Monash University Publishing | Contacts Page
Monash University Publishing: Advancing knowledge

Fault Lines Exposed: Advantage and Disadvantage Across Australia’s Settlement System

CHAPTER THREE

SUBURBS OF ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE

THE SOCIAL MOSAIC OF OUR LARGE CITIES

Scott Baum
Kevin O’Connor
Robert Stimson

This chapter provides the first of the analytical chapters of the book and focuses on the fault lines that exist in the country’s extended metropolitan regions. Using the methodology established in Chapter One, it discusses the seven groups of metropolitan localities that make up the metropolitan typology of advantage and disadvantage. The seven groups can be divided into three groups of advantaged places and four groups of disadvantaged places. On one side the advantaged groups of the extended metropolitan regions divided up into new-economy extremely advantaged localities, gentrifying/population change advantaged localities and middle-class advantaged suburban localities. On the flip side the disadvantaged places divided into working-class-battler disadvantaged localities, battling family/mortgage stress disadvantaged localities, old-economy extremely disadvantaged localities, and peri-urban disadvantaged localities. The chapter discusses each of these in turn.

INTRODUCTION

Think about Australia’s capital cities and any possible array of stories is likely to spring to mind. For those of us who live in capital cities, the majority of us probably quite like living there, and compared with some other places, the bulk of us probably have a fairly decent quality of life. However fault lines exist and they can be seen at a number of levels. There are fault lines that exist between capital cities, as well as divisions within cities. In economic terms Sydney is often considered to be leading the other metropolitan regions. It is Australia’s global city region, its mega-city and has been dubbed Australia’s ‘intellectual and creative capital’ (Brenchley 2003 p. 12). It has on average lower unemployment than the other state capitals and in general income levels are higher. Melbourne is often ranked second and the rivalry that exists between these two cities is legendary. Then there are the sun-belt cities of Brisbane and Perth which lead the way in population growth. Adelaide and Hobart, the county’s rust-belt capitals, are often seen lagging behind, and somewhere in the middle of this mix, most likely towards the upper end, are Canberra and Darwin.

At one level this broad type of analysis of between city outcomes is interesting and they have been discussed by other research (for example see Baum and O’Connor 2005; Salt 2001). However, it is the mosaic of localities or suburbs within the cities themselves that always proves to be of interest. We all know that these mosaics exist and we also have visions for places based on their real or perceived characteristics. Political Scientist, David Burchell (2002) from the University of Western Sydney argues that the suburbs of Western Sydney tend to conjure up symbols of an undifferentiated urban bad land, while in his book Good Times, Hard Times, Mark Peel (1995 p. 3) says that ‘Elizabeth is a shorthand for difference and despair, a symbol of what lurks in the darker spaces of a city’s life’. Visitors to Perth, would, on a cruise along the Swan River hear about millionaire’s row, while all the other capitals also have an equivalent expensive real estate belt. We could go on to identify other examples, but the point is, that most city dwellers have some mental image of the city they live in, and this probably includes an understanding of the up-market places as well as the down-market places.

The mosaics of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage in our cities have also been the focus of a significant amount of academic research. Some of this was outlined in Chapter One. All of it has shown that ‘Australia’s once famously bland suburbs have decomposed into much more diverse and complex social landscapes’ (Gleeson 2004a p. 2). In short the picture that begins to unfold, when the mosaics of metropolitan regions are considered, reflect some of these widely held visions of the fault lines that exist. However the picture is more complicated that just absolute advantaged and disadvantaged.

DIFFERENTIATING THE SUBURBAN MOSAIC

We started off with 301 suburbs or localities located across all the state and territory capital cities and divided them up using the methodology discussed in Chapter One. The 301 places gave us seven distinct groups that pretty much explained the socio-economic patterns that are to be found in our capital cities.

Based on the differences being evident in the data presented in Tables 3.1ab and 3.2ad, which provide data for each group, together with selected individual variables for each locality (Table 3.10at), the seven groups can be divided into three groups of advantaged places and four groups of disadvantaged places. On one side the advantaged groups of the extended metropolitan regions divided up into 31 new-economy extremely advantaged localities, 37 gentrifying/population change advantaged localities and 49 middle-class advantaged suburban localities. On the flip side the disadvantaged places divided into 46 working-class-battler disadvantaged localities, 66 battling family/mortgage stress disadvantaged localities, 37 old-economy extremely disadvantaged localities, and 35 peri-urban disadvantaged localities. Each of these seven groups have differences in their socio-economic performance which helps us to understand the fault lines that have emerged in metropolitan Australia (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Typology of advantaged and disadvantaged localities in Australia’s metropolitan regions

Table 3.1a Means of socio–economic variables, three groups of advantaged localities
Note: Cells that are bold and shaded indicate that this is an important differentiating variable and sets this group apart from others.
Cells that are bolded only indicate that this is an important variable, but does not individually differentiate this group from others.
Cells in italics indicate that the variables are of interest in that the mean is above or below the average, but they do not differentiate the groups from others.

Table 3.1b Means of socio–economic variables, three groups of advantaged localities (continued)
Note: Cells that are bold and shaded indicate that this is an important differentiating variable and sets this group apart from others.
Cells that are bolded only indicate that this is an important variable, but does not individually differentiate this group from others.
Cells in italics indicate that the variables are of interest in that the mean is above or below the average, but they do not differentiate the groups from others.

Table 3.2a Means of socio-economic variables, four groups of disadvantaged localities
Note: Cells that are bold and shaded indicate that this is an important differentiating variable and sets this group apart from others.
Cells that are bolded only indicate that this is an important variable, but does not individually differentiate this group from others.
Cells in italics indicate that the variables are of interest in that the mean is above or below the average, but they do not differentiate the group from others.

