Linkage

Some nice infographics based largely on census data, provided as a turnkey service for local government.

The 2025 Rental Affordability Snapshot surveyed rental listings across Australia and found that affordability has crashed to record lows. The Snapshot surveyed 51,238 rental listings across Australia and found that:

   352 rentals (0.7%) were affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage
   165 rentals (0.3%) were affordable for a person on the Age Pension
   28 rentals (0.1%) were affordable for a person on the Disability Support Pension
   3 rentals (0%), all rooms in sharehouses, were affordable for a person on JobSeeker
   No rentals were affordable for a person on Youth Allowance.

In response to the findings, Anglicare Australia is calling on the Government to return to directly funding and providing housing itself, instead of leaving housing to the private sector. Anglicare Australia is also calling on the Government to wind back landlord tax concessions.

This project built on previous Australian and recent international research to develop a set of budget standards for low-paid and unemployed Australians and their families.  

The family types included are:

• a single person (male and female) 
• couples without children
• couples with one and two children 
• a sole parent with one child.

The approach incorporated existing community norms, expert judgments and relevant evidence from social surveys. It emphasised the views expressed by low-paid and unemployed individuals in focus groups to ensure that the standards are grounded in everyday experience and reflect actual needs.  

The results were also used to inform debate and guide decisions about the adequacy of minimum wages and income support payments for the unemployed required to support healthy living consistent with individual needs, family needs and prevailing community standards.

Ooh. This is really nice.

The annual rental affordability index (RAI) report is an easy-to-understand indicator of rental affordability relative to household incomes. Since its establishment in 2015, it has become a crucial tool for policymakers. It helps track rental affordability trends and informs evidence-based policy decisions – highlighting nuances between places and the experiences of disadvantaged households. To produce the Index each year, we work closely with our partners: National Shelter and Beyond Bank. 

Pissweak:

The study authors said the effects of decades of underinvestment in the social housing sector were gradually being reversed as state and federal governments looked to ease the housing crisis.

Dr Martin said the renewed focus on the sector posed an opportunity to deliver housing support differently.

“It may not always be about the golden ticket of a social housing tenancy, even though that’s what a lot of people will rightly want and need,” he said.

His examples included additional assistance to very low-income households in the private market and a bigger focus on individual housing needs.

Queensland recently reported an average wait time of about 21 months for high-needs households moving into government-owned social housing.

In Victoria, priority households face a wait of about 18 months. The wait for a two-bedroom property in inner-city Sydney is 10 years or more.

“We do need a more person-centred approach,” Ms Toohey said.

“We can integrate choice-based letting where people can search for their own social housing properties, or have a system whereby we check in on people on the list and see if there’s any other housing assistance you can provide.”

This report provides data and insights about social housing need across Victoria and models social housing growth targets required to meet expressed demand and total demand. These growth targets are based on a set of housing scenarios, policy scenarios and distribution scenarios. The method is detailed in the body of this report.

All data, insights and analysis, and modelling in this report has been produced by SGS Economics and Planning for the Victorian Housing Peaks Alliance.

While the government has housing targets for the private market, there are no strictly defined social housing targets.

"In Victoria, the current proportion of social housing is 3.1 per cent. After the Big Housing Build, it will be about 3.5 per cent — still well under the national average of 4.5 per cent (which itself isn't enough to meet demand)," the report notes.

"In order to catch up to the national average of 4.5 per cent social housing stock, Victoria needs to build 7,990 new social housing dwellings a year for the next 10 years."

Without building 7,990 new social dwellings each year for the next decade, Victoria's proportion of social housing would drop to about 2 per cent by 2051, the report forecasts.

The report also notes its target is "modest", with modelling showing the state would need to build 10,700 social housing dwellings a year for the next decade to meet "expressed demand" for social housing — enough to house those on the social housing waitlist as well as those currently receiving social housing assistance.

To meet the total demand for social housing — enough for all Victorians who need assistance, including those who haven't formally requested it — the state would need to build 27,900 social dwellings a year.

Income inequality and radical right parties have both been on the rise in Western democracies, yet few studies explore the linkages between the two – despite prominent arguments about voters feeling ‘left behind’. We argue that rising inequality not only intensifies relative deprivation, but also signals a potential threat of social decline, as gaps in the social hierarchy widen. Hence, voters higher up in the social hierarchy may turn to the radical right to defend existing social boundaries. Using International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) data from 14 OECD countries over three decades, we find that rising income inequality increases the likelihood of radical right support – most pronouncedly among individuals with high subjective social status and lower-middle incomes. Adding to evidence that the threat of decline, rather than actual deprivation, pushes voters towards the radical right, we highlight income inequality as the crucial factor conditioning perceived threats from a widening social hierarchy.

Kennedy and his anti-vaccine colleagues don't just minimize the dangers of the measles, but often slip into talking about this horrific disease as if it's a good thing to put children through. As I wrote about last week, he celebrated families in Texas who chose infection over vaccination, even though two of them lost daughters to measles. His anti-vaccine group had one set of parents explain why that's a good thing because "she’s better off where she is now." He romanticized measles as a "great week" for kids, because they get to skip school and eat chicken soup. On Fox News on Thursday, he insisted about measles, "We need to do better at treating kids who have this disease, and not just saying the only answer is vaccination."

You don't need to "treat" a disease you don't get, but clearly, Kennedy prefers kids get measles. The "treatments" he recommends have echoes of the Geiers' ugly treatment of children. He's been telling parents to overdose kids with vitamin A, which can cause liver damage. He's been pushing the steroid budesonide and the antibiotic clarithromycin, both of which can have side effects. None of these treatments work, and they all risk making the situation worse.

Kennedy exploits the language of the "wellness" industry, with its misleading emphasis on "natural" health care and "letting" your body heal itself. What's ironic is that's what vaccines do. Vaccines work by stimulating the body's natural immune response, so that it prevents infection using the body's own resources. All these "treatments" Kennedy touts aren't just ineffective, they're not "natural." They're blitzing a child with often overwhelming amounts of medication, which won't work but could make the kid even sicker.

Most of the UK challenges appear to come from individuals or small groups, unlike in the US, where 72% of demands to censor books last year were brought forward by organised groups, according to the American Library Association earlier this week.

However, evidence suggests that the work of US action groups is reaching UK libraries too. Alison Hicks, an associate professor in library and information studies at UCL, interviewed 10 UK-based school librarians who had experienced book challenges. One “spoke of finding propaganda from one of these groups left on her desk”, while another “was directly targeted by one of these groups”. Respondents “also spoke of being trolled by US pressure groups on social media, for example when responding to free book giveaways”.

[…] 

Censorship by pupils in UK schools, including “vandalising library material, annotating library books with racist and homophobic slurs”, and damaging posters and displays was identified in Hicks’ study, which she wrote about in the spring issue of the SLA’s journal, The School Librarian. Such censorship “is not something I have seen in the US”, she said.

The types of books targeted may also differ. “Almost all the UK attacks reported in my study centred on LGBTQ+ materials, while US attacks appear to target material related to race, ethnicity and social justice as well as LGBTQ+ issues,” said Hicks.