Why the RBA didn't cut interest rates in July
Your email address
*
Morning (Mon–Fri)
Afternoon (Mon–Fri)
Weekend
Subscribe
By subscribing, you agree to SBS's terms of service and privacy policy including receiving email updates from SBS.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Why Australia's divorce rate is the lowest it's been in 50 years
At first glance, it might seem like good news. Divorces in Australia have dropped to their lowest rate since no-fault divorce was introduced. And on average, marriages are lasting longer. Latest data show 2.1 divorces registered for every 1,000 Australians aged 16 and over in 2024. But while greater longevity of marriages has been heralded as a sign of more successful relationships, the reality is far more nuanced. Australians are marrying and divorcing less and having fewer children amid increasing economic insecurity. It's emblematic of deep and complex social change. Fifty years of divorce without fault Divorce in Australia has changed significantly since the 1975 reform that removed the requirements to show fault. That is, couples could now go their separate ways without having to explain themselves. For 20 years before no-fault divorce, marriage dissolution was reported by court-decreed fault and included among official crime statistics. Included among the more than a dozen grounds for divorce were adultery, drunkenness and non-consummation. The "faults" that prompted divorce in the 1950s included drunkenness and non-consummation. Source: The Conversation / ABS Year Book for Australia 1956 When Australians divorce now, they're older — 47 years for men and 44 for women — reflecting increasing age when marrying and longer duration in marriage. Marriages are typically lasting just over eight months more to separation and nearly 11 months longer to divorce than in 2019, the year before the COVID pandemic started. Such an increase points to a swift and sharp change likely brought on during and since the pandemic. But this doesn't mean we're getting better at navigating relationships — rather, Australians are remaining longer in marriages due to economics. Cohabiting before marriage is also increasingly common, enabling relationship testing. Most Australians believe marriage isn't necessarily a lifelong thing, reflecting widespread acceptance of divorce. But marriage remains an important aspect of our lives. Fewer brides and grooms Marriage remains a major part of Australian society, with most Australians marrying at some point in their lives. Marriage equality, enshrined in law in 2017, reflects the enduring relevance of formal marriage. But there have been some changes. Religion no longer dominates marriage, with most weddings officiated by celebrants. This trend has continued since the late 1990s. In 2023, more than 83 per cent of marriages were conducted by civil celebrants, not a religious minister. Overall, the rate of marriage has more than halved since 1971, dropping from 13 marriages per 1,000 people aged 16 years and over to 5.5 in 2024. Marriage rates are now well down from the peak set during Australia's post-war baby boom, where increased and younger coupling drove record birth rates in the 1960s. While most children are born to married parents, the proportion has changed substantially over the years. In 1971, 91 per cent of births were to married parents, declining to 60 per cent in 2023. The paradox of choice Choice is generally increasing when it comes to relationships, but also becoming more constrained on the family front. Many Australians now won't achieve their desired family size because the barriers to having a much-wanted child, or subsequent child, are insurmountable. Financial and social costs of raising a child while juggling housing affordability, economic insecurity, gender inequality and climate change are just too high. The proportion of women without children over their lifetime nearly doubled from 8.5 per cent in 1981 to 16.4 per cent in 2021. On average, Australians are having fewer children than ever, with the total fertility rate at a record low of 1.5 births per woman. Changing expectations and norms concerning coupling and childbearing have enabled greater empowerment for Australians to choose whether they marry at all. Women especially benefit from more progressive attitudes towards remaining single and childfree. The costs of divorce Costs associated with a divorce can be high, with a "cheap" marriage dissolution starting upwards of $10,000. Couples have become creative in navigating marriage breakups during a cost-of-living crisis. Where children are present — 47 per cent of divorced couple families — parents are looking to new ways to minimise adverse social and economic consequences. "Birdnesting", where kids remain in the family home as parents rotate in and out according to care arrangements, is one such solution. Novel child-centred approaches to family separation are most successful where relationship breakups are amicable. Around 70 per cent of separations and divorces involving children are negotiated among parents themselves. Ever-increasing numbers of Australians are living apart together (known as LATs), where they are a couple but live separately. This is particularly common among parents raising children. It's a novel solution for parents who don't want the headache of having a new partner move in with them post-divorce. Rising housing costs and widening economic insecurity mean separation may not even be an option, especially where children are involved. Research shows soaring house prices can keep people in marriages they might otherwise leave. Living under the same roof and raising children while separated is increasingly a response to financial pressures. Where relationships involve financial dependence and high conflict, such arrangements are forcing families into potentially highly volatile circumstances. Families are changing and diversifying, and policy must reflect this. Cost-of-living pressures are increasingly denying couples much-wanted families and making it more difficult for families to thrive, divorced or not. Liz Allen is a demographer at POLIS Centre for Social Policy Research.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Canberra footpaths blocked by construction, making streets inaccessible and causing safety risks
