Change and Disadvantage in the Gippsland Region, Victoria

2011 January 2011

placeholder images

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland Region, Victoria March 2011 Prepared by: Jeanette Pope, Policy and Strategy, Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD). (03) 92083849. [email protected] March 2011

Acknowledgement of data source DPCD gratefully acknowledges the Department of Health and its two data collation products from which most of the data for this report has been drawn:

› 2009 Local Government Area Statistical Proﬁ les › Town and Community Proﬁ les 2008 (DHS 2009)

A note of the limitations of data to describe disadvantage There is a signifi cant paucity of data to describe disadvantage, particularly at the small area level, in Australia. Measuring disadvantage in individuals requires measuring the wide range of factors that contribute to standard of living (Figure 10). Most surveys do not collect this detail. Only a few composite measures exist that combine a range of variables, notably, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) fi ve Socio-economic Indices for Areas (SEIFA) that combine information about income, education, occupation, wealth and living conditions (ABS 2006). In addition, some disadvantaged population groups are very small, or are hard to identify, and are not routinely detected in population surveys (for example, Indigenous Victorians, refugees and people with a disability). These issues mean there are signifi cant data gaps in this report.

Acronyms ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AEDI Australian Early Development Index ATSI Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development LGA Local Government Area SEIFA Socio-economic Indices for Areas

Copyright & Disclaimer The materials presented in this report are for information purposes only. The information is provided solely on the basis that readers will be responsible for making their own assessments of the matters discussed and are advised to verify all relevant representations, statements and information and obtain independent advice before acting on any information contained in or in connection with this report. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate, the Department of Planning and Community Development will not accept any liability for any loss or damage which may be incurred by any person acting in reliance upon the information.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 2 Contents

Introduction and summary ...... 4 Change in the Gippsland Region as a backdrop to disadvantage ...... 7 What is disadvantage and who does it affect? ...... 16 Disadvantage in Gippsland ...... 21 Bass Coast LGA ...... 24 Baw Baw LGA ...... 27 East Gippsland LGA ...... 30 Latrobe LGA ...... 33 South Gippsland LGA ...... 36 Wellington LGA ...... 39 Conclusion and what can be done ...... 42 Appendix A. The full list of relatively disadvantaged towns in the Gippsland region ...... 43 References ...... 45

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 3 Introduction and summary

This report describes change and disadvantage This section demonstrates localities are in the Gippsland government region (Figure 1). experiencing economic and demographic It has been compiled to assist agencies better change differently and disadvantage therefore assess disadvantage in order to plan looks different in different places. Three major collaborative strategies to address it. changes are discussed: 1. the process of economic restructuring that is decreasing The fi rst section provides a brief introduction economic opportunities for some residents to the widespread economic and (creating skilled work environments where there demographic changes in regional Victoria are predominantly unskilled workers); 2. shifting that provide the backdrop to disadvantage. population compositions that are resulting in a It shows that the economy is restructuring in need for services and business to restructure (as different ways across the region and this is needs change or as services become unviable); causing the purpose of many regional towns to and 3. rising house prices that are resulting in change (for example from agricultural service some populations becoming concentrated in low towns to tourist towns). As a result, many places service/economic opportunity areas. also have changing population compositions, with some localities experiencing decline and This background highlights the need for aging and others growth from new populations collaborative planning – that can fi nd solutions moving from Melbourne (weekenders, specifi c to a locality’s economy, demography, commuters, “downshifters”, affl uent retirees and needs and interests – to address disadvantage in non-affl uent retirees, welfare recipients and small regional localities. numbers of new Australian migrants).

Figure 1. The Gippsland government region.

Including the LGAs of … Bass Coast Loddon Baw Baw Mallee East Gippsland Grampians Hume Latrobe South Gippsland Wellington Gippsland

Barwon South-West

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 4 The second section defi nes disadvantage The third section examines disadvantage as occurring when an individual, family in the Gippsland region. For each Local or community is deprived of resources Government Area (LGA) it provides a map of or opportunities – enjoyed by all other the most disadvantaged localities and a table Victorians – that underpin social and describing the population composition of these economic wellbeing. Disadvantage exists on areas using the categories identifi ed above. a continuum with some people experiencing The tables show different towns have different mild disadvantage, while others experience population compositions. Some are dominated deprivation so severe as to be unacceptable to by older people, some by working populations community standards. This includes those that experiencing high levels of unemployment cannot afford medical and dental treatment, who and single parent families, some by public do not have safe and secure housing, and who housing tenants and welfare recipients, some cannot afford activities for their children. This with a signifi cant multicultural mix. This section section shows that around 10% of the Australian reinforces the need for strategies that take population are disadvantaged and clustered in into consideration both the economic and particular geographic localities. Some population demographic changes in different localities and groups are consistently overrepresented in data their different population mix. about disadvantage and this section identifi es these in Australia as: A full list of all localities highlighted in the LGA maps is provided at Appendix A. Some of › aged persons; the towns on this list additionally contribute › public housing renters; to the most disadvantaged 10% of the population in Australia and these are shown in › Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; Table 1 as a summary. › one parent families; › people with non-English speaking backgrounds; › the unemployed; › private renters; and › people with a disability (Australian Government 2009; Saunders & Wong 2009). The section concludes with a description of the size of these groups in the Gippsland Region (Table 5).

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 5 Table 1. Localities in Gippsland that are relatively disadvantaged in Victoria and that also contribute to the most disadvantaged 10% of the population in Australia

Population size

Large > 3000 1000 – 3000 Small < 1000

Morwell (postcode 3840) Bairnsdale (1404) Churchill (986) (6399) Warragul (1249) Loch Sport/Seaspray Moe (postcode 3825) (5226) Orbost (1142) (postcode 3851) (981) Traralgon (postcode 3844) Drouin (1129) Lakes Entrance (postcode (2912) 3909) (575) Wonthaggi (1042) Sale (2023) Korumburra (479) Corinella / Coronet Bay (359) Cowes (230) Cann River (224) Heyﬁ eld (191) Thorpdale (175) Welshpool (147) Lake Tyers (144) Mt Baw Baw (postcode 3833) (129) Genoa (postcode 3891) (65)

Note: population numbers are less than total town populations – the latter can be found in the LGA sections

The ﬁ nal section examines what can be done. This paper has been provided to begin a The complex and multidimensional nature of discussion about priority disadvantaged localities, disadvantage means that many agencies can population groups or issues (education and early contribute to reducing it or lessening its impacts childhood development, housing, etc) that may and this section outlines some of the areas be impacted on by collaborative action. under different agency’s control. Because of its complexity, however, reducing disadvantage will require collaboration. No single agency controls all the levers.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 6 Change in the Gippsland Region as a backdrop to disadvantage

Regional Victoria is changing – both economically change across regional Victoria can be seen in and demographically. change in jobs over one year (2007/8 to 2008/9) in Table 2. Jobs were lost in several industries In Gippsland the economy has been substantially including Manufacturing and Education and restructuring. The primary industry of agriculture Training (highlighted pink), but gained in others has been transformed from many small family including, Health Care and Social Assistance run farms to a few larger corporate ones run with and Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (highlighted new production methods to increase productivity green). Figure 2 provides another example from (Barr 2009). Towns reliant on manufacturing the Gippsland city of Traralgon over the last 20 and energy production have been changing years (1986 to 2006). It shows the decline in as manufacturing has declined (DIIRD 2010). manufacturing jobs, and the rise of jobs in retail Tourism and service industries have been and services. increasing. An illustration of the magnitude of the

Table 2. Change in employment (number of jobs), Victoria, 2007/08 to 2008/09 (in order for regional Victoria) (SGS Economic and Planning 2010)

Regional Victoria Melbourne

Health Care and Social Assistance 7 000 9 000 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 5 000 -3 000 Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services 3 000 1 000 Transport, Postal and Warehousing 3 000 13 000 Accommodation and Food Services 2 000 6 000 Public Administration and Safety 2 000 14 000 Wholesale Trade 1 000 3 000 Administrative and Support Services 0 1 000 Retail Trade -1 000 -7 000 Mining -1 000 2 000 Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services -1 000 -3 000 Arts and Recreation Services -1 000 5 000 Financial and Insurance Services -2 000 -11 000 Construction -3 000 5 000 Information Media and Telecommunications -3 000 2 000 Professional, Scientiﬁ c and Technical Services -3 000 -8 000 Education and Training -5 000 4 000 Manufacturing -5 000 -14 000 Other Services -10 000 1 000 Total number of jobs -12 000 + 20 000

