
Ancestry they identified with was different to their country of birth, than those who
responded to the question format which asked whether their Ancestry was different from
their country of birth; and
! telephone follow-up of respondents revealed that, while most claimed they knew what
Ancestry meant they were uncertain how to answer the question on either question
format. Some respondents indicated that given the chance they would probably have
responded differently from the way in which they had.

As a consequence of the above concerns, it was recommended that a question on Ancestry

not be included in the 1996 Census.

1.3.3 The 2001 Census

As a result of user demands, the ABS established a Census Consultative Committee on

Ancestry in 1995 to seek user input and to identify user requirements for the data; research
international practices, as well as develop and test questions which may provide acceptable
and accurate data at a reasonable cost. In 1996, the Consultative Committee recommended
that an Ancestry question should be tested along the lines of the 1986 question but with some
pre-coded response categories - utilising intelligent character recognition (ICR) technology.

During the 2001 Census consultation process users had indicated the primary population
group of relevance for policy purposes consisted of persons born overseas or those who had
parents who were born overseas. Analysis of 1986 Census data and data from the Census
Testing Program showed that acceptable identification of these groups could be achieved
with a combination of an Ancestry question and a question on whether a person's parents
were born in Australia or overseas. This information, in conjunction with a person’s own
birthplace, would provide a good indication of the ethnic background of first and second
generation Australians.

2
Consequently, a question about Ancestry was included in the 2001 Census to enable
identification of those groups which cannot be identified adequately through the Census
questions on Language, Religion, Birthplace of Individual, Birthplace of Parents and
Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander origin. Census Paper 02/03 - 2001 Form Design Testing
Paper (on the ABS Website) contains information regarding the testing program for Ancestry
and other 2001 variables.

3
2 QUESTION DESIGN

2.1 Defining Ancestry

Research completed prior to the 1986 Census found that there was common understanding of
what the word Ancestry meant. The Population Census Ethnicity Committee, formed to
advise the Australian Statistician on, among other matters, ways in which information could
be obtained in a census to satisfy unmet requirements for data on ethnicity, found that
‘forefathers/forebears’, ‘our origins’, ‘family tree’, and ‘where you came from’ were
frequently suggested descriptions of Ancestry (The Measurement of Ethnicity in the
Australian Census of Population and Housing, Cat. no. 2172.0, 1984, p27).

The Information Paper Census 86: Data Quality Ancestry (Cat no. 2603.0, 1990) summarised
the Ethnicity Committee’s analysis of two approaches to measuring ethnicity as the
‘self-perceived identification approach’ and the ‘ancestry approach’:

‘The self-perceived identification approach is concerned with establishing the ethnic

group with which a person identifies, and is based on the person’s current
perceptions, irrespective of origin. People could identify with any ethnic group or
groups, irrespective of their background. Thus they could identify with an ethnic
group through being closely associated with the lifestyle and culture of that group
even if they were not of that group.’

‘Under the ancestry approach, people would be asked to base their ancestry on the
ethnic group from which they and their ancestors had descended. This is irrespective
of whether they continue to be associated with the lifestyle or culture of that group.’

The Committee opted for the ancestry approach, feeling that the alternative did not satisfy
the criteria for inclusion as a question in the 1986 Census.

The August 1993 Census Test (see Section 1.3.2), demonstrated that an element of confusion
regarding the definition and application of the term ‘ancestry’ still remained. Focus Group
testing in October 1998 revealed that, although people generally gave the same response to
questions including terms ‘ancestry’ and ‘cultural background’, discussion arrived at the
conclusion that the former was easier to understand and respond to, than the latter.

2.2 Identifying Ancestry

As explained earlier, a question on Ancestry was included in the 2001 Census to help identify
the ethnic backgrounds of first and second generation Australians. Responses to the question
may have been influenced, however, by the Census Guide, question design, personal
perspective, aspirations, or through third party intervention.

4
2.2.1 Census Guide

Page 7 of the 2001 Census Guide (see Appendix A: Ancestry-related information in the 2001
Census Household Guide) outlined how respondents should answer the Ancestry question.
‘Count your ancestry back as far as three generations. For example, consider your parents,
grandparents and great grandparents.’ While feedback from the Census Inquiry Service
(CIS) indicated that many people did not read the Census Guide, and therefore missed this
instruction, it may have affected the way some people responded to the question.

2.2.2 Other factors affecting the reporting of Ancestry

Some respondents may have been influenced by the presence of the option boxes to select a
response that was not fully representative of their ancestry (see Section 6.3.4 Ancestry
multiple response and the List Effect). Others (immigrants or children of immigrants) may
have marked ‘Australian’ as a statement of their decision or intent to align with their chosen
country of residence. Regardless, any response to Ancestry is based on personal perspective,
depending on the importance (or otherwise) of a variety of individual and historical
characteristics and traits.

It has been noted that, often, one person completes the Census Form on behalf of (but not
necessarily with the active input of) others in the household. For Ancestry, this practice can
introduce reporting bias - the responses may be ascribed only partially, or incorrectly, or not
what others in that household may have chosen to report for themselves.

2.3 2001 Census question format

2.3.1 Household and Personal Forms

Identical Ancestry questions appeared on the 2001 Census Household and Personal Forms.
Instructions on the forms included examples of what could be written, but also offered seven
Ancestries in an initial ‘mark box’ selection range. A Census Guide, handed out with each
Census Form, encouraged respondents to mark or write the Ancestries with which there was
closest identification, and to go back to their great grandparents (three generations), if known
(see Appendix 1 for relevant images of the Census Guide).

5
FIGURE 1: THE 2001 CENSUS ANCESTRY QUESTION (HOUSEHOLD & PERSONAL FORMS):

The mark boxes facilitated and encouraged a response (and provided some of the most likely
responses), while the Write-in section allowed for any other Ancestries to be recorded.
Information from the mark boxes was captured by the automated Data Capture (DC) process.
Information contained in the Write-in response boxes was automatically coded, where
possible, by the Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) system. If set tolerances for
recognition were unable to be met during ICR, the response was passed to a coder for manual
assignment to a particular Ancestry code. See Section 4 Processing Issues for a fuller
description of Census processing procedures.

2.3.2 Special Indigenous Personal Forms

People of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent living in nominated discrete

Indigenous areas in 2001 had their responses to the census recorded on a Special Indigenous
Personal Form (SIPF) by an interviewer.

While the examples given on the SIPF were the same as those on the Household and Personal
Forms, the range of mark box options was limited to two (‘Aboriginal’, and ‘Torres Strait
Islander’), plus an ‘Other - please specify’ option. The extremely low occurrence of
Australian Ancestry amongst those enumerated on Special Indigenous Personal Forms is
discussed in Section 6.5 Ancestry and Special Indigenous Personal Forms.

2.4 1986 Census question format

Six examples were included on the single form used in 1986 Census, but there were no mark
box options for respondents to complete, merely lines for recording Ancestry. As in 2001,
only the first two Ancestries were coded, though again there was no mention of this on the
form.

6
FIGURE 2: THE 1986 CENSUS ANCESTRY QUESTION:

A separate Guide was distributed with Census Forms. It stated:

‘Ancestry’ means the ethnic or national group from which you are descended. It is quite
acceptable to base your answer on your grandparents’ ancestry. Persons of mixed
ancestry who do not identify with a single group should answer with their multiple
ancestry. Persons who consider their ancestry to be Australian may answer ‘Australian’.

Throughout this paper, comparative data from 1986 is provided to illustrate change. Care
should be taken in deducing reasons for any intercensal variation between 1986 and 2001, as
the basis of information collection (examples given and mark boxes options in 2001) was
different.

2.5 Reduced Country of Birth for Parents in 2001

A factor that the Census has to consider is form size, which impacts on both respondent load
and processing costs. This was a major factor in the decision to reduce the Birthplace of
Father/Mother options to ‘Australia’ and ‘Overseas’ only, while reintroducing the Ancestry
question for individuals. Such a combination was considered by the Committee to provide
data of sufficient quality.

This decision restricts the further analysis of Ancestry by parents’ country of birth in detail.
In cases where the Ancestry of an individual has been coded to a generalised grouping, such
as Fiji Indian to Indian, ‘Overseas’ provides no more detail on where the parents originated.

The reintroduction (in future censuses) of specific Country of Birth, for both Father and
Mother, would not only provide additional clarification on Ancestry, but also support further
cross-analysis of language, income and other Census variables.

Such a change would impact on form design (substituting a Write-in Response Box, or list of
options, for the current ‘Overseas’ mark box for each of Father and Mother). Automated
processing in 2001 coded 93.0% of responses to Birthplace of Individual (a nearly identical
concept): these efficiencies are now proven. Utilising the classification and coding
instructions already in existence for Birthplace of Individual, each parent’s country of birth
should be able to be automatically coded, at reduced costs and processing time when
compared with 1996 (when a Write-in Response Box was last offered for these questions).

7
3. COLLECTION ISSUES

3.1 Background

The Ancestry question was self-enumerated by 97.3% of people counted in Australia on

Census Night. A further 0.4% were enumerated on interviewer-based Special Indigenous
Personal Forms. The balance (2.3%) reflects a combination of non-contact with individuals in
households and non-private dwellings, and information sourced from administrative records.

During the collection phase of the 2001 Census, collectors reported increased difficulty
contacting some householders. Access to secure small and large apartment buildings, gated
communities, and growing community concerns about security, make it increasingly difficult
to judge whether the residents of a dwelling are absent or not. System Created Records are
manufactured during census processing for people for whom a census form has not been
received but where the collector believes the dwelling was occupied on census night. System
Created Records have values imputed for age, sex, marital status and usual residence only;
values for other variables are set to Not Stated or Not Applicable, depending on the imputed
value for age.

An increase in non-response (Not Stated) rates is apparent for many census variables in the
2001 Census. Most of the change can be attributed to the increase in the proportion of
System Created Records. A Fact Sheet - Effect of Census Processes on Non-Response Rates
and Person Counts - has been produced and stored on the ABS Website that discusses the
factors that may have contributed to the increase in System Created Records for 2001, and
the percentage of records affected by state. Please refer to this for further details. An analysis
of non-response rates for Ancestry can be found in Section 6.2 Non-response.

3.2 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Staff at the Census Inquiry Service (a telephone service run by the ABS during the delivery
and collection phase of the 2001 Census) referred to the following prompts to answer
questions from callers:

TABLE 1: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Why do you need to know my ancestry? We need to know your ancestry to further the understanding of the
origins of Australians. Together with other census information, this
information will provide a comprehensive picture of the ethnic
background of Australians. This helps in the development of policies
and services that better reflect the needs of our diverse society.
What if my ancestries are not listed on the You should mark, 'Other-please specify' and write your ancestry(s) in
form? the boxes provided.
How far back do I have to go back to? You should count your ancestry back as far as three generations, if
known. You should consider your parents, grandparents and great
grandparents when answering this question.
Which side of the family do I count back to, You should count back your ancestries on both your father's and
my father’s side or my mother’s side? mother's side, if known.
What if I only know the ancestry of one parent? You should mark your ancestry(s) known for one parent.
What if I am unsure of both parents ancestries? You should leave this question blank or write ‘Not known’ in the
‘Other - please specify’ boxes.
What if I am adopted? If you were adopted, you should answer for your natural parents, if

8
 known. If not known, leave this question blank or write ‘Not known’
in the ‘Other - please specify’ boxes.
What if I have more than one ancestry? You should provide more than one ancestry, however, when
answering this question you should consider and mark the ancestries
with which you most closely identify.
What if I am of South Sea Islander descent? If you are a descendant of the South Sea Islanders brought to
Australia as indentured labour around the turn of the twentieth
century, you should write in 'AUSTRALIAN SOUTH SEA
ISLANDER' in the 'Other - please specify' boxes
Why ask questions about my ancestry and the Questions on ancestry and the birthplace of parents have been
birthplace of my parents? included to further the understanding of the origins of Australians.
Together with other census information, this information will provide
a comprehensive picture of the ethnic background of Australians.
This will assist in developing appropriate policies and services that
reflect the needs of first and second generation Australians.

3.3 Ethnic Enumeration Strategy

The principle aim of the Ethnic Enumeration Strategy (EES) developed by the ABS for the
2001 Census was to gain support for, and facilitate and encourage participation in the Census,
from the many community groups and nationalities that exist throughout Australia, in order
to effectively count Australia’s ethnic population. This involved:

! identifying ethnic groups, especially those likely to be missed or undercounted;

! raising awareness and encouraging cooperation by explaining the purpose of the
Census to ethnic communities; and
! providing appropriate assistance to those people who needed it, particularly people
from ethnic groups that had been undercounted in previous censuses and people who
were likely to have difficulty understanding or needed assistance in completing a
census form.

Identified groups were specifically informed about the existence and value of the Ancestry
question in the 2001 Census, through open meetings, and via a range of promotional and
information flyers distributed to ethnic communities. A language hotline was established to
provide Census assistance in 20 major languages, running for the duration of the
delivery/collection period.

9
4. PROCESSING ISSUES

4.1 Description of Coding Procedures

2001 Census forms were processed at the ABS’s Data Processing Centre (DPC) in Sydney.
After receipt, a scanned image of each form was taken, which was used for all further
processing.

Ancestry responses were almost exclusively coded as a result of one of three successive
processing procedures: Data Capture (DC), Automatic Coding (AC) and Computer Assisted
Coding (CAC). The remaining 2% were coded through manual intervention by Validation
staff.

Three quarters of all Ancestry responses were coded from the mark boxes. This does not
mean that 75% of all Ancestry responses were made within those boxes. The fact that only
the first two Ancestry responses were coded (see 5.4 Lost Ancestries) biases the
representation of mark box responses overall.

