Preparation for the 2001 Census was complicated by the failure of the ABS to dispatch the relevant census forms to Aurukun. There was, furthermore, an Australia-wide shortage of the remote area forms, and so photocopied versions were prepared by ABS staff and air freighted to Cairns for onshipment by light aircraft to Aurukun. However, a series of unforseen logistical and other problems meant that the forms did not arrive in Aurukun until the day of the census itself, Tuesday 7 August. In the meantime, therefore, photocopies were made of the sample forms provided in the Working for the Census guide for interviewers, particularly the Dwelling Check List (see Appendix A) and the SIHF (see Appendix B), so that the necessary preparatory work could be undertaken. As it eventuated, because the photocopies were not colour coded as were the originals, considerable difficulties were occasioned for interviewer-collectors (henceforth interviewers) in the field since there was no simple visual clue as to which form was which, and in particular whether each SIHF had its associated SIPFs (see Appendix C) attached.

Steps had been taken to implement pre-census training. The CFO, who was based in Cairns, had conducted a training session in Aurukun, involving the CC and a number of the proposed interviewers. The CC was of the view that the training had gone well, although certain of the proposed interviewers had not attended. Although the video prepared by the ABS specifically to train interviewers in the remote area methodology was apparently not shown during training, this was probably of little consequence since the situation (including cultural 'styles') in the South Australian rural Aboriginal community depicted in the video and that in Aurukun were rather different. Of course, the difficulty for the ABS, and for those involved in census collections in remote Indigenous communities, is how to ensure appropriateness of materials and training across the range of communities and situations to be encountered, while maintaining consistency and commensurability in the data ultimately collected.

- 15 -

The CC had clearly put considerable effort into developing a methodology for census collection in the township at least, and (apart from the absence of forms) was well prepared. A number of potential issues had been identified prior to the census collection in meetings between the CC and the interviewers. These included the problem of how Q. 4 and Q. 5 on the SIPF treat kin relationships within households. In this regard, the advice from the CFO was that interviewers were to record relationships in the terms in which people themselves described them.

Problems arising from the 'married' terminology used in Q. 6 of the SIPF were seen as twofold. Firstly, the interviewers seemed prepared to accept that 'married' could encompass 'de facto', but were nonetheless concerned about the term's appropriateness; and secondly, it was felt that there could be people involved in long-term relationships but not cohabiting with their partner who might be concerned that describing themselves as 'married' could adversely impact on their welfare entitlements.

Doubts were raised about the wording of, and relationship between, the 'origin' and 'ancestry' questions (Q. 10 and Q. 13 on the SIPF). It was presumed that Q. 10 offered a 'no' option for those non-Indigenous people living in otherwise Indigenous households who preferred not to fill out a separate, standard, personal census form.

It was also felt that Q. 28, regarding the before-tax income of each individual, would pose difficulties for many people, since not only were people not necessarily aware of how much tax was deducted from their Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) and other pays, but also were not necessarily aware of the Local Government Services levy deducted by the Aurukun Shire Council.

It was felt that there would be problems in identifying precisely where people were living one year ago and at the time of the previous census, five years ago. The CC was proposing to use the Aurukun Council's lot numbering system within the township, but quite a few of the houses that had existed in 1996 had been demolished, and a significant number of new dwellings had been constructed in the intervening period, including over the previous 12 months. It was envisaged that during the actual census, the place(s) of residence one and five years ago might be recorded (for example) as 'Bill's place', and then a more consistent address system would be recorded on forms during the post-collection validation process. Additionally, neither the interviewers nor the CC were clear about whether the import of this question related to whether people had been living elsewhere than Aurukun five years ago, for example in other communities or on outstations, or whether it was aimed at establishing intra-community mobility.

More generally, the CC was of the view that there would be the need for several days to be devoted post-collection to the validation of information on the forms. It should be stated at this juncture that the issues identified by the CC and the interviewers all proved to be borne out in my observations of the actual census collection.

Despite efforts at information dissemination about the census, my own inquiries suggested that there did not seem to be much general awareness of it within the community. Prior to the actual census collection starting, only two of the dozen or so people around the township I spoke with knew about the forthcoming census, or even what a census was. - 16 - This is not however to be taken as a criticism of those involved in preparing for the census: rather, it reflects the quite different priorities and interests of Aboriginal residents of communities such as Aurukun, and a fair level of indifference to the administrative requirements and priorities of the state.