Census 2011 – where do the children play?

Simone - Myth Buster

Simone has a rich background in human geography, demography and urban planning – a background that was useful in her previous roles in the Commonwealth and State Governments, and now as part of the forecast team at .id. From the Queensland coast to the southern suburbs of Perth, Simone produces population and dwelling forecasts that help local governments make informed decisions about future service and planning needs. She is a regular contributor to .id’s blog and has spoken at several conferences on how our cities and regions are changing. She is a big advocate of evidence-based planning and how Census and other data can inform this. Outside of work Simone is a keen traveller and photographer – interests that tie in well with her professional life and help her to understand “place”.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Thanks for using the High School for Coburg post as a good exaample of the impacts of withdrawl of school provision.
    A postscript to that post: We have worked out (using id forecast) that the area without 7-12 state secondary provision has a population over 91,000. It is equivalent to Australia’s 21st biggest city (just smaller than Bendogo) according to recent id blog on biggest cities in Aus. and yet has no high school.
    A recent Age newspaper article on the Fisherman’s Bend urban renewal project in Melbourne CBD cited planning advice that 60,000 warranted TWO high schools.
    Cate Hall

  2. Agatha says:

    I did wonder how the impact of the increase in the number of children born when the baby bonus came into effect. There was no talk or indication at all about the infrastructure (medical services, midwives, child care centres and workers, playgrounds, schools, and the general needs) required to meet the demand of this increase in the younger population. Was this never thought of by the government at the time of issuing the baby bonus?

  3. Simone says:

    Hi Agatha,

    There’s actually been a fair bit of research on the relationship between the introduction of the baby bonus and its effect on fertility. While it’s understandable that people reach the conclusion that the baby bonus was responsible for the increase, the reality is perhaps not so simple. A lot of the academic research points to other demographic factors such as the delaying of child birth until older ages – the so-called “tempo effect” – whereby women who are now around 35-45 are having their children rather than when they were 25-35. There appears to be little statistical evidence that the baby bonus is responsible for the increase in fertility. An example of such research is found here –


    Re your comment on whether governments thought of the infrastructure issues – I would hope so – but my understanding is that a lot of the modelling done was around the demographic implications rather than service planning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.id blog