2006 Census

Research Paper no. 2 2008–09

Paul Nelson
Statistics & Mapping Section
15 August 2008

Executive summary

  • The Census collects data on a broad range of social and economic measures of the Australian population. While it is possible to compare electoral divisions on individual census data items, it is often more useful to compare divisions on the basis of a summary of related social and economic data items. This paper provides data on the four separate summary indexes derived from the 2006 Census of Population and Housing.
  • The paper shows each electoral division ranked on the basis of each index.
  • The paper also includes colour coded thematic maps of electoral divisions for each index.

Contents

Introduction
Description of the indexes
Data limitations
Main features

Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage
Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage/Disadvantage
Index of Economic Resources
Index of Education and Occupation

Conclusion
Appendix

List of Tables

Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

Index of Relative Socio-economic advantage/Disadvantage

Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage/Disadvantage

Index of Economic Resources

Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Economic Resources

Index of Education and Occupation

Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Education and Occupation

Summary of Index Rankings


List of Maps

Index of Relative Advantage/Disadvantage

Index of Relative Disadvantage

Index of Economic Resources

Index of Education and Occupation

Introduction

This paper provides data on four separate socio-economic summary indexes from the 2006 Census of Population and Housing. These four indexes, referred to as Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), measure different aspects of socio-economic conditions for individual Census Collection Districts (CDs). Each SEIFA index can be aggregated for a broad range of different geographic areas and this paper reports on SEIFA data for Commonwealth electoral divisions.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conducts a population census once every five years, collecting data on a broad range of social, economic and demographic aspects of the Australian population. For the 2006 Census, each household was required to answer sixty questions covering diverse topics such as birthplace, occupation, education, income, employment, family composition, housing, and motor vehicle ownership. While it is possible to compare electoral divisions on the basis of each census variable, it can be more useful to compare divisions on the basis of a summary measure of related census variables. The indexes shown in this paper have been created by the ABS for this purpose. A paper comparing electoral divisions on the basis of a number of individual 2006 Census variables has been previously published by the Parliamentary Library.[1]

This paper contains tables and maps of electoral divisions ranked on the basis of each of the four SEIFA indexes, together with a description of each index and some comments on the notable features of the electoral rankings. SEIFA data for electoral divisions are created as a population weighted average of the CDs within each electoral division. All indexes are constructed so that relatively disadvantaged areas have low index values. A more detailed explanation of the indexes is available from a Information Paper and a Technical Paper published by the ABS.[2]

Data for each index are presented in Tables 1 to 4 and there are two versions of each table. The first version shows each electoral division in alphabetical order while the second version shows each electoral division ranked by the index (divisions are ranked from lowest index value to highest). For all of the indexes, a low index score indicates relative disadvantage. The political party holding each seat is shown on each table.

Table 5 contains a summary of the rankings for each of the four indexes together with the geographic classification of each electoral division, as defined by the Australian Electoral Commission. Each division is classified as being in one of four possible geographic categories: Inner Metropolitan divisions comprise well established built-up suburbs located in capital cities; Outer Metropolitan divisions comprise areas of more recent suburban expansion of capital cities; Provincial divisions comprise areas with a majority of voters in major provincial cities, or in non-metropolitan urban conglomerates; and Rural divisions comprise areas without a majority of voters in major provincial cities.

The paper includes colour coded thematic maps of electoral divisions for each of the four indexes. The five colours shown on each map represent area-based quintiles. This means that the 150 electoral divisions are ranked and then split into five groups (of 30 divisions each) and each group is shown in a different shade of green with the lightest colour representing the most disadvantaged areas. There is also an appendix containing a detailed list of the variables used to construct each index.

Description of the indexes

There are four indexes shown in this paper. Each index represents a different aspect of socio-economic disadvantage in electoral divisions. The indexes have been created by combining and summarising information from a variety of social and economic variables from the 2006 Census. Each index uses a different set of underlying census variables. The appendix to this paper contains a detailed list of the variables included in each index.