Table 3.2b Means of socio-economic variables, four groups of disadvantaged localities (continued)
Note: Cells that are bold and shaded indicate that this is an important differentiating variable and sets this group apart from others.
Cells that are bolded only indicate that this is an important variable, but does not individually differentiate this group from others.
Cells in italics indicate that the variables are of interest in that the mean is above or below the average, but they do not differentiate the group from others.

Table 3.2c Means of socio-economic variables, four groups of disadvantaged localities (continued)
Note: Cells that are bold and shaded indicate that this is an important differentiating variable and sets this group apart from others.
Cells that are bolded only indicate that this is an important variable, but does not individually differentiate this group from others.
Cells in italics indicate that the variables are of interest in that the mean is above or below the average, but they do not differentiate the group from others.

Table 3.2d Means of socio-economic variables, four groups of disadvantaged localities (continued)
Note: Cells that are bold and shaded indicate that this is an important differentiating variable and sets this group apart from others.
Cells that are bolded only indicate that this is an important variable, but does not individually differentiate this group from others.
Cells in italics indicate that the variables are of interest in that the mean is above or below the average, but they do not differentiate the group from others.

ADVANTAGED LOCALITIES

WELCOME TO THE WEALTH-BELT (NEW-ECONOMY EXTREMELY ADVANTAGED LOCALITIES)

Ask most residents living in Australia’s large metropolitan areas about the city’s up-market residential areas and they would in most cases be able to tell you (at least roughly) where these places are located. Call them what you want – they are referred to here as the wealth-belt – these are the localities that have been most favourably impacted by the globalisation of economic activities and the associated rise of good jobs and good remuneration (Table 3.3). These localities have their equivalents in large metropolitan regions around the world, and in many ways the wealth-belt localities in Australia have more in common with their international counterparts than they do with many of the other localities in Australian cities. Granted, while we may not yet have the plethora of high security gated communities that exist elsewhere (although there are some (Gleeson 2004a)), the exclusivity of some of these places are there all the same. The wealth-belt localities are the antithesis of Mark Peel’s places that have been made poor (Peel 1995) and it seems to many, that they are a world away from the poverty traps and public housing estates that have become policy concerns in recent years (Swan 2005).

Table 3.3 The wealth-belt localities

Not surprisingly the wealth-belt localities are heavily concentrated in Sydney. Harbour fronting localities such as Mosman (Box 3.1) and North Sydney are in this category, as are other places located in the inner-northern suburbs of the metropolitan region. But other cities also have their wealth-belt localities. For example in Melbourne Boroondara – Kew and Stonnington – Malvern are included, Brisbane has Kenmore and Chapel Hill located in the local council ward of Pullenvale, and in Perth places such as Peppermint Grove and Cottesloe make the list. Even Adelaide has some wealth-belt localities such as Burnside – South-West and Walkerville. Canberra has South Canberra with suburbs including Yarralumla and the adjoining suburb of Deakin.

Global ‘movers and shakers’ might typify the residents of the wealth-belt. Collectively the localities have the largest proportion of people employed in new-economy industries and have the largest share of educated professionals. Commensurately, the wealth-belt also has low levels of people employed in old-economy industries and on the whole there are few people with low levels of education. Not surprisingly, although there are likely to be pockets of disadvantage in these localities, or at least nearby, they are, when taken as a whole, wealthy. Wages and salaries are high and there are more high-income households than low-income households. Places such as Mosman, North Sydney, Bayside-Brighton and Peppermint Grove have among the highest average wages and salaries. And considering measures of wealth such as the availability of imputation credits or bank interest, the localities in this group, in general are significantly higher than others. Taking imputation credits alone, this group of localities received about 16 times the level of the most disadvantaged group of localities. It is not surprising that when Ann Harding considered taxation data for Australia that several localities in the wealth-belt were in Australia’s rich list (Harding et al. 2002).

Disadvantage is not something often associated with the wealth-belt localities. They have low levels of unemployment (some of the lowest in the country) and while some of the residents of these localities probably do not have to work, there are not large proportions of families where parents are not employed. Nor are there many single-parent families and there are only a handful of public housing tenants. Despite likely high mortgage repayments and high rental prices, only a small percentage of households might be considered as facing financial difficulty associated with housing costs. But this group of localities does have a high level of age dependency (some are settled inner/middle suburbs and have experienced some ageing in place) but despite this the wealth-belt has a low level of dependency in the way of aged pensions.

Box 3.1 Mosman (Sydney), a wealth-belt locality

 

Located in Sydney’s leafy North Shore, yet close to the city, Mosman has for a long time been part of Sydney’s dress circle suburbs and is a good example of a wealth-belt locality. Average individual wages and salaries are significantly above the Australian average at around $72,000 and befitting a ‘wealth-belt’ locality, taxpayers in the area on average earned $ 3,978.79 in imputation credits and $3,538.48 in bank interest. Estimates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics put the Mosman income tax bill at $641.1 million in 2001 which works out to around $36,024 per taxpayer or an effective tax rate of 25 per cent. The median price of a home according to the Property Investor magazine was 1.4 million (Australian Property Investor 2002). With a minimum deposit of 10 per cent and an interest rate of around 6.5 per cent, monthly mortgage repayments would be well in excess of $8,000. But what a house it would be. Real estate advertisements for the area are filled with descriptors such as prestigious, chic lifestyle, elegant and magnificent stately home.