Canberran Lindy Hou suffers from a degenerative eye condition called Retinitis Pigmentosa, which has left her legally blind, with only light perception. "That means if there's brightness or lights or something I might notice it, other than that sometimes I notice shadows, but not much," she said. With significant construction around Canberra's city centre, Ms Hou's been facing increasing challenges navigating the area. She said she tries to be as independent as possible, learning how to safely walk different routes with her guide dog Flash, but when construction sees footpaths temporarily blocked off there isn't a lot either of them can do. "My guide dog, as smart as he is, he's not very good at reading signs," Ms Hou said. "He definitely can't tell me what he's just seen on the sign. "Quite often I will have to rely on some wonderful pedestrian to help me, if there's anyone around. "Sometimes I just call out and say, 'Is anyone around to give me a hand?', but that's not very good because I just like to be able to get around quite independently without needing extra help." Ms Hou attends the Canberra Blind Society and group activities at Eyes For Life Canberra in the city centre, which is already obstacle-filled for people with vision impairment, but with significant construction in the London Circuit area she's begun avoiding the city. "In the city there's … obstacles like A-frame [signs] from the shops [which] they quite often like to stick it right in the middle of the footpath, scooters that have been left over the footpath, tables from the coffee shops, and then [there's] the construction zones," she said. "I know for a fact that a lot of other people with blindness or other disabilities, they just stay home because [it's] just too stressful for them to try to overcome these challenges. "So all those things are a challenge for someone like me, and it's also for people [who use] wheelchairs, mums or dads with strollers with young kids, so quite often they can't get around those obstacles." The loss of pedestrian access has also angered commuter groups, who are pushing for the ACT to follow the lead of other Australian cities by introducing alternative solutions that prioritise maintaining public access. According to Canberra By Bike Design Company founder Paris Lord, people are regularly having to walk on ACT roads because a construction site has cut off footpath access. "Yes, there are signs saying, 'Use alternative footpath', but … to have to turn around and go another 500 metres when the footpath could be kept open, it just creates unnecessary conflict," Mr Lord said. "And more than that it's dangerous. This is all preventable, these footpaths being closed. "Other jurisdictions, they don't do this. They keep footpaths open during construction, and we're curious as to why that sort of skill is bereft of the ACT government." He said it was "a constant problem across the territory". "We're finding in the inner north, in Belconnen, in the far south, in Civic, usually by default when a construction project happens the footpath is the first thing to go," Mr Lord said. "We don't want to hear of instances where there's a coronial inquiry or a parliamentary inquiry [looking into] how did this person pushing a pram, or this person pulling a suitcase, come to be injured? The ACT government paid more than $1.7 million in personal injury claims associated with community paths last financial year. It has led to calls for the ACT to follow other states and use shipping containers, including from Mr Lord. "The city of Adelaide, for example, when they have construction sites happening on King William Street — which also features a light rail — they use shipping containers, and people use that to go through," he said. "The territory has plenty of shipping containers, they're about to be no longer used at the Woden bus interchange, we could repurpose them to make sure public footpath access is maintained. "We can fix it now, we know how to do it, the engineering solutions are there, it's just now a matter of political will." The government has said the shipping container solution is something it could use, but it's not a one-size-fits-all fix. Deputy Director-General for the ACT City and Environment Directorate, Bruce Fitzgerald, said the temporary traffic management methods are "never set and forget". "[It's about finding] the right balance between the efficiency of the development plus also making sure the community can get through as easily as possible," Mr Fitzgerald said. "We understand that disruption in the city has consequence for everyone, so we're happy to work with them, we're always keen to hear different ways of doing things. There is no one fix-it. "[But] if we put too many more restrictions on development that comes through in higher unit prices as the cost of actually doing business increases as well." Mr Fitzgerald said the government has also begun consultations on a new fee structure with developers, to incentivise them to limit the number of roads and footpaths their developments close. "The fee structure as proposed looks at a per-day basis for closures, and that includes footpaths, roads and associated infrastructure," he said. "For a development, say on Northbourne, where you are proposing closing a major arterial road, the cost differentiation may be into the thousands, to potentially the hundreds of thousands. "So that gives the developer pause to think about, 'How best can we do that? How can we limit the disruption on the network?' and make sure that they're putting in other solutions that maybe they hadn't thought about previously."
