Suchergebnisse

The enactment of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the Howard Government represented an acceleration in the pace of industrial relations reform. Amid these significant and widespread legislative developments, little attention was paid to the plight of groups traditionally disadvantaged in the labour market-including Indigenous people. The Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS) 1995 is the first publicly released data set that permits analysts to directly examine the industrial relations environment in firms that employ Indigenous Australians. Information from the AWIRS employee survey and AWIRS Employee Relations Managers survey are used in the analysis.

A significant cost for individuals who have contact with the criminal justice system is the potential effect on employment status. In this study the effect of arrest on the employment status of indigenous Australians is examined using data from the 1994 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey. Having been arrested is found to reduce the probability of employment. The size of the effect is estimated to be between 10 % and 20 % for males, between 7 % and 17 % for females. The effect also varies according to the reason for a person's most recent arrest. Differences in arrest rates between indigenous and non‐indigenous Australians may explain about 15 % of the difference in employment–population rates between thosegroups.

The relationship between the social welfare system and employment incentives has received considerable attention in the literature. This paper uses data from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey to consider these issues for indigenous Australians. Two measures are calculated: the replacement ratio which measures the expected gains from employment for those not in work; and the cost of job loss which measures the expected costsof becoming unemployed for those in employment. The estimates presented here show that the replacement ratio is higher for females than males and for those in a married or de facto relationship compared with single people. About 5 per cent of single males and females could expect a higher income from social security than from non‐Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP)scheme employment. Among those with dependent partners 24 per cent of males and 40 per cent of females looking for work could expect a higher income from social security than from non‐CDEP employment. The estimates of the cost of job loss, which include the effects of the duration of unemployment and the replacementratio, show a high cost for some indigenous Australians because of their expected longer duration of unemployment.

NoelButlin radically altered the debate about the pre‐colonialAboriginal population when he provided a set of hypothetical demographic scenarios, which nonetheless were both grounded in economic theory or human ecological considerations and broadly consistent with what we know about the historical record. This research builds onButlin's legacy by exploring how his scenarios are consistent with both the medical understandings of the infectiousness and mortality of various diseases and the history of settlement. Another contribution from this paper is to highlight the possible role of chickenpox in theAboriginal depopulation in the early colonial period.

This paper sets out to examine, at the national level, changes in the socioeconomic status of Indigenous Australians during the decade 1991–2001, a period that closely matches 'the reconciliation decade'. The information used is from three five-yearly censuses undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1991, 1996 and 2001. Comparisons are made both of change in absolute wellbeing for the total Indigenous population, and of relative wellbeing between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Five broad categories of socioeconomic status are used in the analysis—employment, education, income, housing and health. The decade is divided into two five-year periods, 1991–1996 and 1996–2001. In 1996, there was a change in Federal government so that for the first time since Indigenous Australians were included in the census in 1971, there is a close match between political and census cycles. This facilitates a comparative assessment of the broad Indigenous affairs policy performance of the Hawke and Keating governments from 1991 to 1996, and that of the Howard governments between 1996 and 2001. This comparative analysis is important because there has been an attempt to change the broad approach in Indigenous policy since 1996. According to recent policy discourse, the period 1991 to 1996 saw a focus on both 'symbolic' (Indigenous rights and 'practical' (socioeconomic improvements) reconciliation, while the period since 1996 has focused increasingly on 'practical' reconciliation only, in an attempt to reduce the material disadvantage of Indigenous Australians. The paper develops a 'scorecard' and shows that, in absolute terms, it is difficult to differentiate the performance of governments pre- and post-1996. However, in relative terms—that is when comparing the relative wellbeing of Indigenous people as a whole with all other Australians—there is some disparity between the two periods, with the early period 1991–1996 clearly outperforming the more recent period. In conclusion we note that while practical reconciliation forms the rhetorical basis for Indigenous policy development since 1996, there is no evidence that the Howard governments have delivered better outcomes for Indigenous Australians than their predecessors. Indigenous socioeconomic problems are deeply entrenched and do not seem to be abating even during a period of rapid economic growth at the national level. It is of particular concern that some of the relative gains made between 1991 and 1996 appear to have been offset by the relatively poor performance of Indigenous outcomes between 1996 and 2001.

This paper compares the level and source of income for Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians using data from the 2011 wave of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA). Three sources of income are considered: wages and salaries; government benefits; and income from businesses, investments and other private transfers. Consistent with many previous studies, Indigenous Australians have, on average, lower total income than non-Indigenous Australians, with this difference being largest for those who are full-time employed. The difference is also larger for males compared to females. In terms of non-wage income, Indigenous men and women receive a much smaller proportion of income from other sources than their non-Indigenous counterparts (primarily business and investment income). This is particularly the case for those who are not in the labour force (NILF). Correspondingly, government benefits constitute a higher proportion of income for the Indigenous population than for the non-Indigenous. This is true for both males and females, and for all labour force states, although the difference is largest for part-time employed and those who are NILF. Given Indigenous persons are also more likely to be unemployed than non-Indigenous persons, they are more likely to be dependent solely on government payments as a source of income at any one time. The implications of these findings are discussed, as well as directions for future research. ; This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to either DSS or the Melbourne Institute. The research was funded by the Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The authors are grateful to two anonymous referees for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

AbstractAlthough the environmental and economic impacts of drought have been widely studied, few large‐scale studies have examined the broader social impacts of drought. To fill this knowledge gap, the Australian Institute of Family Studies undertook the Regional and Rural Families Survey in 2007, when a significant part of Australia was experiencing a severe drought. This paper analyses that survey to measure the extent to which drought affects a range of economic, health and social outcomes. Drought is found to have a substantial negative economic and health impact on farmers and others employed in the agricultural sector. There is some evidence that groups that are not employed in agriculture are adversely affected, with a widespread loss of services in drought‐affected areas and some marginal labour market groups (e.g. carers) experiencing poor employment outcomes in a drought‐affected local economy. Policymakers need to take these impacts into account in designing effective responses to future droughts.