New-economy workers and educated professionals dominate the occupation and industry characteristics of residents in Mosman and not surprisingly unemployment is not high (3.1 per cent unemployment and 5.8 per cent youth unemployment). The proportion of people employed in educated professional occupations is around 52 per cent (compared to only 5 per cent in vulnerable occupations) and the proportion of people with only basic levels of education is low at only 16 per cent.

The ABS index of socio-economic advantage/disadvantage places Mosman in the highest decile indicating the high socio-economic status associated with the area, and not surprisingly, there is no high incidence of disadvantaged families or households. Single-parents only account for only a small share of all family types (10 per cent) and only about 7 per cent of all families with children are counted as non-earner families. People receiving government payments in the form of rent relief or aged pensions are low and in keeping with this the ABS estimates that government transfers account for less than 1 per cent of personal income (around 60 per cent of income comes from wages and salaries with around one-quarter coming from investments). Despite the likelihood of large mortgages and rents there is little evidence of housing financial stress, with rental and mortgage financial stress being low.

BRING ON THE LATTE-SET (GENTRIFYING/POPULATION CHANGE ADVANTAGED LOCALITIES)

Inner-city localities across Australian cities have become increasingly cosmopolitan. How many times have we seen advertisements for a new inner-city residence that will bring about a ‘new way of living’ or state that ‘living in the inner city has so many benefits: you can walk to work, miss traffic jams, stroll to all the best restaurants and be part of the lively city ambience’. Like it or not the inner-city localities, together with some other near-city places have been changing, a change which many have associated with the emergence of a café society or latte-set. Most often considered in terms of gentrification and inner-city population turn around, the changes that have been underway in inner-city and near inner-city localities signal a transitional phase in the life cycle of many localities (Ley 1986; Forster 1995; Gleeson 2004b). Like the wealth-belt, these transitional ‘latte’ localities are now advantaged, but at the same time they do exhibit glimpses of a less advantaged past. The inner-city change is stimulated by widespread redevelopment and by ‘show piece’ projects (think Sydney’s Darling Harbour, Melbourne’s Docklands or Brisbane’s South Bank). Journalist Evan McHugh (1999 p. 135) made this comment about the changes:

 

These aren’t the only development’s currently underway in Australia but they are places to watch. In some, entire cities are about to spring up where once there were industrial eyesores. In others, new life will be breathed into old… the benefit is that our major capitals are regaining a heart. They are coming to life 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Regardless of exactly where these places are located, they have witnessed marked change in their socio-economic status, and a change in occupational/labour-force composition. Additionally, most such localities are also associated with changing amenity and lifestyle and the café culture. These transforming or recently transformed inner city suburban localities are becoming the sought after living environments of the ‘yuppies’, the ‘dinks’ and the empty-nesters.

The latte-set are located in obvious places like the inner cores of the big cities (Table 3.4). But as gentrifying activities have begun to move outwards from the city we have witnessed changes occurring in the near core suburbs as well. In Sydney places such as Inner-Sydney and Marrickville are included, while in Melbourne Yarra-North and Yarra-Richmond are among the latte-set advantaged localities. Brisbane has the Central Local Government Ward (containing Paddington (Box 3.2) and Red Hill) as well as the Grange Local Government Ward (Windsor and Gordon Park) and Perth has places such as Vincent and Subiaco. In Adelaide localities including the inner-city and the city-fringe localities of Norwood Payneham St Peters-West and Unley- East are included, while the inner-city of Hobart also makes the list. Canberra and Darwin have a large majority of their localities included in this group mainly as a result of the population changes that have occurred in these public service cities (these are a little anomalous to the gentrifying inner-city label, but their general profile is one of population in-movement and advantage).

Table 3.4 The latte-set localities

Like the wealth-belt localities, the latte-set localities are advantaged and have high wages and salaries and an uneven income distribution with many more high-income households than low-income households. The residents of the latte-set localities are generally well educated – very few left school at 15 years of age – and following from this not many of the employed residents are found in occupations that are characterised by vulnerable circumstances (these are jobs with low-education requirements and low-skill levels). The latte-set also has a large proportion of people employed in the mass recreation industries. Reflecting the transitional nature of these localities there are high rates of residential turnover, a figure which suggests that these areas have also witnessed significant transitions in socio-economic status.

These characteristics really set the latte-set apart from other places. However, like the other advantaged groups the latte-set is home to those with ties to the global economy (new-economy workers and educated professionals) and a low proportion of households suffering financial stress due to high mortgage repayments. They also have a low rate of outright home-ownership and reflecting the presence of YUPPIES (young urban professionals) there are low levels of aged people and commensurately a low level of aged pension recipients.

While the latte-set are advantaged, they do have some characteristics which suggest that gentrifying suburbs tend to have mixed socio-economic outcomes. This feature has been pointed out by geographer Clive Forster (1995 p. 99) who raises the potential for such places to reflect the ‘economically polarised diversity and disadvantage of the post-modern era’. The most notable example of this is the level of public housing tenants found in the latte-set localities and commensurately there are some indicators such as single-parent families and non-earner families which, while they do not differentiate the group they are none-the-less high when compared to other advantaged groups. Additionally, the latte-set localities, unlike the other advantaged places do not have a discernibly low level of unemployment.

Box 3.2 Paddington (Brisbane Central Ward), a latte-set locality

 

Once known as Tea Tree Flats, Paddington, located just to the west of the Brisbane Central Business District (CBD) and contained within the Brisbane Central Electoral Ward, would be unrecognisable to its early residents who were likely to be migrant workers and their families. For those living in Brisbane, think Paddington and you automatically think yuppie populations, fashionable cottages, shops, and of course latte-drinking people watchers. A search of the Yellow Pages reveals 24 cafes and 69 restaurants, with Caxton Street the hub of the café scene. The median house prices in 2002 stood at $343,000 and the average rent for a three bedroom house was around $300 per week.