The coding breakdown was as follows:

TABLE 2: METHOD OF ANCESTRY CODING, 2001 CENSUS

Ancestry Coded Via: %

Data Capture (DC) 75.1
Automatic Coding (AC) 14.8
Computer-Assisted Coding (CAC) 8.1
Other 2.0

4.1.1 Data Capture (DC)

Data capture is the process of scanning the forms into the image and text files that are used
for all subsequent processes. At this stage, mark box responses are captured and coded, and
text responses are translated into machine readable symbols (through a process that assigns
percentages of surety for each individual character) which are examined for their fitness for
automatic coding (AC). Where the degree of tolerance was so low that automatic coding was
not possible, the field was sent to CAC.

4.1.2 Automatic Coding (AC)

Automatic coding is the process of computer matching the captured text responses to entries
on an index for that topic. If no match is made during AC, the response is sent to an operator
for computer assisted coding (CAC).

In this second stage of processing, the Automatic Coder attempted to match the textualised
ICR version of a response to an entry in the Coding Index. A table of tolerances was created
to provide a framework for operation. Using its own in-house developed system, the ABS

10
was one of the first international statistical agencies to utilise such technology to process
Census forms.

The expectation was that around 80% of First Release Processing (which included the
simplified response topics like Ancestry) could be coded automatically by the DC or AC
processes: in fact a coding match rate of 89.9% for Ancestry was achieved.

While AC significantly reduced processing cost and time, any errors were inevitably
systematic (see ‘Fiji Indian’ in Section 4.4.4 Discrepancies requiring recoding). This meant
that significant emphasis had to be placed on the subsequent Quality Management (QM)
process, to identify systematic errors and adjust tolerances where required. The aim was to
reduce the error rate to 1% - considered the level of human error. This was achieved for AC.

4.1.3 Computer-Assisted Coding (CAC)

Computer assisted coding is the process of using procedures and rules to allow a coder to
match the image of the text responses to entries on an index for that topic. If no match can be
made, the response may be 'dump' coded to a less specific index entry, or to Inadequately
Described. The operators also confirm if there is no response to the question for some fields.

Where AC could not definitively decipher a written response, or match it to an entry in the
Coding Index, the response was assigned to manual coding. The coder would search the
Ancestry Coding Index to select the appropriate match. Responses that couldn’t be found on
the Index were referred to staff in the Classification Section, who advised on the appropriate
code for Index updating (see Section 4.2 Index Issues).

4.2 Index Issues

All coding of responses is done by matching to index entries that map to a standard output
classification for the topic. Indexes are constantly updated during the processing phase, in
response to the types of answers respondents have provided. All additions to the index must
be mapped to a category in the standard output classification and are done so with the
assistance and approval of the ABS' classifications experts. Index updates are requested by
the coders to allow them to better code frequently occurring responses, and by the teams
looking at the data throughout processing, such as in response to discrepancy reports.

4.2.1 New and Revised Classifications

4.2.1.1 Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG)

Responses to the 2001 Ancestry question are classified using the Australian Standard
Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG). ASCCEG is a classification of
cultural and ethnic groups based on the geographic area in which a group originated or
developed and the similarity of cultural and ethnic groups in terms of social and cultural
characteristics. The Classification aims to classify all claims of association.

11
Coding rules for the ASCCEG are summarised as follows:

1) Exact matches with ASCCEG Index entries are assigned the code;
2) Spelling differences, abbreviations or idiosyncratic terms in a partial match are assigned
the code;
3) Partial matches with qualifying or extraneous words are given the code;
4) If index entry is not matched (as above) or there is reference to a separately identified
cultural or ethnic group in the Classification, a Not Elsewhere Classified (n.e.c.) category
code or Supplementary Code is assigned. Responses not precise enough to be coded to any
category should be coded to ‘Inadequately Described.’

ASCCEG was used for the first time in the 2001 Census and cannot be exactly equated with
the structure used in the 1986 Census due to geopolitical changes. The ABS publication
Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (Cat. No.1249.0) released
in October 2000 is available on the ABS Website at www.abs.gov.au. For more detail on this
classification, see the ASCCEG publication.

An examination of a sample of 2001 coding results revealed that classification of Ancestry

responses was straightforward for the overwhelming majority of cases. However, occurrences
of possible inconsistencies, through to definitive errors in adjudication, were also noted, and
the results fed back to the classification’s authors for appraisal.

4.2.1.2 Standard Australian Classification of Countries (SACC)

Ancestry data is often cross-classified with other variables, such as Birthplace.

In the 1996 Census, Birthplace data was classified using the Australian Standard
Classification of Countries for Social Statistics (ASCCSS). For 2001, this was replaced by
the Standard Australian Classification of Countries (SACC). Although there is no electronic
concordance that links ASCCSS and SACC, in most cases it is possible to recompile 2001
Birthplace to the previous classification at a country level.

See the ABS publication, Standard Australian Classification of Countries (SACC), Rev 2.01
(Cat. no. 1269.0), released in December 1999, which is available from the ABS Website
(www.abs.gov.au).

4.2.2 Coding of Dual Ancestry

Irish Australian and Italian Australian are examples of dual responses that were coded to
independent elements in the ASCCEG Index.

In its Coding Procedures outline on page 15, the ASCCEG states:

‘Many people do not identify with a single cultural or ethnic group only, and will give
multiple responses to a question on ancestry, ethnicity or cultural identity. Often a response
indicates an identification with a country in a national or cultural sense and also
acknowledges continuing ties with other ethnic or cultural groups. Such responses include:

12
Irish Australian, Italian Australian etc. These responses should be assigned codes for both
categories they relate to.’

This dual coding philosophy was not followed in some cases. ‘Austro Hungarian’ and
‘Franco Mauritian’, for example, were coded to ‘Inadequately Described’, and ‘Mauritian’,
respectively. Both determinations are inappropriate, as sufficient information was supplied to
identify the ancestries of importance to the respondents. In the former case, Classification
Adjudication had stated that Austro-Hungarian was not a sufficient description for coding
and in the latter, that what the respondents wanted to state was just ‘Mauritian’.

A recommendation to improve the coding of dual ancestry in future censuses has been raised.

4.2.3 Inadequately Described, and Not Further Defined, categories

The Ancestry classification used in 1986 had 94 categories, plus ‘Inadequately Described’,
‘Mixed’, and ‘Other’ ( the balance of all other identifiable Ancestries beyond the 94 coding
categories). For 2001, an attempt was made to code each response to one of the 189 Cultural
and Ethnic group codes in the ASCCEG. Examples include: Aussie to Australian; Myanmar
to Burmese; Muscovite to Russian; and Fiji Indian to Indian.

Where coding to a specific Cultural and Ethnic Group code was not possible, the response
was coded to one of the Supplementary codes: for example, 0901 ‘Eurasian, so described’;
2300 ‘Western European, not further defined’; or 0000 ‘Inadequately Described’.

It is recognised that the assigning of too many responses to ‘Inadequately Described’ and
other nondescript codes weakens the quality and breadth of Census data as a whole.

4.2.3.1 Inadequately Described

Where a response contains insufficient information to be coded to any level of the

classification, it is labeled ‘Inadequately Described’. In 1986, a further two categories were
employed to represent other recognisable responses that did not fit into the classification in
use at that time.

Results for 1986 and 2001 are shown below:

TABLE 3: INADEQUATELY DESCRIBED AND OTHER UNDEFINED RESPONSES TO
ANCESTRY, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
% of Total % of Total
Response Response
Response Type Number Population Number Population
Inadequately Described (a) 14,400 0.1 69,829 0.3
‘Mixed’ 21,500 0.1 - -
‘Other Ancestry’ 116,500 0.7 - -
Total not defined 152,400 0.9 69,829 0.3
(a) Scope changed between Censuses - see paragraph below

13
Table 3 demonstrates that the overall level of unidentified responses has decreased markedly,
though this is due to coding to a larger range of Ancestries in 2001.

The increase in the number of Ancestry responses being coded to Inadequately Described in
2001 can be partially explained as a change in procedure. In 2001, no formal coding query
assistance was made available to coders: if neither the coder nor supervisor could ascertain
an appropriate code from the Coding Index, the response was dumped to 0000.

While the number of responses coded to Inadequately Described in 2001 rose to nearly five
times the level of 1986, the overall rate was still low, equivalent to only one in every 308
responses. With respect to all Ancestry responses recorded, the 2001 coding process overall
was a significant improvement on 1986.

4.2.3.2 Not Further Defined (nfd)

Not Further Defined codes are part of the ASCCEG Supplementary Code range and are
designed to capture generalised responses that cannot be coded to a lower level. They exist at
two and one levels above the Cultural and Ethnic Group classification, at the Broad (e.g.
‘North African and Middle Eastern’) and the Narrow (e.g. ‘Arab’) level. Information coded
to ‘not further defined’ also impacts negatively on the quality of census data.

TABLE 4: ‘NOT FURTHER DEFINED’ BROAD AND NARROW GROUPS, 2001 CENSUS

Number of % of
Ancestry Response responses (a) grouping
1000 Oceanian, nfd 8,879 0.1
1100 Australian Peoples, nfd 0 0.0
1200 New Zealand Peoples, nfd 16 0.0
1300 Melanesian and Papuan, nfd 429 3.8
1400 Micronesian, nfd 80 8.7
1500 Polynesian, nfd 1,828 2.5
2000 North-West European, nfd 3,794 0.0
2100 British, nfd 11,760 0.2
2300 Western European, nfd 67 0.0
2400 Northern European, nfd 1,992 2.0
3000 Southern and Eastern European, nfd 2,127 0.1
3100 Southern European, nfd 30 0.0
3200 South Eastern European, nfd 9,799 1.3
3300 Eastern European, nfd 8,227 2.2
4000 North African and Middle Eastern, nfd 1,138 0.3
4100 Arab, nfd 15,840 6.6
4900 Other North African and Middle Eastern, nfd 0 0.0
5000 South-East Asian, nfd 44 0.0
5100 Mainland South-East Asian, nfd 0 0.0
5200 Maritime South-East Asian, nfd 0 0.0
6000 North-East Asian, nfd 3 0.0
6100 Chinese Asian, nfd 3 0.0
6900 Other North-East Asian, nfd 5 0.0
7000 Southern and Central Asian, nfd 6 0.0
7100 Southern Asian, nfd 3,082 1.1
7200 Central Asian, nfd 22 0.1
8000 People of the Americas, nfd 488 0.3
8100 North American, nfd 9 0.0
8200 South American, nfd 7,903 14.1

14
 8300 Central American, nfd 397 4.0
8400 Caribbean, nfd 1,735 39.5
9000 Sub-Saharan African, nfd 7,570 7.2
9100 Central and West African, nfd 143 2.8
9200 Southern and East African, nfd 298 0.3
Total ‘nfd’ responses recorded 87,714
(a) excluding overseas visitors

By comparison, while the concept ‘nfd’ was not used in 1986 for Ancestry, a small number
of categories were used to classify 460,979 generalised responses that contained some
indicative information. In the 1986 Census, 337,879 ancestries were classified as ‘British, so
described’, a further 98,139 ancestries were coded as ‘Other Brit incl Anglo Saxon’, while
24,943 ancestries were coded to ‘Arab’.

4.3 Edits

The ABS Census program has a minimalist editing approach, with most data output as
reported on census forms. However, editing is the systematic way of altering data to ensure
that it is :
!more complete. For example, if the basic demographic variables of age, sex or usual
residence are not stated, they are imputed based on known distributions;
!socially consistent to some extent. For example, age edits do not allow five year olds to
be attending high school; and
!consistent with ABS classifications used in other ABS collections. Census labour force
status is derived using the same derivation used in the Labour Force Survey, to allow
clients to more accurately compare data.

4.3.1 Special Ancestry coding rules

For Ancestry processing, programs and coders were instructed to only code the first two
Ancestries on a Census form. Section 5.4 Lost Ancestries examines the impact of this rule on
Census output.

To remove any duplication where two identical responses were captured (where an Ancestry
had been selected in the mark box range and had also been written in the ‘Other - please
specify’ Write-in Response Box section), the second response was set to ‘Not Applicable’ by
an edit.

4.4 Quality Management (QM)

A Quality Management (QM) system was established to identify systematic discrepancies in

processing, provide feedback to coders on discrepancies, and produce and analyse
discrepancy rates by topics.

15
4.4.1 The QM Process

Quality Management processing takes a sample of each coder's work, plus samples of codes
resulting from data capture and automatic coding, for duplicate coding by a second coder
When the original code and second code differ, both outcomes are written to a mismatch file;
these mismatches are then recoded for a third time, by an adjudicator, who determines which
is the correct code. When the adjudicator determines a code that differs from the original
and/or second coder, a discrepancy is recorded for that source; in some cases the adjudicator
may determine both are incorrect, and both will have a discrepancy recorded. A report of
these discrepancies is fed back to the relevant coder, or process, so that retraining can be
done, or systems updates can be made.

4.4.2 Discrepancy Rates

In the majority of cases, the data is not corrected as a result of this sampling: the aim is to
improve the coder or process so that such errors do not reoccur. Discrepancy Rates therefore
show error rates that are very close to those existing in the final data. However, in extreme
cases the production data is recoded - as with the initial coding to Sikh, where there was a
systemic problem of a serious nature, and also with ‘big ticks’ for Chinese/Australian
Ancestry (see Section 4.4.4 Discrepancies requiring recoding). The discrepancies are also
aggregated into the Management Information System (MIS) reports which provide data on
the types and frequencies of coding errors over time.

