On Wednesday evening, I received an email from an Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) media officer suggesting that I have misled the public by quoting the ABS’ monthly net permanent and long-term arrivals data.
The article where I have purportedly misled can be read here.
The email, presented below with the officer’s name removed, claimed that it is “inaccurate and misleading to use” the monthly net permanent and long-term arrivals data as a “measure of migration”.
ABS email to Leith van Onselen
I bluntly responded by requesting the ABS show where I have ‘misled’ and questioned why the ABS appears to be trying to censor debate on immigration numbers:
Response to ABS
After contacting various media outlets, I discovered a coordinated effort to undermine the use of monthly net permanent and long-term arrivals data as a leading indicator of migration.
Stephen Johnson at the Daily Mail received the same email from the ABS. Radio 2GB was also ‘fact checked’ for using this data.
Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, responded as follows to the ABS’ apparent attempt at censorship over migration numbers:
“It seems highly unusual that the ABS would publish data and then complain when it is used to uncover what is going on in Australia.”
“It appears the ABS has been sent out by the Treasurer to shut down debate about the federal government’s failed, unpopular mass migration program.”
“While ‘net permanent and long-term arrivals’ and ‘net overseas migration’ differ slightly, they remain closely related measures. They have been an accurate statistical guide which has uncovered Australia’s unplanned migration crisis.”
“It would be highly inappropriate for sections of the ABS to be running cover for the federal government to try and divert attention away from Australia’s out-of-control migration system.”
“The ABS needs to think very carefully about making itself a political target. The ABS can either stick to its role as an independent statistical agency, or it will blow its credibility by politicising itself.”
“There is no place for such political interference from an organisation that must be seen at all times as strictly impartial.”
The reality is that for years, economists have used the monthly net permanent and long-term arrivals data as a leading indicator of migration.
Sure, the measure is not perfect, but it has historically correlated very strongly with the official quarterly net overseas migration data (NOM), which is at least six months delayed:
The ABS’ salvo is especially strange given the Australian Government’s official document, Fundamentals of migration in Australia: Migration concepts and measurements, from the Centre for Population, explicitly stated that “border crossings data are more timely than other migration flow data releases, meaning they can be used as a potential leading indicator for NOM”:
Source: Centre for Population (Australian Treasury)
The same document also states explicitly that border crossings (arrivals and departures) are an “early indicator of future migration flows”:
Source: Centre for Population (Australian Treasury)
So, it is okay for the Centre for Population to utilise the monthly net permanent and long-term arrivals data as a leading indicator of migration, but not for the media to do likewise?
It appears that somebody within the government has strong-armed the ABS into going after media outlets for criticising the federal government for failing to control immigration.
Sadly, the ABS, like most other public institutions in Australia, appears to have become politicised, although I hope I am wrong.
There appears to be blanket censorship within federal agencies on migration, given that the RBA, the Productivity Commission, the Productivity Summit, and everyone else in government refuse to acknowledge that the ‘Big Australia’ mass immigration policy has been destructive for productivity and living standards.
There are so many other examples where the ABS could interfere in public debate but doesn’t.
For example, why don’t they say to economists that call the monthly CPI indicator “inflation” that it is misleading for the official quarterly CPI? Why don’t they call out politicians and the education lobby for misleadingly quoting the $51 billion education exports figure as fact, even though the ABS has admitted that it is grossly overestimated?