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 7 Figure 2: Proportion of employed persons, by selected industry, Traralgon, 1986–2006 (DPCD 2010b)

16%

14%

12%

10%

0% Retail Trade Health Care Manufacturing ConstructionPublic Admin Education and Accommodation and Social & Safety Training and Food Assistance Services

1986 1996 2006

In Gippsland population compositions are › Weekenders (some Local Government Areas also changing. Structural aging is occurring as (LGAs) now have signifi cant non-resident farmers get older, young people migrate to cities populations – see Figure 5); in search of better economic prospects (the › Commuters and those that share their time migration of young women is double the rate of between a city and a regional household; young men), and older people retire to regional Victoria from metropolitan Melbourne (Figures › “Downshifters”; 3 & 4 and LGA snapshot 1, page 9 & 10). › Affl uent retirees; and Some high amenity areas are also experiencing › Non-affl uent retirees, welfare recipients and a signifi cant infl ux of “amenity migrants” moving small numbers of new Australian migrants from Melbourne seeking a rural lifestyle (Barr moving to areas where there is cheaper 2009). The new types of people moving to housing (AHURI 2005; Barr 2009; DHS 2009). regional Victoria include:

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 8 Figure 3. Net migration between regional Victoria and Melbourne between 2001 and 2006, by age (ABS 2006)

12 Gain to Regional 10

8 5-19 20-24 6 5-9 10-14 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-59 80-84 85-89 90+ 4 Age Group (years) 2

Number of persons (’000) -2

-4 Loss from Regional -6

LGA snapshot 1 Older people (65+) percentage of population, 2006 (ABS 2006) and projected population aging in 2026 (DPCD 2008)

2006 2026 %(n)%(n) Bass Coast 22.4 6174 29.9 12536 Baw Baw 14.7 5627 23.5 12619 East Gippsland 20.4 8451 32.1 17406 Latrobe 13.8 9892 24.6 19070 South Gippsland 17.5 4663 31.1 9639 Wellington 15.1 6300 29.6 14004

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 9 Figure 4. Population aged 75 years and over, Statistical Local Areas, 2006 (ABS 2006)

% of population 9% to < 18%

7% to < 9%

5% to < 7%

1% to < 5%

Changing economies and population amenity migrants into a tourism destination (Barr compositions mean the purpose of many regional 2009). The changing purpose of towns impacts towns is changing (Barr 2009). For example, on whether they grow or decline and this will in towns that once provided service support turn impact on the viability and appropriateness to farming communities no longer have this of their services, business and industry. It will also function. Some have reinvented themselves with impact on levels of disadvantage if some people a different purpose. For example, Daylesford get “left behind”. (in Grampians region) has been transformed by

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 10 Figure 5. Non-resident ratepayers by Local Government Area 2007 (DPCD 2007)

Non-resident ratepayers as a % of all ratepayers1 Mildura 9% More than 40%

Swan Hill 30% to <40% 4% 20% to <30% 10% to <20% Yarriambiak 18% Ganawarra 13% Less than 10% Buloke Wodonga Hindmarsh 22% Moira 14% 8% Data unavailable Campaspe Loddon 13% Indigo Shepparton Towong 21% 8% Wang 21% 9% West Benalla Nthn Wimmera Horsham Bendigo Strathbogie 12% Alpine Grampians 13% 27% 8% 21% 29% Cent. Mt Alex. 26% Mitchell G’fields 21% Mansfield Pyrenees Hepburn Macedon 50% 35% 32% Ranges Murrindindi East Gippsland Ararat Ballarat 17% Southern 30% 20% Grampians 13% 8% Moorabool 11% 20% Golden Glenelg Plains Coran- Baw Baw Moyne 23% Greater 15% 2 gamite Geelong Wellington 14% 12% Surf 11% 37% Coast Latrobe Colac 50% Warnambool 53% South Otway 11% Gippsland 37% Queenscliffe Bass 52% Coast 33%

Notes: 1. Multiple properties are excluded from this analysis – property owners are counted only once in calculations. 2. Wellington has 1,700 rateable properties where resident/non-resident status was unclear. These have been excluded from the analysis.

Source: Map compiled by Spatial Analysis & Research Branch DPCD. Data obtained from Local Council ofﬁcers September 2007.

The three maps on the next page show the once been agricultural service towns (the red overall patterns of growth and decline in towns dots), but growth in a few larger ones that now ﬁ ll across Gippsland from 1981 to 2006. They that niche in the new production environment (the examine two types of landscapes – those that blue dots). still have a predominantly agricultural land base – and those where the land has become attractive Figure 8 shows in blue the areas where there is to amenity migrants (Barr 2009). an amenity pressure on land use (where farms may be subdivided and sold to amenity migrants Figure 6 shows in red the areas that still have willing to pay a higher price for land) (Barr 2009). a predominantly agriculture land base. In these In Gippsland these include the LGAs of Bass areas farm size is increasing while the number Coast, Latrobe, East Gippsland and parts of of farms (and therefore the size of farming Baw Baw and Wellington. Amenity migration is communities) is decreasing (Barr 2009). In the most likely way smaller regional towns have Gippsland these areas include the LGAs of South avoided decline in the Gippsland Region (Barr Gippsland and parts of Baw Baw and Wellington. 2009) and Figure 7 shows the many towns that Figure 7 shows this landscape is associated with have grown as a result (the blue dots). the decline of many small towns that would have

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 11 Figure 6. The Production landscape of Victoria (from ABS census data, Statistical Local Area boundaries and Victorian land transaction data). The deeper the red, the deeper the production inﬂ uence on the landscape (Barr 2009)

Figure 7. Population change in Victorian Towns 1981–2006 (DPCD 2008a)

No. of persons 5000

2500

500

-500

-2500

Figure 8. Neil Barr’s (DPI) interpretation of the Victorian amenity landscape in 2001. The deeper the blue, the greater the amenity pressures on land use (Barr 2009).

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 12 Many towns and populations have adapted, skills and fi nd it diffi cult to fi nd employment in and will continue to adapt, to the economic and other industries (SGS Economic and Planning demographic changes occurring in the region. 2010). In addition, regional Victoria has less This report is concerned with those that may be diversity of employment options (Figure 9) and left behind by change. Three major changes need this makes unskilled workers vulnerable when to be kept in mind as background to discussion industries restructure, particularly as there is also about disadvantage. less opportunity to retrain in regional Victoria. The issue of a mismatch between unskilled 1. The fi rst change is economic restructure workers and increasingly skilled work could that results in decreased economic perpetuate in regional Victoria given it has a opportunities for residents. This is particularly signifi cant proportion of children entering school signifi cant because some areas in Gippsland developmentally vulnerable (12% compared to have high unemployment (6.6%, LGA snapshot 10% in metropolitan Melbourne, LGA snapshot 4, page 29) and around one in fi ve workers 3, page 26), more young people not staying at are unskilled or semi skilled (LGA snapshot school through years 10 to 12 (23% compared to 6, page 32). Research has shown that skilled 15% in metropolitan Melbourne) and more young workers have portable skills and can deal people aged 15 to 19 who are not engaged in well with change, while others (for example, school, work or further education/training (up to from manufacturing) have limited specifi c 24% in Gippsland LGAs).

Figure 9. Economic diversity*, Statistical Local Areas, 2001 (DSE 2005)

Diversity Index 95.5 to 96.0

95.0 to 95.4

90.0 to 94.9

65.0 to 89.9

* Index score of 100 = complete diversiﬁ cation with employment spread evenly across all industry types. Index score of 0 = employment concentrated in a single area.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 13 2. The second change is shifting population In all towns there will be a need to attract staff compositions that result in the need for to run services. Some areas in regional Victoria services and business to restructure. This will have trouble attracting skilled workers because affect both towns in growth and decline. Towns of lower incomes, lack of premium housing or that are growing may experience pressure on low perceived amenity in particular areas (DIIRD their existing services or have a need for new 2010). Table 3 shows the current skill shortages or different services. Towns in decline may have in the Gippsland Region and subsequently difﬁ culty keeping their services and facilities the services affected. This problem is likely to viable (schools, health services, sporting clubs, be exacerbated by the out migration of young etc). This may mean residents have to travel for people leaving fewer people to replace retiring services and this may become an increasing workers and to work in areas of increasing problem as they age or if they have transport demand as the population ages (such as limitations. The issue of service access is of health care). In some areas however, the loss particular importance to disadvantaged people of young people may be compensated for by who are more likely to have a greater range of the in-migration of amenity migrants. service needs due to worse physical and mental health, lower assets and incomes, etc.