While inner-city localities have, for much of the 1970s and 1980s, been sites of population decline, the 1990s have seen a turnaround in the population losses in these areas and Paddington was no exception. Between 1991 and 2001 the population of Paddington grew by a modest 469 people, but during the period leading up to the 2001 census the suburb witnessed significant in-migration with about 50 per cent of the population living somewhere else five years earlier.

In terms of occupation, Paddington’s workforce has high proportions of educated professionals (45 per cent), and one-quarter of workers living in Paddington are employed in new-economy industry sectors. Not surprisingly, one-third of the resident workforce commute into the CBD to work, while a large proportion of the remaining working population either work locally in Paddington or in nearby suburbs such as Milton. Employment in both mass recreation type industries and mass goods and services industries is also high, accounting for 33 per cent of employment of Paddington residents. Vulnerable occupations are not a significant feature of the workforce of Paddington, accounting for only 9 per cent of all occupations and commensurately employment in old-economy industries is only 2.1 per cent. There is some unemployment in the area with a rate of 6.7 per cent.

The wage and salary picture in Paddington, while not as good as other advantaged places, is still above average for all the metropolitan regions as a whole and at around $43,000 is slightly above the Brisbane average of $42,000. Recipients of government income payments do not, relatively speaking, figure significantly in the area with only 5.7 per cent of the population receiving aged pensions and 6 per cent of the population receiving government cash benefits. The ABS index of socio-economic advantage/disadvantage places Paddington in the top decile, indicating high socio-economic status. Single-parent families only make up around 13 per cent of all families, and families with no employed parents, about 9 per cent. While house prices and rents are relatively high, households suffering from either mortgage financial stress or rental financial stress are less than the average at 5.9 per cent and 16.8 per cent respectively. In tenure terms private renters make up the majority of households accounting for 40.6 per cent, while outright owners and purchasers account for around 23 per cent each.

MIDDLE-CLASS SUBURBIA (MIDDLE-CLASS ADVANTAGED SUBURBAN LOCALITIES)

Some of Australia’s suburbs have a certain middle-classness to them (there are also others that have a distinctively working-class battler tag). These places are not the most advantaged, but nor are they disadvantaged. They include places in which respondents to the ‘middle Australia project’ by Michael Pusey (2003) might live, and some are the locations of suburbs that contain the McMansions where commentators including journalist Janet Hawley argue that people ‘love cocooning inside their McMansions, which are like castles, fun factories and mini resorts in one’ (Hawley 2003 p. 25). Others such as Bill Randolph (2004 p. 489) referring to the location of some of these places on the fringe of the city remark that they are the ‘new urban rings of affluence, aspiration and security’, a sentiment reflected in the work of Brendan Gleeson from Griffith University (Gleeson 2004b). While these places are not the most advantaged localities in metropolitan Australia, they have managed to perform relatively well in socio-economic terms.

All the state capitals have these localities (Table 3.5ab). For example in Sydney Sutherland Shire East and West and Concord are included, while in Melbourne Monash – Waverley East and Glen Eira – Caulfield (Box 3.3) make the list. Jamboree Local Council Ward (with Jamboree Heights and Sinnamon Park) and Chandler Local Council Ward (with Carina Heights and Carindale) in Brisbane and Melvile and East Fremantle in Perth are also included. Adelaide’s Mitcham Hills and Prospect make the list, while Hobart has one place included in this group – Kingborough.

Table 3.5a Middle class suburbia

Table 3.5b Middle class suburbia (continued)

There are some high wages and salaries in this group and there are more high-income households than low-income households. Reflecting the advantaged position, this group has high proportions of educated professionals and new-economy workers, although they are certainly not the localities of the global movers and shakers. This group also has below average levels of people with low education and commensurately, the group does not have a high proportion of people employed in occupations associated with vulnerable jobs, or employed in old-economy industries. Unemployment in these places, both in general and with reference to youth unemployment, is reasonably low by metropolitan standards. Other indicators of disadvantage are also low, with below average proportions of non-earner and single-parent families and low levels of mortgage financial stress and public housing tenants.

The middle-class suburbia localities are also established places. In the life cycle of the metropolitan area they have seen some ageing in places reflected in the above average levels of age dependency – a fact also reflected in the above average level of home ownership and the below average level of residential in-movement. Despite this, there is no strong reliance on government payments in the form of pensions and, additionally, there are not high levels of people receiving rental assistance.

Box 3.3 Glen Eira – Caulfield (Melbourne), middle-class suburbia

 

The Statistical Local Area (SLA) of Glen Eira – Caulfield, located around 9 kilometres south-east of the Melbourne CBD, is one of the group of advantaged middle-class suburban localities. The SLA, with its focus on the suburb of Caulfield and including surrounding suburbs of Caulfield North and Caulfield South, is among one of Melbourne’s established residential suburbs dating back to the early 1900s when the City of Caulfield was first proclaimed. Caulfield is the location of Melbourne’s Caulfield Racecourse, home to the Melbourne Racing Club and the annual Caulfield Cup.

Typically middle class suburbia is associated with high incomes and Glen Eira – Caulfield is no exception with average wages and salaries sitting at around $37,000 and 1.38 high-income households to every low-income household. The ABS places Glen Eira – Caulfied in the top decile on their index of relative socio-economic advantage/disadvantage which measures aspects of socio-economic conditions in a given area. While Caulfield has a high level of age dependency – a measure of aged people relative to the working age population (23.3 per cent) – pension recipients are about average (9 per cent), with the majority of income coming from wages, salaries (68.4 per cent) and investments (15.9 per cent).

