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.