Aussie Health Survey Compulsory

[DesDownunder]

Here we go again. Australian authoritarian bureaucracy is at it again with a compulsory health survey.

From report on Adelaide News.com:

UP TO 50,000 people face a fine of $110 a day if they refuse to divulge information on their health and lifestyle to Australian Bureau of Statistics researchers.

The Australian Health Survey announced in last week's Budget will be the most comprehensive research on the health of Australians ever undertaken and will be jointly funded by the National Heart Foundation.

But the 50,000 people chosen to take part will be compelled to do so.

Participants will be weighed and measured and will be asked to give a blood and urine sample.

They will also be asked detailed questions on what they drink and eat and their physical activity.

The ABS said participation "is ultimately compulsory for those chosen by random sampling to ensure the survey accurately represents the Australian population as a whole".

However, participants would only be compelled to answer questions. Providing a blood and urine sample and weighing in would be voluntary.

We really need a bill of rights in Australia.

[Graeme]

I'm sorry, Des, but what's the big deal? We already have compulsory voting and compulsory census completion. There are many other things that we 'have' to do, regardless of our personal wishes.

As this is the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I'm assuming that the information collected is de-identified, so why shouldn't this information be collected? Now, if it wasn't de-identified, and wasn't kept secure, I'd have complaints to make, but the ABS is generally very, very good about that sort of thing.

Answering a few questions is not high up there on the list of things to worry about in my humble opinion.

[DesDownunder]

Graeme, compulsory voting, census and taxes are mandatory for everyone of age in Australia, and as such are not a problem. Indeed it is a principle of a democracy that there shall be no taxation without representation, then it follows that as tax is compulsory so then should voting (for a representative who will spend those taxes.)

Other arguments for non-compulsory voting do not usually concede the significance of this point.

Like wise the Census is mandatory for every person in Australia on the day it is taken.

The problem with the health survey is that it is selective (only 50,000) and how those 50,000 are selected is open to manipulation.

If you read through the comments to the above report, you will find many people already claiming they will neither cooperate or supply factual information.

There are very good reasons why the health survey cannot be attached to the census, because it would, I think, fall outside the privacy provisions of the census legislation.

Neither is it a matter "personal wishes". Our rights and civil liberties are being eroded by various pieces of legislation, and if we are to maintain some semblance of individual freedom then we need to demand the protection of a Bill Of Human Rights so that the bureaucrats are aware that they at least must supply valid reasons for their demands on the people.

If the health survey were universal in Australia there would be less argument as to its worth. As it is, it has angered more than just a few, because of its selective nature and obvious potential for inaccuracy. The argument for the health survey as a mechanism to provide planning information is flawed because of this. There are other, more accurate and less intrusive means of assessing the health needs of the Australian people.

Like the Internet filter this health survey has the possibility of being used to intrude on the civil rights of the individual.

Just because we have other government survey forms and questions does not mean we should acquiesce to providing yet more details of a personal and private nature, and certainly not without some valid reasons being provided.

How do you think it felt to be compelled to answer questions about my sexual relations and their frequency with my partner of 40 years, just to get the age pension? I answered it, but I felt degraded, defiled and deprived of dignity, all so they could pay me the lesser rate of the "couples' pension payment." They didn't need to know those details to effect the proper payment.

Government is running amok, intruding into the lives of Australian citizens, and the nature of this health survey is just another example of why we need to dissent with their attitude of control over our lives. Unfortunately, candidates rarely stand who are willing to forsake their control for the benefit of the people. And yes I do see this as a political issue.

[Graeme]

The problem with the health survey is that it is selective (only 50,000) and how those 50,000 are selected is open to manipulation.

How electoral boundaries are selected is also open to manipulation, which is why we have an independent body setting those boundaries. This proposal has an independent, and respected, body doing the selection -- the Australian Bureau of Statistics. At least that's my understanding.

Statistically, the 50,000 people selected is enough to give a good idea of the national data. It's not 100% accurate, but the degree of error will be small.

If you read through the comments to the above report, you will find many people already claiming they will neither cooperate or supply factual information.

They could say the same about the census, too. The odds that they will not be selected, though, makes their intention to either not cooperate or to provide false information largely irrelevant, since we're talking about only 0.25% of the population being selected.

There are very good reasons why the health survey cannot be attached to the census, because it would, I think, fall outside the privacy provisions of the census legislation.

Neither is it a matter "personal wishes". Our rights and civil liberties are being eroded by various pieces of legislation, and if we are to maintain some semblance of individual freedom then we need to demand the protection of a Bill Of Human Rights so that the bureaucrats are aware that they at least must supply valid reasons for their demands on the people.