Relatively low rates of employment are one of the reasons for many of the poor economic and social outcomes experienced by Indigenous Australians. Increases in the rate of Indigenous employment would result in significant economic gains to the individuals who move into employment, and their families and communities, to the government who would receive higher tax revenues and have lower social security outlays, and the economy as a whole via the increases in the effective labour supply. The existing research also finds that there are health and social benefits that flow from paid employment (e.g. Biddle 2011; Hunter & Gray 2013). This paper, using the latest available data and research, provides estimates of the likely economic and social benefits of increasing Indigenous employment to the same level as in the non-Indigenous population (i.e. closing the employment gap). ; This paper was produced as part of a research program funded by the Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

This paper compares the level and source of income for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians using data from the 2011 wave of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. Three sources of income are considered: wages and salaries; government benefits; and income from businesses, investments and other private transfers. Consistent with many previous studies, Indigenous Australians have, on average, lower total income than non-Indigenous Australians, with this difference being largest for those who are full-time employed. The difference is also larger for males than females. In terms of non-wage income, Indigenous men and women receive a much smaller proportion of income from other sources than their non-Indigenous counterparts (primarily business and investment income). This is particularly the case for those who are not in the labour force (NILF). Correspondingly, government benefits constitute a higher proportion of income for the Indigenous population than for the non-Indigenous population. This is true for both males and females, and for all labour force statuses, although the difference is largest for part-time employed and those who are NILF. Given that Indigenous people are also more likely to be unemployed than non-Indigenous people, they are more likely to be dependent solely on government payments as a source of income at any one time. The implications of these findings are discussed, as well as directions for future research.

This paper compares the level and source of income for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians using data from the 2011 wave of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. Three sources of income are considered: wages and salaries; government benefits; and income from businesses, investments and other private transfers. Consistent with many previous studies, Indigenous Australians have, on average, lower total income than non-Indigenous Australians, with this difference being largest for those who are full-time employed. The difference is also larger for males than females. In terms of non-wage income, Indigenous men and women receive a much smaller proportion of income from other sources than their non-Indigenous counterparts (primarily business and investment income). This is particularly the case for those who are not in the labour force (NILF). Correspondingly, government benefits constitute a higher proportion of income for the Indigenous population than for the non-Indigenous population. This is true for both males and females, and for all labour force statuses, although the difference is largest for part-time employed and those who are NILF. Given that Indigenous people are also more likely to be unemployed than non-Indigenous people, they are more likely to be dependent solely on government payments as a source of income at any one time. The implications of these findings are discussed, as well as directions for future research.

AbstractMany mining operations are on or near Indigenous land, and the strong level of investment during the recent mining boom may have disproportionately affected Indigenous communities. This article examines changes in local Indigenous employment, income and housing costs to identify any localised 'resource curse' for Indigenous communities and the Australian population at large. Census data are used to show the mining boom has improved employment and income outcomes, but increased average housing costs. While the average increase in income has generally offset the increase in costs, housing stress for low‐income households has increased as a result of the mining boom.

Until the global financial crisis reduced Australian economic growth in late 2008, Indigenous employment had been increasing in both absolute and relative terms for over a decade. The effect of the international economic contraction has been mitigated by Australia's booming mining sector, largely due to China's growing demand for resources. Given that a substantial number of mining operations are on or near Indigenous land, the increase in mining investment may have disproportionately affected Indigenous communities. There are concerns that, in remote mining areas, the increases in housing costs generated by the mining boom mean that anyone who does not work in the mining industry, particularly those who rely on government benefits, will find it harder to afford housing. Localised inflationary tendencies can also affect people employed outside the mining sector, but one would expect that scarcity in the labour market would drive up wages in both mining and non‑mining jobs. This paper examines changes in Indigenous employment, income and housing costs to identify any localised 'resource curse' for Indigenous communities and the Australian population at large. The paper draws on data from recent censuses, the geographic location of mines and mining investment to identify some potentially important effects of the mining boom on Indigenous communities. The main finding is that the mining boom has improved employment and income outcomes, but increased average housing costs. While the average increase in income has generally offset the increase in costs, there is some evidence that housing stress for low-income households has increased as a result of the mining boom.

1. Background issues -- 2. Indigenous health status in perspective -- 3. Comparing like with like: analysis by income -- 4. Per capita health expenditure by income and Indigenous origin -- 5. Further information on the usage of health services by equivalent income -- 6. Health status by equivalent income -- 7. Conclusion.