The decision by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to retain names and addresses for an extended period in this year's census appears to have been driven by a project commissioned to better manage public sector data.

The Public Sector Data Management Project, in its own words, was "commissioned by the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) to deliver a roadmap to unlock the potential of public sector data to drive innovation, efficiency, productivity and economic growth".

Last month, the DPM&C issued an update about the project, which has as its ultimate aim the use of data that is collected by the public service to facilitate business transactions.

To do this, there may need to be legislative changes so that the sharing of public data is made possible. And that means winning public confidence if it is to be done openly.

In that respect, the ABS has taken the whole project backwards.

The chief statistician, David Kalisch, did not conduct a detailed public consultation before deciding to retain names and addresses. He first said they would be retained indefinitely, then shortened that to four years.

And he disclosed that the ABS had already been retaining names for up to 18 months, without having informed the public.

These statements have added to a whole lot of confusion about the census and could well affect the quality of the data that is collected. This data is used for several government initiatives and thus needs to be reliable.

What is apparent from the detail laid out about the data management project is that there will be increased intrusions into personal privacy in the years ahead as the government proceeds with its plans.

When one reads Orwellian pronouncements such as "create a legislative environment that supports the use of data while maintaining privacy", trying to match up things that can never be reconciled, one has to wonder at the degree of openness that will be seen as the project progresses.

The ABS has already shown that unelected officials are prone to act as though they are little dictators when pursuing government objectives. Given that the data management project is being run by the secretaries of various government departments, one could well expect similar behaviour in the future.

One thing for certain: when it comes to the public obtaining information about the government, the so-called FOIA process, it will become even more difficult and impossible to prosecute. Information about the public? I wouldn't be surprised if, down the line, it is sold to the highest bidder.