The four indexes are:

  • Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage;
  • Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage;
  • Index of Economic Resources;
  • Index of Education and Occupation;

All the indexes have been constructed so that relatively disadvantaged areas have low index values. To enable easy interpretation of relatively high and low scores, the index scores for Collection Districts have been standardised to have a mean of 1000 across all Collection Districts in Australia. It is not always meaningful to give a CD a SEIFA score. Around three per cent of all CDs do not have a SEIFA score and are omitted from calculations of SEIFA scores for larger geographic areas. The mean index score for electoral divisions (and other geographic aggregates of CCDs) does not necessarily have a mean value of exactly 1000, although the mean score will in practice be close to 1000.

As a general rule, every effort is made by the ABS to keep the SEIFA indexes the same as the previous release (from the 2001 Census). However, some changes are important or unavoidable. The 2006 Census SEIFA indexes comprise the same four indexes as released for the 2001 Census SEIFA, although some of the variables used to construct each of the four indexes have changed since 2001.

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage includes variables that measure access to material and social resources of people and households. The index is designed to focus on disadvantage only. A low score on this index indicates a high proportion of relatively disadvantaged people in an area. You cannot conclude that an area with a very high score has a large proportion of relatively advantaged ( well off ) people, as there are no variables in this index to indicate this. You can only conclude that such an area has a relatively low incidence of disadvantage. There are 17 indicators used to construct this index including topics such as income, education, occupation, employment status, family type, dwelling size and tenure, internet connection, English proficiency, motor vehicles, and marital status.

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage/Disadvantage includes variables that also measure access to material and social resources of people and households. This index includes measures of relative social and economic disadvantage as well as well-being. A low score indicates relatively greater disadvantage and a lack of advantage in general. A high score indicates a relative lack of disadvantage and greater advantage in general. There are 21 indicators used to construct the index. There are eight indicators that measure relative advantage and 13 indicators that measure disadvantage. Of the 13 disadvantage indicators, 12 are the same indicators used in the construction of the Disadvantage Index. The additional indicators of relative advantage in this index (compared with the Disadvantage Index) cover dwelling size, educational qualifications, mortgage and rent levels, occupation, internet, and income.

The Index of Economic Resources includes variables that reflect the financial aspects of relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage of households within an area. The variables in this index measure household incomes, expenditures and wealth. There are 15 indicators used to construct the index covering mortgage and rental repayments, income, size of dwellings, family type. Of the 15 indicators, six are the same indicators used in the Disadvantage Index while 10 are the same indicators used in the Advantage/Disadvantage Index. This index includes indicators of both high and low income, as well as variables correlated with high and low wealth. It does not include education or occupation measures. A low score indicates a relative lack of access to economic resources while a high score indicates relatively greater access to economic resources.

The Index of Education and Occupation summarises variables relating exclusively to education, employment and occupation. There are nine indicators used in the index. Of these nine indicators, two are the same indicators used in the Disadvantage Index while four are the same indicators used in the Advantage/Disadvantage Index. The index includes both low and high measures of education and occupation and it does not include any measures of income. A low score indicates relatively lower education and occupation status of people in an area while a high score indicates relatively higher education and occupation status of people in an area. This index is highly correlated with the Disadvantage Index and the Advantage/Disadvantage Index, but it has only a medium correlation with the Economic Resources index (which is not unexpected since these two indexes have only one indicator in common).

Data limitations

The indexes contained in this paper are subject to a number of limitations that should be borne in mind when they are used to compare electoral divisions, or other geographic boundaries.

It is difficult to capture an abstract concept like socio-economic disadvantage and the SEIFA indexes only include some of the social and economic variables from the 2006 Census of Population and Housing. There are a number of social and economic indicators such as wealth, savings, health, remoteness, and access to infrastructure, that all affect the well-being of the population but are not collected in the census and therefore are not included in the indexes.

