English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Almost a decade ago, when looking at the 1994 NATSIS, I was able to be very complimentary about what that survey could add to our understanding of housing outcomes for Indigenous Australians. That was largely because, in the housing area, the 1994 NATSIS had improved on previous census collections in two important ways: it had developed a better tenure breakdown, distinguishing between community and private rental dwellings, and it had developed an accessible and useful geographic breakdown into capital cities, other urban, and rural or remote areas. Using the 1994 NATSIS, I was able to show just how different the community and private rental tenures were for Indigenous households and, perhaps more importantly, just how different tenure profiles for these households were in rural and remote areas compared to the cities and other urban areas (Sanders 1996).

Understanding housing outcomes for Indigenous Australians: what can the 2002 NATSISS add?