Social Divide

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Melbourne is growing faster than most cities of similar size in developed countries. Population growth averaged <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/2016%20QuickStats" target="_blank">more than 2.5% a year between 2011 and 2018</a>.
Other international cities that are also known for their livability typically recorded slower population growth than Melbourne. For example, over the decade to 2016, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/melbourne-loses-most-liveable-city-title-to-vienna/10117338" target="_blank">Vienna</a> grew <a href="https://www.ceicdata.com/en/austria/population-by-region/population-vienna" target="_blank">about half as fast as Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/canadas-most-livable-city-is-not-vancouver-its-calgary-101957" target="_blank">Greater Vancouver</a> about <a href="https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs/spg/Facts-cd-eng.cfm?GC=5915&amp;GK=CD&amp;Lang=Eng" target="_blank">one-third slower</a>. Vienna and Vancouver are also smaller cities than Melbourne.
Melbourne is also fast becoming an economically and socially polarised city. Cheaper housing may attract people to outer suburban living, but it comes at a price.
If Melbourne is divided into inner, middle and outer urban areas, each containing about one-third of the city’s jobs, the greatest share of the city’s population (46.6%) lives in the outer local government areas (LGAs). This share is increasing as population grows rapidly, accounting for <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/%20Home/2016%20QuickStats" target="_blank">57.5% of the growth between 2011 and 2016</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274852/original/file-20190516-69213-jun1wc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274852/original/file-20190516-69213-jun1wc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Inner, middle and outer Melbourne, each area holding approximately one-third of jobs in Melbourne. Author provided
At the same time, these outer LGAs have the fewest jobs per 1,000 residents. Many workers have to make long commuting trips, with associated congestion impacts.
What are the consequences of this pattern of growth?
Our <a href="https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-papers/melbourne-how-big" target="_blank">newly published research</a> examines the capacity of Melbourne residents to capture income, as well as the findings on some important social outcomes.
Population growth and jobs in Melbourne
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275049/original/file-20190517-69182-582byv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275049/original/file-20190517-69182-582byv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/%20Home/2016%20QuickStats" target="_blank">From Australian Bureau of Statistics (n.d.), Quickstats</a>, Author provided
Over the 1992-2017 period, relative to Victorians as a whole, residents in each of the six fastest-growing outer Melbourne LGAs (Cardinia, Casey, Hume, Melton, Whittlesea and Wyndham) <a href="https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-papers/melbourne-how-big" target="_blank">went backwards in terms of their share of income</a> from economic activity.
The findings at LGA level show a number of quite strong spatial associations. Differences in travel time or distance to central Melbourne have particularly clear impacts. As travel times from an LGA to central Melbourne increase, we see declines in:
<ul>
<li>population and job densities</li>
<li>median house prices</li>
<li>capital stock per person</li>
<li>the proportion of higher educated people</li>
<li>the proportion of jobs that are high-tech</li>
<li>LGA productivity</li>
<li>trust in others</li>
<li>the proportion of people living near public transport, with public transport use to get to work also declining.</li>
</ul>
Proportion of LGA residents who think most people in general can be trusted
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275051/original/file-20190517-69186-1dr8k5f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275051/original/file-20190517-69186-1dr8k5f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">health.vic</a>, Author provided
We see increases in:
<ul>
<li>open space per resident</li>
<li>car use to get to work</li>
<li>the proportion of commutes longer than two hours</li>
<li>reports of heart disease and obesity.</li>
</ul>
Hectares of public open space per 1,000 residents
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275055/original/file-20190517-69182-3nw5lk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275055/original/file-20190517-69182-3nw5lk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Victorian Planning Authority data, Author provided
These correlations suggest cheaper housing and better access to open space, which may attract people to outer suburban living, come at a price. These costs are commonly associated with the lower population and job densities at greater distances from central Melbourne.
The fastest-growing outer suburbs tend to show lower levels of some of the drivers or social conditions needed to achieve social inclusion, well-being and health. For example, additional challenges can be seen in <a href="https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-papers/melbourne-how-big" target="_blank">higher levels of child development vulnerability</a>, which tend to lead to early school leaving and youth unemployment. This can reduce the ability of individuals to be productive, while at the same time increasing societal expenses in areas such as welfare payments, health costs, law enforcement and remediation costs of family violence and substance abuse.