Table 3. Skills shortages in the Gippsland Region (DIIRD 2010)

Bakers Metal machinists Community workers Motor mechanics Counsellors Pastry cooks Electrical engineers Physiotherapists General electricians Registered nurses General medical practitioners Secondary school teachers Hairdressers Structural steel and welding tradespeople Metal ﬁ tters and turners Welfare workers

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 14 3. The third change is rising house prices Disadvantage exists against that result in some populations becoming a backdrop of economic and concentrated in low service areas. Three groups will be affected. The ﬁ rst is residents who demographic change in move into low service areas from high amenity regional Victoria that is affecting areas as house prices rise (particularly as localities differently. amenity migration has generally not resulted in new houses being built (Barr 2009)). The second is those existing residents in low service areas who are unable to move to more expensive This brief background demonstrates that serviced localities when their need for services different economic and demographic changes increases (for example, as they age, become are occurring in different places in Gippsland. disabled, or need to access the labour market) As a consequence disadvantage is likely to (Barr 2009). This will include social housing look different in different localities. In some tenants who live in low serviced areas away communities disadvantage will be characterised from labour markets. The third is the group of by an aging population, in others by a working welfare recipients or underfunded retirees who population that is precariously employed, in move into low service areas because of the others by a diverse group of welfare recipients. cheaper housing (Barr 2009). For example, in In addition, all changing communities in 2000 a net of 9500 welfare recipients moved to Gippsland, whether disadvantaged or not, regional Victoria for the housing (AHURI 2005). will need to restructure their services to meet While housing is cheaper in general in regional their changing needs. This background Victoria (both rents and purchase) people will highlights the need for collaborative planning still be at risk of housing stress if their incomes that examines solutions matched to do not keep pace with house prices or rent. This disadvantaged locality’s economy, assets, will include those on pensions and beneﬁ ts and demographics, needs and interests. lower paid single workers.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 15 What is disadvantage and who does it affect?

Disadvantage occurs when an individual, family lack either material resources (income, or community is deprived of resources or housing, services, transport), skills/knowledge opportunities – enjoyed by all other Victorians resources (education, health) or “social capital” – that underpin social and economic wellbeing. resources (social participation, inclusion, strong Disadvantaged people and communities governance) (Figure 10).

Figure 10. The resources that contribute to an individual, family or community’s social and economic wellbeing

Material Resources Skills & knowledge (Economic Capital) (Human Capital) Income, jobs Education Secure housing Training Services available Workforce participation Infrastructure Good Health Transport Resilient families Local leadership

Resilient communities

Relationships (Social Capital) Connectedness Social participation Positive socialisation: inclusive, tolerant, safe Involvement in decision-making

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 16 Some people and communities experience transport limitations in the last 12 months (CIV disadvantage only mildly – perhaps only on 2007). This group is not the main focus of this one indicator in Figure 10 – such as labour report although it is acknowledged that these market insecurity (rather than no job) or inequalities make people vulnerable to more transport limitations. These people are likely serious disadvantage and are an important to be managing, but may be vulnerable to subject for public policy debate. more severe disadvantage when the economy changes or services/facilities are relocated (the This report focuses on the approximately 10% Australian Government following the European of the population that face multiple social and Commission reports these people as “at risk economic problems that impact signiﬁ cantly of poverty” (Australian Government 2009) on their wellbeing (Australian Government (Figure 11)). The size of this group depends on 2009). These people will be experiencing a the resource they do not have access to. For combination of material deprivation, economic example, in Gippsland, 50% of the population precariousness, labour market disadvantage, do not have access to the internet at home (ABS poor health, inadequate housing and exclusion 2006), while 21% report they have experienced from social, educational and civic life (Australian Government 2009).

Figure 11. Disadvantage exists on a continuum from severe to mild disadvantage – relative to the rest of the population.

Disadvantaged (approx 10% of the population)

At risk of disadvantage (approx 10% of the population)

The remainder of the population

Determined using a European Commission measure of having incomes 60% below the national median (Australian Government 2009)

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 17 Disadvantage of this kind has been shown to An Australian study of deprivation additionally be geographically concentrated (PHIDU 2010 found signiﬁ cant disadvantage in: – Atlases of census data since 1999; ABS 2010). For example, the report Dropping off › the unemployed; the Edge (Vinson 2007) showed that particular › private renters; and localities in Australia have the highest levels of › people with a disability (Saunders & Wong disadvantage in terms of low incomes, housing 2009). stress, detachment from the economy (fewer employed, lower involvement in education, early The study of deprivation asked a representative school leaving), poorer service access (limited sample of the Australian population what they computer and internet access) and increased thought were the minimum acceptable standards social problems (physical and mental disabilities, of living for Australians. This was done by asking long prison admissions, child maltreatment) them what they thought were essential items (Vinson 2007). for living – such as a substantial meal a day (Saunders & Wong 2009). The disadvantaged Not all population groups in Australia population groups described above were then experience disadvantage equally. Considerable surveyed using the list of essential items – or inequalities exist with some groups consistently minimum community standards – to see if these overrepresented in data related to disadvantage. were met (Saunders & Wong 2009). The Australian Government’s comprehensive Compendium of Social Inclusion Indicators The second survey of the disadvantaged (2009) found the groups that experience higher population groups found a proportion (between levels of disadvantage in Australia across a range 6 and 20 percent) were so disadvantaged that of indicators were: they were deprived of items considered essential by the general population (Saunders & Wong › aged persons; 2009). Table 4 shows the percentage of select › public housing renters; population groups that experience deprivation on the top ten essential items. It shows an › Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; signiﬁ cant number of Indigenous people, renters › single parent families; and (both public and private), sole parent families › people with non-English speaking and unemployed people in Australia do not have backgrounds. decent and secure homes, are unable to treat medical and dental issues, and are unable to provide activities for their children (Saunders & Disadvantage occurs when an Wong 2009). individual, family or community is deprived of resources that underpin social and economic wellbeing. Some population groups are consistently overrepresented in data related to disadvantage.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 18 Table 4. Deprivation of the top ten essential items among population groups in Australia (%) (Saunders & Wong 2009)

Essential item Indigenous Indigenous Australians Public Renters Parent Sole Families Private Renters Unemployed People People with disabilitya Single Older Person

The percentage of the population %%%%%%% group that did not have ….

Medical treatment if needed 0.0 4.3 7.6 5.2 3.4 2.4 2.3 Warm clothes & bedding if it's cold 5.6 2.2 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.8 Substantial meal at least once a day 10.5 8.4 1.9 2.4 3.4 2.7 0.8 Able to buy prescribed medicines 33.3 14.0 11.6 12.3 10.5 5.7 4.5 Dental treatment if needed 42.1 36.2 35.7 32.6 40.7 20.8 17.5 A decent and secure home 22.2 29.3 21.9 31.2 14.0 9.5 8.3 School activities/outings for children 21.1 16.3 10.4 7.5 12.5 6.6 7.1 Dental check-up for children 27.8 12.8 22.1 23.6 24.0 13.0 6.3 A hobby or leisure activity for 31.6 20.5 18.6 13.9 20.0 9.6 8.0 children A roof and gutters that do not leak 5.0 7.6 11.4 6.3 6.8 6.2 4.1 Average deprivation rate 19.9 15.2 14.2 13.6 13.5 7.7 6.0

Table 5 shows the size of population groups may additionally be marginalised, and not well identiﬁ ed above as experiencing a greater catered for in communities because of a lack of burden of disadvantage in the Gippsland their critical mass. Region. Some of the groups make up very small proportions of the population. While this The groups in Table 5 will be used to examine means the overall magnitude of disadvantage the population composition of disadvantaged may be small (as a population percentage), the localities in Gippsland in the following section. disadvantage may be severe, and these groups

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 19 Table 5. Potentially disadvantaged population groups in Gippsland Region.