The QM system in place during processing allowed the detection of discrepancies and the
calculation of a crude discrepancy rate. This crude discrepancy rate differs from a true
discrepancy rate for the following reasons:

! a higher proportion of ‘poor’ coders’ work was included in the quality monitoring
sample;
! the Quality Management check coders could make the same mistake as the original coder
and therefore an error would not be detected;
! there is not always an absolutely correct code for every response; and
! discrepancies were recorded for any difference in coding between the Quality
Management coder and the original coder.

The DPC routinely reviewed between 10% and 50% of automatic and manual coding. This
practice was ongoing, though, particularly with a ‘human’ coder, the percentage chosen for
review varied depending on their performance. In this way a measure of quality could be
made, and extra training or ongoing support provided if a staff member was having
continuing problems. Automatic processes were also continuously monitored.

There would invariably have been errors that coders or systems would have made that were
repeated by the QM coders - therefore ensuring that further review of Adjudication never
occurred. Such occurrences, however, would have been small - no doubt less than the
confirmed Discrepancy Rate. Balancing out this aspect was the greater scrutiny of coders
experiencing difficulty.

16
4.4.3 Discrepancy Rates in final data

Generally, the Discrepancy Rates outlined below can be presumed to be close to the error rate
with the finally released data.

Nevertheless, there were also system ‘fixes’ and retrospective recodes (as with Sikhs) for big
ticks that covered Chinese as well as the intended Australian (see Section 4.4.4, below).
Discrepancy Rates were not recalculated for these.

The final Discrepancy Rates for the coding of first and second Ancestry responses (referred
to as ANC1 and ANC2) were:

TABLE 5: OVERALL DISCREPANCY RATES FOR ANC1 & ANC2, 2001 CENSUS

Variable Discrepancy Rate

ANC1 1.4%
ANC2 0.7%

These results were close to the 1% expected error rate had all records been coded manually.

When broken down to each coding process, the figures are:

TABLE 6: DISCREPANCY RATES FOR ANC1 & ANC2 BY CODING PROCESS, 2001 CENSUS

Computer
Variable Data Capture Automatic Coding Assisted Coding
ANC1 1.5% 0.7% 1.4%
ANC2 0.5% 0.6% 1.9%

The most significant difference was in the DC process, where ANC1 had more than three
times the error rate of ANC2. This variation can be explained by the large ‘Not Applicable’
component in ANC2 coding - reducing the likelihood of error. The Discrepancy Rates for
ANC1 and ANC2 were primarily due to ‘big ticks’ and ‘cross-outs’ (see Section 4.4.4
Discrepancies requiring recoding below).

Discrepancy Rates recorded for the 8.1% of Ancestries coded by CAC reflect the variances
that can occur with increased manual intervention, and the higher proportion of write-in
responses coded by the CAC process.

Overall, for all coding processes, the Discrepancy Rate figures averaged around 1% with a
potential total of around 378,000 errors in Ancestry coding. An estimated 98% of these
remain in the final data.

4.4.4 Discrepancies requiring recoding

The following examples show how discrepancy data are used to monitor data quality and
determine where reprocessing was required.

17
(a) A self-described Fiji Indian was found to have been automatically coded to Sikh. This
had occurred after the four letters of Fiji were mistakenly ‘read’ by AC as Sikh. For
subsequent occurrences of Fiji Indian, the system continued to automatically assign the
incorrect Sikh Ancestry code.

Upon discovery, the data processed to that stage were reviewed, the Coding Index was
updated so that this response was no longer able to be coded by AC, and affected records
were amended to the correct code (Indian).

Similar problems occurred with South Africa/Sudan Africa, and N. Ireland/Netherlands,

for birthplace.

(b) Discrepancy rates, and coder feedback, identified some records for which a big tick
(rather than the appropriate dash) in a mark box triggered an unintentional count for the
Ancestry listed above it.

FIGURE 3: EXAMPLE OF ‘BIG TICK’

DPC staff investigated a sample of 83,644 form images. They found that in that number,
there were 102 instances where Chinese and Australian had both been coded.

In 30 of these cases, a big tick for Australian had passed through the coding area for
Chinese, leading to an additional Ancestry being coded. In a further eight others, Chinese
had been crossed-out and Australian marked, but both had been counted.

TABLE 7: DC CODING ERRORS: CHINESE/AUSTRALIAN, 2001 CENSUS

No. Dual Coded % of Sample Extrapolated

Option Chinese/Aust in Error Group (83,644) to Australia
Big Ticks 30 0.04 6,566
‘Chinese’ crossed-out 8 0.01 1,751

Overall, it was estimated that the number claiming Chinese Ancestry could be inflated
by around 1.5%. It was decided to review all coded Chinese/Australian combinations.
As a result, over 5,000 records were recoded - though the error is still reflected in the
Discrepancy Rate.

18
The Discrepancy Rate indicates that there were around 206,000 DC errors for ANC1,
with all but the recodes for Chinese/Australian likely to be in final data.

(c) Cross-outs, like big ticks, also affected Ancestry coding, and were revealed in ANC1
and ANC2 Discrepancy Rates.

FIGURE 4: EXAMPLE OF ‘CROSS-OUT’

Part way through the processing phase, a system edit was created to ensure that
English-Australian combinations were reviewed (during the Repair process) to see if
English had been crossed out. Where this was the case, English was ignored. This change
would have been too late to stop some errors of this type being reflected in the
Discrepancy Rates.

19
5 SAMPLE DATA

5.1 Data Quality Investigation Sample

A 2% statistically derived sample of Collection Districts (CDs) (approximately 760) from

each State and Territory in Australia, representing a range of urban and rural CDs; and two
smaller samples, focused on Indigenous, and Homeless populations, were identified for 2001.
Using these samples, Data Quality Investigation tasks (DQIs) were carried out at the 2001
DPC, directly related to the areas for which in-depth investigations were planned. The
resulting data quality information is made available to clients in Census Papers and other
related publications, and through analysis provided via the Census query service.

The main DQI sample used for additional analysis comprised:

TABLE 8: THE DQI SAMPLE (a), BY STATE, 2001

State Persons in DQI Sample

New South Wales 122,755
Victoria 90,523
Queensland 68,891
South Australia 27,821
Western Australia 37,372
Tasmania 8,570
Northern Territory 3,372
Australian Capital Territory 7,051
Other Territories 312
Total 366,667
(a) enumerated on Household or Personal Forms only. Excludes Overseas
Visitors, and SCRs (non contact and administrative record data).

This sub-population was the base used to extrapolate to Australia-wide comparisons in the
following sections.

5.2 DQI for Ancestry

Using the sample CDs for the Ancestry topic, the DQI Team collated the number of
Ancestries reported by each person, up to six, and the details of Ancestry, Birthplace,
Birthplace of Parents and Language for persons who reported more than two Ancestries. The
following analyses were then undertaken:

! an investigation of Multiple Marking - where a respondent identified more than one

Ancestry;

! the most common Ancestries lost under the Two Ancestries rule; and

! the strength of ethnic identification as measured by Birthplace for those excluded under
the Two Ancestries rule.

20
5.3 The Ancestry Population

In determining the ‘Ancestry Population’ - a meaningful subset of the number of people

counted in Australia on Census Night to be used as a benchmark for Ancestry data quality
analysis - a total of 666,253 non-contributing records were excluded. These records are
Overseas Visitors (203,101), and System Created Records (SCRs), comprising non-contact
(403,729) and admin/other (59,423).

TABLE 9: KEY ANCESTRY-RELATED FIGURES, 2001 CENSUS

Component Details Count

Total Census population 18,972,350
Records that could not respond to Ancestry
(SCRs, Overseas Visitors) 666,253
Potential respondents to Ancestry (the ‘Ancestry Population’) 18,306,097

The DQI Multiplier Factor used to extrapolate from the DQI Sample total, to the Ancestry
Population, is:

18,306,097 divided by 366,667 = 49.93

5.4 Lost Ancestries (The impact of coding only the first two Ancestries)

The issue that had the most impact on data quality for Ancestry, was the decision to code the
first two Ancestry responses only, for each person. This decision was taken to limit
processing costs and time and, on the surface, seemed to be logical and consistent with 1986
practice. It was also consistent with the ASCCEG, which recommended (p16):

‘It is suggested that a minimum of two cultural and ethnic groups be coded if a
multiple response is given. This will improve the accuracy and usefulness of the
data.’

However, no mention of this limitation was printed on the Census Form or Guide. Therefore,
respondents completed the question in good faith, believing that every identification made
would be retained and counted. A stated limit could have imposed some prioritisng of
responses.

Respondents may have been encouraged into multiple response by the presence of the mark
boxes. By the time they had reached the Write-in Boxes, some respondents, unknowingly,
were already over the undisclosed limit of two Ancestries.

The following table outlines the frequency of multiple marking for the Ancestry question in
the DQI Sample:

21
 TABLE 10: NUMBER AND FREQUENCY OF PEOPLE REPORTING ANCESTRY,
based on DQI Sample

Ancestries Total No. of

per Person (A) Frequency (B) Percentage Cumulative % Ancestries (AxB)
0 16,920 4.6 4.6 0
1 270,050 73.7 78.3 270,050
2 53,536 14.6 92.9 107,072
3 17,728 4.8 97.7 53,184
4 6,067 1.7 99.3 24,268
5 1,777 0.5 99.8 8,885
6 463 0.1 100.0 2,778
7 92 0.0 100.0 644
8 24 0.0 100.0 192
9 3 0.0 100.0 27
10 6 0.0 100.0 60
12 1 0.0 100.0 12
Total 366,667 100.0 467,172

The sample indicates that 92.9% of people reported between 0 and 2 ancestries, and 7.1% of
the sample population had some of their reported ancestries excluded from further processing
under the ‘code two Ancestries only’ rule.

There were 467,172 Ancestries in the DQI Sample, making an average of 1.27 Ancestries per
person (when non-responses were included) and 1.34 Ancestries per person for the 349,747
DQI Sample persons who responded.

Using this outcome from the DQI Sample produces the following results for the potential
number of respondents in the Census who stated more than two ancestries:

TABLE 11: PERSONS STATING MORE THAN TWO ANCESTRIES (a), based on DQI Sample

Persons stating 3+ Estimated Number of Persons stating 3+ Ancestries

Ancestries (extrapolated to Ancestry Population using DQI
(DQI Sample) Multiplier Factor)
26,161 1,306,219
(a) Excludes Overseas Visitors, but includes non-responses. If non-responses are
excluded, the figure would be 7.5%, or 1,306,742 respondents.

A total of 37,728 DQI Sample responses to the Ancestry question were not captured (8.1% of
all Ancestry responses), representing nearly 1.9 million lost ancestries Australia-wide.

TABLE 12: NUMBER OF ANCESTRIES LOST, based on DQI Sample

Number of Ancestries Estimated Number of Ancestries Lost

Lost (DQI Sample) (using 21,513,178 coded)
37,728 1,890,044

An analysis of ancestries in the 2001 Census Dress Rehearsal (DR) revealed that 52.8% of all
lost Ancestries had been write-in responses. Extrapolated to the estimated number of
Ancestries lost in the 2001 Census, it could be surmised that 997,943 of the lost responses
were written in, and not from the list of mark-box options on the form.

22
It should be noted that the DQI Team only coded up to six Ancestries per person. The sample
uncovered 126 persons who stated more than six - and even up to 12 - Ancestries.
Extrapolated nationally (using the DQI Sample multiplier of 49.93), they would represent
6,291 persons, and 8,916 lost ancestries.

Though Ancestries 7 to 12 are included in the figures in the above tables, none of the DQI
tables or extrapolated counts in this paper that involve a breakdown to Ancestry level
(including Appendix B: The Impact of Lost Ancestries) allow for these extra lost Ancestries.

With around one in every 12 Ancestries lost, it is important to analyse which Ancestries were
the most affected:

TABLE 13: FREQUENCY OF LOST ANCESTRIES: TOP 10 (a), based on DQI sample

Estimated
Ancestry Lost Frequency Lost Frequency Lost:
(DQI Sample) in DQI Sample Aust (DQI x 49.93)
Australian 12,137 606,000
Scottish 6,677 333,383
German 3,524 175,953
French 1,451 72,448
Welsh 1,309 65,358
Dutch 1,045 52,177
Italian 960 47,933
New Zealand 762 38,047
Spanish 679 33,902
Polish 644 32,155
(a) This does not include any Ancestries past the sixth stated for a person (which were not coded in the DQI
Sample), nor those coded into Narrow groups (the 00s) in the ASCCEG Classification.

The figures in the above table show that Australian was the most frequently lost Ancestry -
making up nearly one third of the estimated 1.9 million Ancestries lost. While this is a
significant percentage of all Ancestries lost and the extrapolated total of over 600,000
Australia-wide is large, the actual percentage of Australian lost, at 8.2%, is relatively small.

Further analysis of lost Ancestries has estimated that of those who lost Australian Ancestry,
91.8% had also marked English (and 75.4% Irish). As so many of those losing Australian
also selected English and Irish, it is reasonable to presume that the mark box options
encouraged their selection.

A much more useful measure of data quality is the percentage of each Ancestry lost. Based
on DQI Sample analysis, 31 Ancestries lost over 25% of their count. French was most
affected, with nearly half of its write-in responses not captured. In contrast, while significant
in count, Australian (8.2%) ranked only 91st (in percentage terms) of all Cultural and Ethnic
Groups affected.

23
 TABLE 14: PERCENTAGE OF ANCESTRY LOST: TOP 10 (a), based on DQI Sample

Ancestry Lost Frequency Lost

(DQI Sample) in DQI Sample Frequency Lost: Aust Lost Aust (%)
French 1,451 72,448 47.8
Swedish 429 21,420 46.7
Danish 633 31,606 45.0
Welsh 1,309 65,358 43.7
Norwegian 246 12,283 41.5
Scottish 6,677 333,383 38.1
American 442 22,069 33.2
Spanish 679 33,902 31.0
Swiss 199 9,936 30.9
Canadian 158 7,889 28.3
(a) Only shows Ancestries for which the Census count was 10,000 persons or more

A full listing of all Cultural and Ethnic Groups and how they have been affected by Ancestry
loss appears in Appendix B: The Impact of Lost Ancestries.