The SEIFA indexes that have been produced for the 2006 Census are dependent upon the variables that have been included and the relative weights attached to each of those variables (see Appendix). The inclusion of different variables or different weighting patterns would result in different index scores.[3]

In addition to the above conceptual limitations, there are a number of technical limitations. Non-response to individual census items may affect the accuracy of the indexes if there is a socio-economic bias to the non-response. Persons in non-private dwellings such as boarding houses are under-represented in the indexes as the indicators relating to families and dwellings include only occupied private dwellings.

Other aspects of the indexes should be borne in mind when analysing and comparing the indexes for different electoral divisions:

  • The indexes are ordinal measures and not interval measures . This means that the indexes can be used to order the electoral divisions into a ranked order but cannot be used to show that one division is twice as well-off if its score is twice that of another division.
  • The indexes reflect the average socio-economic well-being of people and households in an area, not information about an individual person or household in an area. If you have person level data it is not valid to link it to SEIFA scores.
  • SEIFA index scores are created at the CD level because CDs are the smallest census geographic area that is currently available. Even though CDs are small in size, people and households within a CD can be quite different to each other and SEIFA represents an average of these different people. When SEIFA scores are created for larger areas such as electoral divisions, these larger areas will have a greater diversity of people and households. Care must be taken when interpreting the index scores for large geographic areas because the index scores can be less meaningful.
  • Partly because of the above factors, the interpretation of an index is more straightforward for electoral divisions that have extreme values. It is difficult to draw comparisons between electoral divisions with mid-ranked scores.
  • Two areas may have a similar index score, but for very different reasons. For example, a low score in one area may be due to a high proportion of low income households, while a low score in a different area may instead be due to a high proportion of low-rent households.

It is recommended that users do not compare SEIFA scores over time for a geographic area. SEIFA is only a relative measure, not an absolute measure of socio-economic disadvantage. An area may have a higher or lower score than it did previously, however, this could be due to changes in other areas, rather than changes to that area. Although the ABS attempts to maintain consistency in SEIFA releases for each census, there are changes in the variables and their weights used to calculate each SEIFA index. An example of this is the inclusion of, for the first time, a question on broadband internet access. This variable has been included in the Advantage/Disadvantage Index.

Main features

The following section provides comment on the main features of each index. Because similar variables are used to construct each index, there are some similarities in the rankings of electoral divisions for the various indexes. For example, the 10 divisions that are ranked highest for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index comprise the same top 10 divisions for the Disadvantage Index, six of the top 10 divisions for the Economic Resources Index, and seven of the top 10 divisions for the Education and Occupation Index. At the other end of the rankings, the 10 divisions that are ranked lowest for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index comprise six of the bottom 10 divisions for the Disadvantage Index, six of the bottom 10 divisions for the Economic Resources Index, and six of the bottom 10 divisions for the Education and Occupation Index.

Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

The ranking of electoral divisions for this index displays a similar pattern to the ranking for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index. This is understandable since 12 of the 21 indicators in this index are also in the Advantage/Disadvantage Index.

The electoral division with the highest index score is Bradfield, followed by Mitchell and Berowra.

The six electoral divisions with the highest index scores comprise five divisions on Sydney s north shore and the division of Ryan in Brisbane.

The top 10 electoral divisions are held by the Liberal Party. They comprise the same top 10 as for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index with seven of these divisions are in New South Wales (Bradfield, Mitchell, Berowra, North Sydney, Warringah, Wentworth, and Mackellar), one in Queensland (Ryan), one in Victoria (Kooyong), and one in Western Australia (Curtin).

Metropolitan divisions dominate the higher rankings. The 35 electoral divisions with the highest index scores are all inner metropolitan or outer metropolitan divisions. The highest ranked non-metropolitan electorates are McEwen (ranked 36th highest) and Mayo (ranked 37th highest).

The electoral division with the lowest index score is Lingiari, followed by Blaxland and Fowler.

The 42 inner metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 1029 which is above the overall average index score of 1005 (but not as relatively high as for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index). The other three geographic categories have average index scores below the overall average. The 45 outer metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 958, the 21 provincial divisions have an average index score of 991, and the 42 rural divisions have an average index score of 972.

