Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Census highlights

johnboy 22 June 2012 66

Here in The Eagle’s Nest we’ve been struggling to get excited about the 2011 Census data released yesterday. (Better paid, more expensive *Yawn*)

Fortunately Andrew Barr has set a minion to work finding highlights.

Population

— The (usual resident) population of the ACT in 2011 was 357,220 people, up 33,185 people and 10.2 per cent from the 324,035 people counted in 2006.

— The median age of people in the ACT in 2011 was 34 years, the same as in 2006, but three years younger than the national figure of 37 years.

— The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population counted in the ACT in 2011 was 5,183 people, up 1,311 or 33.9 per cent from the 3,872 people counted in 2006. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented 1.45 per cent of the ACT population in 2011, up from 1.19 per cent in 2006.

Birthplace and languages

— Nearly one in every four people (24.2 per cent) usually resident in the ACT in 2011 were born overseas, up from 21.7 per cent in 2006.

— The main countries of birth for ACT residents were Australia (71.4 per cent), followed by England (3.7 per cent) and China (1.8 per cent). Australia and England were also the two main countries of birth for ACT residents in 2006, but China has replaced New Zealand in third place. At the national level, New Zealand remains the third main country of birth with China in fourth place.

— Mandarin continued to be the main language other than English spoken at home for ACT residents in 2011, the same as in 2006 although the proportion of households increased marginally (1.9 and 1.1 per cent respectively).

— Vietnamese became the second most common language other than English spoken in 1.1 per cent of ACT households in 2011, replacing Italian, which ranked second in 2006.

Household income

— Median household income in the ACT in 2011 was $1,920, up from $1,493 in 2006. The 2011 median income for ACT households is $686 above the national median per week.

Dwellings

— The total number of dwellings counted in the ACT in 2011 was 145,475, up 13,888 or 10.6 per cent on the 131,587 dwellings counted in 2006.

— This is a faster increase in dwelling stock than that recorded for Australia as a whole of 8.2 per cent. There was a 9.8 per cent increase in occupied private dwellings in the ACT between 2006 and 2011 while the figure at the national level was 7.7 per cent.

Dwelling structure

— Dwelling structure continues to be dominated by separate houses, accounting for 70.7 per cent of occupied private dwellings in the ACT in 2011. Consistent with the national trend, the proportion of separate houses is down from 73.9 per cent in 2006, as townhouses and flats, units or apartments take up larger shares of the dwelling stock.

— Townhouses accounted for 14.9 per cent of stock in the ACT in 2011, up from 13.8 per cent in 2006.

— Flats, units and apartments accounted for 14.2 per cent of dwelling stock in the ACT in 2011, up from 12.1 per cent in 2006.

— Compared with national dwelling stock, the ACT has a lower proportion of separate houses (70.7 per cent in the ACT and 73.8 per cent nationally), a comparable share of flats, units and apartments (14.2 per cent in the ACT and 14.6 per cent nationally), and a larger share of townhouses 14.9 per cent in the ACT and 9.9 per cent nationally).

— There was no change reported in average household size for ACT in 2011 compared with 2006 (2.6 persons per household). This is exactly equal to the national figure but above South Australia and Tasmania (both 2.4 persons per household) and well below the Northern Territory (2.9 persons per household).

Dwelling tenure

— For residents of the ACT in 2011, the majority of dwellings were owned, either outright (28.4 per cent) or with a mortgage (38.9 per cent).

— The proportion of dwellings owned outright in 2011 was down slightly on the 2006 figure (29.9 per cent), while the proportion owned with a mortgage increased marginally (from 38.6 per cent in 2006).

— The proportion of dwellings owned outright in the ACT in 2011 (28.4 per cent) was less than at the national level (32.1 per cent), reflecting the younger age structure of ACT residents.

— The proportion of dwellings in the ACT in 2011 that were rented was 30.6 per cent, up slightly from 29.4 per cent in 2006. This is a slightly higher proportion than at the national level (29.6 per cent in 2011).

Housing costs

— Median household rents in the ACT have risen from $260 per week in 2006 to $380 per week in 2011. This was a 46.2 per cent increase over the five year period, but this increase was the second lowest of all the states and territories after NSW (42.9 per cent).