Other Census data can be used to cross-classify with those respondents stating three or more
Ancestries, to gain some measure of association with lost Ancestries. The percentage of
those stating three or more (3+) Ancestries who were born in Australia, and/or had a father or
mother born in Australia, assists in this. Comparing Birthplace of an Individual (BPLP),
Birthplace of Male Parent (BPMP) and Birthplace of Female Parent (BPFP) presents the
following cross-classification:

TABLE 15: THREE OR MORE (3+) ANCESTRIES & BIRTHPLACE (a), based on DQI Sample

% of 3+ with % of 3+ with both

% of 3+ with % of 3+ with Father Mother born in parents born in
Birthplace in Australia born in Australia Australia Australia
89.6% 75.8% 78.6% 66.1%
(a) Excludes Overseas Visitors

The figures above clearly show that most of those who stated three or more Ancestries were
both Australian born and had at least one parent born here.

While two-thirds of those with lost Ancestries were at least third generation Australians, only
32% of Ancestries lost were Australian. This shows that there is a smaller degree of
Ancestral Distance - less than 2 - for around one third of those who lost an Ancestry other
than Australian.

Respondents claiming lost Ancestries were predominantly born in Australia, as the next table
shows:

24
 TABLE 16: TOP 10 BIRTHPLACES OF ANCESTRY LOSERS, based on DQI Sample

Estimated Frequency of 3+
Birthplace of 3+ Frequency in 3+ group (extrapolated to Australia-wide)
Australia 23,447 1,170,709
New Zealand 645 32,205
England 390 19,473
USA 193 9,636
South Africa 99 4,943
Canada 70 3,495
Scotland 52 2,596
Malaysia 48 2,397
Papua New Guinea 48 2,397
Philippines 42 2,097

It is also interesting to note that all the top six birthplaces in the table above are countries
which have accepted significant numbers of immigrants and refugees in the post World War
II period.

The result of coding only the first two Ancestries was that over 8% (close to two million) of
all stated Ancestries were never coded - though the percentage never included the first two
Ancestries in the mark box listing (when selected), English and Irish, which by virtue of their
positioning were always counted. The impact on a large number of mark box, and write-in,
Ancestry counts, was therefore severe.

A full listing of all 189 ASCCEG Cultural and Ethnic Groups, their Census Ancestry count,
revised Ancestry estimate and percentage of Ancestries lost, as well as a frequency ranking
of both the Census count and the revised Ancestry estimate, can be found in Appendix B: The
Impact of Lost Ancestries.

25
6. FINAL DATA

6.1 Key Ancestry-related Figures

The following benchmarks from the 2001 Census give some perspective to the analysis in
this chapter.

TABLE 17: KEY ANCESTRY-RELATED FIGURES, 2001 CENSUS

Component Details Count Calculation

Total number of persons counted in Australia on
Census night (incl Overseas Visitors). 18,972,350
All valid responses to Ancestry recorded 21,513,178
ANC1s (First Ancestry Responses) 17,469,527
Multiple responses 4,043,651 21,513,178 - 17,469,527
Multi-response % of Ancestry Population 22.1% 4,043,651 / 18,306,097
Multi-response % of Respondents to Ancestry (ANC1) 23.2% 4,043,651 / 17,469,527
Non-response (Not Stated) 836,570
Non-response Rate 4.6% 836,570 / 18,306,097

6.2 Non-response

6.2.1 Non-response Rates

Non-response to Ancestry in 2001 was reduced by a third when compared to 1986. In 2001,
approximately 836,600 people did not answer the Ancestry question when completing their
2001 form, down from an estimated 1,063,400 in 1986. The addition of mark box options that
included Australian, may well have been the most significant factor.

TABLE 18: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY & RELATED QUESTIONS,

1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Non-response Non-response
Census Question Rate (%) (a) Rate (%) (b)
Ancestry (ANCP) 6.8 4.6
Birthplace of Individual (BPLP) 1.6 3.2
Birthplace of Male Parent (BPMP) 3.1 2.1
Birthplace of Female Parent (BPFP) 2.8 3.3
Language Spoken at Home (LANP) 1.8 2.4
Religion (RELP) 11.9 7.5
(a) excludes Overseas Visitors.
(b) excludes Overseas Visitors, non-contact and admin/other records (see Section 5.3)

The non-response rate in 2001 decreased across all states and territories. The Northern
Territory and Victoria registered the greatest reductions in non-response (down 3.6, and 3.2
percentage points, respectively). The ACT again recorded the lowest non-response rate.

26
 TABLE 19: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY BY STATE/TERRITORIES
& AUSTRALIA, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES
%
Non-response by
State/Territory NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT ACT AUST
Ancestry 1986 6.6 8.0 6.8 5.7 5.5 7.3 8.0 5.0 6.8
Ancestry 2001 4.5 4.8 4.9 4.1 4.0 5.6 4.4 3.3 4.6 (a)
(a) Includes Other Territories (5.2%)

6.2.2 Characteristics of Non-respondents

While everyone was expected to complete the Ancestry question, there was a general
perception that the Ancestry question was designed for those with non-Australian Ancestries.
This resulted in a higher non-response rate amongst the Australian born:

TABLE 20: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY COMPARED TO TOTAL POPULATION,

BY BIRTHPLACE, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Non-response to % of Total Non-response to % of Total
Birthplace Ancestry (%) Population Ancestry (%) Population
Australia 7.0 77.6 4.2 74.4
Overseas 1.3 20.8 2.8 22.4
Not Stated 71.2 1.6 26.8 3.2

As can be seen from the table above, the Overseas-born rate of non-response has more than
doubled, while those born in Australia have nearly half the non-response rate of their 1986
counterparts. Non-response for those not stating Birthplace, decreased substantially.

The following table shows the top 20 non-response rates to Ancestry for those who stated
their Birthplace:

27
 TABLE 21: TOP 20 NON-RESPONSE RATES TO ANCESTRY BY BIRTHPLACE (a),
1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Non- Non-
Birthplace Freq response Birthplace Freq response
(BPLP) (BPLP) Rate (%) (BPLP) (BPLP) Rate (%)
1 Norfolk Island 719 39.2 Kyrgyz Republic 102 11.8
2 Australia 12,110,456 7.0 Samoa 13,206 8.3
3 Tonga 4,474 3.4 Somalia 3,711 7.7
4 Cook Islands 1,456 3.3 Tonga 7,656 6.7
5 PNG 21,352 3.2 Ethiopia 3,540 6.5
6 Argentina 9,195 3.1 Paraguay 312 6.4
7 Western Samoa 2,983 3.0 Eritrea 1,599 6.0
8 New Caledonia 1,180 2.9 Seychelles 2,447 5.9
9 El Salvador 2,103 2.9 Norfolk Island 199 5.5
10 Brazilian 2,006 2.8 Tunisia 417 5.5
11 Albania 1,130 2.7 Cook Islands 4,733 5.5
12 Israel 185 2.6 Niue 494 5.5
13 Lithuania 5,346 2.4 Costa Rica 297 5.4
14 Mexico 678 2.4 Moldova 477 5.2
15 Mauritius 13,087 2.4 American Samoa 153 5.2
16 Portugal 14,912 2.3 Albania 1,440 4.9
17 Romania 8,117 2.3 El Salvador 9,689 4.7
18 Chile 18,740 2.3 Malta 46,971 4.7
19 Nauru 536 2.2 Tokelau 262 4.6
20 South Africa 37,061 2.2 Nicaragua 699 4.6
(a) Only accounts for countries with Birthplace of Individual frequency of 100 or more. Others in 2001, such as
Mauritania, Marshall Islands, Gabon, St Kitts & Nevis, Cape Verde and Turkmenistan all had higher
non-response rates but a frequency of less than 100.

Australian-born non-response in 2001 was 4.2% (making Australia the 52nd highest
non-response by Birthplace). Pacific island nations (excluding Norfolk Island), made up six
of the top 20, though New Zealand placed 73rd with only 3.6%.

A similar improvement can be seen for those of Australian parentage:

TABLE 22: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY BY BIRTHPLACE OF PARENTS,

1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Non-response to % of Total Non-response to % of Total
Parents’ Birthplace Ancestry (%) Population Ancestry (%) Population
Both Australian-born 7.0 58.5 4.1 55.1
Father Australian-born (a) 5.6 4.0 5.4 5.7
Mother Australian-born 5.9 7.1 4.5 7.3
(a)
Both parents born
Overseas (b) 2.0 28.0 3.0 30.5
Both parents Birthplace
Not Stated 63.8 2.4 52.3 1.5
Total 100.0 100.0
(a) Other parent born Overseas or Not Stated (b) Or one parent born overseas and other not stated
28
Non-response for all groups (except those with both parents born overseas) dropped for 2001.
The fact that those with both parents born in Australia, fell the most (from 7.0% to 4.1%) and
that when both were overseas-born, it rose, strongly suggests that the inclusion of Australian
Ancestry as an option on the Census Form triggered these non-response changes.

The reduction in non-response for those of Australian Ancestry is reflected in the lower
non-response for those with English Only, as a language, as shown in the next table:

TABLE 23: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY BY LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME,

1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Language Spoken Non-response to % of Total Non-response to % of Total
At Home Ancestry (%) Population Ancestry (%) Population
English only 6.1 84.1 3.9 82.0
Other language 2.6 14.0 3.2 15.6
Not Stated 74.4 2.0 36.6 2.4
Total 100 100

Consistent with results from Table 22, those speaking an Other Language at home, were the
only group to rise in non-response. English Only, containing most of those with Australian
Ancestry, fell from 6.1% non-response to 3.9%.

There is little difference between the sexes when answering the Ancestry question, although
males were slightly more likely to answer than females, a change from 1986.

TABLE 24: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY, BY SEX, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Response Type Male (%) Female (%) Male (%) Female (%)
Non-response 6.9 6.8 4.5 4.6

The general drop in non-response by sex was naturally expected with the drop in
non-response overall.

An examination of non-response to Ancestry by age shows the following distribution:

TABLE 25: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY BY AGE, 2001 CENSUS

Age Range Total All Non-response Non-response %

0-4 1,213,588 105,169 8.7
5 - 14 2,606,743 151,435 5.8
15 - 24 2,497,398 103,242 4.1
25 - 34 2,644,604 91,815 3.5
35 - 44 2,794,036 92,909 3.3
45 - 54 2,509,109 74,092 3.0
55 - 64 1,721,372 57,467 3.3
65 & Over 2,319,247 160,441 6.9
Total 18,306,097 836,570 4.6

29
The difference in non-response rate between age ranges is more clearly shown in the diagram
below:

FIGURE 5: NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY BY AGE RANGE, 2001 CENSUS

NON-RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY BY AGE RANGE, 2001

CENSUS
%
10

0
0-4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Age Range

Non response for many Census questions is typically higher for infant children than for
adults; testing has identified that some parents consider many Census questions, or the
Census itself, irrelevant to their infants.

It is possible that the larger non-response for persons aged 65 and over is due to a lack of
carer knowledge or any relevant administrative records.

6.3 Multiple Response

Overall, 22.1% of the total Ancestry population indicated multiple Ancestry. When
non-respondents (836,570) are excluded, of those who responded, 23.1% indicated more than
one Ancestry.

The increase on the 1986 multiple ancestry rate (12.6%) can in part be attributed to the seven
mark box format that encouraged a range of possibilities (see Section 6.2.4 Ancestry Multiple
Responses and the List Effect).

6.3.1 Multiple response by State, Age, and Sex

All States and Territories showed a sharp rise in their percentage of multiple response. The
biggest increase was from Tasmania, though it came from the lowest base. At the other end,
the ACT recorded the most ‘mixed’ population (29.7%).

30
 TABLE 26: MULTIPLE RESPONSE RATE (a) TO ANCESTRY, BY
STATES/TERRITORIES & AUSTRALIA, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

State/Territory (b) 1986 (%) 2001 (%)

NSW 12.1 20.8
VIC 12.0 20.7
QLD 14.3 24.9
SA 12.4 22.6
WA 12.9 23.3
TAS 9.8 20.2
NT 13.3 20.9
ACT 17.4 29.7
Australia 12.6 22.1

Australia (No.) 1,960,400 4,043,227

(a) Persons responding with more than one Ancestry as a percentage of total persons in each category
(b) Excludes Other Territories

As Figure 6 shows, the multiple response rate in 2001 across all age ranges was significantly
and consistently higher than in 1986 - by around 10 percentage points. Note that in both
Censuses, only the first two Ancestries were coded. Two possible reasons for this increase
include:
! the occurrence of multiple ancestries has increased in the past 15 years, or
! people were less inclined to report multiple ancestries in 1986, but more inclined to do so
in 2001.

FIGURE 6: MULTIPLE RESPONSE RATE TO ANCESTRY, BY AGE, SEX, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES
MULTIPLE RESPONSE RATE TO
By Age & Sex, 1986 & 2001
ANCESTRY,
Censuses
%
30 Males 2001
Females 2001
Males 1986
25 Females 1986

20

15

10

5
0-4 5 - 14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Over
Age Range

There is a marked similarity between the multiple response rates in 1986 and the same points
15 years later. This generally validates both 1986 and 2001 responses at this broad level.

Of note also in Figure 6 are the consistently higher multiple response rates for females, and
the decreasing tendency to report multiple responses as age increases.

