Endnotes
Appendix
List of Tables
Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage/Disadvantage
Ranked by the Index of Relative Socioeconomic
Advantage/Disadvantage
Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Ranked by the Index of Relative Socioeconomic
Disadvantage
Index of Economic Resources
Ranked by the Index of Economic Resources
Index of Education and Occupation
Ranked by the Index of Education and
Occupation
List of Maps -Maps not available in HTML version
due to size
Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage/Disadvantage
Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Index of Economic Resources
Index of Education and Occupation
This paper provides data on four summary indexes, derived
from the 2001 Census of Population and Housing, that measure different
aspects of socioeconomic conditions for Commonwealth Electoral Divisions.
The five-yearly censuses of population conducted by
the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) collect data on a broad range
of social and economic aspects of the Australian population. Each household
is required to answer nearly fifty questions, covering such diverse
topics as birthplace, occupation, educational qualifications, methods
of travel to work and ownership of dwellings. While it is possible to
compare Electoral Divisions on the basis of each census variable it
is often more useful to compare divisions on the basis of a summary
of related variables. The indexes shown in this paper have been derived
by the ABS for this purpose. A paper comparing Electoral Divisions on
the basis of a number of individual census variables has been published
previously by the Parliamentary Library.(1)
This paper shows each Electoral Division ranked on
the basis of each index, together with a description of each index and
some notable features of the rankings. It has been produced from data
obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for Census Collection
Districts (CCD) and aggregated to Commonwealth Electoral Divisions (CED)
by taking the weighted average (based on Census population figures)
of the CED. All indexes have been constructed so that relatively disadvantaged
areas have low index values. A more detailed explanation of the indexes
is available from an Information Paper published by the ABS.(2)
Data for each index is presented in two tables. The
first table shows each Electoral Division in alphabetical order and
the second shows each Electoral Division ranked by the index (divisions
are ranked from lowest to highest). The political party holding the
Electoral Division after the 2001 election and 2002 Cunningham
by-election is shown on each table. The paper also includes choropleth
maps of electoral divisions for each index.
There are four indexes shown in this paper.
Each index summarises a different aspect of the socioeconomic conditions
in the Electoral Divisions. The indexes have been obtained by summarising
the information from a variety of social and economic variables. While
there are similarities in the rankings of the Electoral Divisions, each
index uses a different set of underlying variables.
The four indexes are:
Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage/Disadvantage
Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage
Index of Economic Resources
Index of Education and Occupation.
All the indexes (including the Index of Relative
Socioeconomic Disadvantage) have been constructed so that relatively
advantaged areas have high index values. For the Index of Relative Socioeconomic
Disadvantage this means that relatively disadvantaged areas have low
index numbers. To enable easy recognition of high and low scores, the
index scores have been standardised to have a mean of 1000 across all
Collection Districts in Australia.
See the Appendix to this paper for a detailed list of the variables
included in each index.
The Index
of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage/Disadvantage includes variables
that measure relative social and economic well-being. Indicators included
are: income, occupation, employment status, educational qualification,
internet usage and size of dwelling. A higher score on this index means
that an area has a relatively high proportion of people with high incomes,
professional occupations and tertiary qualifications. It also means
that an area has a low proportion of people with low incomes, unskilled
occupations and no education qualifications. Conversely, a lower score
on this index means that an area has a relatively high proportion of
people with these characteristics and a low proportion of people with
high incomes, professional occupations and tertiary education qualifications.
As the name implies, the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage
is derived from attributes that indicate relative social and economic
hardship. Variables included are low income, low educational attainment,
unskilled occupations, high unemployment, one-parent families, renting
households and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. To maintain consistency
with the other indexes, the Index of Socioeconomic Disadvantage has
been inverted so that advantaged Electoral Divisions have a high index
score and disadvantaged divisions have a low score. Thus a high score
on this index means that an area has relatively fewer people with the
above attributes, while a low score indicates relatively more people
with these attributes. It is important to understand that a high score
here reflects a lack of disadvantage rather than high advantage.
The Index
of Economic Resources reflects the profile of the economic resources
of families in Electoral Divisions. The indicators summarised in this
index reflect the income and expenditure of families. Variables included
are: mortgage repayments, rental payments, income and sized dwelling.
A high score on this index means that an area has a higher proportion
of people with high incomes, large mortgage payments, large rental payments
and large dwelling size, while a low score indicates a lower proportion
of people with these characteristics.
The Index
of Education and Occupation is designed to reflect the educational
and occupational structure of the population. Education variables included
in the index are the level of educational qualification attained or
whether further study is being undertaken. Occupational variables include
the major occupation groups and the unemployed. An area with a high
score on this index would have a high concentration of people with higher
educational qualifications or undertaking further study and persons
employed in higher skilled occupations. A low score indicates a concentration
of people with low education attainment, low occupation skills or unemployed
persons.
The indexes contained in this paper are subject
to a number of limitations which should be borne in mind when the indexes
are used to compare Electoral Divisions.
