Suchergebnisse

An important aspect of an indefinite life household panel study is to provide a sample of children who become new generations of respondents over time. The representativity of children and young adults in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey is assessed after 16 waves. Estimates from the HILDA Survey are compared to official data sources of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and include demographic, education, employment, income and residential mobility variables. Both cross-section and longitudinal estimates are assessed. Overall, the HILDA Survey estimates are relatively close to the ABS estimates with the exception of the year of arrival of recent immigrants, having foreign-born parents, having a certificate level qualification, type of relationship in household, having zero income, the main source of income, and residential mobility. Most of these exceptions can be explained by differences in questionnaire design, respondent recall error, linkage error, and differences in the amount of missing data. The estimate of particular concern is the proportion of immigrants arriving in the last five years, which is underestimated in the HILDA Survey due to undercoverage of recent immigrants. This could be addressed by regular refreshment samples of recent immigrants.

AbstractThe Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey data is a valuable resource for researchers and policy makers. The HILDA Survey is a nationally representative household panel study with 20 waves of data collected between 2001 and 2020. This article helps researchers new to the HILDA Survey gain an understanding of the survey, the data and its documentation.

"Long-running household-based panels tend to top-up (or refresh) their samples on occasions over the life of the panel. The motivation for adding such samples may range from concerns about overall sample size, lack of population coverage or inadequate samples of small target groups. In 2011, a general top-up sample was added to the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, a decade after the original sample was selected. This top-up sample added 2150 responding households to the main sample of 7400 responding households, representing a 29 per cent increase in the overall sample size. These top-up samples can be used to improve the cross-sectional and longitudinal weights. Drawing on the experience of other large household-based panels, this paper evaluates six options for integrating the two HILDA samples. The evaluation considers the variability in the weights and the root mean square error of a range of key estimates." (author's abstract)

Introduction / Nicole Watson and Heather Douglas -- Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141. Essay : Oscar Monaghan -- Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286. Commentary : Eddie Synot and Roshan de Silva-Wijeyeratne. Judgment : Eddie Synot and Roshan de Silva-Wijeyeratne -- Walker v NSW (1994) 182 CLR 45. Commentary : Tanya Mitchell and Amanda Porter. Judgment : Amanda Porter and Tanya Mitchell -- Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451. Commentary : Narelle Bedford and Peter Billings. Judgment : Narelle Bedford and Peter Billings -- Members of the Yorta Yorta Abriginal Community v Victoria [2002] HCA 58. Commentary : Simon Young. Judgment : Marcelle Burns -- Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Sea Claims Group v Commonwealth of Australia (2013) HCA 33. Commentary : Alison Whittaker. Judgment : Virginia Marshall -- Kartinyeri v Commonwealth [1998] HCA 22. Commentary : Larissa Behrendt and Taryn Lee. Judgment : Larissa Behrendt and Taryn Lee -- Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge (No. 2) [2002] NSWADTAP -- Commentary : Debbie Bargallie and Jennifer Nielsen. Judgment : Jennifer Nielsen and Debbie Bargallie -- Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103. Commentary : Simon Rice Poem and Note : Alison Whittaker -- Dempsey v Rigg (1914) St R Qld 245. Commentary : Trudie Broderick. Judgment : Nicole Watson -- State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow [2010] SASC 56. Commentary : Terri Libesman. Judgment : Kirsten Gray -- Backford & Backford and Anor (No 2) [2017] FamCAFC 206. Commentary : Keryn Ruska and Zoe Rathus. Judgment : Keryn Ruska and Zoe Rathus -- Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCA 43. Commentary : Jonathan Crowe and Dani Larkin. Judgment : Dani Larkin and Jonathan Crowe -- Nona v Barnes [2012] QCA 346. Commentary : Heather Douglas and Heron Loban. Judgment : Heron Loban and Heather Douglas, translation Deenorah Yellub -- Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37. Commentary : Mary Spiers Williams. Judgment : Mary Spiers Williams -- Report of the Inquest into the Death of Miss Dhu (Perth, 16 December 2016). Commentary : Suvendrini Perera. Judgment : Hannah McGlade.

This book is a collection of key legal decisions affecting Indigenous Australians, which have been re-imagined so as to be inclusive of Indigenous people's stories, historical experience, perspectives and worldviews.

In this groundbreaking work, Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars have collaborated to rewrite 16 key decisions. Spanning from 1889 to 2017, the judgments reflect the trajectory of Indigenous people's engagements with Australian law. The collection includes decisions that laid the foundation for the wrongful application of terra nullius and the long disavowal of native title. Contributors have also challenged narrow judicial interpretations of native title, which have denied recognition to Indigenous people who suffered the prolonged impacts of dispossession. Exciting new voices have reclaimed Australian law to deliver justice to the Stolen Generations and to families who have experienced institutional and police racism. Contributors have shown how judicial officers can use their power to challenge systemic racism and tell the stories of Indigenous people who have been dehumanised by the criminal justice system.

The new judgments are characterised by intersectional perspectives which draw on postcolonial, critical race and whiteness theories. Several scholars have chosen to operate within the parameters of legal doctrine. Some have imagined new truth-telling forums, highlighting the strength and creative resistance of Indigenous people to oppression and exclusion. Others have rejected the possibility that the legal system, which has been integral to settler-colonialism, can ever deliver meaningful justice to Indigenous people.

Abstract
Adaptive survey design has been proposed as a solution to the decreasing response rates and higher costs associated with surveys. Much of the adaptive survey design research to date focuses on cross-sectional surveys, yet it seems there is greater potential for this approach within longitudinal surveys as data on the respondent and their survey experience builds each wave. We consider the short- to medium-term impacts of modifications to fieldwork processes in the context of two household panels. We use waves 11–16 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey and waves 1–6 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (also known as Understanding Society) to simulate eight alternative follow-up strategies. Cases are targeted based on their likelihood to improve sample balance (representativeness), as measured by the R-indicator, or to provide a response, or a combination of these components. Both individual- and household-level targeting are considered. We assess the extent to which these adjustments to fieldwork efforts impact the response rates, sample representativity, and cost. We find that if the follow-up fieldwork effort were reduced by 25 percent the least detrimental strategy is where the best households in terms of improving the R-indicator or the response rates are issued to field for follow-up. This approach resulted in the same sample balance as obtained with full follow-up practice, saved between 17 and 25 percent of follow-up calls but dropped the full balanced panel response rate over four years by 8–12 percentage points.

In many population surveys, fieldwork effort tends to be disproportionately concentrated on a relatively small proportion of hard-to-get cases. This article examines whether this effort is justified within a panel survey setting. It considers three questions: (i) are hard-to-get cases that are interviewed different from other interviewed cases? (ii) do cases that require a lot of effort in one survey wave require a lot of effort in all waves? and (iii) can easy-to-get cases be re-weighted to eliminate biases arising from not interviewing hard-to-get cases? Using data from a large nationally representative household panel survey, we find that hard-to-get cases are distinctly different from easy-to-get cases, suggesting that failure to obtain interviews with them would likely introduce biases into the sample. Further, being hard-to-get is mostly not a persistent state, meaning these high cost cases are not high cost every year. Simulations confirm that removing hard-to-get cases introduces biases, and these biases lead to an understatement of the extent of change experienced by the population. However, we also find that under one of five fieldwork curtailment strategies considered, the bias in population estimates that would arise if the hard-to-get cases were not pursued can be corrected by applying weights. Nevertheless, this conclusion only applies to the curtailment strategy involving the smallest decline in sample size. Biases associated with curtailment strategies involving larger sample size reductions, and hence greatest cost savings, are not so easily corrected.