Lies and statistics: Why Australia’s UN SDG measurement data is almost useless

Powered By

If there’s a clear example of government’s challenge to use data to achieve desired outcomes, it’s Australia’s commitment to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. 

The SDGs, which Australia signed up for in 2015, aim to “reduce poverty and hunger, improve health and education, advance gender equality and strengthen economic growth”, according to a foreign policy whitepaper.

Fast forward to 2022 and the federal government reaffirmed Australia’s desire to abide by its SDG commitment when foreign minister Penny Wong delivered an address to the UN general assembly in September. 

“[They] represent our collective vision for minimum living standards for everyone living on this planet – every country needs to do more,” she said. “Over the coming months, we’re designing a new development policy outlining how we will play our part in a world in an era of crisis – and how we will help developing countries without driving them into unsustainable debt.”

A commitment to increase funding to the Pacific region is one thing but what, if anything, is Australia doing within its borders to meet the SDGs? More importantly, how do we measure progress? Does the data used to show progress have a use-by date?

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade established a database under its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development so various pieces of data could be slotted into SDG pigeonholes. In theory, the database should allow anyone to monitor, measure and report on progress, but it raises two questions:

• How does data in one part of government that’s relevant to a specific development goal get pulled into the database? 
• How can it align any compliance data (that may not currently exist) with recorded baseline data, and how are these measured over time?

At the time, DFAT noted that it needed to find a way to get the necessary facts or data to follow Australia’s SDG progress. “The 2030 Agenda cannot be achieved without good data on the problems we face and the effectiveness of our actions,” DFAT’s website explains. “Without good gender data, for example, it is difficult to devise policy and programs that respond to the differential experiences of men’s and women’s lives.”

A separate DFAT document details the importance of a reporting platform that allows progress tracking. “The reporting platform will assist stakeholders responsible for compiling reports on country, regional and global progress against the SDGs,” it says. 

“[The platform] will be updated as more datasets are confirmed and/or as the work program on the SDG indicators progresses. While every effort is being made to include datasets where possible and appropriate, the platform will not report against all 232 SDG indicators.” 

Take the first SDG: “end poverty in all its forms everywhere”. Various government departments are responsible for the data displayed on the site and the poverty goal is handled by the Department of Social Services.

The site lists 14 colour-coded indicators to follow the overall reporting status and measure progress. This specific poverty goal requires countries to track things such as the “proportion of population living below the national poverty line by sex and age”, “proportion of total government spending on essential services (education, health and social protection)” and “proportion of population living in households with access to basic services” among other factors.

Just five of Australia’s 14 indicators are reported online. Six are given the status of “exploring data sources”, one isn’t reported against at all, and two aren’t relevant to Australia.

Take the first indicator: “percentage of the population living below the national poverty line, sex and age”. For this, Social Services uses Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA) data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research illustrating poverty distribution between 2001 and 2015.

So while HILDA is cited as a source, the SDG indicator data is based on a report that was released in 2018. It hasn’t published information relating to that indicator since the page was last updated in July of that year. Other goals and indicators also have less than contemporaneous data on the website.

Monash University professor John Thwaites says the absence of up-to-date data is a concern. He believes contemporaneous information is needed to provide Australians with an idea of how the country is going when it comes to meeting the SDGs.

During a parliamentary inquiry in 2018, Thwaites advocated for Parliament to receive an annual report on how Australia was progressing against the various development goals. He now says departments should be compelled to ensure information on the commonwealth’s website is updated. 

To understand more about the importance of data management, integration and security, download Commvault’s white papers on Data Security, Management and Governance today.