Regional Metropolitan Victoria Gippsland measure measure measure

Older people (ABS 2006) Percent persons aged over 65 17.2% 16.0% 12.7% 13.6% Percent persons aged 85+ 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.8% Percent persons aged 75 + 2.8% 2.7% 2.0% 2.2% and living alone (n= 533) (n= 3 038) (n= 4 336) (n= 7 246) Public housing tenants (DHS 2010) Proportion of public housing 4.8% Not reported Not reported 3.5% households (at 30 June 2009) (n= 3 451) (n= 62 561) Public Housing applications on 1 256 Not reported Not reported 39 940 waiting lists as at 30 June 2009 Private housing tenants (ABS 2006) Proportion of private housing tenant 15.9% 16.8% 21.8% 20.4% households (n= 17 572) (n=80 567) (n=269 302) (n=349 869) Aborigines & Torres Strait Islanders (ABS 2006) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders 1.4% 1.3% 0.4% 0.6% (that identiﬁ ed in the census 2006) (n= 3 876) (n= 18 460) (n= 15 572) (n= 40 398) Single parent families (ABS 2006) Percentage of families that are single 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% parent families (n= 8 746) (n=54 645) (n=135 691) (n=199 004) Children in households with income 22.4% 21.3% 16.6% 17.9% less than $650 per week Non-English speaking (ABS 2006) Speaks language other than English 4.1% 4.8% 27.9% 21.6% at home (n= 9 825) (n= 68 161) (n= 1 086 155) (n= 1 454 344) New settler arrivals per 100000 129.2 148.1 696.1 549.6 population (2008–2009) (DIMIA 2009) (n= 310) (n= 2 103) (n= 27 099) (n= 37 004) Unemployed (ABS 2010) Unemployed March 2010 6.3% 6.0% 5.7% 5.8% People with a disability (ABS 2006) Core activity need for assistance 5.4% 5.0% 4.3% 4.5% (disability) (n= 12 940) (n= 71 001) (n= 167 400) (n= 302 988)

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 20 Disadvantage in Gippsland

Disadvantaged people are concentrated in of disadvantage in Australia (r=0.8) because the particular geographic locations in Victoria (PHIDU two indices are based on the same ABS census 2010). Geographic location of disadvantage is data (Vinson 2004). most commonly described using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Index of Relative Figure 12 provides a summary of Relative Socio- Socio-economic Disadvantage (one of the economic Disadvantage (SEIFA RSD) across Socio-Economic Indices for Areas (SEIFA)) (ABS Victorian Statistical Local Areas in Victoria 2010). The index combines information from a (more detailed maps for Gippsland LGAs are number of variables from the population census provided in the following pages). The red in (2006) relating to income, education, occupation, Figure 12 indicates the areas where the most wealth and living conditions. It ranks areas on a disadvantaged 20% of the Victorian population continuum of advantage to disadvantage. The live (i.e. areas ranked by SEIFA are divided into average score is 1000 for Victoria as a whole, ﬁ ve equal proportions of the population – red 986 for regional Victoria (Table 6). Scores below equals the lowest quintile). This includes both average are relatively disadvantaged. The index is those disadvantaged and those vulnerable to highly correlated with the earlier Vinson measures disadvantage (20%).

Table 6. Socio-economic status of geographic areas in Victoria.

Regional Metropolitan Victoria Gippsland measure measure measure Index of Relative Socio-economic – 986 1022 1000 Disadvantage score Percentage of the population living in 46% 42% 27% 31% collector districts with a score under (n= 247975) (n= 598642) (n= 972873) (n= 1571515) the regional Victoria average of 986

Figure 12. The Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage in deciles for Victorian Statistical Local Areas, 2006 (SGS Economics & Planning 2009)

2006 SEIFA Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage

4th quintile

5th quintile

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 21 While regional Victoria contains more Disadvantage is clustered in disadvantaged areas, a much larger number towns across Gippsland. Different of disadvantaged people live in metropolitan locations. Nonetheless, around one third (33%) population groups are affected in of the Gippsland Region population, or 118842 those towns due to the different people, live in collector districts with SEIFA economic and demographic changes scores under the 986 Regional Victorian average. occurring in them. The following pages describe the specifi c locations in the Gippsland LGAs that are relatively disadvantaged. A full list of the localities can be Red shading indicates the proportion of seen at Appendix A. the indicated population is greater than the Reading the Local Government Area Gippsland average. sections that follow 3. Some general data about the LGA for Each LGA section includes: context. This includes some employment data and service access data. 1. A map made at the collector district level (around 200 census households) for each Additional context is provided in LGA snapshots of the regions LGAs (DPCD 2010). The red for each indicator and the following three localities in the maps indicate where the most maps describing some accessibility indicators disadvantaged 10% of the population lives. across Victoria. 2. A table of localities with SEIFA scores under 986 divided into large towns (populations over 3000), mid sized towns LGA snapshot 2 (populations between 3000 and 1000) and Number and percentage of the population living in small towns (populations under 1000) that collector districts with SEIFA score under the Regional Victorian average of 986, 2006 (ABS 2006) have Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage scores under the Regional Victorian average (986). Each table describes Number % whether the area has groups identifi ed as Gippsland 247975 46% overrepresented in disadvantage statistics: Latrobe 41568 60% › low income East Gippsland 23798 59% › public housing tenants Wellington 19800 51% › older people › people with a disability Bass Coast 12552 47% › single parent families Baw Baw 12370 33% › disadvantaged children South Gippsland 8494 33% › Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders › those with low English profi ciency › an indicator of access to services in those areas (households with no internet).

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 22 Figure 13. Accessibility of areas in Victoria – The Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia, 2006 (DHS 2009a)

Legend Highly Accessible

Accessible

Moderately Accessible

Remote

Figure 14. Households without internet connection, Local Government Areas, 2006 (ABS 2006)

% of households 47 and above

43 to <47

39 to <43

31 to <39

Less than 31

Figure 15. People that experienced transport limitation in the last 12 months, 2007 (CIV 2007)

Quantile Legend 13.1 – 17.2

17.3 – 19.4

19.5 – 21.9

22.0 – 24.4

24.5 – 34.3

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 23 Bass Coast LGA

“Amenity” pressures landscape (Figure 8) Projected population change from 27524 in 2006 to 41919 in 2026 (growth)

Collection Districts by Victorian decile

9th and 10th deciles (Least disadvantaged) 7th and 8th deciles 5th and 6th deciles 3rd and 4th deciles 2nd decile 1st decile 6287+ (Most disadvantaged) *,336/$1' +,*+:$< Unranked Town boundary 3,21((5%$<

&25,1(//$ *5$179,//(

&2:(6 &2521(7%$<

685)%($&+ 681'(5/$1'%$< 6$15(02 .,/&81'$

'$/<6721 :217+$**,

,19(5/2&+

&$3(3$7(5621

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 24 Localities with SEIFA RSD scores under the regional Victoria average 986 decline or or decline r ciency growth, q = stable 2006 to 2001) income Individual under $400 a week Public Housing dwellings 65 over Aged alone living 75 Over Disability families parent Single Developmentally children vulnerable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Low English Proﬁ with Households internet no Locality SEIFA Population (

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 25 Disadvantaged areas in the Bass Coast  Fewer residents report their area has good LGA by the Index of Relative Socio- facilities and services like shops, childcare, economic Disadvantage (SEIFA) schools, libraries (67%, compared to the Gippsland average of 76%, LGA snapshot 7, Bass Coast contains one large, one mid-sized, page 35) four small towns and a rural catchment that score below the regional Victorian average on the  Fewer residents report their area has a wide SEIFA Index of Relative Disadvantage. Around range of community and support groups (60% 32–57% of the population of these towns have compared to the Gippsland average of 66%, low incomes and Wonthaggi has higher than LGA snapshot 9, page 38) average public housing. All but one small town have a greater proportion of people aged over 65  The area has a lower rate of high care aged and most have a high proportion of single parent care places (33 compared to the Gippsland families. All but two small towns have a higher average of 36 per 1000 population eligible) than average multicultural mix.  The area has a lower rate of low care aged Context: Bass Coast LGA in general care places (47 compared to the Gippsland average of 48 per 1000 population eligible) Employment/education  More residents report they have experienced › In 2009, 12% of children across the LGA (37) transport limitations (26%, compared to the were found to be developmentally vulnerable Gippsland average of 21%, LGA snapshot 10, in their ﬁ rst year of school (LGA Snapshot 3, page 41, Figure 15) page 26) › In March 2010, the unemployment rate was 5.2%, lower than the State average at 5.8% LGA snapshot 3 (LGA snapshot 4, page 29) % of children in their ﬁ rst year of school who were › One in 10 (12%) of those aged between 15 developmentally vulnerable on two or more domains* and 19 are not engaged in work or further 2009 (DEECD 2010) education or training (2006) (LGA snapshot 5, page 29) Number % › 17% of those employed are semi or unskilled Victoria 61187 10% workers (2006) (LGA snapshot 6, page 32) Gippsland 363 13% Access to services Latrobe 138 16% Designated “Moderately accessible” by the East Gippsland 66 17% Accessibility and Remoteness Index (Figure 13) Wellington 48 10% Compared to the Gippsland averages: Baw Baw 47 10%  More households have internet (50% compared to the Gippsland average of 46%) Bass Coast 37 12% (Figure 14) South Gippsland 27 8%

