{"id":16105,"date":"2026-01-31T11:55:23","date_gmt":"2026-01-31T00:55:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/?p=16105"},"modified":"2026-01-31T12:00:37","modified_gmt":"2026-01-31T01:00:37","slug":"the-census-files-when-the-abs-made-its-decision-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rationalemagazine.com\/index.php\/2026\/01\/31\/the-census-files-when-the-abs-made-its-decision-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Census Files: When the ABS made its decision (Part 3)"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is Part 3 in our \u2018The Census Files\u2019 series. Read Part 1 here<\/a>\u00a0and Part 2 here<\/a>.<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In early October 2024, the tide was turning against the new religion question as executives prepared for a meeting with the head of the ABS, David Gruen (pictured), to make a decision on the way forward.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Without any comprehensive quantitative data to measure the performance of the proposed religion question, due to the cancellation of the September Census Test, a number of ABS executives began raising concerns in email exchanges. Documents obtained by the Rationalist Society of Australia under freedom of information (FOI) laws reveal ABS executives discussing the risks of continuing with the proposed new question design.<\/span><\/p>\n

Confusion also emerged at this time as to how the new question had been performing in recent rounds of cognitive testing \u2013 a methodology that deploys, typically, interviewing and surveying with individuals and smaller groups to understand their interpretation of questions, the burden of completing questions, and the usability of forms. Much of the concern among ABS executives surrounded the use of the free-text box which had, under the proposed question design, replaced the picklist of the most common religious affiliations.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Director of Census Content Testing \u2013 whose name was redacted in the FOI documents \u2013 wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

The question is not performing well as it\u2019s causing confusion over how broad or narrow the response should be, with respondents answering both broader and narrower than they would have with the 2021 question and response categories.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From the Director of Statistical Standards & Infrastructure (SSI) \u2013 whose name was also redacted \u2013 came the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2026 SSI has always supported the \u2018free text for all\u2019 option, however agree if we cannot thoroughly test any changes, then staying with the status quo is likely the least risky option.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

With the decision taken not to undertake the September Test, the opportunity to more comprehensively test (ie beyond cognitive testing) the proposed change to the question wording, the risk of adverse statistical impact may be considered too great.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One executive said they were \u201cinterested to hear\u201d that the question was not performing well.<\/span><\/p>\n

… the last I had heard (before this recent round) was that the question was testing well.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Another executive \u2013 whose named was also redacted \u2013 chimed into the email discussion:<\/span><\/p>\n

I hadn\u2019t realised the text box question wasn\u2019t performing well enough in the last two rounds [information redacted]. Agree this increases the risk for this design which I was already concerned about given the lack of field test.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The meeting with Dr Gruen was scheduled for 12 noon on 3 October 2024. By the evening of the previous day, it appeared that something of a consensus had formed among a number of the key decision-makers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In an email, Denise Carlton, Program Manager of the Population Statistics Branch, said that this was a \u201ccomplex one\u201d, but was of the view that \u201cin all my one-on-one discussions\u201d with \u2018AJ\u2019 Lanyon and two other unnamed people \u201cwe\u2019re all broadly all on the same page given the limitations\/risks etc\u201d. She added:<\/span><\/p>\n

Where we land for 2026 will need to be a compromise for a range of reasons [information redacted].<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A 12-slide presentation, prepared for the meeting, was titled \u2018Religious affiliation question design: Considerations and options\u2019. Slide 2 spelled out the objectives of the meeting as addressing \u2018Key considerations for question design\u2019 and discussing the direction for the religion question\u2019s wording, for the response options, and for the instructional text and examples provided with the question.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Three full slides of the presentation were redacted, as were a number of sections throughout the presentation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Slide 6 outlined that an \u201con-balance decision\u201d needed to consider \u201cpublic support for the change\u201d, inclusiveness of the question, stakeholder support and concerns, and the \u201cdata need\u201d, including to \u201cbalance the diversity of stakeholder perspectives and priorities\u201d, and the quality dimensions in regards to data accuracy versus comparability with past censuses.<\/span><\/p>\n

A slide detailing the options for the question\u2019s response fields assessed the two remaining \u2018potential options\u2019 as the free-text field or a singular picklist with the 2021 response options \u2013 although, with these picklist options being reordered based on the frequency of affiliations recorded at the 2021 Census.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Slide 10 presented options for the question wording, with options 1 and 3 considered as \u2018potential options\u2019. Option 1 was reverting to the 2021 Census question: \u2018What is the person\u2019s religion?\u2019 Option 3 was the question that the ABS had proposed to adopt for the 2026 Census: \u2018Does the person have a religion?\u2019 Option 2 \u2013 a variation to the 2021 question, adding \u2018if any\u2019 at the end \u2013 had already been discarded.<\/span><\/p>\n