Youth (age 15-19) unemployment rates by LGA
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275053/original/file-20190517-69204-1od64v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275053/original/file-20190517-69204-1od64v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">health.vic</a>, Author provided
Increasing inequality, social, congestion and productivity costs are linked with infrastructure spending that has been too low to meet the needs of the rapidly growing population. The <a href="https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-papers/melbourne-how-big" target="_blank">research</a> suggests a backlog of around A$125 billion to enable the six fastest-growing outer LGAs to achieve growth in gross regional product per resident of working-age population in line with the state average. Additional spending will be needed to cater for subsequent population growth and to tackle problems beyond the six outer growth LGAs, such as traffic congestion and crowded public transport.
What can be done about this?
Steps can be taken to reduce the growing scale of future infrastructure spending. These include a more determined focus on delivering the intent of <a href="https://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/the-plan" target="_blank">Plan Melbourne 2017-50</a> that Melbourne becomes a more compact city. This would mean a much higher share of population growth is located in inner and middle suburbs with good public transport access, particularly to the CBD and to the inner and middle urban <a href="https://vpa.vic.gov.au/faq/national-employment-innovation-cluster/" target="_blank">National Employment and Innovation Clusters</a> identified in the plan.
Outer urban densities also need to increase. There must be a greater focus on delivering a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods. This calls for higher levels of local services, including bus and active transport opportunities (cycling and walking), provided <a href="https://theconversation.com/build-in-good-services-from-day-one-for-healthier-communities-lessons-from-selandra-rise-58790" target="_blank">in a more timely manner</a>. A focus on big infrastructure projects can crowd out attention on such locally important priorities.
Regional Victoria can play a <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-how-regional-rail-can-help-ease-our-big-cities-commuter-crush-81902" target="_blank">bigger role in catering for population growth</a>. However, to do so sustainably it needs to substantially increase its non-farm productivity. This was about one-fifth higher than in Melbourne 20 years ago but is now about one-fifth lower, as Melbourne’s knowledge economy has boomed.
The research does not take account of many other impacts of high population growth. Among these are the <a href="https://theconversation.com/elephants-and-economics-how-to-ensure-we-value-wildlife-properly-107184" target="_blank">loss of ecosystem services</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-protect-fresh-food-supplies-here-are-the-key-steps-to-secure-city-foodbowls-114085" target="_blank">loss of food-growing land through urban sprawl</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/cape-town-is-almost-out-of-water-could-australian-cities-suffer-the-same-fate-90933" target="_blank">increasing freshwater scarcity</a>, and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-ways-our-cities-can-cut-transport-emissions-in-a-hurry-avoid-shift-share-and-improve-106076" target="_blank">transport sector’s greenhouse gas emissions</a>. These issues all have impacts on productivity, health and well-being.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117244/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
John Stanley, Adjunct Professor, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney
Janet Stanley, Principal Research Fellow – Urban Social Resilience, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne
Peter Brain, Executive Director, National Institute of Economic and Industry Research
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rapid-growth-is-widening-melbournes-social-and-economic-divide-117244" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Rapid growth is widening Melbourne’s social and economic divide

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Nightlife precincts in Australian cities have come under intense scrutiny in recent years following a spate of “one punch” assaults and other incidents. Places like Sydney’s Kings Cross, Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley and Perth’s Northbridge have been framed as unsafe and unruly “problem spaces” – the kind of places that parents warn their teenage children to avoid.
Simultaneously, local politicians, urban planners and other policymakers have been spruiking the importance of the night-time economy to a city’s image and growth. A “vibrant” nightlife is seen as essential for attracting tourism and investment and creating jobs. If a city can get itself on some kind of “Most Exciting Cities in the World” list, this becomes a crucial part of its city boosterism strategy.
The championing and criticism of nightlife spaces create something of a paradox. On the one hand, the promotion of vibrant nightlife spaces may be seen as an invitation to people to revel and consume. It’s thought that failing to attract enough people to these spaces spells economic disaster for venue operators and for the city itself.
On the other hand, violence and fear discourage or exclude people from participating in nightlife. And labelling nightlife precincts as disorderly or “out of control” stigmatises these spaces and revellers, leading to more exclusion.
The policy challenge is to establish the right amount and types of regulation so that nightlife spaces allow for mild transgression in a safe environment.
When security excludes
Part of the response to these issues has been tighter regulation and security in nightlife spaces. “Lockout laws” were controversially introduced in parts of Sydney, following the example set in Newcastle and in trials in Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane. These laws wound back the operating hours of licensed venues in popular night-time precincts.
Other responses from governments and private operators have included expanding CCTV surveillance, introducing ID scanners at venue entrances, increasing police and private security presence, and slowing or suspending the issuing of new liquor licenses.
These measures are intended to make people safer and to make them feel safer, to reduce the exclusionary effect of fear. Ironically, these hyper-visible forms of security can in fact make people feel more unsafe.
These regulatory interventions are more than just about tackling violence and threatening behaviour. Ultimately, they are about imposing particular ideas of social and moral order not only within nightlife spaces but the city more broadly.
Gentrifying the night
Alongside the expansion of hyper-visible security, major public and private investment has flowed into nightlife precincts and surrounding areas over the last decade or so.
In Perth, as we have recently outlined, the impacts couldn’t be clearer. Four major redevelopment projects – New Northbridge, Perth Cultural Centre, Perth City Link and Yagan Square – have drastically reshaped the built form and sense of place within the inner city.
These developments have “changed the face” of Northbridge, which has been gradually gentrifying. The rapid rise in the number of small boutique bars, high-end restaurants and apartments is evidence of this.
The gentrification of Northbridge and other nightlife precincts across metropolitan Australia – whether through new “sophisticated” venues replacing older downmarket ones, or through residential development displacing nightlife altogether – is not a recipe for less exclusionary spaces. Rather, these developments produce a different kind of exclusion due to two factors.
First, certain groups may be priced out of more upmarket venues offering an “exclusive” or “sophisticated” experience. Second, these venues and the types of customers they attract can make other individuals and groups feel out of place. If they don’t fit the written and unwritten admission criteria they may be denied entry altogether.
Making space for transgression
In reshaping the moral geography of nightlife precincts, securitisation and gentrification are suppressing one of the fundamental appeals of nightlife – the opportunity for behaviour that transgresses social, cultural and even legal codes.
Participating in nightlife spaces in cities has been a way to briefly escape the often mundane orderliness of everyday home and work life. Nightlife spaces have historically been important for minority, subcultural and countercultural groups – LGBTGI communities, minority ethnic groups, punks, goths, fetishists and so on – to socialise and to express their individual and collective identities.
The increasingly expensive cost and overbearing regulatory regimes governing nightlife seem designed to attract the “right type” of people and to make them feel safer.
The risk of all this is that we might be sleepwalking into the creation of sanitised and yet more homogenous and exclusionary nightlife spaces.
Alistair Sisson, PhD Candidate, Urban Geography, University of Sydney
Paul Maginn, Associate Professor of Urban/Regional Planning, University of Western Australia
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sanitised-nightlife-precincts-become-places-where-some-are-not-welcome-95870" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

'Sanitised' nightlife precincts become places where some are not welcome

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The question of opening the Northern Territory and South Australia to fracking has re-ignited concerns about environmental and health impacts.
Receiving less attention are the social and economic changes affecting nearby rural communities from this natural gas development and the social stress that can result.
From 2012, I led a team analysing trends in key social and economic indicators over the past 15 years in Queensland’s largely agricultural Darling Downs, where over A$20 billion has been invested in coal seam gas (CSG) development since 2011. We also interviewed and talked with over 200 residents and business owners. Social stress emerged as the most visible health impact of this coal seam gas development.
Social consequences
Staff in both government and the gas industry agree that stress is an important impact. Our findings are reinforced by studies in the Darling Downs by numerous researchers and research students as well as extensive work in North America on resource boomtowns.
One resident said that the region had been “hit by three significant events – extended drought, local government amalgamation, and coal seam gas development”.
Residents in community meetings expressed concern about potential effects of coal seam gas development on the amount and quality of groundwater and about possible health impacts.
Their concerns were compounded by low levels of trust in the oil and gas industry and a mix of distrust and trust in the government regulator’s ability to manage the industry. This lack of confidence can contribute to psycho-social stress.
Population
The coal seam gas construction phase in the Darling Downs brought migration and an increased pace of work. That made informal emotional support harder to find as “social capital” had declined.
We were told of older, stalwart residents selling their homes at the premium prices brought by the development boom. Grandparents who had provided temporary childcare left as more women entered the workforce. At the same time, the number of childcare staff fell when the Commonwealth government boosted the required qualifications.
