Magnetic Island North Queensland
  Phone 0427 398 838 Monday 19th o February 2018 on Magnetic Island  
A young koala's beach adventure

June 29th 2007
MI Census 2006: a correction

On Wednesday we published a story "Island population crashes by 22%". It was based on the Quick Stats made available following the release of the 2006 Census by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Although we reported the figures accurately from the Bureau, we failed to appreciate that these numbers, which excluded overseas visitors, did not exclude Australian visitors. We Islanders of course regard all non-islanders as, "overseas visitors" - hence the confusion! But with the generous assistance of Island resident and statistical guru Des Lavery we can now show the numbers for "Usual Residents" or residents who normally reside on Magnetic Island. And, although the 22% crash is no longer the case, it seems that the Island's population actually fell, over those years, by three individuals.

The table which Des has put together for us puts the figures for the 2001 and 2006 Census side by side for an easy comparison and a number of the assertions we made on Wednesday need to be corrected.

Firstly, children between 5 and 14 did not drop by 85 but 63 or by 20%.

We reported that the 25 to 64 age population dropped by a massive 255 when in fact our Usual Residents figures indicate the addition of 2 individuals in this age range.

Magnetic's married population did not drop by 412 but just 45, a decrease of 6%.

We can also celebrate the fact that our large and elderly population did not in fact leave Magnetic or pass away over the five years by 198. Their numbers in fact grew by 50 or 20%.

To make your own comparisons and conclusions we have reproduced the table put together by Des Lavery which he drew from the ABS Census data.

Magnetic Times apologises for this misreading of the data and hope readers appreciate our attempts to sort the lies and damned lies from the statistics.

To make a comment see below

MI Census 2006: a correction
Wendy Tubman
June 29th 2007
Thanks for the explanation and adjustment of the 2006 Census figures. Apart from the 2006 (but not the 2001) figures excluding overseas visitors (as you explained), from my understanding, the 2001 figures were
July 11th 2007
There is another 'unfortunate' statistical anomaly. In the "Dwelling type" section the number of 'units/apartments' has dropped by 68 and 'other/not stated' dropped by 26. I haven't noticed a lot of house removals so you'd have to wonder what happened to the definitions. Meanwhile, the number of 'unoccupied/non-private' [whatever that means] dwellings has increased by 171 over the five years between readings. I would have thought the number of empty houses was an important statistic but here it is run together with "non-private" to destroy two sets of figures to create one useless figure. Go figure.

What do you think? Send us your comments.

Readers comments
FROM cp_articles
[ read more ]
The poll
Should Magnetic Island commission a sculpture to celebrate the achievements of Julian Assange?
98%       2%
Great idea No thanks

Cypress created this page in 0.02 seconds