Those who are earning the wages and salaries are more likely to be educated professionals (40.9 per cent) but there is a proportion whose occupation might be characterised as vulnerable (10.3 per cent). In 2001 over a quarter were employed in new-economy industries, with the majority of other workers being employed in mass goods and services industries (37 per cent). Unemployment is below the average at 5.7 per cent and youth unemployment is 11.7 per cent. Other indicators of disadvantage are also low with only 13 per cent of families being single-parent families and only 10.3 per cent of families with children having no employed parent. Public housing stock is low with less than 1 per cent of the total stock being accounted for by this tenure group. The largest share of housing tenure is outright owners, a sign of the level of older population that lives in the area. While rental financial stress is slightly above average (22.9 per cent), households suffering mortgage financial stress is below average (8.6 per cent).

DISADVANTAGED LOCALITIES

THEY CALL THEM HOWARD’S BATTLERS (WORKING-CLASS-BATTLER DISADVANTAGED LOCALITIES)

The economic restructuring that has characterised the changing occupational structure within Australia has impacted on the traditional working-class localities in the metropolitan regions. They are suburbs firmly identified with the working-class of old, and are now characterised as working-class battlers (Table 3.6). They are Howard’s battlers; localities that were once considered labor voting and have shifted their allegiances. These places are among the suburbs of ex-Labor leader Mark Latham’s aspirational class or what sociologist Gabrielle Gwyther (2002) refer to as ‘aspirational communities’. These are, as one commentator has put it:

 

the working people, tradesmen and small businesspeople who tossed out [Labor Prime Minister] Paul Keating in 1996 over his political correctness, his high interest rates and the 1991 recession we had to have. They drifted back to Labor in 1998 when they were afraid of the GST, but returned to Mr. Howard with a vengeance in 2001 after his big spending promises, the opening war on terror and the boat people incidents (Catley 2004 p. 1).

The 2004 federal election was a further reflection of this phenomenon.

Table 3.6 Howard’s battlers

The working-class-battler communities include places such as Blacktown – North and Penrith (Box 3.4) in Sydney and Knox – South and Hume – Cragieburn in Melbourne. The local government wards of Bracken Ridge and Acacia Ridge in Brisbane are included and in Adelaide Tea Tree Gully – North and Onkaparinga – Woodcroft make the list. Over in Western Australia, Joondalup – North and Mundaring (both in Perth) are included and in Darwin there is Litchfield. Spatially many are located across the middle and outer regions of the metropolitan areas and have been influenced in part by the suburbanisation of office functions and high-technology manufacturing that has been a feature of Australian cities (Forster 1995).

The working-class-battler localities are disadvantaged, at least in income terms. The level of wages and salaries is below the average for all the extended metropolitan regions and the ratio of high-income households to low-income households is also below average. Measures of wealth are low with both the level of imputation credit and the level of interest received per taxpayer being below the metropolitan average. Taking income alone, this group has an average of $32,174 per annum, around $1,800 less than the average for the whole of the metropolitan regions combined.

Despite disadvantage in terms of income and wealth (a characteristic this group shares with the other disadvantaged groups) the working-class-battler localities generally have good employment outcomes with low levels of unemployment and above average levels of labour-force participation. This group of localities are firmly blue collar working class. The group has an above average level of people with low education levels and is more likely to have people employed in vulnerable occupations that are low skill jobs that do not require any post-school qualifications, than educated professional occupations. Also, there is some employment in industries associated with old-economy functions, such as manufacturing (although this does not necessarily differentiate this group from other groups), construction or distribution and transport sectors.

Considering other social variables, indicators such as the concentration of single-parent families, non-earner families, households in public rental and aged people are low, and the group of localities does not have high proportions of people receiving government transfer payments in the form of aged pensions or rental assistance. The working-class-battler localities have low proportions of newly arrived migrants and not surprisingly have low levels of people with poor English skills.

Box 3.4 Penrith (Sydney), working-class battlers

 

Penrith, located on the outer western fringe of the Sydney metropolitan area, belongs to the group of working-class-battler localities. According to David Burchell (2002 p. 4) the area is ‘a solidly blue-collar town, loosely woven together out of a patchwork of struggling flat-dwellers, prospering tradespeople and cashed up evacuees from the newly-gentrified inner-city searching for the great Australian backyard’. This SLA has a wide range of economic activities ranging from manufacturing to business services. Average wages and salaries in Penrith are slightly below the mean for the metropolitan regions ($33,432) and there are slightly less high-income households than low-income households (a ratio of 0.76 to 1). The battlers work hard for their money with the majority of income coming through paid employment; they are certainly not the investment capitals of the metropolises with both interest received and imputation credits being below average and investment only accounting for around 2 per cent of income. The term ‘average’ also describes the ABS index of socio-economic advantage/disadvantage which has Penrith towards the middle; that is not advantaged or disadvantaged.

David Burchell’s ‘blue-collar’ tag is reflected in the occupation and work characteristics of Penrith. There are below average levels of people who might be characterised as educated professionals (16.9 per cent) and the level of people characterised as working in vulnerable occupations are above average (18.9 per cent). New-economy workers are not in abundance but employment in areas such as construction, distribution and transport are above average, as too is employment in industries such as retailing and other services. A feature of the working-class-battler localities is the high level of labour-force engagement and Penrith has a participation rate of around 66 per cent, with unemployment at around 5.9 per cent. Youth unemployment is also low at 10.9 per cent. People with low educations are well represented with over 50 per cent of the population leaving school in Year 10.