The bottom half of the slide was redacted, citing section 22 of the <\/span>Freedom of Information Act (1982) (Cth)<\/span><\/i> \u2013 which allows for \u201cirrelevant\u201d matter to be deleted.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, this author was able to ascertain the hidden text simply by highlighting the section in the PDF that was provided by the ABS, copying the selected items, and then pasting it into a word-processing document. This process revealed that among the hidden text were the comments that option 1 \u201cmay lead respondents to a particular response\u201d and that option 3 \u201cmay impact comparability significantly\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The suggestion that option 1 \u2013 the biased question wording that presumes each respondent is religious \u2013 may lead respondents towards marking a religion will be of little surprise to anyone. Writing on the <\/span>Pearls & Irritations<\/span><\/i> blog<\/span><\/a> in 2024, Michael Dove, the convenor of the <\/span>\u2018Census \u2013 Not Religious?\u2019<\/span><\/a> campaign \u2013 a campaign supported by several non-religious and pro-secular groups, including the Rationalist Society of Australia, that encourages Australia to mark ‘no religion’ if they are not religious in order to country the effect of the question bias \u2013 said:<\/span><\/p>\n

The existing question leads respondents to draw on their personal backgrounds, including parents\u2019 religion, school attended, and previous practices and beliefs. None of these things are relevant to a person\u2019s current relationship with religion.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\u2026 given that the purpose of the census is to take a demographic snapshot of the country and its evolving culture, we believe current and accurate data is more important than continuing to compare flawed data with flawed data.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For at least a couple of decades now, non-religious and pro-secular organisations have been actively calling on the ABS to remove the bias from the question because it inflates the Census data in favour of religion \u2013 as much as 11 points, according to several recent robust surveys, including one by <\/span>Essential Research in 2021<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

During the ABS\u2019 two-year public consultation phase in 2022-23, the Australian public <\/span>overwhelmingly called for the ABS to remove the bias from the Census question<\/span><\/a>. Of 74 submissions relating to the proposed change to the religion question, the vast majority \u2013 63 \u2013 supported the change and another eight partly supported it.<\/span><\/p>\n

On 4 October 2024, the day following the meeting of ABS executives, confirmation of the outcome came via an email from Ms Carlton. Listed last \u2013 in eighth spot \u2013 of the outcomes relating to the religion question was the following statement:<\/span><\/p>\n

It was also decided to retain the 2021 question wording for 2026 as this maximises comparability and we could not quantify the impact of question wording change without extensive testing.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The executives had also decided to retain the picklist approach for 2026. According to Ms Carlton:<\/span><\/p>\n

This reflects feedback received from a number of stakeholders around the importance of<\/span><\/i> comparability, and the significant impact the change would represent. There is also more significant burden associated with the free text box \u2026<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Having made its decision, the ABS set out to conduct additional cognitive testing to the minor variations to the 2021 question \u2013 such as the updates regarding the instructional text \u2013 with the aim of finalising the Census content by December.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A document circulated in mid October and titled ‘<\/span>2026 Census Content Finalisation Cognitive Testing Plan’<\/span> outlined the way forward. But this document also provided some background information about the cancellation of September\u2019s Census Test, describing the test as having been the \u201conly opportunity for a quantitative test in the development and testing cycle prior to the topics, questions and forms requiring finalisation\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Publicly, in the weeks following the cancellation of the test, the ABS had given no indication that it would be ditching its proposed religion question.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the uncertainty and some media reporting that suggested the new religion question would be impacted by the government’s announcement of its preferred topics and the subsequent cancellation of the Census Test, the <\/span>\u2018Census \u2013 Not Religious?\u2019<\/span><\/a> campaign <\/span>sought clarification from the ABS<\/span><\/a> about the status of the religion question.<\/span><\/p>\n

On 28 September 2024 \u2013 just days before its decision to revert to the 2021 religion question \u2013 <\/span>the ABS confirmed<\/span><\/a>, in a letter to the \u2018Census \u2013 Not Religious?\u2019<\/span> campaign, <\/span>that the \u201cversion that was to be included in the 2024 Census Test continues to be tested\u201d, and added that a mixture of testing methods would now be adopted. The statement added:<\/p>\n

Evidence from the testing, alongside further feedback from ongoing stakeholder consultation, will support Dr Gruen\u2019s decision on the final question approach.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Going into the Senate Estimates hearing on 21 November, Dr Gruen would have been expecting questions from Senator Dean Smith, the opposition spokesperson for the Census, regarding the status of the religion question.<\/span><\/p>\n

When those questions came, Dr Gruen reported<\/a> that the decision would be left to the “professional judgment of the ABS” and added that the ABS was \u201cclose to making a decision\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n

As you are aware, that is a decision for us, not for the government.<\/span><\/i> .. I\u2019ve had a series of meetings with a large number of groups. We heard their views about the nature of the question that they would like asked on religious affiliation…. We had something like 10 meetings, I would say, with different groups, both religious and secular groups, and we are close to making a decision which I think we will announce in the new year.<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n