Firstly, the indexes include only some of the
social and economic variables for which data was collected in the 2001
Census of Population and Housing. There are a number of social and economic
indicators, such as wealth, savings, health, access to infrastructure,
that affect the well-being of the population but are not collected in
the census and are therefore not included in the indexes. In addition,
the indexes include only a limited number of the available census variables.
Some notable exclusions from the indexes are age, country of birth,
religion and hours of work.
Secondly, the indexes which have been produced
depend upon the variables that have been included and the relative weights
attached to those variables. The inclusion of a different range of variables
or a different weighting pattern would result in a different index score.
The indexes included in this paper are only four of the many indexes
that could have been produced using census data.
In addition to the above conceptual limitations
in the indexes, there are a number of technical limitations. Non-response
to individual census items may affect the accuracy of the indexes if
there is a socioeconomic bias to non-response. Persons in non-private
dwellings (e.g. boarding houses, etc.) are under-represented in the
indexes as the variables pertaining to families and dwellings include
only occupied private dwellings. The census results are based on place
of enumeration rather than place of usual residence, thus holiday resort
areas (e.g. Gold Coast) may be affected.
Other aspects of the indexes that should be
borne in mind when comparing the indexes for different Electoral Divisions
are that:
The indexes are 'ordinal measures' and not 'interval measures', i.e.
the indexes can be used to order Electoral Divisions into a ranked order
but cannot be used to show that one Division is twice as well-off if
its index score is twice that of another Division.
The indexes reflect the socioeconomic well-being of an Electoral Division
rather than of individuals. Because all people in an Electoral Division
are not identical, the index scores do not apply to individuals but
rather the way people are summed together for the area.
The degree of heterogeneity within a Collection District influences
the index score of that Collection District and hence the Electoral
Division; the more homogeneous Collection Districts tend towards the
extreme index scores.
Partly because of the above, the interpretation of the index is more
straightforward for Electoral Divisions that have extreme values. For
example, it is usually easy to see why an Electoral Division with a
high index score has that status, but it is more difficult to draw comparisons
between Electoral Divisions with mid-ranked scores.
The following section provides comment on the main
features of each index. Because of the similar variables used to construct
each index there are certain similarities in the rankings of Electoral
Divisions for the various indexes. For instance, the divisions of Bradfield
and North Sydney are ranked highest on each index
while the divisions of Fowler and Bonython are the two lowest ranked
divisions for three out of the four indexes. A number of divisions in
the north shore area of Sydney
and in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne
appear in the top twenty rankings for each index. Similarly a number
of rural and outer-metropolitan divisions appear in the bottom twenty
rankings for all indexes.
This index measures the relative social and economic
well-being of the area. It combines attributes of relative advantage
(high incomes, skilled workforce etc.) with attributes of relative disadvantage
(low incomes, unskilled workforce etc.). The Electoral Division with
the highest index score is the Sydney
north shore division of Bradfield, while the division with the lowest
score is the northern Adelaide
division of Bonython. The median divisions (index score where there
are an equal number of divisions above and below that score) are the
southern New South Wales
division of Hume and the inner-Melbourne division of
Batman.
Most of the twenty highest ranked divisions are located
on the north shore of Sydney
(Bradfield, North Sydney, Warringah, Berowra,
Mackellar and Bennelong) and in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne
(Kooyong, Higgins, Goldstein and Menzies).
Other divisions to feature in the top twenty are the traditionally well-off
areas of Brisbane (Ryan)
and Perth (Curtin)
and the two ACT divisions (Canberra
and Fraser). The increasing gentrification
of inner city areas is illustrated by the high ranking of inner city
divisions of Melbourne Ports,
Sydney, Brisbane
and Melbourne. No South
Australian or Tasmanian divisions feature in the top twenty. Fourteen
of the top twenty divisions are held by the Liberal Party while the
rest are held by the Labor Party.
Divisions with a low score are typically either outer-suburban
or rural. Of the twenty divisions with the lowest score, six are outer-suburban
(Fowler and Chifley in Sydney, Oxley and Longman in Brisbane and Bonython
in Adelaide and Brand in Perth) and twelve are rural (Cowper, Page,
Lyne and Gwydir in New South Wales, Wide Bay, Hinkler and Blair in Queensland,
Barker, Grey and Wakefield in South Australia and Braddon and Lyons
in Tasmania). Only one inner-city division features in the bottom twenty
(Port Adelaide). Political representation among the twenty lowest ranked
divisions is almost even with eleven divisions held by the Coalition
and nine held by the Labor Party.
This index measures the relative social and economic
hardship in an area and to a certain extent displays a similar pattern
to the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage although a high score
reflects a lack of disadvantage rather than high advantage. To maintain
consistency with the other indexes, the higher an area's index value
for the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage, the less disadvantaged
that area is compared to other areas. The Electoral Division with the
highest score is Bradfield while the division with the lowest score
is the western Sydney division
of Fowler. The median divisions are the inner Melbourne
division of Wills and the Gold Coast division of Moncrieff.
As with the Index of Socioeconomic Advantage/Disadvantage,
most of the twenty highest ranked divisions are located on the north
shore of Sydney
(Bradfield, North Sydney, Warringah, Berowra,
Mackellar and Bennelong) or in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne
(Kooyong, Higgins, Goldstein and Menzies).