Penrith goes against the grain of the average working-class-battler localities in terms of other indicators of disadvantage. It has above average rates of single-parent families (17.5 per cent) and non-earner families (13.6 per cent) and has above average rates of public housing (4.4 per cent). Despite this the locality has low levels of age dependency and is generally not highly reliant on government welfare payments with social income accounting for only around 9 per cent.

BATTLING SUBURBIA (BATTLING FAMILY/MORTGAGE STRESS DISADVANTAGED LOCALITIES)

Howard’s other battlers are those disadvantaged families living in the mortgage belt in the middle and outer suburbs. These are likely to be places that have tended to have an association with old-economy manufacturing-based employment, but are not quite as disadvantaged as the most disadvantaged places in our cities. Some of these localities are the places where families have chosen to live in an attempt to get a foothold in the housing market. Record low interest rates have helped. But while these places may not necessarily be localities where households are one repayment away from homelessness (Briton 2003), they may be the places that Wayne Swan (2005) refers to when he says that many families are being left behind in the race for prosperity. They are also part of the new suburbanisation of disadvantage, part of what Griffith University’s Brendan Gleeson (2004b p. 7) might regard as the ‘concentration of an expanding postmodern pauper class’.

The battling-suburbia localities are found across all six state capitals (Table 3.7ab). In Sydney, Bankstown, Canterbury and Liverpool are included while the Melbourne battlers include Monash – South-West, Darebin – Preston and Maribyrnong. Brisbane battlers include Pine Rivers Shire (with Albany Creek and Strathpine) and Northgate Local Government Ward (with suburbs of Wavell Heights and Virginia), and in Perth Bassendean and Rockingham (Box 3.5) are included. In Adelaide, the battler localities are represented by Marion – Central and West Torrens – East, while in Hobart there is only one, the SLA of Clarence.

table 3.7a Battler suburbia localities

table 3.7b Battler suburbia localities (continued)

Families doing it tough characterise the battler suburbs. What is most notable about this group of localities is the above average level of disadvantaged families including single-parent families and non-earner families. The other distinguishing characteristic is the level of mortgage financial stress which is also above the average. The localities in this group have low wages and salaries and there are more low-income households than high-income households. They are not particularly wealthy, with taxation data showing that the group as a whole has low levels of imputation credits and bank interest received. The workforce of the battling-suburbia localities is characterised by below average levels of labour-force participation, and those who are working are more likely to be employed in vulnerable occupations and industries that make or transport goods, rather than in industries associated with high end services. Given the occupational makeup of the battling-suburbia localities, it is not surprising that that there are high proportions of people with low formal education, and further reflecting disadvantage, this group of localities has above average levels of age dependency and public housing tenants.

Box 3.5 Rockingham (Perth), a battler-suburbia locality

 

Located 46 kilometres to the south of the Perth CBD, Rockingham is part of the Perth – Kwinana commuter belt now considered by many as part of the city’s extended suburbs, with people doing a considerable daily commute into the larger Perth region. Rockingham’s claim to fame is that it was the site of the first permanent European settlement on the Swan River and today its claim to fame might be that it is located in the seat held by the Federal Labor Party’s Kim Beazley.

Reflecting the disadvantaged tag, Rockingham’s workers earn on average $31,627 per annum and there are more low-income households than high-income households. Incomes come mainly from paid employment (approximately 70 per cent), but there are also around 14 per cent who rely on government welfare payments. The index of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage complied by the ABS places Rockingham in the fifth decile, so it is not highly disadvantaged, but it is not advantaged either.

Like the average for the battling suburbs, Rockingham’s occupational and work characteristics reflect less association with the new-economy and more of a focus on other activities. Educated professionals account for only about 16 per cent of all workers, while those in vulnerable occupations account for over one-fifth. Employment in new-economy industries accounts for 11 per cent of employment, but Rockingham’s residents are more likely to be employed in mass goods and services, distribution and wholesaling or old-economy industries, with the latter employing around 15 per cent of all workers. Labour-force participation is below average at 57 per cent and unemployment sits at about 10 per cent. Almost 50 per cent of people who have completed their educations did so at Year 10. Indicators of disadvantaged families in Rockingham such as single-parent families and non-earner families are about average with rates of 15.7 per cent and 11.8 per cent respectively.

THESE PLACES ARE DOING IT TOUGH (OLD-ECONOMY EXTREMELY DISADVANTAGED LOCALITIES)

Continual rounds of economic restructuring have left some metropolitan communities shell-shocked. These places are the real battlers in the metropolitan regions (Table 3.8). Just as most people would know the locations of wealth-belt places, so too they would be able to give a list of the more disadvantaged residential locations. Some places have become well known because of the range of social problems that seem to be concentrated there, but others just struggle along. Many of them tend to have concentrations of multiple disadvantages whereby one social problem is compounded by other problems. While recent years have seen some improvements and local boosterist activities have resulted in some positive changes, these battling localities remain. The rising tide has lifted all the boats; some are just more buoyant than others. While these localities do not constitute the ‘outcast ghettos’ discussed by those writing on cities in the United States (Wilson 1987; Wilson 1997; Marcuse 1997), none-the-less they dramatically illustrate the changing nature of the suburban industrial communities that were established during the post-World War II Fordist phase of expansion. For these localities, the post-Fordist economy has caused the old established economic and social geography to become obsolete as they are faced with new forces of production (Searle 1993). This is well illustrated by Mark Peel’s case study of Elizabeth in Adelaide:

 

The combination of economic growth and adventurous public planning that underpinned the workers’ city did not last. Crisis first arrived in the form of economic downturn of the mid 1970s. That was followed by restructurings which severed subsequent recovery from job creation… In this new environment places like Elizabeth faced an uncertain future… Their role in a reorganised and restructured economy would depend upon their ability to adjust, to attract and hold on to new investment and new kinds of jobs (Peel 1995 p. 156).