6.3.2 Multiple Response by Birthplace, and Birthplace of Parents

Making exact comparisons of Birthplace data from 1986 and 2001 is not possible at all levels
due to political and national boundary, as well as classification, changes. However, most
31
elements are directly comparable within the 2001 classification structure. Refer to Appendix
C for full details.

Traditional immigrant nations like the United States (40.3%), Canada (37.5%) and to a lesser
extent Argentina (29.0%) and New Zealand (28.5%) displayed the highest multiple response
rates in 2001. The lowest multiple ancestry rates were recorded for those born in Greece
(1.8%), Italy (1.7%), China (1.5%) and South Korea (1.1%).

Almost 82% of countries for which comparative data is available showed an increase in
multiple response. However, reductions were recorded for a number of birthplace groups;
such as Cyprus (14.3% to 6.9%), India (21% to 9.8%) and Bangladesh (11.5% to 3.5%).

The pairing of an immigrant parent with a locally-born one is the most likely parental
combination to produce Multiple Ancestry Response:

TABLE 27: MULTIPLE RESPONSE TO ANCESTRY,

BY BIRTHPLACE OF PARENTS, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Parents’ Birthplace Number % (a) Number % (a)
Both Australian-born 1,072,300 11.8 2,297,723 22.8
Father Australian-born (b) 186,300 29.6 441,001 42.5
Mother Australian-born (b) 335,000 30.1 625,130 46.9
Both parents born Overseas (c) 357,100 8.2 646,169 11.8
Both parents Birthplace
Not Stated 9,500 2.5 18,888 7.01
Total 1,960,200 12.6 4,043,651 22.1
(a) Persons in each category responding with more than one Ancestry as a percentage of all persons in that
Parents’ Birthplace category. (b) Other parent born Overseas or Not Stated. (c) Or one parent born Overseas
and other Not Stated.

6.3.3 Propensity to report multiple Ancestries

Table 28 presents a subset of the Ancestries most often combined with at least one other
Ancestry, as well as identifying those Ancestries least found in Ancestry combinations.

32
 TABLE 28: PERSONS RESPONDING: PERCENT GIVING MULTIPLE RESPONSE (AND
FREQUENCY), BY ANCESTRY, TOP & BOTTOM 30 (a), 2001 CENSUS

Top 30 Bottom 30
% %
Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple
Response Response Response Response
Ancestry Frequency 2001 (b) Ancestry Frequency 2001 (b)
1 Irish 1,456,032 75.8 Jordanian 522 19.4
Native North
2 American Indian 1,293 69.7 Armenian 2,659 18.1
3 German 506,990 68.3 Coptic 605 18.1
4 French 51,094 64.6 Sinhalese 10,333 17.6
5 Jamaican 764 65.4 Sudanese 667 17.6
6 Swedish 15,773 64.6 Indian 26,826 17.1
7 Canadian 12,868 64.3 Pakistani 2,150 17.0
8 Norwegian 10,842 62.7 Iraqi 1,893 16.9
Australian
9 Welsh 52,800 62.7 Aboriginal 14,763 15.6
10 Danish 23,987 62.1 Chinese 82,242 14.8
11 American 26,192 59.2 Khmer 3,129 14.7
12 Scottish 308,466 57.1 Lao 1,351 13.4
13 French Canadian 688 55.2 Iranian 2,270 12.1
14 Mexican 873 53.4 Lebanese 19,476 12.0
15 Niuean 687 52.8 Taiwanese 498 11.3
16 Swiss 11,610 52.4 Kurdish 484 10.8
17 New Zealander 63,924 51.8 Salvadoran 710 10.7
18 Zimbabwean 1,469 50.7 Turkish 5,845 10.7
19 African American 608 50.5 Macedonian 8,406 10.3
20 Austrian 19,147 50.2 Nepalese 268 9.1
Papua New Assyrian/
21
Guinean 4,684 49.6 Chaldean 1,689 9.1
22 Malay 8,793 48.1 Ethiopian 266 8.7
23 Spanish 35,157 46.7 Bosnian 1,514 8.4
24 Estonian 3,523 46.7 Afghan 872 7.0
25 Argentinian 2,922 45.1 Eritrean 139 6.8
26 Maori 32,563 44.6 Vietnamese 9,429 6.0
27 Afrikaner 731 44.4 Bengali 500 4.2
28 Lithuanian 5,458 44.3 Somali 215 4.3
29 Russian 25,955 43.1 Korean 1,410 3.2
30 Dutch 114,832 42.7 Hmong 51 2.8
(a) Includes only Ancestries with total counts of 1,000 or more. (b) Persons in each Ancestry category
responding with more than one Ancestry as a percentage of all persons in that Ancestry category.

Irish is the most common in having at least one other Ancestry (75.8%) associated with it;
English, at 41.8%, ranked 31st. Australian (at 24.3%) was below the average of 37.6%.

The high Irish multiple rate may have been influenced by its prominence (listed second) in
the mark box listing. English was mentioned as an example in the 1986 question, so its first
placing in the options now would have given little or no extra advantage. The lower English
Ancestry count for 2001 confirms this.

33
While it may be presumed from these figures that much of the growth in Irish since 1986 is
due to Australians claiming an Irish past, the figures below don’t support this:

TABLE 29: PERSONS RESPONDING: PERCENT INCLUDING AUSTRALIAN,

BY ANCESTRY (a), TOP & BOTTOM 30, 2001 CENSUS

Top 30 Bottom 30
Aust Aust % Aust Aust Aust % Aust
ANC1 ANC2 Ancestry ANC1 ANC2 Ancestry
Ancestry (Freq) (Freq) 2001 (b) Ancestry (Freq) (Freq) 2001 (b)
1 American 11,243 257 26.0 Chinese 842 16,581 3.1
2 Canadian 4,935 126 25.3 Syrian 269 27 2.9
Papua New
3
Guinean 1,972 113 22.1 Nepalese 79 4 2.8
African
4
American 247 18 22.0 Palestinian 186 10 2.8
5 New Zealander 26,368 365 21.7 Sikh 29 0 2.6
6 Dutch 42,503 1,566 16.4 Turkish 1,167 109 2.3
Aust. South
7
Sea Islander 535 3 15.6 Armenian 306 32 2.3
8 Swedish 3,532 87 14.8 Coptic 77 0 2.3
9 Norwegian 2,485 63 14.7 Afghan 249 36 2.3
10 Scottish 76,817 1,766 14.6 Timorese 115 8 2.2
11 Jamaican 164 3 14.3 Macedonian 1,548 113 2.0
12 English 5,059 895,618 14.2 Iranian 327 32 1.9
13 Estonian 1,012 15 13.6 Ethiopian 54 3 1.9
14 Welsh 11,166 289 13.6 Sudanese 63 3 1.7
15 Danish 5,033 129 13.4 Salvadorian 100 3 1.6
16 Finnish 2,246 92 12.9 Lao 149 5 1.5
Native North
17 American
Indian 233 3 12.7 Bengali 133 7 1.5
18 Swiss 2,690 118 12.7 Punjabi 27 5 1.4
19 Latvian 2,306 65 12.5 Bosnian 224 29 1.4
20 Austrian 4,230 114 11.4 Taiwanese 57 3 1.4
21 Mexican 173 10 11.2 Khmer 257 28 1.3
22 German 1,990 80,858 11.2 Eritrean 22 5 1.3
French
23
Canadian 138 0 11.1 Somali 56 7 1.3
24 Kenyan 118 4 10.9 Iraqi 124 6 1.2
25 Maltese 13,593 628 10.4 Kurdish 44 8 1.2
Assyrian/
10.3
26 Malay 1,799 86 Chaldean 182 14 1.1
27 Zimbabwean 287 11 10.3 Korean 419 20 1.0
28 Maori 7,037 293 10.1 Vietnamese 1,442 70 1.0
Torres Strait
29
Islander 947 18 9.9 Tamil 54 0 0.7
30 Irish 2,651 186,157 9.8 Hmong 9 0 0.5
(a) Persons in each Ancestry category responding with more than one Ancestry as a percentage of all persons in
that Ancestry category. (b) Persons in each Ancestry category also stating Australian Ancestry, as a percentage
of all persons in that Ancestry category.

34
Irish, while the leading Ancestry for multiple response, was only 30th with 9.8% (188,808
people) for Australian Ancestry. When Irish as an Ancestry (1,919,727) is cross-tabulated
with other key options, the following table results:

TABLE 30: KEY ANCESTRIES WITH IRISH, 2001 CENSUS

Number of Ancestries Frequency % of Irish

English + Irish 1,024,279 53.4
Australian + Irish 188,808 9.8
Scottish + Irish 56,775 3.0
Welsh + Irish 7,002 0.4

As noted in Section 5.4 Lost Ancestries, of those who lost Australian Ancestry due to the
limitation of capturing only two Ancestries, 75.4% had also marked Irish (and 91.8%
English). This indicates that the 9.8% ‘Australian + Irish’ combination shown above is a
severe understatement when lost Ancestries are considered. Of the estimated 606,000 persons
having lost Australian as an Ancestry (see Appendix B: The Impact of Lost Ancestries), the
likely number of these with an Irish connection could have been around 460,000. This would
indicate that the true ‘Australian + Irish’ component would be considerably greater.

6.3.4 Ancestry multiple responses and the List Effect

Where a question offers a list of mark box options for responses, there can be a possible bias
in self-coded responses, known as a 'list effect'. To be subject to 'list effect', a question would
have to offer a series of mark boxes or examples, while the question subject would ideally
not have a single, definitive answer (such as Age), but have multiple possible answers, that
could be influenced by 'mark box' presence - such as Ancestry.

For the Census, the benefits of using a list of options include: the ease and cost of processing
without manual intervention (saving on overall processing time and money); and for
respondents, an indication of the type of response required through the proffering of the most
commonly selected options. However, the main drawback is the impact on data quality: a
mark box option is an easier way of completing the question than a Write-in Response.

The impact of this format of question design could produce one or more of the following
results:
! an increase in response to the top option on the list;
! people may choose a category from the list of response options in preference to one
not on the list;
! the response options listed encourage responses different from those which would
have been provided without them; or
! the options listed influence respondents to answer in a different way, generally in a
following write-in section if applicable.

During the form design and testing phase of the Census program, questions are assessed for
any such impact before being approved for use in the final format. For more information,
refer to Information Paper 2001 Census of Population and Housing: Nature and Content
(2008.0).

35
An examination of multiple responses for 1986 and 2001, focusing on those Ancestries listed
on the 2001 form reveals the following results:

TABLE 31: SIGNIFICANT ANCESTRIES, PERCENT OF ALL (a),

1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001 % Change

% of all % of all (In Number)
Ancestry Number Ancestries Number Ancestries 1986 - 2001
Mark box options:
English 6,587,834 40.1 6,358,880 29.6 -3.5
Irish 899,809 5.5 1,919,727 8.9 113.3
Italian 618,910 3.8 800,256 3.7 29.3
German 507,971 3.1 742,212 3.5 46.1
Greek 335,667 2.0 375,703 1.8 11.9
Chinese 197,839 1.2 556,554 2.6 181.3
Australian 3,400,245 20.7 6,739,594 31.3 98.2

The Balance: 3,885,417 23.7 4,020,252 18.7 3.5

Total 16,433,692 100 21,513,178 100.0
(a) 1986 figures exclude Not Stateds and those Usually Resident Overseas, while 2001 figures exclude Not
Stateds, Substitute Forms and Overseas Visitors.

The most significant points from the table are: the dramatic change from English
predominance (down from 40.1% to 29.6%) of Ancestries stated, towards Australian (up
from 20.7% to 31.3%); and the substantial increases in the number of people reporting
Chinese, and Irish Ancestries (up 181.3%, and 113.3%, respectively).

Quantifying the contribution of mark boxes to Ancestry count increase is very difficult, due
to the factors involved. Using Irish as an example, its placement in the second position of the
mark box range undoubtedly helped - there were no such suggestive options in 1986 - though
this alone cannot explain the rise (where English fell).

6.3.4.1 English versus Australian Ancestry

Despite any benefit from the ‘list effect’, English Ancestry, for the first time in
Australia’s history is not the dominant response. Australians, if they see themselves as
anything ancestrally, now are more likely to claim to be Australian than English.

A major factor affecting the Australian count was its inclusion in the mark box selection
range. In 1986, most of those who did not respond to the Ancestry question were of
Australian birth. The listing of ‘Australian’ as an acceptable option in 2001 may have
reduced confusion (or negative feelings) amongst respondents.

Analysis by age of respondent shows a clear pattern in Australian versus English

Ancestry. For persons over 50, around 42% of those choosing Australian or English
Ancestry chose Australian. In the 35-39 year age group it was evenly divided, but the
Australian proportion increased progressively as age reduced. For the recently-born, it
was 64% (see Figure 7).

36
FIGURE 7: AUSTRALIAN AND ENGLISH ANCESTRY, BY AGE, 2001 CENSUS
AUSTRALIAN VERSUS ENGLISH
By Age, 2001
ANCESTRY,
Census
%
70 Australian
English
60
50
40
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Age (5 year Intervals)

37
6.4. Australian Ancestry

6.4.1 Australian Ancestry by State and Birthplace

The state breakdown for those stating Australian Ancestry is as follows:

TABLE 32: PERSONS RESPONDING ‘AUSTRALIAN’ TO ANCESTRY QUESTION (a),

STATES, TERRITORIES & AUSTRALIA, 1986 and 2001 CENSUS (b)
(%)

1986 2001
State 1st Response 2nd Response 1st Response 2nd Response
NSW 20.5 1.5 31.2 31.6
VIC 19.1 1.4 28.9 30.2
QLD 22.2 1.6 34.9 29.5
SA 20.7 1.7 30.6 35.3
WA 18.5 1.8 28.1 34.0
TAS 21.1 1.3 42.3 40.5
NT 16.3 1.4 30.2 30.0
ACT 22.4 2.1 31.1 32.9
Other Territories - - 24.6 20.0
Australia 21.8 1.7 31.3 31.6

Australia (No.) 3,159,717 240,528 5,462,014 1,277,580

(a) Persons responding with ‘Australian’ Ancestry as a percentage of the population in each State.
(b) 1986 figures exclude Not Stated, and Those Usually Resident Overseas. 2001 figures exclude Not Stated,
and Overseas Visitors.