Since valid reasons have been supplied for this survey, does that mean you're okay with it since it meets the requirements of a hypothetical Bill of Human Rights?

If the health survey were universal in Australia there would be less argument as to its worth. As it is, it has angered more than just a few, because of its selective nature and obvious potential for inaccuracy. The argument for the health survey as a mechanism to provide planning information is flawed because of this. There are other, more accurate and less intrusive means of assessing the health needs of the Australian people.

It's a balancing act between costs and accuracy. The extra cost to get the extra accuracy has been deemed to be not worthwhile. Are you arguing that the government should spend more money than required to get the information needed? And I'm not sure what the 'other, more accurate and less intrusive' means would be, since any thing I can think of only addresses people who are accessing our healthcare system. One point of the survey is to get information on those who are not accessing the current healthcare system, so we don't get a distorted view of what is going on.

Like the Internet filter this health survey has the possibility of being used to intrude on the civil rights of the individual.

The difference is that the Internet filter is being done by the federal government and this is being done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. One is notoriously unreliable and capricious. The other has lots of experience with protecting the privacy of the individuals.

Just because we have other government survey forms and questions does not mean we should acquiesce to providing yet more details of a personal and private nature, and certainly not without some valid reasons being provided.

No problems there, but why are you still objecting when some valid reasons have been provided?

How do you think it felt to be compelled to answer questions about my sexual relations and their frequency with my partner of 40 years, just to get the age pension? I answered it, but I felt degraded, defiled and deprived of dignity, all so they could pay me the lesser rate of the "couples' pension payment." They didn't need to know those details to effect the proper payment.

I agree with you there. A statement saying you're a couple should have sufficed for the purposes of Centrelink. Anything past that point is unnecessary.

Government is running amok, intruding into the lives of Australian citizens, and the nature of this health survey is just another example of why we need to dissent with their attitude of control over our lives.

I don't understand why you feel that way about the 'nature of this health survey'. Exactly what is it about the 'nature of this health survey' that you find questionable? The fact that the people selected are required to respond? I can give you the answer to that one -- if people are given the choice in whether to respond, the results are less accurate. Is it the potential for fines? I think you'll find that no one will be fined if they don't respond -- politically, that would be suicide, so it's not going to happen. I suspect the 50,000 number was chose to take into account a certain percentage of people who refuse to respond, despite all attempts to get answers. That will distort the final results, as I mention above, but stating that something is mandatory is enough to get most people to respond, reducing the inaccuracy. Is it the nature of the questions being asked? I can't see knowing what someone eats and drinks, and what exercise they do is particularly intrusive, on the assumption that the information is consolidated into total numbers and isn't personally identifying.

If the survey identifies things that will help with preventative care, then I'm all for it because that will reduce the cost of national healthcare in the long run. Since that's my money they're spending, I'd like them to do it intelligently. To spend it intelligently, they have to have information about what is going on. I personally trust the ABS to be able to address the privacy concerns associated with the survey, and that would be my only real issue with this.

[Graeme]

I just went looking to see if this was being covered by the non-Murdoch press. I haven't been able to find it so far.

To me, it looks like a beat-up, with the News Ltd press using the 'threat' of $110 per day fines on people who don't respond to create 'news'. I noticed that they said that the comments about being able to fine people was made by a 'spokesman', without naming them or their position. I have a hunch that they asked someone there some generic questions about people refusing to answer questions, and they got a generic answer which the 'journalist' has then applied to this specific case.

The newspaper is covered, because the wording of the quote from the 'spokesman' is:

"If a participant was directed in writing and continued to refuse to comply, they may be prosecuted under the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and a fine may be imposed," a spokesman for the ABS said.

"A fine of up to $110 per day may be imposed until such time as the information is supplied."

That looks like a generic answer to me, not a specific response to this particular survey. That's probably why they didn't mention the 'spokesman' by name or position. Please note how the statement is commenced by a conditional phrase -- If a participant was directed in writing... -- and then two occurrence of the word 'may' -- 'they may be prosecuted' and 'A fine of up to $110 per day may be imposed'. If this was a response in relation to the health survey explicitly, why would the statement start with the conditional phrase? Also note that while the spokesman's statement was 'may be prosecuted' and 'up to $110 per day', the headline and short summary at the start of the article strongly implies that they will be charged, and it will be $110 per day.

My read -- the media trying to make a story that isn't there.

[DesDownunder]

I'm afraid I have failed to convey my concerns effectively.

I do not find validity in the reasons provided.