Population turnover increased, according to ABS statistics, from 10-15% per year before the CSG boom to 15-20% per year during the boom. The number of nonresident workers peaked in 2014 at over 9,000 for the Western Downs local government area, which has 30,000 residents.
Arguments about whether the CSG development was good or bad for the community exacerbated a decline in the number and strength of bonds among residents. Interviews suggest that these arguments – both in the gasfield towns and within Aboriginal groups along the gas pipeline route – split neighbours and families.
Business
Business and employment opportunities with the resource industry reduced financial stress for some but increased it for others. Tax statistics show that net business income in Chinchilla outside the agricultural sector grew from A$5.8 million in 2011-2012 to A$29 million in 2012-2013. Wage and salary earnings for the town’s 7,000-plus residents rose from A$132 million in 2010-2011 to A$213 million in 2012-2013.
Many business owners faced longer opening hours, a need to pay higher wages, greater turnover among staff and uncertainties about whether to invest in more capacity.
Resource sector incomes were seen to be significantly higher than those in agriculture, education, police, health and social services. There is a two-speed economy here, residents noted. Studies in organisations suggest that this sort of sense of unfairness contributes to psycho-social stress.
Housing costs
The construction phase for coal seam gas development resulted in a surge in housing costs. Rents rose dramatically in Chinchilla, where 20-30% of residents live in rental housing. Median rent on a three-bedroom house went from A$280 per week in 2011 to A$400 per week in 2013. That is despite most industry staff and tier-one contractors living in camps outside the town. Lower-income families moved away.
The rate of construction of new housing climbed. Chinchilla had 106 residential building approvals in 2011. That more than doubled to 252 in 2014, just as the CSG construction phase ended.
Overbuilding caused rents to plummet. Median rent on a three-bedroom house fell below where the historic trend said it should be, to A$200 per week in 2016. Low rents attracted families on government support. Their numbers increased 65% in a two-year period, according to Centrelink statistics.
Drug arrests
Drug arrests had bottomed out at 4.3 per thousand population in 2012 during the coal seam gas construction boom. By 2016, this figure climbed to 35 arrests per 1,000, well above the Queensland trend. The number of police on the street heightened concern among Chinchilla’s residents, interviews revealed.
So, one can see a distribution of economic benefits but also a distribution of social stresses accompanying development of this resource infrastructure. Psycho-social stress can accumulate when changes cause a drop in “social capital”, reducing informal support, and when there is less access to, or use of, mental health services. Prolonged stress can contribute to cardiovascular disease and decreased immune function.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95216/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Further investigation can identify how best to provide the needed duty of care for rural communities near such resource development.
Will Rifkin, Chair in Applied Regional Economics and Director, Hunter Research Foundation Centre, University of Newcastle
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fracking-can-cause-social-stress-in-nearby-areas-new-research-95216" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

New research says fracking can cause social stress in nearby areas: Will Rifkin

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81823/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
We often think of the internet as a levelling, democratising technology – one that extends access to knowledge, education, cultural resources and markets. 
But the net also reflects the social and economic divides we find offline.
Released this week, the second report of the Australian Digital Inclusion Index (ADII) reports on data covering four years of local online participation across three dimensions: online access, digital ability and affordability. Together, the three dimensions produce a digital inclusion score. 
Since 2014, when data was first collected, Australia’s overall digital inclusion score has improved by 3.8 points, from 52.7 to 56.5. In 2016–2017 alone, Australia’s score rose by 2.0 points, from 54.5 to 56.5. 
But there is still a “digital divide” between richer and poorer Australians. In 2017, people in our lowest income households (less than A$35,000 per year) have a digital inclusion score of 41.1, which is 27 points lower than those in the highest income households (above A$150,000) at 68.1. 
When the three dimensions are considered separately, the measures of access and digital ability show consistent improvement from 2014 to 2017. However, the affordability measure has registered a decline since the 2014 national baseline (despite a slight bump in the past 12 months).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/08/04/file-20170731-22047-2dilgb.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/08/04/file-20170731-22047-2dilgb.jpg" alt="">
Online access and digital ability have increased since 2014, but affordability has dropped. <a class="source" href="https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/" target="_blank">Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2017</a>, Author provided
<h2>The cost of being connected</h2>
Affordability is a key dimension of digital inclusion. 
Internet connectivity is important for accessing a wide range of education, government, health and business services. A decline in internet affordability means Australians on fixed or low incomes risk missing out on the benefits of digital technologies, and falling further behind more connected Australians.
