Search

This paper compares the intent of three Australian social housing policy interventions in the decade to 2011 with outcomes shown in time series data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census. The three policy interventions are the supply stimulus that occurred in 2009 with funding to construct almost 20 000 new social housing dwellings by 2012, the push to diversify social housing supply through the transfer of public housing stock to community not-for-profit housing providers, and the physical renewal of public housing estates to reduce concentrations of social deprivation. Its aims are threefold: to understand how the supply and geography of social housing dwellings has changed over the past decade; to relate these changes to the objectives of social housing policy in the time period; and to identify issues for the future of social housing in Australia emerging from identified disparities between policy rhetoric and supply reality. The paper employs quantitative analysis of social housing supply for all of Australia and mapping of social housing supply changes in the east-coast mainland state capital cities. This analysis reveals the overall stagnation of social housing supply in Australia over the previous decade, combined with evidence of stock loss in areas of renewal in some cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intercensal period (2006-2011) was a time of significant policy and population change in Indigenous affairs. The aim of this paper is to document the changing distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population and housing geographies over that period. We use the Indigenous Region structure developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to show that Indigenous Australians grew at a rate that significantly outstrips the non-Indigenous population with an increasing concentration of the Indigenous population on the urban eastern seaboard and particularly among older people. We present results that show that for certain measures, the housing situation of the Indigenous population in 2011 had improved relative to the Indigenous population in 2006. A smaller proportion of Indigenous households were estimated to live in an overcrowded dwelling compared with Indigenous households in 2006. There were also significant increases in the per cent of Indigenous households that owned or were purchasing their own home. Other results might be seen as less positive with community housing (a tenure type identified as having benefits in both qualitative and quantitative analysis) declining in importance. In net terms though, Indigenous households continue to experience a high degree of housing need. Compared with other households, they were 3.7 times as likely to live in an overcrowded dwelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geological heritage is insufficiently recognised in Australia; it should be considered in its own right, not as an addendum to other heritage values. The lack of a suitable robust and repeatable methodology has seriously constrained the assessment of geological sites suitable for the National Heritage List ( NHL). A desktop assessment of Australian desert landscapes required intrinsic natural values of a diverse group of sites, spread over a vast area, to be assessed against NHL criteria. The Earth Sciences Comparative Matrix ( ESCoM) was developed for this study. In the ESCoM, sites are grouped in process themes. Each is assessed against NHL criteria then compared with other similar places, according to degree of unusualness, integrity, and authenticity. A site scoring well across multiple themes has increased heritage significance. The overall values of a site are quantified, leading to a qualitative judgement on whether it achieves the threshold of outstanding heritage value. Examples of assessment using this method are given. In this methodology, significance determination is based on rigorous comparisons of specific values. It is semi-quantitative, repeatable, and robust. It differs from other geoheritage assessment methods in its combination of process-based groupings (facilitating the separation of site type from heritage criteria), matrix structure (minimising complexities of scale or diversity), and use of numerical rankings as an aid in decision-making. While the study for which ESCoM was developed was focused on landforms, it can be used for other types of geoheritage (e.g. fossils, tectonic processes), with modification of matrix theme headings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]