Table 3.8 Places doing it tough

All the state capital cities have these localities that are doing it tough. They include Auburn and Fairfield located in Sydney and Dandenong and Hume – Broadmeadows in Melbourne. In Brisbane the outer-metropolitan localities of Ipswich Shire and Logan Shire make the list, while in Adelaide Playford – Elizabeth (Box 3.6) and Onkaparinga – Hackham are included. Perth has localities including Kwinana and Gosnells, while in Hobart, Brighton and Sorell are included.

The factors that point to the extreme disadvantage of these localities lie in the labour-force and occupational structure and the low income and wealth levels. This group has the highest proportion of people employed in vulnerable occupations and people employed in old-economy industries. Conversely the group also has low proportions (the lowest of any group) of new-economy workers and people classified as educated professionals. Unemployment is a significant problem for this group of localities. While the national unemployment rate was 7.4 per cent in 2001, this group had a rate of 11.4 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of around 19 per cent, with some places including Elizabeth in Adelaide having rates in excess of this. Labour-force participation is low and between 1991 and 2001 this rate dropped lower again. This group of localities have low-wage levels and when comparing high- and low-income households the group has a low ratio. The level of imputation credit and interest received is also well below the average.

Labour-force characteristics and income are only one range of indicators pointing to the level of disadvantage of this group. The localities in this group have high rates of single-parent families and families with no employed parent. There is a high proportion of households living in public housing. Many of those households who are paying off a housing loan are paying significant proportions of their income on repayments and suffering mortgage financial stress.

Box 3.6 Playford – Elizabeth (Adelaide), a place doing it tough

 

Playford – Elizabeth, located approximately 25 kilometres north of the Adelaide CBD was built in the 1950s as a satellite town of Adelaide, developed mainly by the South Australian Housing Trust as a decentralised industrial city based on the protected motor vehicle industry. It was the first and probably last ‘new town’ in metropolitan Australia. It is now part of the Adelaide metropolitan area, being swallowed up by the northern push of urban sprawl. Elizabeth is a dramatic example of the many emerging communities of disadvantage that have resulted from the restructuring and recession across Australia. Mark Peel (1995 p. 1) describes Elizabeth as ‘a place made poor, a place for the people who live along the bad edge of a changing Australia’.

The tell-tale indicators of disadvantage are clear. The occupation and employment profile of Elizabeth’s workers points to the driving force behind much of the locality’s decline in fortune. Educated professionals account for only 9.3 per cent, while at the other end of the spectrum, vulnerable occupations account for one-third of all employment. New-economy workers are thin on the ground, while people working in old-economy sectors account for almost 23 per cent. But those who are working is only part of the story. Labour-force participation is well below average; almost 50 per cent of the working age population are counted outside the formal labour-force. Unemployment is high at over 20 per cent and the level of youth unemployment is over 30 per cent.

Incomes are reflective of labour market outcomes. Average wages and salaries are $27,869 and there are almost 13 low-income households to every high-income household. Not surprisingly, Elizabeth is in the bottom decile on the ABS index of socio-economic advantage/disadvantage and over a third of income is obtained from government payments. Moreover, the average tax bill, according to the ABS, is around $5,700 per taxpayer which represents an effective tax rate of around 16 per cent. Investments only account for around 1 per cent of income, a figure reflected in the low levels of imputation credits ($56) and bank interest received ($231).

Public housing accounts for a large share of the tenure in Elizabeth (around 27 per cent) and single-parent families and families with no employed parent are over represented. Single-parents account for 30 per cent of all families and a quarter of families with children have no employed parent. Given the income and other problems, it is not surprising that levels of housing financial stress are also high.

THE CITY COMES TO THE COUNTRY (PERI-URBAN DISADVANTAGED LOCALITIES)

The hinterlands of our large metropolitan regions have, over at least the past decade, become slightly less country and more like extensions of the urban environment. These peri-urban regions, where the city comes to the country, are the locations of hobby farms and retirement communities or are tourism-based localities. Often all three are mixed. They are also suburbs in waiting. These places are, according to University of Western Sydney’s Ray Bunker (Bunker and Holloway 2002 p. 66), the ‘shadow that moves outwards as the city spreads and extends its influence into its immediate hinterland’. Some of the localities are the often referred to ‘sea-change’ or ‘tree-change’ places where jaded suburbanites go when they want to downshift but still remain in relative close proximity to the benefits of a large city. They are the places that allow you to escape the rat race, but still remain a spectator. Relative to other areas in the metropolitan regions peri-urban localities are disadvantaged. Granted not as disadvantaged as other places and in many respects these places are characterised by different disadvantage profiles.

The large state capitals all have expanding peri-urban regions (Table 3.9). In Sydney there is Wingecarribee and Greater Lithgow, while in Melbourne Mornington Peninsula – South and Hepburn – East are included. Caloundra, to the north of Brisbane and the localities making up the fringe of Brisbane (these include Kilcoy and Esk) are included, and in Adelaide there are localities in the Barossa Valley such as Angaston and Tanunda as well as places a little closer to the CBD such as Onkaparinga Hills to the South. In Perth Gingin (north from the centre of Perth) (Box 3.7) makes the list as does York to the east of Perth.