Two southern Sydney divisions
(Hughes and Cook), together with three
Perth divisions (Curtin,
Tangney and Moore) also feature in the top twenty divisions.
All but three of the top twenty divisions are held by the Liberal Party,
the exceptions being the two Labor Party held divisions in the ACT (Canberra
and Fraser) and Melbourne
Ports.
Both inner and outer metropolitan divisions feature
prominently in the lower ranked divisions, reflecting the lower incomes,
low education attainment, high unemployment and unskilled occupations
in those areas. Of the twenty lowest ranked divisions, six are inner
metropolitan divisions (Reid, Blaxland and Watson
in Sydney, Gellibrand and Maribyrnong
in Melbourne and Port Adelaide), while seven are outer
metropolitan divisions (Chifley, Fowler and Werriwa
in Sydney,
Holt in Melbourne, Oxley and Rankin
in Brisbane
and Bonython in Adelaide).
Six rural divisions are also included in the twenty lowest ranked divisions
(Page, Gwydir and Cowper in New
South Wales, Wide
Bay in Queensland,
Braddon in Tasmania and
Lingiari in the Northern Territory).
All but four of the twenty lowest ranked divisions are held by the Labor
Party, the remaining are held by the National Party.
An indication of the lack of homogeneity within a particular
Electoral Division can be obtained by comparing the relative positions
on the rankings between the Index of Advantage/Disadvantage and the
Index of Disadvantage. For example, if an Electoral Division has a high
proportion of people who are relatively well-off and a high proportion
of people who are not so well-off, this will be reflected in a relatively
high ranking on the Index of Advantage/Disadvantage and a relatively
low ranking on the Index of Disadvantage. By this measure the two least
homogenous divisions are the remote divisions of Lingiari in the Northern
Territory and Kalgoorlie
in Western Australia.
Lingiari is ranked just under the median (74th)
on the Index of Advantage/Disadvantage and is ranked the third lowest
division on the Index of Disadvantage. Kalgoorlie
is ranked just above the median (77th) on the Index of Advantage/Disadvantage
yet is ranked in the lowest quintile (22nd)
on the Index of Disadvantage. The inner metropolitan divisions of Watson
in Sydney and Gellibrand and Melbourne
display a similar pattern.
A number of rural divisions (Gippsland, Mallee and
Wannon) exhibit the opposite pattern, i.e. ranked lower on the Index
of Advantage/Disadvantage than on the Index of Disadvantage. This indicates
a relatively high proportion of people who are disadvantaged and a relatively
low proportion of people who are advantaged.
This index measures the economic resources or income
and expenditure patterns of families. The Electoral Division with the
highest index score is North Sydney, while the
division with the lowest score is the Queensland
rural division of Wide Bay.
The median divisions are Hume and Wills.
As with the Index of Advantage/Disadvantage, and the
Index of Disadvantage the top twenty places in the rankings for this
index are dominated by divisions located in the well-off suburbs in
the capital cities, although neither Adelaide
nor Hobart
divisions are included in the top twenty. Of the top twenty divisions,
twelve are in Sydney,
reflecting the high incomes, rents and mortgages in that city. Fifteen
of the top twenty divisions are held by the Liberal Party, the remaining
five are held by the Labor Party.
At the lower end of the rankings, rural divisions predominate,
reflecting low family incomes and low rental and mortgage payments in
rural Australia.
Only five of the twenty lowest ranked divisions are held by the Labor
Party. The preponderance of rural divisions at the lower end of the
rankings is further emphasised by the fact that the National Party holds
no divisions with a ranking over 45.
The Index of Education and Occupation is designed to
reflect the educational and occupational structure of the population.
Once again the highest ranked divisions are North Sydney
and Bradfield and the lowest ranked divisions are Bonython and Fowler.
The median divisions are Hume and Ballarat.
Once again the top twenty places in the rankings for
this index are dominated by divisions located on the north shore
of Sydney and in the eastern
suburbs of Melbourne.
Given the nature of the index, it is not surprising to find that a number
of divisions with or near tertiary education institutions rank high
on this index. The divisions of Grayndler (University
of Sydney), Adelaide
(University of Adelaide)
and Kingsford Smith
(University of NSW)
are ranked much higher on this index than the other indexes. Given the
more diverse spread of divisions in the top twenty it is not surprising
to find that the political complexion is also more evenly spread. Of
the top twenty divisions, the Liberal Party holds eleven, while the
Labor Party holds nine.
Rural and outer metropolitan divisions predominate
at the bottom end of the rankings, reflecting the lack of tertiary education
opportunities and professional occupational groups in those areas. Out
of the twenty, divisions at the lower end of the rankings, the Labor
Party holds eleven divisions, while the Liberal Party holds five and
the National Party three.
1.
A. Kopras,
'Electorate Rankings: Census 2001', Research
Paper No. 2 200203, Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003.
2. Australian Bureau
of Statistics, Census of Population
and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Area, Australia, 2001, Information Paper, Cat. No. 2039.0 ABS Canberra, 2003.