In 2001, all States and Territories recorded increases in ‘Australian’ as a 1st Response,
though the 2nd Response increase was dramatic. This clearly demonstrates both the
increased propensity to record more than one response, as well as an increased awareness of
‘Australian’ as an acceptable response in 2001. 1st Responses of ‘Australian’ doubled for
Tasmanians, who recorded the highest frequency of Australian for both 1st and 2nd
Responses.

Australian Ancestry responses by Birthplace provides the following percentages:

38
 TABLE 33: PERCENT OF POPULATION STATING AUSTRALIAN ANCESTRY AS A RESPONSE:
BY BIRTHPLACE & BIRTHPLACE OF PARENTS, 1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Australian as 1st Australian as 1st
or only Ancestry Australian as or only Ancestry Australian as
Birthplace response 2nd response response 2nd response
Of Individual:
Australia 25.8 1.9 38.5 8.9
Overseas 0.9 0.3 1.5 0.8
Not Stated 1.9 0.2 26.8 4.2
Of Parents:
Both Australian-born 29.4 0.9 46.3 7.8
Father Australian-born (a) 25.5 6.5 30.9 18.1
Mother Australian-born (a) 20.9 9.4 25.6 20.0
Both parents born Overseas (b) 1.3 0.2 1.6 0.5
Both parents Birthplace
Not Stated 3.9 0.2 15.9 2.0
(a) Other parent born Overseas or Not Stated. (b) Or one parent born Overseas and other Not Stated .

Every perspective of Birthplace has featured an increase in Australian response, relative to its
1986 proportion. This was to be expected, with the appearance of Australian in the mark box
listing and its significantly increased count.

The low proportion of Overseas-born individuals, or those with overseas-born parents,

recording Australian, generally validates the data. See Section 6.4.2 Aspirational Australian
Ancestry for further examination of this topic.

The fact that the total estimated real count (2001 Census plus DQI Sample results, see
Appendix B: The Impact of Lost Ancestries) for those acknowledging Australian Ancestry,
was 7,345,415 and that this is 59.0% of the 12,457,288 individuals with at least one parent
born in Australia, indicates that there is still potential for further increase in the Australian
Ancestry component in future censuses.

6.4.2 Aspirational Australian Ancestry

Feedback from Migrant Resource Centres during the 2001 Census Dress Rehearsal
(conducted in 2000) indicated that recently arrived refugees or migrants, the prime group that
the Ancestry question aims to identify, were sometimes claiming Australian Ancestry as a
statement of their desire to be seen from hereon as just ‘Australians’.

If consistently adopted, this aspirational interpretation of Ancestry would have serious

implications for data quality.

An interrogation of Census data, cross-classifying ‘Australian’ Ancestry with a person’s Year

of Arrival minus those who had a father or mother born in Australia, revealed that the
numbers were fairly small (table 34). As a proportion of the Australian Ancestry population,
33 in every 10,000 is not statistically significant.

39
 TABLE 34: INDICATING ASPIRATIONAL ANCESTRY, 2001 CENSUS

‘B’ but with Minimum

Mother or Father Minimum Aspirational % of
Australian ‘A’ but With Year of Born in Australia Aspirational Australian
Ancestry (A) Arrival (B) (C) (D: B - C) Ancestry (D/A)
6,739,594 85,616 63,128 22,488 0.33%

The true Maximum Aspirational count can be calculated by finding those who claimed
Australian Ancestry but had neither parent born in this country:

TABLE 35: MAXIMUM ASPIRATIONAL ANCESTRY, 2001 CENSUS

Non-Aspirational: Maximum Maximum Aspirational

Australian ‘A’ but with Mother or Father Aspirational % of Australian Ancestry
Ancestry (A) Born in Australia (B) (C: A-B) (C/A)
6,739,594 6,570,736 168,858 2.51%

When viewed from the perspective that two and a half in every hundred claimed Australian
Ancestry without Australian-born parentage, the Aspirational Australian count can be said to
have had very limited impact.

6.5 Ancestry and Special Indigenous Personal Forms

Most people who identified as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent were
enumerated on mainstream Household, or Personal Forms. However, if they lived in an
identified Indigenous area (usually in remote areas), their responses were recorded by an
interviewer on the Special Indigenous Personal Form (SIPF). This Form had a question on
Origin (Q10) and then another on Ancestry (Q13).

FIGURE 9: ORIGIN AND ANCESTRY QUESTIONS ON SIPF, 2001 CENSUS

40
On the mainstream Household and Personal Forms, the Origin question immediately
preceded the Ancestry question; the list box options were also different (compare Figure 1
and Figure 9 for details).

Feedback from interviewers indicated that many SIPF respondents thought they were being
asked the same question twice.

TABLE 36: RESPONSES TO ORIGIN & ANCESTRY BY FORM TYPE, 2001 CENSUS

Ancestry
Aboriginal Torres Strait Australian
Islander
Origin % of % of % of
Identification Count Number origin Number origin Number origin
SIPF:
Aboriginal 68,087 67,581 99.3 162 0.2 75 0.1
Torres Strait
Islander 4,176 88 2.1 4,094 98.0 10 0.2
Both Aboriginal
& Torres Strait
Islander 1,366 1,272 93.1 1,232 90.2 3 0.2

Household and
Personal Forms:
Aboriginal 293,282 21,225 7.2 44 0.0 196,561 67.0
Torres Strait
Islander 21,758 99 0.5 3,167 14.6 10,777 49.5
Both Aboriginal
& Torres Strait
Islander 16,149 1,218 7.5 679 4.2 9,565 59.2

On the SIP Forms, there was a very high correlation between what was stated for Origin, and
Ancestry; extremely few respondents stated that they were of Australian Ancestry.

For Household and Personal Forms, the fact that 67% of those nominating as having
Aboriginal origin stated Australian as an Ancestry, and only 7% claimed Aboriginal ancestry,
highlights a lack of consistency in results for Indigenous persons overall and contrasts with
those of Indigenous origin based in Indigenous communities.
41
It should be acknowledged that the strength of identification would be expected to be far
stronger in discrete Indigenous communities, than in the mainstream population.

Nevertheless, form design and question sequencing, as well as method of enumeration are all
contributing factors to the Indigenous count for Ancestry being significantly less than could
have been expected.

6.6 Correlation of Non-Australian Ancestry with other census variables

There are three Census variables with which it would be expected that there would be a
relatively high correlation to confirm the validity of non-Australian Ancestry data. They are
Birthplace of individual, Birthplace of parents, and Language spoken at home.

TABLE 37: CORRELATION WITH NON-AUSTRALIAN ANCESTRY FOR PERSONS BORN

OVERSEAS, OR WITH AT LEAST ONE PARENT BORN OVERSEAS, OR LANGUAGE
SPOKEN AT HOME OTHER THAN ENGLISH, 2001 CENSUS

Percentage with
Non-Australian
Variable Total Number Ancestry
Individual born overseas 4,044,349 97.7
At least one parent born overseas 7,656,877 91.5
Language other than English spoken at home 2,852,227 98.3

The above table validates the non-Australian Ancestry results from the 2001 Census.
Speaking a language other than English at home at 98.3%, is the most reliable indicator of
non-Australian Ancestry.

6.6.1 Correlation for specific Ancestries

Three of the largest Ancestries recorded in the 2001 Census, where English is not the
traditional or official language of that Ancestral group, show quite different levels of
correlation between Ancestry, Language, and Birthplace:

TABLE 38: LARGE NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING GROUPS: COMPARISON OF PERSONS IN EACH

GROUP BASED ON COMMON ANCESTRY, LANGUAGE & BIRTHPLACE OF INDIVIDUAL,
1986 & 2001 CENSUSES

1986 2001
Frequency Language Own Frequency Language Own
Ancestry (a) (b) Birthplace (c) (a) (b) Birthplace (c)
Italian 620,227 61.5% 40.8% 800,256 39.9% 26.1%
German 510,402 14.3% 16.8% 742,212 7.5% 11.5%
Greek 336,782 78.0% 39.3% 375,703 65.3% 29.1%
(a) Total frequency (ANC1+ANC2). (b) Language Spoken at Home is same as Ancestry (c) Birthplace of
Individual equates with Ancestry.

Table 38 shows that in August 2001 Greek was spoken at home by 65.3% of those claiming
Greek Ancestry - a far higher percentage than the relative figures for Italian (39.9%) and

42
German (only 7.5%). Between 1986 and 2001, the proportions changed significantly: this is
most pronounced for those of German Ancestry (where Language nearly halved), although
Italian and Greek also recorded decreases.

The 2001 German Ancestral count (742,212 people), while seven percent lower than that for
Italian Ancestry, was 56% lower in terms of Own Birthplace, and 81% lower in terms of
Language Spoken at Home. Conversely, while the 2001 Greek Ancestral count was 53%
lower than that for Italian Ancestry, and 49% lower than German, it had higher correlation
rates than either Italian or German, for Own Birthplace, and Language Spoken at Home.

43
7 CONCLUSIONS

1. The error rate associated with the Data Capture (DC) process reflects little improvement
on manual coding.

While the error rate was only 1.5% for ANC1 (see Table 6), this still indicated that
respondent cross-outs or big ticks led to over 200,000 coding mistakes.

It was difficult to ascertain the net picture of system modifications on data quality and
Discrepancy Rates, as reporting of incidences and subsequent actions taken were fragmented
and not cumulated to form a clear, final image.

2. The coding of only two Ancestries, combined with the introduction of mark box options,
had the greatest negative impact on data quality

An estimated total of 8.1% (1,890,044) of all Ancestries were lost, from about 7.1%
(1,306,200) of respondents (Section 5.4). While this may not seem statistically significant at
the Australia-wide level, potentially all Ancestry data was undercoded, from Australian
(606,000 lost), down.

In terms of percentage lost from the formal count (the most appropriate indicator of data
quality), Australian was only the 91st worst affected Ancestry. Others, such as French,
Swedish, Danish and Welsh - all of which had to be write-in responses - lost close to half
their number, rendering the Census count for these groups misleading (see Appendix B: The
Impact of Lost Ancestries).

The fact that many lost Ancestries were to those born in this country and having at least one
parent born here, indicates a degree of Ancestral Distance. This should not be used to excuse
the loss of Ancestries, as the mere identification with an Ancestry indicates an attachment,
beyond the immigrant generation.

Due to their placement in the mark box listing, both English and Irish maintained close to
their maximum Ancestry response. These Ancestries, unless ignored in the mark boxes and
then written in below as a third or later Ancestry, were never ‘lost’.

The fact that only two Ancestries were to be coded was not conveyed to respondents, either
on the Census Form or in the accompanying Census Guide. This meant that respondents
could not prioritise their Ancestries, though some may have attempted to do so in using
write-in boxes to record mark box Ancestries. Many of the estimated 997,900 lost write-in
responses were due to respondents first being ‘tempted’ into choosing at least two of the
mark box options.

44
3. Non-response was reduced considerably from 1986.

Nearly 21 out of every 22 persons responded to the Ancestry question. The decrease in the
non-response rate to 4.6% (from 6.8% in 1986), was largely driven by the increase in
response from those with both parents Australian-born (where non-response fell from 7.0%
to 4.1%), indicating that the inclusion of Australian as an Ancestry mark box option,
increased response.

4. Even excluding those Ancestries lost in 2001, over five million more Ancestries were coded
than in 1986.

Factors such as lower non-response rate, increased immigration and population diversity,
intermarriage, population growth, social acceptance and the presence of mark boxes, have all
contributed to the increase in multiple response from 12.6% in 1986 to 22.1% in the 2001
Census.

5. The concern that respondents may want to claim Australian Ancestry, when this was not
justified through birthplace of parent or earlier ancestor, was proved to be largely
unfounded.

Only 2.5% of the population claimed Australian Ancestry when neither of their parents were
born in Australia. Such a low maximum Aspirational Australian component is heartening for
data quality generally, as Australian was the Ancestry at most risk of fabrication or
misinterpretation.

It is this latter perspective that leads to the assessment that overwhelmingly, respondents
understood what was meant by Ancestry, even though acknowledgment of an Ancestry
would not have been just a function of Ancestral Strength.

6. Overall, Indigenous counts for Ancestry were significantly less than totals for the
Indigenous Origin question.

While the correlation between Indigenous identification (Origin) and Ancestry on the SIPF
was high, on the Household and Personal Forms, where the bulk of respondents claiming
Indigenous status were enumerated, the opposite was the case. Here, a majority claimed
Australian Ancestry, leading to some doubt over its interpretation (see Section 6.5 Ancestry
and Special Indigenous Personal Forms).

Given the existence of, and importance placed on, the Indigenous Origin question, Ancestry
does not appear to be an appropriate or reliable source for Indigenous counts in 2001.

45
8 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That a minimum of at least four separately-stated Ancestries be coded.

This step is needed and is logical. This allows for the increasing number of grandchildren of
post World War II migrants to count themselves as being of Australian Ancestry (through
their parents), and also incorporate possibly varying Ancestry via three of their four
grandparents.

Quite clearly, a respondent should not have to choose between their parental Ancestries for a
further, single option beyond Australian - as would have to be done under the current two
coded Ancestries only policy.