The bottom 20 ranked electoral divisions include 12 rural divisions, four inner metropolitan divisions, two outer metropolitan divisions, and two provincial divisions.

The 10 divisions with the lowest ranking comprise five in New South Wales (Blaxland, Fowler, Chifley, Reid, and Cowper), three in South Australia (Wakefield, Port Adelaide and Grey), one in the Northern territory (Lingiari), and one in Tasmania (Braddon). Of these 10 divisions, eight are held by the ALP, one is held by the Liberal party, and one is held by the Nationals.

There are several divisions that have a significantly different ranking for the Disadvantage Index compared with the Advantage/Disadvantage Index. Fowler is ranked 3rd lowest division for the Disadvantage Index but is ranked 31st lowest for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index. Reid is ranked 8th lowest division for the Disadvantage Index compared with a ranking of the 51st lowest for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index. Watson is ranked 11th lowest division for the Disadvantage Index compared with a ranking of the 65th lowest for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index.

Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage/Disadvantage

The ranking of electoral divisions for this index displays a similar pattern to the ranking for the Disadvantage Index. This is understandable since 12 of the 17 indicators in this index are also in the Advantage/Disadvantage Index.

The electoral division with the highest index score is Bradfield, followed by North Sydney and Warringah.

The six electoral divisions with the highest index scores are all in inner metropolitan areas of Sydney and five of them are on the north shore with the remaining division in the eastern suburbs (Wentworth).

The top 10 electoral divisions are all held by the Liberal Party and they comprise seven divisions in New South Wales (Bradfield, North Sydney, Warringah, Wentworth, Berowra, Mitchell, and Mackellar), Kooyong in Victoria, Ryan in Queensland, and Curtin in Western Australia.

Metropolitan electorates dominate the higher rankings. The top 41 ranked electorates are all metropolitan areas. The highest ranked non-metropolitan divisions are the adjoining provincial divisions of McPherson (ranked 42nd highest) and Moncrieff (ranked 43rd highest) on the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast, with a population over 580 000, is the largest urban area outside of the five largest capital cities.

The electoral division with the lowest index score is Wakefield, followed by Grey and Lingiari.

The five electoral divisions with the lowest index scores are all rural areas and the bottom 20 ranked electoral divisions include 15 rural divisions. Only two of the bottom 20 ranked divisions are inner metropolitan divisions (Port Adelaide and Blaxland), while only one is an outer metropolitan division (Chifley).

The bottom 20 ranked divisions comprise nine divisions held by the ALP, seven divisions held by the Nationals, three divisions held by the Liberal Party, and one held by an independent.

The 10 divisions with the lowest rankings comprise four divisions in South Australia (Wakefield, Grey, Port Adelaide and Barker), two in Queensland (Maranoa and Hinkler), two in Tasmania (Braddon and Lyons), Lingiari in the Northern Territory, and Blaxland in New South Wales.

The 42 inner metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 1059 which is significantly above the overall average index score of 1006. The other three geographic categories have average index scores below the overall average. The 45 outer metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 958, the 21 provincial divisions have an average index score of 980, and the 42 rural divisions have an average index score of 952.

Index of Economic Resources

The electoral division with the highest index score is Mitchell, followed by Berowra and Bradfield.

The five electoral divisions with the highest index scores are all on Sydney s north shore.

The top 10 ranked electoral divisions comprise seven divisions in New South Wales (Mitchell, Berowra, Bradfield, Mackellar, Warringah, North Sydney, and Cook), Moore in Western Australia, Ryan in Queensland, and Menzies in Victoria.

The top 20 ranked electoral divisions consist of 19 divisions held by the Liberal Party and the division of Canberra (ranked 18th highest) that is held by the ALP.

Metropolitan divisions dominate the higher rankings. The 30 electoral divisions with the highest index scores are all inner metropolitan or outer metropolitan divisions. McEwen, ranked 34th highest, is the highest ranked non-metropolitan division.

