Census visit the other night

[Krull]

Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
Since when do census people come knocking unannounced? I thought
the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just a
couple of years ago or so? Anyway, I told her just to put "No"
to all questions, and she said I was irresponsible and left. This
was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too. Comments? Was she
legit? Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?

[Sylvia Else]

Krull wrote:

> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
> mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
> unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
> was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
> I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
> Since when do census people come knocking unannounced? I thought
> the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just a
> couple of years ago or so? Anyway, I told her just to put "No"
> to all questions, and she said I was irresponsible and left. This
> was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too. Comments? Was she
> legit? Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?
>
>

Presumably the person was trying to act under the Census and Statistics
Act 1905

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/casa1905241/

It is an offence not to answer questions, but only if notified *in
writing*. So no, you were not breaking the law by not answering.

You were, however, committing an offence by giving her false answers.
It's unfortunate that you did that, because otherwise you could have
made a formal complaint about them misrepresenting your obligations
under the law.

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote

> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
> mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
> unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
> was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
> I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?

Yes.

> Since when do census people come knocking unannounced?

Since always basically.

> I thought the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just a
> couple of years ago or so?

Nope.

> Anyway, I told her just to put "No" to all questions, and she said I was
> irresponsible and left. This was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too.
> Comments?

> Was she legit?

Yep.

> Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?

Depends on my mood at the time.

[V©]

You should also ask them for ID and if they don't provide any then politely
thank them for their time and tell them to go away.


"Krull" <krull@carnage.com> wrote in message
news:42d0d28b@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
> mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
> unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
> was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
> I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
> Since when do census people come knocking unannounced? I thought
> the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just a
> couple of years ago or so? Anyway, I told her just to put "No"
> to all questions, and she said I was irresponsible and left. This
> was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too. Comments? Was she
> legit? Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?
>
>

[V©]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jc98lFp98qcU1@individual.net...
> Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote
>
>> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>> mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>> unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>> was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>> I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Since when do census people come knocking unannounced?
>
> Since always basically.
>
>> I thought the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just
>> a couple of years ago or so?
>
> Nope.
>
>> Anyway, I told her just to put "No" to all questions, and she said I was
>> irresponsible and left. This was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too.
>> Comments?
>
>> Was she legit?
>
> Yep.

Actually you can't really say going by the information provided. It is
likely to have been a census rep (couldn't think of why anyone else would
want to ask such questions) but it could have been anyone as no ID was
viewed.

>
>> Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?
>
> Depends on my mood at the time.
>

[Rod Speed]

V© <nope@naaaa.naaa.naaa> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote

>>> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>>> mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>>> unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>>> was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>>> I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?

>> Yes.

>>> Since when do census people come knocking unannounced?

>> Since always basically.

>>> I thought the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just a
>>> couple of years ago or so?

>> Nope.

>>> Anyway, I told her just to put "No" to all questions, and she said I was
>>> irresponsible and left. This was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too.
>>> Comments?

>>> Was she legit?

>> Yep.

> Actually you can't really say going by the information provided.

Wrong, her reaction when he refused to open the door and
talk to her is a dead giveaway, just what census monkeys do.

> It is likely to have been a census rep (couldn't think of why anyone else
> would want to ask such questions) but it could have been anyone as no ID was
> viewed.

Mindless stuff.

>>> Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?

>> Depends on my mood at the time.

[Rod Speed]

V© <nope@naaaa.naaa.naaa> wrote

> You should also ask them for ID and if they don't provide any then politely
> thank them for their time and tell them to go away.

Or just do what was done.


> Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote

>> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>> mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>> unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>> was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>> I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
>> Since when do census people come knocking unannounced? I thought
>> the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just a
>> couple of years ago or so? Anyway, I told her just to put "No"
>> to all questions, and she said I was irresponsible and left. This
>> was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too. Comments? Was she
>> legit? Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?

[Sylvia Else]

Rod Speed wrote:

> Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote
>
>
>>Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>>mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>>unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>>was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>>I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
>
>
> Yes.

No.

It's only against the law if notice of the question was given in
writing, and it wasn't.

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote

>>> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>>> mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>>> unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>>> was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>>> I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?

>> Yes.

> No.

Yep.

> It's only against the law if notice of the question was given in writing,

Wrong.

> and it wasn't.

Irrelevant.

[Sylvia Else]

Rod Speed wrote:

> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>>>>mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>>>>unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>>>>was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>>>answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>>>>I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
>
>
>>>Yes.
>
>
>>No.
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>>It's only against the law if notice of the question was given in writing,
>
>
> Wrong.

Which legislation are you looking at?

The Census and Statistics Act 1905, s14

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/PA000200.htm

"(1)
A person who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails to comply
with a direction served on the person under subsection 10(4) or 11(2)
is, in respect of each day during which the person so refuses or fails
to comply with the direction (including the day of a conviction under
this section or any subsequent day), guilty of an offence punishable on
conviction by a fine not exceeding $100."

10(4) says

"For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by
notice in writing served either personally or by post on a person,
direct the person:"

11(2) says

"For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice in
writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the
person to answer, within such period after service of the notice, being
not less than 14 days, as is specified in the notice, a specified
question that is necessary to obtain any statistical information in
relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9."