The ADII shows that the cost of data — for both fixed and mobile internet — has declined over 2014-2017. These findings are in line with the ACCC’s ongoing monitoring of prices for telecommunications services, which indicate an average decline in real terms of 3.1% since 2006.
However, when we measure affordability, we are not only looking at the cost of data; we are also interested in what proportion of household income is being dedicated to this service. 
The affordability problem with the internet is different from other key household services where there are price pressures, such as electricity and water. The residential consumption of energy has grown very slowly over the last decade, but prices have increased sharply. 
With the internet, while we are now getting more data for our dollar, our demand for data has dramatically increased. 
A recent report from the Commonwealth Bureau of Communications and Arts Research (BCAR) tracks the affordability of phone and internet use since 2006.
The BCAR report finds that, overall, phone and internet affordability has improved since 2006. However, their data also shows that almost all the gains occurred before 2013, and that, since then, affordability has declined or flat-lined. Further, BCAR’s data suggests that the lowest income households in Australia are now spending almost 10% of their incomes on internet and communications services. In contrast, middle income households are spending around 4% of their disposable income on these services, and for wealthier households, the figure is less than 2%.
<h2>Increasing reliance on mobile</h2>
Some recent and far-reaching changes in our use of technology are evident here: the extent to which the internet has become an integral part of everyday life, the fact that we are spending more time online, and we are doing an increasing range of activities online. In many households, we are also connecting with more devices. 
However, the problem of affordability also reflects another recent development that the ADII highlights: one-in-five Australians now only accesses the internet through a mobile device — and we know that mobile data is considerably more expensive than fixed broadband on a per gigabyte basis. 
Mobile-only use is correlated with a range of socioeconomic factors. The ADII data shows that people in low income households, those who are not employed, and those with low levels of education, are all more likely to be mobile-only.
Despite the benefits of mobile internet, this group is characterised by a relatively high degree of digital exclusion. In 2017, mobile-only users have an overall ADII score of 42.3, 14.2 points below the national average (56.5).
<h2>Digital inclusion is unequal</h2>
In the 2017 report, the ACT, followed by Victoria and New South Wales, are the highest scoring states in the overall digital inclusion score, as they were in 2016. Tasmania remains the lowest scoring, followed by South Australia. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/08/04/file-20170731-22140-1xhre2r.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/08/04/file-20170731-22140-1xhre2r.jpg" alt="">
Australia’s national digital inclusion score in 2017 is 56.5, but varies from state to state. <a class="source" href="https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/" target="_blank">Australian Digital Inclusion Index</a>, Author provided
The lowest scoring socio-demographic groups in 2017 were households earning less than A$35,000 per year (overall score of 41.1), Australians aged over 65 (overall score of 42.9) and those with a disability (overall score of 47.0). 
The ADII uses data derived from Roy Morgan Research’s ongoing, weekly Single Source survey of 50,000 Australians. These are extensive, face-to-face interviews, dealing with information and technology, internet services, attitudes, and demographics. 
Calculations for the ADII are based on a sub-sample of 16,000 responses in each 12 month period. The index is a score out of 100: the higher the overall score, the higher the level of digital inclusion. An ADII score of 100 represents a hypothetically perfect level of access, affordability, and digital ability. A score of 65 or over is regarded as high; one below 45 as low. 
<h2>A focus on improvement</h2>
An increasing number of Australians are online, but although the costs of data and devices are falling, there is a risk that issues of affordability will leave some of our most vulnerable behind. 
Australians with low levels of income, education and employment are consistently less connected than the rest of the population, with consequences that will become increasingly serious as the digital transformation of government and the economy proceeds.
As an increasing number of essential services and communications move online, the challenge to make the Australian internet more inclusive is becoming more urgent. Affordability is a key area for attention, but so is improving Australians’ digital ability. 
The issue of affordability suggests a range of possible areas for useful policy intervention. If we think it important to subsidise essential utilities such as electricity for low-income Australians, we may need to consider whether an allowance for internet access for essential services might also be necessary.
For the large number of lower-income Australians who rely entirely on mobile devices for internet connections, we will also need to consider new ways to support digital inclusion. These could include unmetered access to essential health and social services, and the further development of secure, public access wi-fi.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julian-thomas-393391" target="_blank">Julian Thomas</a> is Director, Social Change Enabling Capability Platform, RMIT University and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Social Divide

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Social Divide

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News