— The median household rent in the ACT was 33.3 per cent above the national median of $285 per week in 2011 and was the highest of all the states and territories.

— Median household mortgage repayments in the ACT have risen from $1,500 per month in 2006 to $2,167 per month in 2011. This was a 44.5 per cent increase over the five year period.

— The median household mortgage repayment in the ACT in 2011 was 20.4 per cent above the national median of $1,800 and was the highest of all the states and territories.

— Compared with other capital cities, in 2011 Canberra had:
— The highest median weekly rent of all capital cities at $380 (Canberra also had highest median weekly rent in 2006);
— The second slowest increase in median weekly rent of 46.2 per cent (after Sydney – 40.4 per cent) Darwin jumped 80.0 per cent and Perth 77.8 per cent;
— The equal highest monthly mortgage repayments of all the capital cities with $2,167 (equal to Sydney and Darwin). The increase in median monthly mortgage repayments in Canberra between 2006 and 2011 ($650) was well above the increase in Sydney ($367) but below the increase in Darwin ($778) and Perth ($700).


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to Census highlights
Filter
Order
bikhet bikhet 3:01 pm 25 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Exactly, if you don’t know how atheists are treated in the USA, you haven’t been paying attention.

On the contrary, I have been paying attention, and am speaking from personal experience.

HenryBG said :

It’s actually quite astounding that ostracism, persecution and threats (including by government employees) is standard fare for atheists in a 21st Century western country.

Interesting assertion, and not in line with:

http://www.pewforum.org/American-Grace–How-Religion-Divides-and-Unites-Us.aspx#10

HenryBG said :

LSWCHP: you’ve outraged the god-botherers. Must have hit the nail on the head.

Do you think I’m a god-botherer? You should think again. I’m not an American either.

HenryBG HenryBG 1:50 pm 25 Jun 12

poetix said :

One thing that’s always amusing about these debates is that all the instances of intelligence are drawn from the scientific field, as if only scientific ability equates to intelligence (not musical, or literary, or any other area). Michael Kirby is obviously intelligent, and is a practising Anglican.

You’re holding up a lawyer as an example of an intelligent human being?

DrKoresh said :

bikhet said :

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

Atheists are one of the least trusted demographics in the Grand Ol’ U.S.A whenever the issue is the subject of a poll. They come just after murderers and rapists, if I recall correctly.

Exactly, if you don’t know how atheists are treated in the USA, you haven’t been paying attention.

It’s actually quite astounding that ostracism, persecution and threats (including by government employees) is standard fare for atheists in a 21st Century western country.

LSWCHP: you’ve outraged the god-botherers. Must have hit the nail on the head.

Is there anything more pathetic than a grown adult that lives his life according to a bunch of particularly silly fairy tales?

DrKoresh DrKoresh 12:47 pm 25 Jun 12

bikhet said :

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

Atheists are one of the least trusted demographics in the Grand Ol’ U.S.A whenever the issue is the subject of a poll. They come just after murderers and rapists, if I recall correctly.

Mysteryman Mysteryman 12:17 pm 25 Jun 12

Postalgeek said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Einstein firmly rejected atheism

No, he didn’t. Go back and read Wikipedia more closely. (Yes, I’ve been watching you, with Santa. You touch yourself a lot.)

He rejected the label, and he denigrated fanatical atheists. For all intents and purposes, however, he was an atheist. He didn’t believe in a personal deity, or in an afterlife, and labeled the belief in personal deities childish, naive, alien, and the product of human weaknesses.

I didn’t claim he was a theist. I’ll retract the ‘firmly rejected atheism’. My bad. He rejected the label ‘atheist’. Maybe if you explored beyond Wiki (although you don’t even have to do that) you’d know he didn’t reject the label ‘agnostic’, and has been quoted several times as saying he subscribed to Spinoza’s notion of God which was a form of pantheism. So there’s room for multiple interpretations.

I have to ask, LSWCHP, and I’m going to make the assumption that you’re an atheist, what have you accomplished in any intellectual field that surpasses the contributions made by Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all the other denominations out there, and agnostics, all who you assert are not intelligent (it’s not as if they are even less intelligent by your definition)? I mean, what does it say about you as an intelligent atheist if you’ve been outperformed in any intellectual field by a large number of unintelligent people.