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Victorian couple risk losing Camperdown home after building on wrong block
Melanie and David Moor were looking forward to a peaceful retirement in an idyllic country town in south-west Victoria. They purchased land in 2021 and, after securing all the relevant permits, installed a driveway and moved a relocatable house onto the 2-hectare block with connecting power, water and a septic system. But three years later, the couple got the shock of their lives when they learnt they had built their forever home on land they did not own. It turns out, they actually owned the property next door. The couple said the council was aware of their construction on the site and should have picked up on it sooner. Now, the owner of the block of land where the Moors set up their home has given the couple 14 days to remove the house and return the land to its original state. That 14-day period ends today. The couple first viewed the property in a big subdivision on the outskirts of Camperdown in 2021. "We came down and had a look at it, and we fell in love with it because of the views," Ms Moor said. "We decided then and there: 'Yeah, that's for us.'" They bought it off the plan and put down a $5,000 deposit, but that was where the retirement dream began to unravel. Ms Moor said the couple believed they had the right block after the real estate agent took them for an inspection before purchase. The couple said the address numbers on the fence posts also led them to believe it was their block. A spokesperson for the agent told the ABC an internal investigation found the agent had not made any false or misleading claims and that it was the Moors' responsibility to confirm which block of land they owned before starting works. They noted that, given the agent "showed them the property in August 2021 — when it was still part of a larger 8-hectare paddock, had not yet been subdivided, and well before the contract of sale was signed in April 2022 — it is conceivable that some confusion arose on [the Moors'] part during that period," the spokesperson said. In 2023, prior to settlement, and with approval of the former owner of the block they did own, the Moors had a driveway installed on the block they thought was theirs. The builder who moved the house, and other tradespeople, used the driveway as a reference point to identify the correct lot. The ABC has viewed the builder's relocation job document, which only lists the road name, not the lot number. The Corangamite Shire Council approved the Moors' building permit in April 2024. However, the permit documents include an aerial photo illustrating that soil samples were taken from the wrong block. The Moors believe the council should have picked up on that error when reviewing the permit documents. Council reports show that council staff attended the site to inspect the stump holes dug for the house relocation three times in one month. In August 2024, while putting final touches on their new home, Mr Moor received a call from the council informing him to stop work immediately and seek legal advice, after council staff realised construction was happening on the wrong block. "We thought it was a scam," Ms Moor said. Corangamite Shire Council declined to comment on the case as it is related to an ongoing legal matter. A messy legal battle has ensued. The owner of the block that the Moors mistakenly built their house on lives interstate and bought the block of land from their uncle before he died. The owner was unaware of the construction activity on the land until after the house had been relocated. The Moors proposed a land swap, but in a statement the block owner's lawyers said the blocks were not like-for-like. "The two blocks are not the same — the views are different, and there is an easement registered on the block owned by Mr and Mrs Moor. "There would likely be tax consequences of the proposed land swap," the statement read. In a legal letter seen by the ABC, dated July 22, the block owner issued the Moors a 14-day notice period to remove the house and remediate the land or the house may be sold. "It was a great shock to [the owner] … to be notified by telephone that someone else had moved their house onto [their] land," the lawyers said in the statement. "[They have] been very patient and have attempted to work with Mr and Mrs Moor over a considerable period of time now, but it appears that the matter is now at an impasse without the assistance of lawyers," the lawyers said. The Moors have sought an extension to the 14-day period through their lawyers, and have since moved the shipping container off the property. Previously, the Moors said they could not afford to move the house to their block and the contractor who originally moved the home also advised the house may not survive another relocation. "We've spent over $500,000 on this," Ms Moor said. Mr Moor said the house would have to be demolished if it came to that because it was the only option the couple could afford. "It's going to cost more money to just keep going. I don't see there's going to be a winner," he said.
