Aussie towns marked for census testing
The ABS census general manager Jenny Telford said the test was taking place to ensure the real one happened as smoothly as possible. Tens of thousands of Aussies will be required to take part in the census test. NewsWire / John Gass Credit: News Corp Australia
'We are testing our collection processes and IT systems to ensure our processes work well and that the form captures the right information in the right way,' she said.
'You can complete your form as soon as you receive your instructions if you know who will be home on census test night.'
About 60,000 preselected homes will take part in the test across eight key regions across Australia.
In NSW, homes in Coonamble and Gilgandra will be surveyed.
In Queensland, the cities of Rockhampton and Gladstone will take part, as will the regional township of Yeppoon.
Homes have been selected in Western Australia's Wheatbelt Region, as have households in Perth and Albany.
Regional Victorian homes miss out this time, and surveying will only take place in Melbourne. Testing is conducted before the five-yearly census. NewsWire / David Crosling Credit: News Corp Australia
The ABS has noted that not every home in the selected locations will be required to participate in the test.
'If you don't receive instructions in the mail, there's nothing you need to do,' the organisation said in a statement.
'The information you provide in the test is confidential. The ABS is legally required to keep data secure and not release information in a way that will identify any individual, household or business.'
Test night will take place on Tuesday August 5.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
10 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.
The Age
13 hours ago
- The Age
A Perth pet hospital nearly sent me broke. But the alternative was worse
Before you hurl fur balls at me, a recent survey by comparison website Finder found that, on average, Aussies would fork out around $6200 to save their furry friends from the 'green dream'. An impressive 8 per cent would spend more than $10,000 to prevent their pet from being euthanised. At the other end of the scale, 6 per cent of people wouldn't cough up a cent to stop their pooch or mouser going to animal heaven. However, before we rapidly point the finger at those miserly mutt and moggie-owners, there are undoubtedly moments when cash-strapped animal-lovers can't afford to splash out weeks' worth of wages to save their pet. I didn't have to subject myself to clinical trials for fast cash because our tax returns had just popped into our bank accounts. But with thousands of Australians drowning in the cost-of-living crisis, having to euthanise your pet because you couldn't afford the bill would be devastating. As a lapsed Catholic, I'm well-versed in guilt, but if I had lacked the coin to save my cat, I would have fallen into a self-condemnation that even the patron saint of suffering, Saint Dymphna, would find impossible to endure. There are quick-access loan schemes, but the exorbitant interest rates and fees mean you'll still be in debt long after Rover and Ruby Tuesday have crossed the rainbow bridge. Consumer watchdog CHOICE has previously slammed such schemes for 'enticing pet owners into unaffordable debt'. 'A beloved pet's illness can be one of the most stressful times in a person's life,' says CHOICE's Head of Policy, Patrick Veyret. 'Lenders … should not be profiting from people's anxieties about their pets.' Like many of these modern-day lay-by schemes, the scheme preys on the most vulnerable. I wouldn't have flinched or even read the fine print when signing up for a pay-later service to keep Salem alive. There will be widespread disagreements about spending money to save or prolong pets' lives. However, I agree with American philosopher and animal rights activist Jeff Sebo that we must remember that our furry friends are significant beings that belong to our moral community. Loading Sebo's The Moral Circle argues humans will prioritise themselves at the expense of many other beings and while our household animal companions might demand some of our attention, we don't always accord equal value to all animals. Sebo addresses some challenging ethical questions about the extent to which we should expand our moral circle, discussing everything from insects to AI. Whatever monetary misgivings I had about Salem instantly evaporated the moment he staggered onto my lap, while projecting phlegm onto my jumper.
Sydney Morning Herald
13 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
A Perth pet hospital nearly sent me broke. But the alternative was worse
Before you hurl fur balls at me, a recent survey by comparison website Finder found that, on average, Aussies would fork out around $6200 to save their furry friends from the 'green dream'. An impressive 8 per cent would spend more than $10,000 to prevent their pet from being euthanised. At the other end of the scale, 6 per cent of people wouldn't cough up a cent to stop their pooch or mouser going to animal heaven. However, before we rapidly point the finger at those miserly mutt and moggie-owners, there are undoubtedly moments when cash-strapped animal-lovers can't afford to splash out weeks' worth of wages to save their pet. I didn't have to subject myself to clinical trials for fast cash because our tax returns had just popped into our bank accounts. But with thousands of Australians drowning in the cost-of-living crisis, having to euthanise your pet because you couldn't afford the bill would be devastating. As a lapsed Catholic, I'm well-versed in guilt, but if I had lacked the coin to save my cat, I would have fallen into a self-condemnation that even the patron saint of suffering, Saint Dymphna, would find impossible to endure. There are quick-access loan schemes, but the exorbitant interest rates and fees mean you'll still be in debt long after Rover and Ruby Tuesday have crossed the rainbow bridge. Consumer watchdog CHOICE has previously slammed such schemes for 'enticing pet owners into unaffordable debt'. 'A beloved pet's illness can be one of the most stressful times in a person's life,' says CHOICE's Head of Policy, Patrick Veyret. 'Lenders … should not be profiting from people's anxieties about their pets.' Like many of these modern-day lay-by schemes, the scheme preys on the most vulnerable. I wouldn't have flinched or even read the fine print when signing up for a pay-later service to keep Salem alive. There will be widespread disagreements about spending money to save or prolong pets' lives. However, I agree with American philosopher and animal rights activist Jeff Sebo that we must remember that our furry friends are significant beings that belong to our moral community. Loading Sebo's The Moral Circle argues humans will prioritise themselves at the expense of many other beings and while our household animal companions might demand some of our attention, we don't always accord equal value to all animals. Sebo addresses some challenging ethical questions about the extent to which we should expand our moral circle, discussing everything from insects to AI. Whatever monetary misgivings I had about Salem instantly evaporated the moment he staggered onto my lap, while projecting phlegm onto my jumper.