=  The same proportion of residents report their * Five domains: area has easy access to recreational and leisure Physical health & wellbeing facilities (78%, LGA snapshot 8, page 35) Social competence & wellbeing Emotional maturity Language & cognitive skills Communication skills & general knowledge

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 26 Baw Baw LGA

Production landscape both agriculture and “amenity” pressures (Figure 6 and Figure 8) Projected population change from 38484 in 2006 to 53769 in 2026 (growth)

Collection Districts by Victorian decile

9th and 10th deciles (Least disadvantaged) 7th and 8th deciles 5th and 6th deciles 3rd and 4th deciles 2nd decile 1st decile (Most disadvantaged) Unranked Town boundary

122-((

5$:621

(5,&$ 1((5,06287+

35,1&(6 :,//2:*529( )5((:$<

/21*:$55< :$55$*8/

'528,1 1,/0$

'$5180 <$55$*21 75$)$/*$5

7+253'$/(

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 27 Localities with SEIFA RSD scores under the regional Victoria average 986 decline or or decline r ciency growth, q = stable 2006 to 2001) income Individual under $400 a week Public Housing dwellings 65 over Aged alone living 75 Over Disability families parent Single Developmentally children vulnerable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Low English Proﬁ with Households internet no Locality SEIFA Population (

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 28 Disadvantaged areas in the Baw Baw  The area has a higher rate of high care aged LGA by the Index of Relative Socio- care places (40 compared to the Gippsland economic Disadvantage (SEIFA) average of 36 per 1000 population eligible) Baw Baw contains two large, one mid-sized  Fewer residents report they have experienced and four small towns that score below the transport limitations (20% compared to the regional Victorian average on the SEIFA Index of Gippsland average of 21%, LGA snapshot 10, Relative Disadvantage. Around 38-48% of these page 41, Figure 15) populations have low incomes and Warragul and Neerim South have higher than average public  Fewer residents report their area has a wide housing. There is a larger proportion of people range of community and support groups (49% aged over 65 in all areas except one small town compared to the Gippsland average of 66%, and a larger proportion of single parent families in LGA snapshot 9, page 38) most areas. Half of the towns have a greater than  Fewer households have internet (42% average multicultural mix. compared to the Gippsland average of 46%) Context: Baw Baw LGA in general (Figure 14) Early years/education/employment LGA snapshot 4 › In 2009, 10% of children across the LGA (47) Estimates of unemployment, ABS, March quarter 2010 were found to be developmentally vulnerable (ABS 2010a) in their ﬁ rst year of school (LGA Snapshot 3, page 26) Victoria 5.8% › In March 2010 the unemployment rate was Latrobe 6.6% 3.6%, lower than the State average at 5.8% Bass Coast 5.2% (LGA snapshot 4, page 29) East Gippsland 5.2% › 15% of those aged between 15 and 19 are not engaged in work or further education or training Wellington 4.0% (2006) (LGA snapshot 5, page 29) Baw Baw 3.6% › 20% of those employed are semi skilled or unskilled workers (2006) (LGA snapshot 6, South Gippsland 2.9% page 32) Access to services LGA snapshot 5 % of young people aged 15 to 19 who are not engaged in Designated “Accessible” by the Accessibility and school, work or further education/ training (ABS 2006) Remoteness Index (Figure 13) Victoria 17% Compared to the Gippsland averages: Regional Victoria 19%  More residents report their area has good Metro Melbourne 17% facilities and services like shops, childcare, schools, libraries (86%, compared to the Bass Coast 24% Gippsland average of 76%, LGA snapshot 7, Latrobe 23% page 35) East Gippsland 21%  More residents report their area has easy access to recreational and leisure facilities Wellington 18% (84%, LGA snapshot 8, page 35) South Gippsland 16%  The area has a higher rate of low care aged Baw Baw 15% care places (53 compared to the Gippsland average of 46 per 1000 population eligible)

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 29 East Gippsland LGA

“Amenity” pressures landscape (Figure 8) Projected population change from 41361 in 2006 to 53760 in 2026 (growth)

Collection Districts by Victorian decile

9th and 10th deciles (Least disadvantaged) 7th and 8th deciles 5th and 6th deciles 3rd and 4th deciles 2nd decile 1st decile (Most disadvantaged) Unranked Town boundary 20(2 +,*+:$<

20(2

6:,)76&5((.

021$52 +,*+:$< 35,1&(6 +,*+:$< ($67 %8&+$1 0$//$&227$

&$115,9(5

25%267 %587+(1 35,1&(6 12:$12:$ )5((:$< /$.( 0$5/2 %$,516'$/( /$.(6 7<(56 /,1'(12: (175$1&( %($&+ ($*/(32,17 3$<1(69,//( 0(781* 1(:/$1'6$50

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 30 Localities with SEIFA RSD scores under the regional Victoria average 986 decline or or decline r ciency growth, q = stable 2006 to 2001) income Individual under $400 a week Public Housing dwellings 65 over Aged alone living 75 Over Disability families parent Single Developmentally children vulnerable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Low English Proﬁ with Households internet no Locality SEIFA Population (

Gippsland – 220160 52.5 4.5 13.6 2.8 5.3 15.3 0.9 0.4 46.0 Regional Victoria 986 1383233 50.0 4.8 16.0 2.7 5.0 15.4 – 1.2 0.7 46.1 Melbourne Metro 1022 3744982 44.3 4.0 12.7 2.0 4.3 15.4 – 0.4 5.2 36.2 Victoria 1000 5313053 45.8 4.2 13.6 2.2 4.5 15.4 10.0 0.7 4.0 39.0 Large towns population >3000 Lakes Entrance 928 5562 q 51.6 6.5 25.4 4.0 6.6 15.9 – 3.6 3.4 54.9 Bairnsdale 947 11271 q 43.4 6.8 19.7 4.1 5.9 18.3 – 4.5 3.4 52.6 Mid sized population between 1000–3000 Orbost 867 2096 r 51.9 7.9 22.6 4.2 6.0 17.6 – 6.0 0.0 64.5 Orbost Rural 975 1791 q 46.8 0.0 12.3 1.4 4.0 7.9 – 3.4 0.0 49.5 Catchment Lakes Entrance Rural 985 1499 r 43.5 0.0 15.2 1.1 4.9 9.5 – 0.8 2.2 44.8 Catchment Small towns population <1000 ** CAUTION using percentages from small populations (there may be high rates from small numbers in small populations)** Lake Tyers Beach Rural 841 439 r 53.8 3.6 14.3 1.6 3.4 20.6 – 15.0 0.0 60.0 Catchment Cann River 853 224 q 36.7 11.2 12.4 1.5 4.1 22.8 – 5.4 0.0 70.4 Buchan 904 112 q 56.5 0.0 20.6 5.6 5.2 11.8 – 5.3 0.0 52.8 Bruthen 925 625 q 46.5 0.0 17.5 2.6 4.3 15.1 – 2.7 0.0 47.6 Cann River Rural 929 355 r 42.9 0.0 8.4 1.7 5.3 11.0 – 2.0 0.0 52.4 Catchment Mallacoota Rural 929 303 q 48.4 0.0 12.2 0.0 5.3 0.0 – 0.0 0.0 65.4 Catchment Mallacoota 931 975 r 52.0 1.6 24.1 3.3 5.6 14.8 – 0.0 0.0 50.1 Lindenow 942 337 q 38.5 0.0 16.7 1.2 3.3 19.4 – 2.7 0.0 53.4 Omeo 942 227 r 37.9 3.4 16.3 4.3 6.1 20.4 – 1.8 0.0 55.6