I’m no proponent of religion, I’ve encountered some uninspiring religious types, and I’ve read some considered comments by you, but for an intelligent atheist that was a pretty blind, clumsy and crass generalisation.

Well said. I’m also curious to hear about his intellectual achievements that, one would assume, far surpass that of anyone who claims to be religious.

davo101 davo101 11:06 am 25 Jun 12

SnapperJack said :

What? A press release about the Census from Andrew without mentioning that Canberra has more gays per capita than anywhere else? There will be hell to pay for some bureaucrat over this …

Funny, I don’t remember the question in the Census asking what your sexual orientation is.

poetix poetix 11:04 am 25 Jun 12

One thing that’s always amusing about these debates is that all the instances of intelligence are drawn from the scientific field, as if only scientific ability equates to intelligence (not musical, or literary, or any other area). Michael Kirby is obviously intelligent, and is a practising Anglican. Here is an interview with him about religion and the law in which he articulates a more nuanced view on religious belief, including his dislike for god botherers:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/22god-botherers22-and-the-christian-roots-of-australian-law/4015222

The type of fundamentalist Christianity being criticised in this thread would annoy many Christians.

p1 p1 10:41 am 25 Jun 12

Postalgeek said :

I have to ask, LSWCHP, and I’m going to make the assumption that you’re an atheist, what have you accomplished in any intellectual field that surpasses the contributions made by Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all the other denominations out there, and agnostics, all who you assert are not intelligent (it’s not as if they are even less intelligent by your definition)? I mean, what does it say about you as an intelligent atheist if you’ve been outperformed in any intellectual field by a large number of unintelligent people.

LSWCHP said religious people were idiots, which does not mean they are not intelligent. If you think believing in a Dead Jewish Zombie is idiotic, then people who do are clearly idiots.

This is obviously subjective.

Postalgeek Postalgeek 10:03 am 25 Jun 12

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Einstein firmly rejected atheism

No, he didn’t. Go back and read Wikipedia more closely. (Yes, I’ve been watching you, with Santa. You touch yourself a lot.)

He rejected the label, and he denigrated fanatical atheists. For all intents and purposes, however, he was an atheist. He didn’t believe in a personal deity, or in an afterlife, and labeled the belief in personal deities childish, naive, alien, and the product of human weaknesses.

I didn’t claim he was a theist. I’ll retract the ‘firmly rejected atheism’. My bad. He rejected the label ‘atheist’. Maybe if you explored beyond Wiki (although you don’t even have to do that) you’d know he didn’t reject the label ‘agnostic’, and has been quoted several times as saying he subscribed to Spinoza’s notion of God which was a form of pantheism. So there’s room for multiple interpretations.

I have to ask, LSWCHP, and I’m going to make the assumption that you’re an atheist, what have you accomplished in any intellectual field that surpasses the contributions made by Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all the other denominations out there, and agnostics, all who you assert are not intelligent (it’s not as if they are even less intelligent by your definition)? I mean, what does it say about you as an intelligent atheist if you’ve been outperformed in any intellectual field by a large number of unintelligent people.

I’m no proponent of religion, I’ve encountered some uninspiring religious types, and I’ve read some considered comments by you, but for an intelligent atheist that was a pretty blind, clumsy and crass generalisation.

bikhet bikhet 10:02 am 25 Jun 12

LSWCHP said :

Try to become President of the USA without flaunting your fairly fundamentalist Christianity. Try to see almost any elected position in the USA without banging on about your Christian credentials. Tool around the internet to see the abuse heaped on the current Prez, simply because he has an arabic sounding name.

Not sure that any of that amounts to systematic discrimination, just people expressing their preferences – except the last sentence which clearly is kept alive by a group of ignorant nutters.

I’d argue that the separation of church and state is stronger in the USA that it is here. The recent High Court decision on the School Chaplaincy Act being an example.

LSWCHP said :

I’ve worked for extended periods in bible belt USA, where people wear their religiosity on their sleeves. I’ve often been asked which church I attend back home, and the silence when I say that I don’t attend any church has been, umm, damning. Not that I give a shit.