Based on 2001 Census DQI Sample figures, the coding of four Ancestries would have
covered 99.3% of respondents. This would make data far more accurate than in the 2001
Census, when only about 93% of respondents had all of their Ancestries coded.

2. That the maximum number of Ancestries to be coded must be stated on the Census Form,
and in the Census Guide.

3. That ‘Australian’ be the only listed Ancestry option (above ‘Other, please specify’) in the
mark box sequence.

The limiting of mark box options is recommended given the problems encountered in
correctly coding respondent markings that have included cross-outs and big ticks. Any
prospect of bias towards all but Australian would therefore be removed.

Australian was the most nominated Ancestry in 2001, despite being only seventh in the mark
box listing. This fact and the inevitable ‘Australianisation’ of the grandchildren of
immigrants would guarantee it will be the most nominated Ancestry, irrespective of future
placement. The recommended change in format will not alter its frequency ranking.

While it is logical that there be a growth in Ancestries reported over time, the removal of
multiple options from the mark box listing is likely to more than compensate - leading to an
anticipated lower total of reported Ancestries.

Removal of the mark-box next to ‘Other - please specify’ should be considered. By omitting
it, the specific problem of big ticks in the Ancestry question will be removed.

The changes recommended should result in reliable results that reflect significantly improved
data quality.

46
4. That a supplementary listing of Dual Ancestries be created and then utilised in coding.

While Dual Ancestries such as Irish-Australian and Italo-Australian have been acknowledged
in the ASCCEG introduction, no formal listing exists. A supplementary listing should be
created. This would guide coders and help produce a more accurate count.

5. That the DPC provide a query process for Ancestry, as well as ensuring there is Ancestry
expertise on site to resolve issues.

6. That each parent’s specific Country of Birth be asked for in the 2006 Census.

The extra costs and work would be minimal as the coding and classification systems already
exist. This extra information would add considerably to researchers’ ability to definitively
step beyond the ‘Overseas’ birthplace tag for parents.

7. That DPC management systems should be able to provide an easily accessible and
succinct summary of the cumulated effect of all modifications to processing systems and
records, as well as their impact on Discrepancy Rates.

It should then be possible to obtain more detail, if required.

47
9 OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE

Australian Census Analytical Program

Ethnic Diversity, Ethnic Intermixture and the Development of ‘Australian Ancestry’

This project proposes a comprehensive analysis of the census Ancestry data to examine a
number of issues relating to ethnic diversity, ethnic intermixture and the development of the
concept of ‘Australian Ancestry’.

The project will use data from the 1986 and 2001 Census, as well as emigration statistics for
the years 1986 - 2001 from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs.

The final report from the project is due in late 2003. Further details may be obtained from
the Director, Census Products and Services, by phone (02) 6252 7007.

48
REFERENCES

Population Census Ethnicity Committee’s report The Measurement of Ethnicity in the

Australian Census of Population and Housing (Cat. No. 2172.0); 1984

Information Paper: Census 86: Data Quality Ancestry (Cat. No. 2603.0); 1990

Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (Cat. No. 1249.0); 2000

Standard Australian Classification of Countries (SACC), Rev 2.01 (Cat. No. 1269.0); 1999

Information Paper: 2001 Census of Population and Housing: Nature and Content (Cat. No.
2008.0)

Fact Sheet: Effect of Census Processes on Non Response Rates and Person Counts

Census Paper 02/03 - 2001 Form Design Testing Paper

49
GLOSSARY

AC - Automatic Coding. The matching of textual responses (as interpreted by ICR) to the
Index, without manual intervention.

ANC1 - the first response coded to an Ancestry for a respondent. It is always the first in
sequence (mark box before Write-in Response) on the respondent’s form i.e. If English and
Irish are marked, English will be ANC1 and Irish ANC2. No more than two responses were
coded for any respondent.

Ancestor - n. any person from whom one’s father or mother is descended, forefather.1 Note
that the common interpretation includes one’s parent in Ancestry, even if it were for that
single generation.

Ancestral - a. belonging to or inherited from ancestors. 1

Ancestral Distance - the degree of removal from the most recent known example of a
particular Ancestry e.g. an Ancestral Distance of ‘one’ to a person’s parent, ‘two’ if a
grandparent, etc.

Ancestry - n. (lineage of) ancestors. 1

ASCCEG - Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ABS Cat. no.
1249.0). This is the standard classification used for coding Census Ancestry responses.

Aspirational Ancestry - where a person makes a selection based not on their background, but
on their desire. Most commonly used by more recent refugees or migrants who desperately
want to be seen as Australian (see Section 6.4.2 Aspirational Australian Ancestry).

ATSI - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

Classification - grouping arrangement, often a hierarchy such as the ASCCEG.

Census Guide - an explanatory booklet that provides advice and background information on
how to complete a Census Form (see Appendix A). A Guide was distributed with each Form.

Census Inquiry Service (CIS) - a phone-based (13 number) facility set up to provide
translation and other information services relating to the 2001 Census.

Data Capture (DC) - the process that ensures all marks on the Form (mark box or writing)
are reproduced on an image. DC registers and codes mark box responses.

Discrepancy Rate - the rate at which Quality Management and subsequent Adjudication
coding differed from that of an individual human or system coding. It is expressed as a
percentage and is regarded as the error rate within final data.

DPC - Data Processing Centre for the 2001 Census. A centralised facility which was located
in Ultimo, Sydney.

DQI - Data Quality Investigation. A DQI Team operated at the DPC, conducting additional
coding exercises to uncover data quality issues.

50
Dress Rehearsal (DR) - generally the last in a regular series of tests of census field materials
and procedures that occurs around a year before Census date. The 2001 DR was conducted
on 27 June 2000 and involved a total of 40,097 dwellings in Melbourne and Mildura.

FRP - First Release Processing. Responses to questions that were processed within this first
phase included those to Ancestry.

ICR - Intelligent Character Recognition. The system used to interpret handwritten responses
in Write-in Boxes and convert them into machine-readable text suitable for AC.

Index - the listing of valid responses to a Census question or topic.

Mark boxes - invite the respondent to place a dash within at least one of a possible series of
selection boxes on the Census Form. The ICR system then identified marked boxes during
the Data Capture process.

Quality Management - (in this paper) the process of regular review of a percentage of a
coding work, though also a term for broader DPC-wide ongoing reviews.

SIPF - Special Indigenous Personal Form. The standard form used in the enumeration of
Indigenous communities. Information was collected via interview.

Validation - the checking of all Census variables for signs of any remaining or emerging
system problems. This was undertaken by the DPC-based Validation Team, who included
aspects of Ancestry in their work.

Write-in Response Boxes - a response box on the Census Form requiring a written response.
It was generally coded using ICR (Intelligent Character Recognition) and then AC.

1
The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1987

51
APPENDIX A - Ancestry-related information in the 2001 Census Household Guide

52
53
APPENDIX B - The Impact of Lost Ancestries, 2001 Census

IMPACT OF LOST ANCESTRIES, COUNTS & ESTIMATES,

ALL 189 ASCCEG CULTURAL & ETHNIC GROUPS, 2001 CENSUS

2001 Lost (a) Frequency

Census Ancestry Revised Ranking:
Ancestry Estimate Ancestry Count \
Ancestry Count (Freq. Aust.) Estimate % Lost Estimate
Afghan 12,410 1,049 13,459 7.8 62 \ 63
African American 1,203 350 1,553 22.5 115 \ 115
Afrikaner 1,645 499 2,144 23.3 108 \ 105
Akan 124 0 124 0.0 170 \ 172
Albanian 10,459 399 10,858 3.7 67 \ 68
Algerian 696 100 796 12.5 132 \ 132
American 44,255 22,069 66,324 33.2 30 \ 28
Anglo-Burmese 822 50 872 5.7 125 \ 128
Anglo-Indian 12,327 1,098 13,425 8.2 63 \ 64
Angolan 115 0 115 0.0 172 \ 174
Arab, nec 623 0 623 0.0 134 \ 139
Argentinian 6,482 1,248 7,730 16.1 80 \ 77
Armenian 14,667 899 15,566 5.8 59 \ 60
Assyrian/Chaldean 18,667 100 18,767 0.5 49 \ 54
Australian 6,739,594 606,000 7,345,594 8.2 1\1
Australian Aboriginal 94,950 9,936 104,886 9.5 19 \ 22
Australian South Sea
Islander 3,442 250 3,692 6.8 91 \ 93
Austrian 38,112 9,986 48,098 20.7 33 \ 32
Basque 454 100 554 18.0 141 \ 143
Belarusan 1,378 499 1,877 26.6 111 \ 111
Bengali 9,549 100 9,649 1.0 71 \ 73
Berber 107 50 157 31.8 176 \ 169
Bolivian 473 0 473 0.0 138 \ 145
Bosnian 17,993 449 18,442 2.4 52 \ 57
Brazilian 3,763 799 4,562 17.5 89 \ 86
Breton 60 50 110 45.4 182 \ 177
British, nec 2,289 1,548 3,837 40.3 99 \ 89
Bulgarian 4,179 1,398 5,577 25.0 87 \ 83
Burgher 919 50 969 5.1 123 \ 126
Burmese 10,557 3,645 14,202 25.6 66 \ 62
Canadian 20,007 7,889 27,896 28.3 46 \ 44
Caribbean Islander, n.e.c. 722 100 822 12.1 131 \ 130
Catalan 109 0 109 0.0 175 \ 178
Central American, n.e.c. 815 0 815 0.0 126 \ 131
Central and West African,
n.e.c. 1,692 399 2,091 19.1 107 \ 106
Central Asian, n.e.c. 1,356 0 1,356 0.0 112 \ 118
Chilean 21,579 1,148 22,727 5.0 43 \ 45
Chinese 556,554 19,722 576,276 3.4 6\7
Chinese Asian, n.e.c. 500 0 500 0.0 137 \ 144
Colombian 3,475 0 3,475 0.0 90 \ 94
Cook Islander 8,154 649 8,803 7.4 73 \ 75
Coptic 3,344 50 3,394 1.5 92 \ 95
Croatian 105,747 7,490 113,237 6.6 17 \ 19
Cuban 414 150 564 26.5 145 \ 142
Czech 17,126 3,745 20,871 17.9 55 \ 51
Danish 38,637 31,606 70,243 45.0 32 \ 27
Dutch 268,754 52,177 320,931 16.2 9\9

54
 2001 Lost (a) Frequency
Census Ancestry Revised Ranking:
Ancestry Estimate Ancestry Count \
Ancestry (cont.) Count (Freq. Aust.) Estimate % Lost Estimate
Eastern European, n.e.c. 431 150 581 25.8 143 \ 141
Ecuadorian 976 0 976 0.0 121 \ 125
Egyptian 27,001 3,245 30,246 10.7 39 \ 41
English 6,358,880 10,186 6,369,066 0.2 2\2
Eritrean 2,029 0 2,029 0.0 103 \ 107
Estonian 7,543 1,947 9,490 20.5 76 \ 74
Ethiopian 3,054 0 3,054 0.0 93 \ 97
Fijian 16,620 2,147 18,767 11.4 56 \ 55
Filipino 129,821 5,293 135,114 3.9 15 \ 18
Finnish 18,106 4,394 22,500 19.5 51 \ 46
Flemish 460 399 859 46.4 139 \ 129
French 79,079 72,448 151,527 47.8 22 \ 16
French Canadian 1,246 399 1,645 24.3 114 \ 114
Fulani 25 0 25 0.0 184 \ 185
Georgian 332 0 332 0.0 151 \ 154
German 742,212 175,953 918,165 19.1 5\4
Ghanaian 1,816 100 1,916 5.2 106 \ 108
Greek 375,703 15,279 390,982 3.9 8\8
Gujarati 120 0 120 0.0 171 \ 173
Gurkha 15 0 15 0.0 185 \ 186
Guyanese 301 100 401 24.9 154 \ 148
Hispanic (North
American) 2,606 0 2,606 0.0 97 \ 102
Hmong 1,836 0 1,836 0.0 105 \ 113
Hungarian 62,859 9,137 71,996 12.7 25 \ 26
I-Kiribati 358 50 408 12.2 148 \ 147
Icelandic 625 150 775 19.3 133 \ 133
Indian 156,628 15,029 171,657 8.7 11 \ 11
Indonesian 28,267 2,946 31,213 9.4 37 \ 39
Iranian 18,798 449 19,247 2.3 48 \ 53
Iraqi 11,190 0 11,190 0.0 65 \ 67
Irish 1,919,727 9,087 1,928,814 0.5 3\3
Italian 800,256 47,933 848,189 5.6 4\6
Jamaican 1,169 1,198 2,367 50.6 116 \ 103
Japanese 31,433 3,096 34,529 9.0 36 \ 37
Javanese 597 449 1,046 42.9 136 \ 122
Jewish 22,553 7,040 29,593 23.8 41 \ 42
Jordanian 2,687 100 2,787 3.6 96 \ 101
Kazakh 86 0 86 0.0 180 \ 181
Kenyan 1,118 300 1,418 21.1 119 \ 117
Khmer 21,361 100 21,461 0.5 44 \ 49
Korean 43,753 100 43,853 0.2 31 \ 34
Kurdish 4,494 0 4,494 0.0 85 \ 87
Kuwaiti 359 0 359 0.0 147 \ 151
Lao 10,086 50 10,136 0.5 69 \ 71
Latvian 18,938 3,196 22,134 14.4 47 \ 47
Lebanese 162,239 6,091 168,330 3.6 10 \ 12
Libyan 176 0 176 0.0 164 \ 166
Lithuanian 12,317 2,297 14,614 15.7 64 \ 61
Macedonian 81,898 1,548 83,446 1.9 21 \ 24
Madurese 14 0 14 0.0 186 \ 187
Mainland South-East
Asian, n.e.c. 767 0 767 0.0 129 \ 136
Malawian 106 0 106 0.0 177 \ 179
Malay 18,294 2,896 21,190 13.7 50 \ 50