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 31 Disadvantaged areas in the East  More households have internet (50% Gippsland LGA by the Index of Relative compared to the Gippsland average of 46%) Socio-economic Disadvantage (SEIFA) (Figure 14) East Gippsland contains two large, one mid- = The same proportion of residents report sized and six small towns and four rural their area has good facilities and services like catchments below the regional Victorian average shops, childcare, schools, libraries (79%, on the SEIFA Index of Relative Disadvantage. LGA snapshot 7, page 35) Around 37-57% of these populations have low incomes and the three largest towns have a = The same proportion of residents report their greater proportion of public housing. All towns area has easy access to recreational and except Cann River have a greater proportion of leisure facilities (78%, LGA snapshot 8, people aged over 65 and most have a greater page 35) proportion of single parent families. The LGA has  The area has a lower rate of low care aged a greater proportion of Aborigines and Torres care places (40 compared to the Gippsland Straight Islanders. average of 46 per 1000 population eligible) Context: East Gippsland LGA in general  More residents report they have experienced Early years/education/employment transport limitations (23% compared to the Gippsland average of 21%, LGA snapshot 10, › In 2009, 17% of children across the LGA (66) page 41, Figure 15) were found to be developmentally vulnerable in their ﬁ rst year of school (LGA Snapshot 3, page 26) LGA snapshot 6 › In March 2010 the unemployment rate was Unskilled and semi skilled workers 5.2%, lower than the State average at 5.8% (PHIDU 2010 based on ABS 2006) (LGA snapshot 4, page 29) › 21% of those aged between 15 and 19 are not Victoria 16% engaged in work or further education or training Regional Victoria 19% (2006) (LGA snapshot 5, page 29) Metro Melbourne 15% › 20% of those employed are semi skilled or unskilled workers (2006) (LGA snapshot 6, Baw Baw 20% page 32) East Gippsland 20% Access to services Latrobe 20% Designated “Accessible” by the Accessibility and South Gippsland 19% Remoteness Index (Figure 13) Wellington 19% Compared to the Gippsland averages: Bass Coast 17%  More residents report their area has a wide range of community and support groups (72% compared to the Gippsland average of 66%, LGA snapshot 9, page 38)  The area has a higher rate of high care aged care places (42 compared to the Gippsland average of 36 per 1000 population eligible)

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 32 Latrobe LGA

“Amenity” pressures landscape (Figure 8) Projected population change from 72075 in 2006 to 77505 in 2026 (growth)

Collection Districts by Victorian decile

9th and 10th deciles (Least disadvantaged) 7th and 8th deciles 5th and 6th deciles 7221*$%%,( 3rd and 4th deciles 2nd decile 1st decile (Most disadvantaged) Unranked */(1*$55< Town boundary <$//2851 7<(56 1257+ 02( 75$5$/*21 35,1&(6 +,*+:$<

025:(//

&+85&+,// <,11$5 75$5$/*21 6287+

%22/$55$

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 33 Localities with SEIFA RSD scores under the regional Victoria average 986 decline or or decline r ciency growth, q = stable 2006 to 2001) income Individual under $400 a week Public Housing dwellings 65 over Aged alone living 75 Over Disability families parent Single Developmentally children vulnerable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Low English Proﬁ with Households internet no Locality SEIFA Population (

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 34 Disadvantaged areas in the Latrobe LGA  The area has a higher rate of low care aged by the Index of Relative Socio-economic care places (54 compared to the Gippsland Disadvantage (SEIFA) average of 46 per 1000 population eligible) Latrobe contains four large, one mid-sized and  Fewer residents report they have experienced two small towns that score below the regional transport limitations (16%, compared to the Victorian average on the SEIFA Index of Relative Gippsland average of 21%, LGA snapshot 10, Disadvantage. Around 36-48% of the populations page 41, Figure 15) of these towns have low incomes and all the large towns have higher than average public housing.  More households have internet (47% Half the towns have a greater proportion of people compared to the Gippsland average of 46%) aged over 65 and all have a larger proportion of (Figure 14) single parent families. All towns have a higher than  The area has a lower rate of high care aged average multicultural mix. care places (32 compared to the Gippsland Context: Latrobe LGA in general average of 36 per 1000 population eligible) Employment/education LGA snapshot 7 In 2009, 16% of children across the LGA › Residents that feel their area has good facilities and (138) were found to be developmentally services like shops, childcare, schools, libraries, 2008 vulnerable in their ﬁ rst year of school (LGA (DPCD 2010a) Snapshot 3, page 26) › In March 2010 the unemployment rate was Gippsland 76% 6.6%, higher than the State average at 5.8% Baw Baw 81% (LGA snapshot 4, page 29) Latrobe 80% › 22% of those aged between 15 and 19 are not engaged in work or further education or training Wellington 76% (2006) (LGA snapshot 5, page 29) East Gippsland 76% › 20% of those employed are semi skilled or unskilled workers (2006) (LGA snapshot 6, South Gippsland 71% page 32) Bass Coast 67% Access to services LGA snapshot 8 Designated “Moderately accessible” by the Residents that feel their area has easy access to Accessibility and Remoteness Index (Figure 13) recreational and leisure facilities, 2008 (DPCD 2010a) Compared to the Gippsland averages: Gippsland 79%  More residents report their area has good Baw Baw 84% facilities and services like shops, childcare, schools, libraries (80%, LGA snapshot 7, Latrobe 80% page 35) East Gippsland 80%  More residents report their area has easy South Gippsland 79% access to recreational and leisure facilities (80%, LGA snapshot 8, page 35) Bass Coast 78%  More residents report their area has a wide Wellington 77% range of community and support groups (71% compared to the Gippsland average of 66%, LGA snapshot 9, page 38)

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 35 South Gippsland LGA

Production landscape predominantly agriculture (Figure 6) Projected population change from 26675 in 2006 to 31024 in 2026 (growth)

Collection Districts by Victorian decile

9th and 10th deciles (Least disadvantaged)

1<25$ 322:21* 7th and 8th deciles 5th and 6th deciles 3rd and 4th deciles /2&+ 0,5%221257+ 2nd decile 1st decile .2580%855$ (Most disadvantaged) Unranked /(21*$7+$ Town boundary

%$66 +,*+:$< '80%$/.

0((1,<$1

)267(5 7225$ :(/6+322/ 9(186%$< ),6+&5((. 3257)5$1./,1 3257:(/6+322/ 7$5:,1/2:(5

6$1'<32,17

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 36 Localities with SEIFA RSD scores under the regional Victoria average 986 decline or or decline r ciency growth, q = stable 2006 to 2001) income Individual under $400 a week Public Housing dwellings 65 over Aged alone living 75 Over Disability families parent Single Developmentally children vulnerable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Low English Proﬁ with Households internet no Locality SEIFA Population (

Populations in Korumburra (479) and Welshpool (147) contribute to the most disadvantaged 10% of the population in Australia

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 37 Disadvantaged areas in the South = The same proportion of residents report Gippsland LGA by the Index of Relative their area has easy access to recreational Socio-economic Disadvantage (SEIFA) and leisure facilities (79%, LGA snapshot 8, page 35) South Gippsland contains two large, one mid- sized and ﬁ ve small towns that score below the = The same proportion of households have regional Victorian average on the SEIFA Index of internet (46%) (Figure 14) Relative Disadvantage. Around 39-60% of these  populations have low incomes and Korumburra, Fewer residents report their area has good Foster and Toora have higher than average public facilities and services like shops, childcare, housing. All towns have a greater proportion of schools, libraries (71%, LGA snapshot 7, people aged over 65 and most have a greater page 35) proportion of single parent families. Most also  Fewer residents report their area has a wide have a higher than average multicultural mix. range of community and support groups Context: South Gippsland LGA in general (65% compared to the Gippsland average of 66%, LGA snapshot 9, page 38) Early years/education/employment  The area has a lower rate of high care aged › In 2009, 8% of children across the LGA (27) care places (34 compared to the Gippsland were found to be developmentally vulnerable average of 36 per 1000 population eligible) in their ﬁ rst year of school (LGA Snapshot 3, page 26)