Your experience differs from mine, though admittedly I haven’t spent much time in the bible belt – New England, the mid-Atlantic region, the Mid-West, the Mountain West (including Utah) and the West Coast yes, but not the bible belt. I don’t think I was ever asked about my religious views other than by those who knew me well, and their attitude was always one of interest but tolerance.

molongloid molongloid 1:32 am 25 Jun 12

justin heywood said :

LSWCHP said :

I work with people who have PhDs, and who are also (to my amazement0 deeply religious. I’ve heard them sitting around in the lunch room furiously agreeing with each other about how that carbon14 dating stuff is is all bogus…

Bullshit

No really. It happens. I’ve seen it. Engineering PhDs taking the bible literally.

justin heywood justin heywood 11:35 pm 24 Jun 12

LSWCHP said :

…..

I work with people who have PhDs, and who are also (to my amazement0 deeply religious.I’ve heard them sitting around in the lunch room furiously agreeing with each other about how that carbon14 dating stuff is is all bogus and has been totally discredited by recent research that confirms that the world really is only 4000 years old, and all the dinosaur fossils were put there by god to test our faith, etc etc. You know, fundamentalist nutjobs.
.

Bullshit

LSWCHP LSWCHP 10:48 pm 24 Jun 12

bikhet said :

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

Religious extremism and discrimination is alive and well in the good ole USA. It’s obviously not as bad as Saudi Arabia, which is run by Wahabist nutters, but it’s there.

Try to become President of the USA without flaunting your fairly fundamentalist Christianity. Try to see almost any elected position in the USA without banging on about your Christian credentials. Tool around the internet to see the abuse heaped on the current Prez, simply because he has an arabic sounding name.

I’ve worked for extended periods in bible belt USA, where people wear their religiosity on their sleeves. I’ve often been asked which church I attend back home, and the silence when I say that I don’t attend any church has been, umm, damning. Not that I give a shit.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 10:36 pm 24 Jun 12

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Einstein firmly rejected atheism

No, he didn’t. Go back and read Wikipedia more closely. (Yes, I’ve been watching you, with Santa. You touch yourself a lot.)

He rejected the label, and he denigrated fanatical atheists. For all intents and purposes, however, he was an atheist. He didn’t believe in a personal deity, or in an afterlife, and labeled the belief in personal deities childish, naive, alien, and the product of human weaknesses.

Well hey then, I’m with Einstein, he’s not as dumb as I thought he was.

I work with people who have PhDs, and who are also (to my amazement0 deeply religious.I’ve heard them sitting around in the lunch room furiously agreeing with each other about how that carbon14 dating stuff is is all bogus and has been totally discredited by recent research that confirms that the world really is only 4000 years old, and all the dinosaur fossils were put there by god to test our faith, etc etc. You know, fundamentalist nutjobs.

I see them as idiot savants. They are incredibly good at the maths, but they’re still idiots.

Deref Deref 8:17 am 24 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

That aside, what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

0_0

Your 13-year old can solve Einstein’s ten-dimensional equations? Damn! I dips me lid.

And yes, Einstein was an atheist.

Jethro Jethro 6:40 am 24 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

That aside, what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

I make it that you are full of crap.

Your 13 year old daughter may understand the general principles developed by these physicists and others.

However, I am almost certain if you showed her the mathematics attached to these principles she would have no idea what she was looking at unless she’s some type of savant.

bikhet bikhet 8:11 pm 23 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

HenryBG HenryBG 5:26 pm 23 Jun 12

johnboy said :

How many new advances has your 13 year old made? Reading others work is a lot easier than breaking new ground.

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

justin heywood justin heywood 4:25 pm 23 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

[…what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

Dunno Henry, what do you make of it? Almost all my friends think their children are unrecognised prodigies, perhaps your girl is too?

But my guess is that if Einstein et al hadn’t existed, your girl might not understand physics at all.

poetix poetix 4:05 pm 23 Jun 12

Anyone of any intelligence rejects a simplistic notion that intelligence can be reduced to a number. Or that intelligence is the most important quality.

HenryBG HenryBG 3:27 pm 23 Jun 12

Postalgeek said :

…., speaking of which Einstein firmly rejected atheism, so I guess he goes in the schmuck pile as well.

Having already covered the link between low IQ and religious belief, we now venture into the link between religion and lies.
Einstein was obviously an atheist.

That aside, what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

    johnboy johnboy 3:45 pm 23 Jun 12

    How many new advances has your 13 year old made? Reading others work is a lot easier than breaking new ground.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site