Response to The Conversation article published on 14/2/2024 about the ABS Time Use Survey

On 14 February The Conversation published an article by Marian Sawer and Julie P. Smith on the ABS approach to the collection of Time Use Data.  The article contains several misconceptions about how the ABS undertakes the collection of these data and suggests that the data is not fit for use by our key clients. This response explains how the ABS collects time use data and how we are modernising our data collection approaches to improve data quality and provide a contemporary, easier experience for those chosen to be part of the survey.

The ABS has modernised our data collection operations to meet community expectations when engaging with Government services digitally.

Providing Australian businesses and households with the ability to supply information to the ABS digitally reduces the burden (i.e. time taken) to provide the requested information; aligns with the expectations of businesses and the community; addresses falling response rates for surveys that are completed on paper; and reduces ABS data collection costs. A digital first approach is being implemented across ABS surveys and has proven to be a successful approach to collect a range of important information from businesses and households – including the 2021 Census where almost 80% of households provided their data digitally. 

Further, The Conversation article stated the ABS continues to collect household expenditure data on paper using face to face interviews. This is incorrect.

The Time Use Survey (TUS) is an important source of information relating to how Australians balance their time between work, family, leisure and caring activities. While in the past the survey was conducted infrequently, annual data collection was funded as part of the 2018 Women’s Economic Security Package.

Under this package, the TUS was provided with a clear focus to support the development of the annual Women’s Budget Statement, particularly factors influencing women’s economic participation. This has included prioritising the collection of detailed information relating to unpaid work, including unpaid care of children and adults requiring care. 

The ABS consults extensively when designing surveys and carefully assesses changes in collection methods. For the 2020-21 TUS the ABS consulted with Government agencies, academic experts and international statistical agencies to modernise the time use survey practices. The ABS has continued this consultation as the 2024 TUS is developed.

We also evaluate collection outcomes and improve our survey approach to reflect those experiences. For the 2024 TUS we will be improving the collection of unpaid care, ensuring that this care is reported accurately, both where it is reported as a ‘primary’ activity, as well as when care or supervision is undertaken in combination with other activities. 

The article questioned changes to the TUS relating to simultaneous or secondary activities. In the past the TUS asked for a range of information in addition to the activity you are undertaking. For example, you might be having a meeting on your mobile phone (primary activity) while walking the dog (secondary activity). The TUS also asked additional questions for each activity, such as what device you were using and whether you were with others. In 2020-21 questions beyond the primary activity were rarely answered and feedback from households stated it was unreasonable to continue to seek this information in 2024. The 2024 TUS will no longer ask for this information in response to this feedback. Such streamlining is important for maintaining the quality of priority information to inform gender equity issues.

We understand that stakeholders have a variety of views and requirements relating to the TUS. The ABS will continue to engage with stakeholders, especially key Government users, to deliver the high-quality data needed to develop policy and support research. What is clear is that the old approach of personally delivering paper forms to households to record their activities is not sustainable from a cost perspective, does not meet community expectations and no longer yields high-quality data.