› In March 2010 the unemployment rate was LGA snapshot 9 2.9%, lower than the State average at 5.8% Residents that feel their area has a wide range of (LGA snapshot 4, page 29) community and support groups, 2008 (DPCD 2010a) › 16% of those aged between 15 and 19 are not engaged in work or further education or training Gippsland 66% (2006) (LGA snapshot 5, page 29) East Gippsland 72% › 19% of those employed are semi skilled or Latrobe 71% unskilled workers (2006) (LGA snapshot 6, page 32) South Gippsland 65% Access to services Baw Baw 64% Designated “Accessible” by the Accessibility and Wellington 63% Remoteness Index (Figure 13) Bass Coast 60% Compared to the Gippsland averages:  The area has a higher rate of low care aged care places (53 compared to the Gippsland average of 46 per 1000 population eligible)  Fewer residents report they have experienced transport limitations (23% compared to the Gippsland average of 21%, LGA snapshot 10, page 41, Figure 15)

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 38 Wellington LGA

Production landscape both agriculture and “amenity” pressures (Figure 6 and Figure 8) Projected population change from 41591 in 2006 to 47283 in 2026 (growth)

Collection Districts by Victorian decile

9th and 10th deciles (Least disadvantaged) 7th and 8th deciles 5th and 6th deciles 3rd and 4th deciles 2nd decile 1st decile (Most disadvantaged) Unranked Town boundary

%5,$*2/21* &221*8//$ 35,1&(6 0$))5$ +,*+:$< +(<),(/' ($67 675$7)25'

/2&+63257

6$/( 526('$/(

6($635$<

<$55$0

$/%(5721

3257$/%(57

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 39 Localities with SEIFA RSD scores under the regional Victoria average 986 decline or or decline r ciency growth, q = stable 2006 to 2001) income Individual under $400 a week Public Housing dwellings 65 over Aged alone living 75 Over Disability families parent Single Developmentally children vulnerable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Low English Proﬁ with Households internet no Locality SEIFA Population (

Gippsland – 220160 52.5 4.5 13.6 2.8 5.3 15.3 0.9 0.4 46.0 Regional Victoria 986 1383233 50.0 4.8 16.0 2.7 5.0 15.4 – 1.2 0.7 46.1 Melbourne Metro 1022 3744982 44.3 4.0 12.7 2.0 4.3 15.4 – 0.4 5.2 36.2 Victoria 1000 5313053 45.8 4.2 13.6 2.2 4.5 15.4 10.0 0.7 4.0 39.0 Large towns population >3000 Maffra 956 4141 q 44.9 6.0 19.5 4.4 6.2 16.5 – 1.4 1.1 50.5 Sale 962 13337 q 40.6 5.7 16.1 3.3 5.7 19.1 – 1.4 4.0 45.4 Mid sized population between 1000–3000 Heyﬁ eld 896 1461 q 47.2 2.0 19.5 4.1 8.6 19.7 – 2.0 0.0 52.6 Yarram 916 1718 r 48.8 6.9 28.7 6.0 9.0 18.7 – 0.4 0.0 57.1 Rosedale 933 1077 q 43.5 1.5 15.1 2.5 5.1 11.7 – 1.9 0.0 50.8 Stratford 964 1445 q 38.2 2.0 19.1 3.0 4.2 12.6 – 0.8 0.0 46.4 Small towns population <1000 ** CAUTION using percentages from small populations (there may be high rates from small numbers in small populations)** Loch Sport 863 772 r 65.6 0.0 36.9 4.2 10.2 12.0 – 2.1 6.1 64.8 Port Albert 902 248 q 49.5 0.0 25.0 5.0 4.4 19.0 – 0.0 0.0 66.0 Alberton 929 161 q 46.5 0.0 19.2 5.7 5.6 16.3 – 0.0 0.0 56.1 Seaspray 933 184 r 44.7 0.0 20.6 2.3 3.8 24.5 – 0.0 0.0 56.2 Briagolong 961 546 q 42.9 0.0 11.6 1.5 4.2 18.2 – 1.1 0.0 46.0

Populations in Sale (2023), Lock Sport/Seaspray (postcode 3851) (981) and Heyﬁ eld (191)contribute to the most disadvantaged 10% of the population in Australia

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 40 Disadvantaged areas in the Wellington  Fewer residents report their area has easy LGA by the Index of Relative Socio- access to recreational and leisure facilities economic Disadvantage (SEIFA) (74%, LGA snapshot 8, page 35) Wellington contains two large, four mid sized  Fewer residents report their area has a wide and ﬁ ve small towns that score below the range of community and support groups (63% regional Victorian average on the SEIFA Index of compared to the Gippsland average of 66%, Relative Disadvantage. Around 38-66% of these LGA snapshot 9, page 38) populations have low incomes and Maffra, Sale and Yarram have a higher proportion of public  The area has a lower rate of low care aged housing. All but one small town have a greater care places (45 compared to the Gippsland proportion of people aged over 65 and most a average of 46 per 1000 population eligible) greater proportion of single parent families. Most  Fewer households have internet (45% also have a higher than average multicultural mix. compared to the Gippsland average of 46%) Context: Wellington LGA in general (Figure 14) Early years/education/employment

› In 2009, 10% of children across the LGA LGA snapshot 10 (48) were found to be developmentally People that experienced transport limitation in the vulnerable in their ﬁ rst year of school (LGA last 12 months, 2007 (CIV 2007) Snapshot 3, page 26) Gippsland 21% › Unemployment rate 4.0% March 2010, lower than the State average at 5.8% (LGA snapshot Bass Coast 26% 4, page 29) East Gippsland 23% › 18% of those aged between 15 and 19 are not engaged in work or further education or training South Gippsland 23% (2006) (LGA snapshot 5, page 29) Wellington 20% › 18% of those employed are semi skilled or Baw Baw 20% unskilled workers (2006) (LGA snapshot 6, page 32) Latrobe 17% Access to services Designated “Accessible” by the Accessibility and Remoteness Index (Figure 13) Compared to the Gippsland averages:  The area has a higher rate of high care aged care places (37 compared to the Gippsland average of 36 per 1000 population eligible)  Fewer residents report they have experienced transport limitations (20% compared to the Gippsland average of 21%, LGA snapshot 10, page 41, Figure 15) = The same proportion of residents report their area has good facilities and services like shops, childcare, schools, libraries (76%, LGA snapshot 7, page 35)

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 41 Conclusion and what can be done

The data in this report show that disadvantaged › local governments in the economic is clustered in different localities across the development of local areas, providing services Gippsland Region. Each appears to have a (early years, aged care, youth services) and in different mix of people. Some are predominantly community development; and aging populations, some working populations › non-government organisations in providing and some (overlapping with the previous two) services and advocating on behalf of concentrations of welfare recipients. Some disadvantaged groups. areas have a signifi cant multicultural mix, while others do not. These differences are the result of Because of its complexity, reducing disadvantage economic and demographic changes occurring will require collaboration. It will require across the region that are resulting in: partnerships of agencies bringing a range of resources to bear on the issue. In the fi rst › a decrease of economic opportunities for instance, it will require processes that bring residents in some areas particularly for unskilled together empirical, expert, strategic and local workers (of which there is a greater proportion knowledge to identify strategic priorities and in Gippsland – a trend likely to perpetuate locally appropriate solutions. It will also involve due to lower than state average educational building the capacities of both communities and outcomes across early years, secondary and agencies to mount effective responses. tertiary education); Change will continue to occur in the region and › population growth, decline or change that is causing a need for the restructure of services individuals, families and communities will need (putting pressure on services, creating a need to continue to adapt. This can be supported by for new services or making services in some service systems and governments that are also areas not viable); or refl exive to change and that fi nd processes for dealing with complex issues, like disadvantage, › the concentration of disadvantage in certain that run across agencies and jurisdictions. areas because of rapidly rising housing costs in some areas with others not keeping pace (trapping residents). The complex and multidimensional The complex and multidimensional nature of disadvantage means that the efforts of a range nature of disadvantage means reducing of agencies will be needed to reduce it or lessen disadvantage will require collaboration its impacts. No single agency holds all the across a range of agencies. levers to the factors outlined in the beginning of this report as making a difference to social and economic wellbeing (Figure 10). The roles played by different agencies include:

› the Commonwealth government in employment policy, income support, the tax transfer system (including pensions and beneﬁ ts, etc), housing, health and other social programs; › the State government in providing or subsidising essential services (health, education and training, etc), planning policy, housing, support for economic development, reducing barriers to opportunity and supporting disadvantaged groups and places;

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 42 Appendix A. The full list of relatively disadvantaged towns in the Gippsland region

Towns that score under the Regional Victorian average (986) on the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage. Small towns <1000 Medium sized towns 1000–3000 Large sized towns >3000

SEIFA Pop. change Town RSD Population 2001–6 1 East Gippsland Lake Tyers Beach Rural Catchment 841 439 r 2 East Gippsland Cann River 853 224 q 3 Wellington Loch Sport 863 772 r 4 Latrobe Morwell 865 13393 q 5 East Gippsland Orbost 867 2096 r 6 South Gippsland Toora 885 481 r 7 Latrobe Moe–Yallourn 894 15580 q 8 Wellington Heyﬁ eld 896 1461 q 9 Wellington Port Albert 902 248 q 10 Bass Coast Coronet Bay 904 643 q 11 East Gippsland Buchan 904 112 q 12 Bass Coast Dalyston 907 278 q 13 Wellington Yarram 916 1718 r 14 Bass Coast Wonthaggi 919 6528 q 15 Bass Coast Corinella 922 507 q 16 Bass Coast Grantville 922 457 q 17 Baw Baw Rawson 923 279 q 18 La Trobe Yallourn North 924 1162 r 19 South Gippsland Venus Bay 924 513 q 20 Baw Baw Longwarry 925 625 q 21 East Gippsland Bruthen 925 625 q 22 East Gippsland Lakes Entrance 928 5562 q 23 East Gippsland Cann River Rural Catchment 929 355 r 24 East Gippsland Mallacoota Rural Catchment 929 303 r 25 South Gippsland Port Welshpool 929 199 q 26 Wellington Alberton 929 161 q 27 East Gippsland Mallacoota 931 975 r 28 Wellington Rosedale 933 1077 q 29 Wellington Seaspray 933 184 r 30 South Gippsland Foster 937 1042 q 31 South Gippsland Korumburra 938 3144 q 32 Bass Coast Grantville Rural Catchment 940 932 q 33 East Gippsland Lindenow 942 337 q

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 43 Small towns <1000 Medium sized towns 1000–3000 Large sized towns >3000

SEIFA Pop. change Town RSD Population 2001–6 34 East Gippsland Omeo 942 227 r 35 Latrobe Toongabbie 945 463 q 36 East Gippsland Bairnsdale 947 11271 q 37 Latrobe Churchill 950 4601 q 38 Latrobe Boolarra 953 527 q 39 Wellington Maffra 956 4141 q 40 Baw Baw Drouin 961 6860 q 41 Wellington Briagolong 961 546 q 42 Wellington Sale 962 13337 q 43 Baw Baw Trafalgar 964 2302 q 44 Wellington Stratford 964 1445 q 45 Baw Baw Neerim South 965 609 q 46 Baw Baw Yarragon 965 723 q 47 South Gippsland Poowong 967 286 r 48 South Gippsland Meeniyan 967 424 q 49 East Gippsland Orbost Rural Catchment 975 1791 q 50 Bass Coast San Remo 984 1012 q 51 Latrobe Traralgon 984 21980 q 52 East Gippsland Lakes Entrance Rural Catchment 985 1499 r 53 Baw Baw Warragul 986 11491 q 54 South Gippsland Leongatha 986 4505 q

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 44 References

DPCD gratefully acknowledges the Department of Health and its two data collation products from which most of the data for this report (referenced below) has been drawn:

› 2009 Local Government Area Statistical Proﬁ les (DHS 2009) › Town and Community Proﬁ les 2008 (DHS 2009)

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2006) Census of Population and Housing data. Australian Bureau of Statistics website. www.abs.gov.au. Accessed July 2010. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2010) SEIFA: Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas webpage http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Seifa_entry_page . Accessed July 2010. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2010a) 1367.2 – State and Regional Indicators, Victoria, Mar 2010 webpage. Unemployment estimates. Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/ Latestproducts/B9D12E43B7000E74CA257729002006E4?opendocument Accessed July 2010. AHURI (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute) (2005) Why low-income households move: the search for affordable housing and employment. Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 53 Available at www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/8726 Accessed July 2010. Australian Government (2009) A compendium of social inclusion indicators. How’s Australia faring? www.socialinclusion.gov.au >Publications. Accessed July 2010. Barr N (2009) The House on the Hill: the transformation of Australia’s farming communities. Land & Water Australia in association with Halstead Press: Canberra. CIV (Community Indicators Victoria) (2007) Community Wellbeing Survey of Victorian LGAs. http://www.communityindicators.net.au Accessed July 2010. DEECD (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development) (2010) Victorian Australian Early Childhood Development (AEDI) results for areas information sheets. DEECD: Melbourne. DHS (Department of Human Services Workforce Planning, Portfolio Services and Strategic Projects Division) (2009) 2009 Local Government Area Statistical Proﬁ les and Town and Community Proﬁ les 2008. DHS (Department of Human Services Workforce Planning, Portfolio Services and Strategic Projects Division) (2009a) Accessibility ARIA+ map. https://fac.dhs.vic.gov.au/publicfolder/data_statistics/DHS/ maps/ARIAP.pdf Accessed July 2010. DHS (Department of Human Services) (2010) Summary of Housing Assistance Programs 2008–09 (word version). DHS Housing and Community Building Division: Melbourne. Available at www.housing.vic.gov.au/publications/reports Accessed July 2010. DIIRD (Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development) (2010) Live in Victoria website. http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/working-and-employment/skill-shortages. Accessed July 2006. DIMIA (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) (2009) Settlement database. Taken from DHS 2009

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 45 DPC (Premier and Cabinet) (2005) A Fairer Victoria. DPC: Melbourne. DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development) (2007) DPCD compilation of Local Council data about non resident rates payers. DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development) (2008) Towns in Time. DPCD: Melbourne. Available at http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DSE/dsenres.nsf/LinkView/ E05D934749B13CE2CA256D3B0005539F5D8F38B915AF5AA1CA256D1A0022BDE9 Accessed July 2010. DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development) (2008a) Victoria in Future 2008 – Population Projections. DPCD: Melbourne. Available at http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DSE/dsenres.nsf/ LinkView/BD4EF8A400A9E6DECA256D8D00151A4F775206E3E0281595CA256F0E0013C1FB Accessed July 2010. DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development) (2010) Strategic Policy Research and Forecasting, DPCD. LGA maps of the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage mapped at the collector district level. www.dpcd.vic.gov.au >Urban and Regional > Demographics Accessed July 2006. DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development) (2010a) Indicators of Community Strength at the Local Government Area Level for Victoria, 2008 www.dpcd.vic.gov.au >Research and Publications Accessed July 2010. DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development) (2010b) Victoria's regional centres – a generation of change. Bendigo. DPCD: Melbourne. Forthcoming on www.dpcd.vic.gov.au DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment) (2005) Regional Matters: an atlas of Regional Victoria 2005. www.dpcd.vic.gov.au. Accessed July 2010. PHIDU (Public Health Information Development Unit) (2010) The Social Health Atlas of Australia: Victoria. (Editions since 1999). www.publichealth.gov.au. Accessed July 2010. Saunders P & Wong M (2009) Still doing it tough: an update on deprivation and social exclusion among welfare service clients. Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales. www.sprc.unsw.edu.au. Accessed July 2010. SGS Economics & Planning (2009) The role of community development in responding to economic decline. Paper commissioned by Community Development, DPCD. Vinson T (2004) Community adversity and resilience. JSS: Melbourne. Vinson T (2007) Dropping Off the Edge. JSS & CSSA: Melbourne.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 46 This page is left intentionally blank.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 47 If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, such as large print or audio, please telephone Jeanette Pope on 9208 3849, or email [email protected]. This publication is published in PDF and Word formats on www.dpcd.vic.gov.au

Published by the Department of Planning and Community Development 1 Spring Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Telephone (03) 9208 3799 March 2011 © Copyright State Government of Victoria 2007 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised by the Victorian Government, Melbourne.

Change and disadvantage in the Gippsland region, Victoria 48