We do not share the same regard for the ABS.

I do not believe in health assessment by public (limited) questionnaire. Too many variables to be reliable.

If cost is prohibitive then don't try to do something that will not yield reliable results.

I'll repeat, valid reason have not been given to my satisfaction or others. Please read the comments to the article.

So at least you see the problem with the CentreLink questions on my pension entitlement. Both CentreLink and the ABS share the same requirement for privacy.

Both of them are capable of intimidating the individual. So I guess we disagree on these organisations being reputable at least in the sense of intimidation of their clients.

The invasiveness is obvious to me.

Murdoch's press is famous (infamous) for the beatups. In this case it is the nature of the reaction of the respondents in the comments which is alarming in their dismissive attitude. They are fed up with what they perceive as a governance of over regulation and threats.

A bill of human rights would serve to counter the transgressions and perhaps even persuade us that there is some safety in complying with the survey.

At the moment I don't trust either the ABS or the bureaucrats, let alone the politicians, to let me live my life without threat or in peace from what some regard as draconian regulations.

I expect to see a backdown on the threat of the fines for not complying. Whether this indicates a ministerial intervention or an expose of the article as a beatup, is probably never going to be clear.

Whether also, we agree on these points or not, is not the issue, what is important is that we remain alert to the intrusive nature of non-secular government in the lives of Australians. At the moment, we differ on the degree if not the nature of that intrusion and I dare say on the worth of our presently elected government in which I am, as a left wing progressive, severely disappointed, as they seem to have forsaken anything like the humanist orientation of their origins. Truly do they seem to be fulfilling the Orwellian predictions.

And that is what upsets me.

[Cole Parker]

OK, I've looked in OneLook.com, and the Urban Dictionary, and have been unable to locate any source at all that will define 'beatup' for me.

This must be an Australian term. I can probably assume a definition and be in the ballpark, but, why don't one of you Aussies give me an assist here?

C

[DesDownunder]

OK, I've looked in OneLook.com, and the Urban Dictionary, and have been unable to locate any source at all that will define 'beatup' for me.

This must be an Australian term. I can probably assume a definition and be in the ballpark, but, why don't one of you Aussies give me an assist here?

C

It seems to be somewhat ironic to use this news item after the headline of, " News Ltd boss 'beat-up' editor's ineptitude' " to help convey the way we Australians use the 'beat-up' phrase:

Senior executives at News Limited have been accused of exaggerating and inventing stories to support the dismissal of the former editor-in-chief of Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper.

Bruce Guthrie is suing the company for nearly $3 million in an unfair dismissal case.

Both News Limited and the former editor have again been urged to settle out of court.

Acting for Mr Guthrie, Norman O'Bryan SC today went on the attack.

He accused News Limited chief executive John Hartigan of "beating up" tales of Mr Guthrie's ineptitude to support his dismissal.

The words 'exaggeration' and 'inventing', perhaps best describe the meaning of 'beat-up' when applied to a news story that has some basis in fact but is reported in such a manner as to sensationalise the story in an effort to engage the reader towards adopting a particular view, albeit with 'plausible deniability' on the part of the reporter, editor or publisher, as to any misreporting.

As you can see from this news item, beat-ups are not always without their problems.

I think both Graeme and I might have been under the impression that 'beat-up' is common to more countries than just Australia.

[JamesSavik]

I can understand Des's distress.

There are quite a few Americans who would get bent out of shape if they were told that they had to share medical information with anybody.

Your medical info is one of those things that is nobody's business but your own.

[Cole Parker]

Why were you using 'beatup' and 'beatups' then and are hyphenating them now?

And I'm not criticizing! This sort of stuff fascinates me, word usage and constructions.

C

[DesDownunder]

Why were you using 'beatup' and 'beatups' then and are hyphenating them now?

And I'm not criticizing! This sort of stuff fascinates me, word usage and constructions.

C

We constantly throw, conformity, convention, and consistency, to the wind, under the bus, into the air. It's an Aussie thing.

Not all Aussies do this, some of us are sticklers for rules, but they are generally pretentious, politically correct morons, or persistent twits.

So we might drop hyphenation from time to time, on the grounds that the words are in the process of becoming so commonly used and understood that hyphenation is no longer needed, as well as being phonetically understood as a single word, and recognised as such by our dysfunctional verbal Aussie disruption of English. Obviously we should take more care outside of our own environmentals.

[Cole Parker]

Obviously we should take more care outside of our own environmentals.

You seem to be taking a first step: you've stopped littering hyphens all over the map.

C

[DesDownunder]

Spare hyphen supply: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -