• Summary
• Downloads
• Explanatory Notes
• Related Information
• Past Releases

RED TAPE BURDEN

A key concern raised by stakeholders during the review was the ‘red tape’ burden that survey activity places on respondents, particularly farmers.

A number of organisations are involved in agricultural data collection activity beyond the official statistics collection agencies, including industry bodies and private consultants. Stakeholders reported that farmers may receive multiple survey forms from different organisations, often at times of peak business activity, and have limited time to respond. Stakeholders conveyed a number of factors that contributed to their feelings of being overwhelmed and frustrated because of multiple requests for information. These are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Factors contributing to red tape burden

Stakeholders referred to the sheer volume of requests for information by different organisations as a major source of frustration. Furthermore, stakeholders referred to instances of separate data collections by different organisations on what they perceived as similar survey topics or questions, and directed at similar respondent groups, industries or geographic regions. An example of perceived duplication in data collections was seen in the dairy industry. Some dairy farmers in a given year will receive requests to participate in multiple industry and government surveys (see Appendix 4 – Analysis of duplication). Analysis by the NASR found that the specific information requested in these data collections is different and not all dairy farmers would be requested or required to participate in a given data collection.

The amount of time required to complete surveys was a source of frustration. This was reflected in the Rice Growers Association submission, which highlighted the effort required to undertake paddock-by-paddock assessments or source information that was not kept on-farm. Further, the time given to complete and return surveys was considered inadequate.

Stakeholders indicated that some farmers are disengaging from the survey process because of these issues, and because of a lack of understanding of why such information is being collected, how it will be used and concerns at how their confidentiality will be protected. The grains industry highlighted that data collections are undertaken by bulk grain handlers, private industry, consultants and government. Several stakeholders stated that these multiple requests are overwhelming for farmers who will disregard all requests except those from the ABS because of its legislated power to compel farmers to respond. Further, the RGA believes that farmers are at times taking a perfunctory approach to survey responses, undermining the quality of data collected.

Respondent burden affects the statistical system primarily through its impact on data quality. Farmers who are disengaged with the system are less likely to return survey forms and may not complete them fully or accurately, reducing the quality and/or completeness of the final results. This in turn requires greater effort by survey agencies to collect, check and validate survey data, adding to the time required to produce the survey outputs, affecting their timeliness.

Stakeholders referred to a need for greater coordination in the agricultural statistics system. There is no single body or organisation that monitors all agricultural data collection in Australia, although there are different mechanisms or protocols in place in individual organisations and in official organisations that attempt to coordinate the management of respondent burden and duplication in survey activity, such as the Statistical Clearing House in the ABS (Box 1). It is difficult to quantify the extent of respondent burden throughout the current system, as this would require an audit of all agricultural surveys currently being conducted, their content and scope, and the number and types of businesses being surveyed.