The electoral division with the lowest index score is Lingiari, followed by Blaxland and Grey.

The 42 inner metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 1018 which is above the overall average index score of 1007 (but not as relatively high as for the other three indexes). The other three geographic categories have average index scores below the overall average. The 45 outer metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 969, the 21 provincial divisions have an average index score of 989, and the 42 rural divisions have an average index score of 978.

The bottom 10 ranked electoral divisions include five rural divisions, three inner metropolitan divisions, one outer metropolitan division and one provincial division. Eight of the bottom 10 ranked divisions are held by the ALP.

The 10 divisions with the lowest rankings comprise four divisions in New South Wales (Blaxland, Reid, Cowper, and Chifley), three in South Australia (Grey, Port Adelaide and Wakefield), two in Tasmania (Braddon and Bass), and Lingiari in the Northern Territory.

Of the 10 divisions with the lowest ranking, nine of them are also ranked in the bottom 10 divisions for the Disadvantage Index, with the 10th lowest ranked division of Bass being ranked 21st lowest under the Disadvantage Index.

The electoral division of Melbourne is ranked 13th lowest for the Economic Resource Index whereas its ranking for the other three indexes is significantly higher (ranked 126th lowest for Advantage/Disadvantage, 89th lowest for Disadvantage, and 140th lowest for Education and Occupation).

Index of Education and Occupation

The electoral division with the highest index score is North Sydney, followed by Wentworth and Bradfield and all three are on Sydney s north shore.

The top 10 electoral divisions comprise five divisions in New South Wales (North Sydney, Wentworth, Bradfield, Sydney, and Warringah), three in Victoria (Kooyong, Higgins, and Melbourne Ports), Curtin in Western Australia, and Ryan in Queensland.

Eight of the top 10 ranked divisions are held by the Liberal Party.

The 40 electoral divisions with the highest index scores are all inner metropolitan or outer metropolitan area. Cunningham, ranked 45th highest, is the highest ranked non-metropolitan division.

The electoral division of Sydney, ranked 8th highest, has a significantly higher ranking than for the Disadvantage Index (39th highest) and the Economic Resources Index (138th highest).

The 42 inner metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 1073 which is significantly above the overall average index score of 998. The other three geographic categories have average index scores below the overall average. The 45 outer metropolitan divisions have an average index score of 933, the 21 provincial divisions have an average index score of 962, and the 42 rural divisions have an average index score of 946.

The bottom 10 ranked electoral divisions include five rural divisions, three provincial divisions, one inner metropolitan division and one outer metropolitan division. The 10 divisions with the lowest ranking comprise three divisions in South Australia (Wakefield, Grey, and Port Adelaide), three in New South Wales (Throsby, Hunter and Chifley), two in Tasmania (Braddon and Lyons), and two in Queensland (Hinkler and Longman).

Of the 10 divisions with the lowest rankings, eight are ALP seats, one is a Liberal Party seat and one is held by the Nationals.

The electoral division of Throsby is ranked 3rd lowest, whereas its ranking for the other three indexes is significantly higher (ranked 30th lowest for Advantage/Disadvantage, 20th lowest for Disadvantage, and 40th lowest for Economic Resources). Similarly, the electoral division of Hunter, ranked 4th lowest, has a significantly higher ranking for the other three indexes (ranked 27th lowest for Advantage/Disadvantage, 36th lowest for Disadvantage, and 53rd lowest for Economic Resources).

Conclusion

Each index aims to capture a slightly different aspect of relative disadvantage and a number of variables are common to the four SEIFA indexes (with the exception that the Economic Resources Index and the Education and Occupation Index do not share any common variables). Consequently many electoral divisions have a broadly similar ranking for each of the four SEIFA indexes although there will always be some degree of variation reflecting the different variables used to construct each index.