55
 2001 Lost (a) Frequency
Census Ancestry Revised Ranking:
Ancestry Estimate Ancestry Count \
Ancestry (cont.) Count (Freq. Aust.) Estimate % Lost Estimate
Malayali 91 50 141 35.4 179 \ 170
Maltese 136,754 15,528 152,282 10.2 14 \ 15
Maori 72,956 17,525 90,481 19.4 24 \ 23
Marathi 9 0 9 0.0 188 \ 188
Maritime South-East
Asian, n.e.c. 1,387 499 1886 26.4 110 \ 109
Mauritian 17,886 2,596 20,482 12.7 53 \ 52
Melanesian and Papuan,
n.e.c. 152 50 202 24.7 168 \ 163
Mexican 1,635 250 1,885 13.2 109 \ 110
Micronesian, n.e.c. 202 0 202 0.0 162 \ 164
Moldovan 140 0 140 0.0 169 \ 171
Mongolian 415 300 715 41.9 144 \ 137
Montenegrin 771 0 771 0.0 127 \ 134
Moroccan 1,161 350 1,511 23.1 117 \ 116
Mozambican 112 0 112 0.0 174 \ 176
Namibian 41 0 41 0.0 183 \ 184
Native North American
Indian 1,856 1,847 3,703 49.9 104 \ 92
Nauruan 280 0 280 0.0 157 \ 161
Nepalese 2,946 0 2,946 0.0 94 \ 99
New Caledonian 173 200 373 53.6 166 \ 150
New Zealander 123,314 38,047 161,361 23.6 16 \ 13
Ni-Vanuatu 311 350 661 52.9 153 \ 138
Nicaraguan 456 150 606 24.7 140 \ 140
Nigerian 1,160 150 1,310 11.4 118 \ 119
Niuean 1,301 549 1,850 29.7 113 \ 112
North American, n.e.c. 261 50 311 16.0 159 \ 157
Northern European, nec 957 50 1,007 5.0 122 \ 124
Norwegian 17,293 12,283 29,576 41.5 54 \ 43
Oromo 398 0 398 0.0 146 \ 149
Other North-East Asian,
n.e.c. 5 0 5 0.0 189 \ 189
Other North-African and
Middle Eastern, n.e.c. 289 0 289 0.0 155 \ 159
Pakistani 12,618 300 12,918 2.3 61 \ 65
Palestinian 7,001 300 7,301 4.1 78 \ 79
Papua New Guinean 9,441 1,847 11,288 16.3 72 \ 66
Pathan 175 0 175 0.0 165 \ 167
Peruvian 4,772 449 5,221 8.6 84 \ 84
Polish 150,900 32,155 183,055 17.5 13 \ 10
Polynesian, nec 2,101 1,698 3,799 44.7 102 \ 90
Portuguese 35,687 7,839 43,526 18.0 34 \ 35
Punjabi 2,263 0 2,263 0.0 100 \ 104
Romanian 16,121 2,646 18,767 14.1 57 \ 56
Roma/Gypsy 603 300 903 33.2 135 \ 127
Russian 60,213 15,978 76,191 21.0 26 \ 25
Salvadoran 6,617 100 6,717 1.5 79 \ 80
Samoan 28,091 2,247 30,338 7.4 38 \ 40
Saudi Arabia 181 0 181 0.0 163 \ 165
Scottish 540,046 333,383 873,429 38.1 7\5
Serbian 97,315 8,288 105,603 7.8 18 \ 21
Seychellois 2,104 799 2,903 27.5 101 \ 100
Sikh 1,097 0 1,097 0.0 120 \ 121
Sinhalese 58,602 3,395 61,997 5.5 27 \ 29

56
 2001 Lost (a) Frequency
Census Ancestry Revised Ranking:
Ancestry Estimate Ancestry Count \
Ancestry (cont.) Count (Freq. Aust.) Estimate % Lost Estimate
Slovak 7,054 799 7,853 10.2 77 \ 76
Slovene 14,189 1,648 15,837 10.4 60 \ 59
Soloman Islander 769 0 769 0.0 128 \ 135
Somali 5,007 150 5,157 2.9 83 \ 85
South African 52,119 9,836 61,955 15.9 29 \30
South American, n.e.c. 765 250 1,015 24.6 130 \ 123
South Eastern European,
n.e.c. 115 0 115 0.0 173 \ 175
Southern and East
African, n.e.c. 2,410 549 2,959 18.5 98 \ 98
Southern Asian, n.e.c. 915 250 1,165 21.4 124 \ 120
Southern European, n.e.c. 218 100 318 31.4 161 \ 156
Spanish 75,237 33,902 109,139 31.0 23 \ 20
Sudanese 3,788 0 3,788 0.0 88 \ 91
Sundanese 84 0 84 0.0 181 \ 182
Swedish 24,424 21,420 45,844 46.7 40 \ 33
Swiss 22,151 9,936 32,087 30.9 42 \ 38
Syrian 10,213 549 10,762 5.1 68 \ 69
Taiwanese 4,416 0 4,416 0.0 86 \ 88
Tamil 7,706 0 7,706 0.0 75 \ 78
Tanzanian 269 0 269 0.0 158 \ 162
Thai 20,606 1,248 21,854 5.7 45 \ 48
Tibetan 289 0 289 0.0 156 \ 160
Timorese 5,491 300 5,791 5.2 81 \ 82
Tongan 14,889 1,098 15,987 6.9 58 \ 58
Torres Strait Islander 9,791 399 10,190 3.9 70 \ 70
Trinidian (Tobagonian) 356 0 356 0.0 149 \ 152
Tunisian 258 50 308 16.2 160 \ 158
Turkish 54,596 1,248 55,844 2.2 28 \ 31
Ugandan 337 0 337 0.0 150 \ 153
Ukrainian 33,960 5,243 39,203 13.4 35 \ 36
Uruguayan 5,196 599 5,795 10.3 82 \ 81
Uzbek 160 0 160 0.0 167 \ 168
Venezuelan 448 0 448 0.0 142 \ 146
Vietnamese 156,581 1,198 157,779 0.8 12 \ 14
Walloon 14 50 64 78.1 187 \ 183
Welsh 84,246 65,358 149,604 43.7 20 \ 17
Western European, n.e.c. 7,917 1,897 9,814 19.3 74 \ 72
Yoruba 103 0 103 0.0 178 \ 180
Zambian 328 0 328 0.0 152 \ 155
Zimbabwean 2,896 449 3,345 13.4 95 \ 96
(a) The 2% DQI Sample may have led to some - particularly smaller - Ancestry groups being significantly
under or over-represented in the extrapolated Lost Ancestry count.

57
APPENDIX C - Multiple Response Rate (a) to Ancestry, by Birthplace, 1986 & 2001
Censuses

1986 2001 1986 2001

Rate Rate Rate Rate
Birthplace % (a) % (a) Birthplace % (a) % (a)
Australia 14.2 25.9 Bosnia & Herzegovina (2001) 3.5
Norfolk Island 36.7 Bulgaria 5.1 5.8
New Zealand 17.2 28.5 Croatia (2001) N/A 3.9
Papua New Guinea 24.4 35.0 Cyprus 14.3 6.9
Fiji 12.7 11.0 Greece 1.9 1.8
Other Oceania & Antarctica 11.7 13.2 FYROMacedonia (2001) N/A 1.7
Total Oceania & Antarctica 25.9 Romania 5.7 7.3
Yugoslavia (1986) 8.1 N/A
England 5.6 10.8 Yugoslavia (2001) N/A 5.5
Northern Ireland 6.7 9.3 Other South Eastern Europe 5.6
Scotland 5.5 11.2 Total South Eastern Europe 3.5
Wales 10.4 18.6
Other United Kingdom 23.0 Belarus (2001) 9.8
Total United Kingdom 11.0 Czechoslovakia (1986) 5.2 N/A
Ireland 4.3 5.2 Czech Republic (2001) N/A 6.5
Total UK and Ireland (1986) 5.7 Estonia (2001) N/A 6.0
Hungary 3.6 4.8
Austria 7.9 11.1 Latvia (2001) N/A 6.0
Belgium 11.3 18.1 Lithuania (2001) N/A 5.0
France 5.1 18.3 Poland 2.5 3.8
Germany 6.7 8.7 Russian Federation (2001) N/A 8.0
Netherlands 3.6 5.0 Slovakia (2001) N/A 6.5
Switzerland 11.3 18.3 Ukraine (2001) N/A 8.0
Other Western Europe 21.9 Total Eastern Europe 5.5
Total Western Europe 8.9
Egypt 8.5 11.6
Denmark 5.3 8.9 Other North Africa 13.3
Finland 2.3 4.4 Total North Africa 12.0
Norway 8.9 10.3
Sweden 9.3 15.8 Iran 3.7 3.4
Other Northern Europe 11.4 Iraq 4.0 5.5
Total Northern Europe 9.5 Israel 9.9 20.1
Lebanon 3.1 2.6
Italy 1.2 1.7 Syria 5.4 5.7
Malta 3.2 4.7 Turkey 2.4 3.0
Portugal 1.8 2.3 Other Middle East 10.6
Spain 2.7 4.3 Total Middle East 4.6
Other Southern Europe 25.9
Total Southern Europe 2.4 (Continued .... )
(See footnotes at end of table)

58
APPENDIX C (continued)

1986 2001 1986 2001

Rate Rate Rate Rate
Birthplace % (a) % (a) Birthplace % (a) % (a)
Burma 24.8 17.8 Afghanistan 2.2
Cambodia 5.3 7.3 Armenia 7.4
Laos 2.7 5.6 Other Central Asia 11.8
Thailand 8.0 10.3 Total Central Asia 3.7
Viet Nam 2.5 2.9
Total Mainland S-E Asia 5.0 Canada 24.2 37.5
United States 31.6 40.3
Brunei Darussalam 12.5 Other North America 26.1
Indonesia 10.2 11.3 Total North America 27.8 39.3
Malaysia 8.3 10.1
Philippines 9.2 10.4 Argentina 21.3 29.0
Singapore 12.5 13.6 Brazil 18.3 24.8
East Timor N/A 13.9 Chile 8.2 12.2
Timor (1986) 11.3 N/A Colombia 9.2
Total Maritime S-E Asia 11.0 Ecuador 9.4
Paraguay 19.9
China 3.3 1.5 Peru 16.8
Hong Kong 4.3 3.9 Uruguay 13.7 22.1
Taiwan 2.3 Venezuela 23.1
Other Chinese Asia 5.0 Other South America 18.3
Total Chinese Asia 2.3 Total South America 13.1 18.1

Japan 5.4 6.5 El Salvador 6.6

Korea (1986) 1.5 N/A Guatemala 18.4
Korea DPR (North) 0.0 Mexico 27.9
Korea, Rep (South) 1.1 Other Central America 14.3
Total Japan & the Koreas 3.2 Total Central America 9.7

Bangladesh 11.5 3.5 Total Caribbean 28.4

India 21.0 9.8
Pakistan 12.8 8.2 Kenya 16.8
Sri Lanka 13.6 10.5 Mauritius 13.5
Other Southern Asia 3.3 South Africa 16.8 23.5
Total Southern Asia 9.5 Zimbabwe 27.4
Other Southern & East Africa 13.9
Nigeria 13.4 Total Southern & East Africa 20.7
Other Central & West Africa 10.0
Total Central & West Africa 11.2 Total all Birthplaces 12.6 22.3
(a) Persons in each Birthplace category responding with more than one Ancestry as a percentage of all persons
in that Birthplace category.
(b) Only 1986 birthplace data that are directly comparable with 2001 boundaries have been included. Most
1986 regional totals have been omitted due to the variance in composition.

59
Census Papers

2001 Census Papers:

03/04 2001 Census: Income
03/03 2001 Census: Computer and Internet Use
03/02 2001 Census: Housing
03/01b 2001 Census: Ancestry - Detailed Paper
03/01a 2001 Census: Ancestry - First and Second Generation Australians
02/03 2001 Census: Form Design Testing
02/02 Report on Testing of Disability Questions for Inclusion in the 2001 Census
02/01 2001 Census: Digital Geography Technical Information Paper

1996 Census Working Papers:

00/4 1996 Census Data Quality: Income
00/3 1996 Census Data Quality: Industry
00/2 1996 Census Data Quality: Qualification Level and Field of Study
00/1 1996 Census Data Quality: Journey to Work
99/6 1996 Census Data Quality: Occupation
99/4 1996 Census: Review of Enumeration of Indigenous Peoples in the 1996
Census
99/3 1996 Census Data Quality: Housing
99/2 1996 Census: Labour Force Status
99/1 1996 Census: Industry Data Comparison
97/1 1996 Census: Homeless Enumeration Strategy
96/3 1996 Census of Population and Housing: Digital Geography Technical
Information Paper
96/2 1996 Census Form Design Testing Program

1991 Census Working Papers:

96/1 Income
95/1 Housing
94/4 Ancestry
94/3 Disability
94/2 Education
94/1 Labour Force Status
93/6 Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander Counts
93/5 Public Communications
93/4 Comparison of Census and PES Responses
93/3 Posted-in Forms
93/2 Self Coding
93/1 Sequencing Instructions

These papers are available on the ABS web site at <http://www.abs.gov.au>. From the ABS
home page, select Census -> (Census Information) Fact Sheets and Census Papers ->
(Other Publications) Census Papers.

If you have further data quality queries, please contact the Assistant Director, Census
Evaluation by telephone: (02) 6252 5611 or email: <[email protected]>.

60