Both of these involve a notice in writing, so since you you claim there
is an offence of not answering the questions in the absence of a notice
in writing, then where is it?

Sylvia.

[Phil Allison]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:27:09 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
>>
>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>>>>>mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>>>>>unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>>>>>was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>>>>answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>>>>>I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
>>
>>
>>>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>No.
>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>
>>>It's only against the law if notice of the question was given in writing,
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Which legislation are you looking at?
>
> The Census and Statistics Act 1905, s14
>
> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/PA000200.htm
>
> "(1)
> A person who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails to comply
> with a direction served on the person under subsection 10(4) or 11(2)
> is, in respect of each day during which the person so refuses or fails
> to comply with the direction (including the day of a conviction under
> this section or any subsequent day), guilty of an offence punishable on
> conviction by a fine not exceeding $100."
>
> 10(4) says
>
> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by
> notice in writing served either personally or by post on a person,
> direct the person:"
>
> 11(2) says
>
> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice in
> writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the
> person to answer, within such period after service of the notice, being
> not less than 14 days, as is specified in the notice, a specified
> question that is necessary to obtain any statistical information in
> relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9."
>
> Both of these involve a notice in writing, so since you you claim there
> is an offence of not answering the questions in the absence of a notice
> in writing, then where is it?

*** You know perfectly well!!!!!! In its well-padded arse!!!





..............Phil

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Krull <krull@carnage.com> wrote

>>>>> Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census
>>>>> questions, mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders
>>>>> living in my unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked
>>>>> who was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>>>> answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said I was
>>>>> breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?

>>>> Yes.

>>> No.

>> Yep.

>>> It's only against the law if notice of the question was given in writing,

>> Wrong.

> Which legislation are you looking at?

> The Census and Statistics Act 1905, s14

There is only one that's relevant.

> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/580/0/PA000200.htm
>
> "(1)
> A person who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails to
> comply with a direction served on the person under subsection 10(4)
> or 11(2) is, in respect of each day during which the person so
> refuses or fails to comply with the direction (including the day of a
> conviction under this section or any subsequent day), guilty of an
> offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding $100."

Which says nothing about notice in writing, stupid.

> 10(4) says
>
> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by
> notice in writing served either personally or by post on a person,
> direct the person:"

Pity about 10(3) which says

For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an
authorized officer may, either orally or in writing, request a person:

(a) to fill up and supply, in accordance with instructions contained

in or accompanying a form, the particulars specified in that form;
and
(b) to cause the form so filled up to be furnished to the Statistician,

or to an authorized officer, in accordance with those instructions.

> 11(2) says

> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice
> in writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the
> person to answer, within such period after service of the notice,
> being not less than 14 days, as is specified in the notice, a
> specified question that is necessary to obtain any statistical
> information in relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9."

Pity about 11(1) which says

For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an authorized
officer
may, either orally or in writing, request a person to answer a question that
is necessary to obtain any statistical information in relation to any matter
referred to in section 8 or 9.

> Both of these involve a notice in writing, so since you
> claim there is an offence of not answering the questions in the absence of a
> notice in writing, then where is it?

Pathetic, really. No wonder you're completely unemployable.

[Sylvia Else]

Rod Speed wrote:

> Pity about 10(3) which says
>
> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an
> authorized officer may, either orally or in writing, request a person:
>
> (a) to fill up and supply, in accordance with instructions contained
>
> in or accompanying a form, the particulars specified in that form;
> and
> (b) to cause the form so filled up to be furnished to the Statistician,
>
> or to an authorized officer, in accordance with those instructions.

Yes, it does, Rod, and the Statistician may therefore make the request.
But there nothing that makes it an offence not to comply with it.

> Pity about 11(1) which says
>
> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an authorized
> officer
> may, either orally or in writing, request a person to answer a question that
> is necessary to obtain any statistical information in relation to any matter
> referred to in section 8 or 9.

Ditto.

C'mon Rod, you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself?

Sylvia.

[Seamus]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:21:27 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

>
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Pity about 10(3) which says
>>
>> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an
>> authorized officer may, either orally or in writing, request a person:
>>
>> (a) to fill up and supply, in accordance with instructions contained
>>
>> in or accompanying a form, the particulars specified in that form;
>> and
>> (b) to cause the form so filled up to be furnished to the Statistician,
>>
>> or to an authorized officer, in accordance with those instructions.
>
> Yes, it does, Rod, and the Statistician may therefore make the request.
> But there nothing that makes it an offence not to comply with it.
>
>> Pity about 11(1) which says
>>
>> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an authorized
>> officer
>> may, either orally or in writing, request a person to answer a question that
>> is necessary to obtain any statistical information in relation to any matter
>> referred to in section 8 or 9.
>
> Ditto.
>
> C'mon Rod, you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself?