The 42 inner metropolitan electoral divisions have a higher than average ranking for each of the four indexes. In contrast, the other three geographic categories of electoral divisions each have an average index score below the overall average for each of the four indexes. The 21 provincial electoral divisions have a higher average ranking for each of the four indexes compared with the 45 outer metropolitan and the 42 rural electoral divisions. The table below summarises these average index scores for each geographic rating for the 150 electoral divisions.

Geographic Rating

Disadvantage

Advantage/ Disadvantage

Economic Resources

Education & Occupation

Inner Metropolitan

1029

1059

1018

1073

Outer Metropolitan

958

958

969

933

Provincial

991

980

989

962

Rural

972

952

978

946

Average

1005

1006

1007

998

ALP held seats have an average index score slightly below the national average for each of the four indexes whereas Liberal Party seats have an average index score above the national average for each of the four indexes. This difference is most apparent when looking at the bottom and top of the rankings. The top 10 ranked divisions for the Advantage/Disadvantage Index, the Disadvantage Index, and the Economic Resources Index are all Liberal Party seats, while eight of the top 10 ranked divisions for the Education and Occupation Index are held by the Liberal Party.

The electoral divisions held by the Nationals have an average index score significantly below the national average for each of the four indexes. This reflects the fact that nine of the 10 electoral divisions held by the Nationals are rural divisions and rural divisions have a lower than average index score for each of the four indexes. However, the average index score for the rural electoral divisions held by the Nationals is lower than the average score of all rural electoral divisions for each of the four indexes.

The table below summarises the average index scores for each political party for the 150 electoral divisions.

Political Party

Disadvantage

Advantage/ Disadvantage

Economic Resources

Education & Occupation

ALP

996

992

992

991

Liberal Party

1037

1036

1040

1023

Nationals

936

959

963

937

Independents

937

955

963

942

Average

1005

1006

1007

998

Appendix

This appendix lists the census variables included in each SEIFA index. The list shows each variable together with its weight that indicates the contribution of each variable to the index. The variables are listed in ascending order of the weight from the largest negative weight to the largest positive weight.

Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with no internet connection (weight -0.33)

Percentage of employed people classified as Labourers (weight -0.30)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over with no post-school qualifications (weight -0.30)

Percentage of people with stated annual household equivalised income between $13 000 and $20 799 (approximately 2nd and 3rd deciles) (weight -0.30)

Percentage of households renting from Government or Community organisation (weight
-0.27)

Percentage of people (in the labour force) unemployed (weight -0.27)

Percentage of one parent families with dependent offspring only (weight -0.26)

Percentage of households paying rent less than $120 per week (excluding $0 per week) (weight -0.26)

Percentage of people aged under 70 who have a long-term health condition or disability and need assistance with core activities (weight -0.24)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with no car (weight -0.22)

Percentage of people who identified themselves as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin (weight -0.20)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings requiring one or more extra bedrooms (based on Canadian National Occupancy Standard) (weight -0.20)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over who are separated or divorced (weight -0.20)

Percentage of employed people classified as Machinery Operators and Drivers (weight -0.20)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over who did not go to school (weight -0.17)

Percentage of employed people classified as Low Skill Community and Personal Service Workers (weight -0.17)

Percentage of people who do not speak English well (weight -0.13)

Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over with no post-school qualifications (weight
-0.29)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with no internet connection (weight -0.29)

Percentage of people with stated annual household equivalised income between $13 000 and $20 799 (approximately 2nd and 3rd deciles) (weight -0.28)

Percentage of employed people classified as Labourers (weight -0.26)

Percentage of households paying rent less than $120 per week (excluding $0 per week) (weight -0.21)

Percentage of people aged under 70 who have a long-term health condition or disability and need assistance with core activities (weight -0.20)

Percentage of employed people classified as Machinery Operators and Drivers (weight -0.20)

Percentage of people (in the labour force) unemployed (weight -0.20)

Percentage of one parent families with dependent offspring only (weight -0.19)

Percentage of households renting from Government or Community organisation (weight
-0.17)