He's aiming for China.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> 10(4) says
>>> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice in
>>> writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the person:"

>> Pity about 10(3) which says

>> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an
>> authorized officer may, either orally or in writing, request a
>> person:

>> (a) to fill up and supply, in accordance with instructions contained
>> in or accompanying a form, the particulars specified in that form; and
>> (b) to cause the form so filled up to be furnished to the
>> Statistician, or to an authorized officer, in accordance with those
>> instructions.

> Yes, it does, Rod, and the Statistician may therefore make the request. But
> there nothing that makes it an offence not to comply with it.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
of why you are completely unemployable.

10(4) doesnt mention a penalty either, fuckwit.

>>> 11(2) says

>>> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice
>>> in writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the
>>> person to answer, within such period after service of the notice,
>>> being not less than 14 days, as is specified in the notice, a
>>> specified question that is necessary to obtain any statistical
>>> information in relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9."

>> Pity about 11(1) which says

>> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an authorized
>> officer
>> may, either orally or in writing, request a person to answer a
>> question that is necessary to obtain any statistical information
>> in relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9.

> Ditto.

Ditto.

> C'mon Rod, you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself?

Wrong, as always. The written requirement is ONLY used after
the oral request is refused BUT THE LAW REQUIRES THAT
THE ORAL REQUEST BE COMPLIED WITH TOO, JUST REQUIRES
A FORMAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE THE PENALTY APPLYS, FUCKWIT.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
of why you are completely unemployable.

[Seamus]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:02:08 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> 10(4) says
>>>> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice in
>>>> writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the person:"
>
>>> Pity about 10(3) which says
>
>>> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an
>>> authorized officer may, either orally or in writing, request a
>>> person:
>
>>> (a) to fill up and supply, in accordance with instructions contained
>>> in or accompanying a form, the particulars specified in that form; and
>>> (b) to cause the form so filled up to be furnished to the
>>> Statistician, or to an authorized officer, in accordance with those
>>> instructions.
>
>> Yes, it does, Rod, and the Statistician may therefore make the request. But
>> there nothing that makes it an offence not to comply with it.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
> of why you are completely unemployable.
>
> 10(4) doesnt mention a penalty either, fuckwit.
>
>>>> 11(2) says
>
>>>> "For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice
>>>> in writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the
>>>> person to answer, within such period after service of the notice,
>>>> being not less than 14 days, as is specified in the notice, a
>>>> specified question that is necessary to obtain any statistical
>>>> information in relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9."
>
>>> Pity about 11(1) which says
>
>>> For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician or an authorized
>>> officer
>>> may, either orally or in writing, request a person to answer a
>>> question that is necessary to obtain any statistical information
>>> in relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9.
>
>> Ditto.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> C'mon Rod, you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself?
>
> Wrong, as always. The written requirement is ONLY used after
> the oral request is refused BUT THE LAW REQUIRES THAT
> THE ORAL REQUEST BE COMPLIED WITH TOO, JUST REQUIRES
> A FORMAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE THE PENALTY APPLYS, FUCKWIT.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
> of why you are completely unemployable.

You are supposed to keep digging, not cover the hole in from down
there.

[Sylvia Else]

Seamus wrote:

> He's aiming for China.

Judging by his reply to the same post, I'd say that he's well on his way.

So now there are three.

Sylvia.

[Jeßus]

V© wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3jc98lFp98qcU1@individual.net...
>>>Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>>>mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>>>unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>>>was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>>answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>>>I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
>
> Actually you can't really say going by the information provided. It is
> likely to have been a census rep (couldn't think of why anyone else would
> want to ask such questions)

Could be a ruse by someone to get you to open the door... then they beat
the living crap outta you. But then, who would do that???



--
/J/

[RE_fuse]

Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
Since when do census people come knocking unannounced? I thought
the census was once every six years anyway, and we had one just a
couple of years ago or so? Anyway, I told her just to put "No"
to all questions, and she said I was irresponsible and left. This
was around 7pm at night, on a weekday, too. Comments? Was she
legit? Would you have opened the door and answered her questions?


Once back in 96 the census collector placed the census forms inside my house ,on the kitchen table ,( had to go through 2 doors) whilst I was not home. ( they could of have placed them in the letter box) I complained to the B of Stats in Canberra . They said they would have an investigation and get back to me...they never did. So now when asked questions I relate my experience to them and refuse to answer questions until they get back to me with the results of the investigation..never got any feed back , never got a warning.

[V©]

LOL that has never EVER happened to me.


"Jeßus" <_._@ii.net> wrote in message
news:11d63tqod6kj82@corp.supernews.com...
> V© wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3jc98lFp98qcU1@individual.net...
>>>>Someone came knocking the other night to ask some census questions,
>>>>mainly about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in my
>>>>unit complex. I didn't actually answer the door, but asked who
>>>>was knocking through it. They said the above and that I *had* to
>>>>answer her questions, she got shitty when I wouldn't. She said
>>>>I was breaking the law by not answering -- is that correct?
>>
>> Actually you can't really say going by the information provided. It is
>> likely to have been a census rep (couldn't think of why anyone else would
>> want to ask such questions)
>
> Could be a ruse by someone to get you to open the door... then they beat
> the living crap outta you. But then, who would do that???
>
>
>
> --
> /J/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>