Percentage of employed people classified as Low Skill Community and Personal Service Workers (weight -0.13)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings requiring one or more extra bedrooms (based on Canadian National Occupancy Standard) (weight -0.11)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with no car (weight -0.11)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with four or more bedrooms (weight 0.13)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over at university or other tertiary institution (weight 0.14)

Percentage of households paying mortgage greater than $2 120 per month (weight 0.23)

Percentage of households paying rent greater than $290 per week (weight 0.24)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over with an advanced diploma or diploma qualification (weight 0.24)

Percentage of employed people classified as Professionals (weight 0.24)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with a broadband internet connection (weight 0.26)

Percentage of people with stated annual household equivalised income greater than $52 000 (approximately 9th and 10th deciles) (weight 0.29)

Index of Economic Resources

Percentage of people with stated annual household equivalised income between $13 000 and $20 799 (approximately 2nd and 3rd deciles) (weight -0.31)

Percentage of one parent families with dependent offspring only (weight -0.30)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with no car (weight -0.30)

Percentage of households renting from Government or Community organisation (weight
-0.29)

Percentage of households paying rent less than $120 per week (excluding $0 per week) (weight -0.28)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over who are unemployed (weight -0.27)

Percentage of households who are lone person households (weight -0.25)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings requiring one or more extra bedrooms (based on Canadian National Occupancy Standard) (weight -0.20)

Percentage of households owning the dwelling they occupy (without a mortgage) (weight 0.14)

Percentage of dwellings with at least one person who is an owner of an unincorporated enterprise (weight 0.20)

Percentage of households paying mortgage greater than $2 120 per month (weight 0.23)

Percentage of households owning the dwelling they occupy (with a mortgage) (weight 0.24)

Percentage of households paying rent greater than $290 per week (weight 0.24)

Percentage of people with stated annual household equivalised income greater than $52 000 (approximately 9th and 10th deciles) (weight 0.27)

Percentage of occupied private dwellings with four or more bedrooms (weight 0.29)

Index of Education and Occupation

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over who left school at Year 11 or lower (weight
-0.41)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over with no post-school qualifications (weight
-0.40)

Percentage of employed people who work in a Skill Level 5 occupation (weight -0.36)

Percentage of employed people who work in a Skill Level 4 occupation (weight -0.31)

Percentage of people (in the labour force) unemployed (weight -0.23)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over with a certificate qualification (weight -0.23)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over at university or other tertiary institution (weight 0.26)

Percentage of people aged 15 years and over with an advanced diploma or diploma qualification (weight 0.35)

Percentage of employed people who work in a Skill Level 1 occupation (weight 0.39)

Table 1a: Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

Table 1b: Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

Table 2a: Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage/Disadvantage

Table 2b: Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage/Disadvantage

Table 3a: Index of Economic Resources

Table 3b: Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Economic Resources

Table 4a: Index of Education and Occupation

Table 4b: Electoral divisions ranked by the Index of Education and Occupation

Table 5: Summary of Index Rankings

Table 5: Summary of Index Rankings (continued)

Table 5: Summary of Index Rankings (continued)

 

Socio-economic Indexes for Commonwealth Electoral Divisions: Index of Relative Advantage/Disadvantage

 

Socio-economic Indexes for Commonwealth Electoral Divisions: Index of Relative Disadvantage

Socio-economic Indexes for Commonwealth Electoral Divisions: Index of Economic Resources

 

Socio-economic Indexes for Commonwealth Electoral Divisions: Index of Education and Occupation


[1] P. Nelson, Electoral division rankings: Census 2006 second release, Research Paper no. 23, 2007 08, Department of Parliamentary Services, 2008.

[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics, An Introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 2006, Information Paper, Cat. No. 2039.0 ABS Canberra, 2008.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Technical Paper 2006, Cat. No. 2039.0.55.001 ABS Canberra, 2008.

[3] This is discussed on page 3 of the ABS Technical Paper. See Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Technical Paper 2006, Cat. No. 2039.0.55.001 ABS Canberra, 2008.


Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print