Table 3.9 Peri-urban disadvantaged localities

In terms of employment this group has mixed outcomes but reflecting the ‘countryness’ of many of the localities included in the group, they have a significant proportion of their working population employed in agriculture. They also have above average proportions of people employed in occupations that might be associated with vulnerable jobs, and like the other disadvantaged groups have low levels of educated professionals. The peri-urban populations are generally considered to be fed by internal migration rather than international migration. As such these places have small numbers of recent arrivals into the country and hence only small numbers of people with poor English skills.

The disadvantage in this group is seen in the above average proportions of people with low education levels and low incomes plus there are relatively low levels of labour-force participation. Home ownership is above average, but at the same time there are many households facing mortgage financial stress. The peri-urban regions are also aged localities with an above average level of age dependency. For example, many places such as South Australia’s Victor Harbor are known for their retirement populations, and commensurately these places have an above average proportion of people receiving an aged pension.

Box 3.7 Gingin (Perth), where the city meets the country

 

Located 83 kilometres north of Perth, Gingin is one of the oldest towns in Western Australia, with European settlement first occurring around 1840. Gingin is still associated with agriculture including sheep, cattle and wheat farming but is increasingly connected to Perth’s economy through daily work commutes to the outlying suburbs.

The occupational characteristics of Gingin are dominated by agriculture with one-third of all workers having jobs in this sector (sheep and wheat farming are obvious employers but there is also a crayfish farm). Employment in the new-economy sectors is low accounting for around 8 per cent of employment and commensurately educated professional occupations are below average at 16.2 per cent. The other significant employer is the mass goods and services sector which accounts for 22 per cent of employment. Almost half of the working age population are not in the labour-force and unemployment is generally high (8.2 per cent). There is however a below average level of youth unemployment (10.22 per cent).

Average wages in Gingin are at about $27,000 per annum and there are three times more low-income households than high-income households. Around 50 per cent of incomes come from paid employment, but reflecting the nature of agriculture a further quarter is accounted for by people with their own businesses. Government payments account for around 13 per cent. The ABS places Gingin in the second lowest decile on its index of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. There are 16.3 per cent of housing purchasers suffering from financial stress. Other markers of disadvantage are not present in Gingin with only 10.8 per cent of all families being single-parents and only 6.8 per cent of families having no employed parent. Public housing accounts for just 2 per cent of all tenures.

SUMMARY

We have considered in this chapter the urban mosaic of advantage and disadvantage that exists across Australia’s extended metropolitan regions. The advantaged and disadvantaged localities are most often differentiated in terms of outcomes that have been a direct response to the changing structure of the Australian economy, and the way we work or don’t work. Advantaged places have been able to benefit from positive changes in the labour market, or at the very least have not been adversely affected by the negative outcomes. The new-economy extremely advantaged localities (the wealth-belt) have certainly been able to ride the pace of change and the positive changes associated with the new economic mix have benefited them. The rise in ‘good jobs’ has been good to many of these localities and to many of the residents in the labour force. In contrast, the economic tide associated with the changes noted in Chapter Two has not been so kind to the disadvantaged communities. Some have been seriously impacted by the loss of manufacturing-based jobs and the inability to move into new-economy industries. These have also been the localities that have felt the change in unemployment rates the most. And it is these places that have also suffered from the inability of transformed families, and the changing welfare state, to supply adequate support in time of difficulty thereby further resulting in increased disadvantage. Some of these areas are the places that sociologists and others lament suffer the impacts of concentrated disadvantage. Places where entire families are at risk of falling into increasing rounds of social disadvantage through the impacts of weakened social networks and intergenerational transfers of disadvantage. In between, there are a range of other groups, some of which are advantaged in some ways and some others that represent the quintessential Aussie battler suburbs.

Of course, advantage and disadvantage is a feature of all cities, however there are some differences in the picture presented in this chapter. Considering the metropolitan regions and in particular Canberra and Darwin – the public service cities – that have mostly advantaged places, one would suspect that pockets of disadvantage do exist, after all it can’t be all that good, can it? Sydney, Australia’s undisputed global city also does pretty well. There is both advantage and disadvantage in Sydney, although the Olympic city does have a much higher proportion of advantaged places than it does disadvantaged places, and this is especially the case when we consider those new-economy communities. As one observer has put it:

 

Sydney has become a mighty place that absorbs everything; it is big enough to bend and blend whatever comes its way, be it ideas, money, dreams, fads, migrants or scams. It is less like the rest of Australia and more like other affluent metropolises. Sydney leaves the other state capitals for dead (Dusevic 2000 p. 54).

Of the other capitals most have disadvantaged communities, although the difference between Melbourne and the sun-belt cities of Brisbane and Perth, and the rust-belt cities of Adelaide and Hobart are stark. Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth have the signs of classic polarising cities with more evenly divided advantage and disadvantage. The two rust-belt capitals on the other hand are characterised by relatively more disadvantaged localities than advantaged localities.

Table 3.10a Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10b Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10c Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10d Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10e Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10f Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10g Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10h Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10i Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10j Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10k Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10l Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10m Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10n Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10o Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10p Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10q Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10r Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10s Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

Table 3.10t Selected individual variables, metropolitan localities (continued)
Source: 1 ABS Integrated Regional Data Base; 2 ABS CData 2001.

REFERENCES

Australian Property Investor. ‘Around the country: New South Wales’. Australian Property Investor 2002; October/November: pp. 84–95.

Baum, S; O’Connor, K. ‘Regional population and employment change in Australia 1991–2001: Inertia in the face of rapid change?’ GeoJournal 2005; 62: 85–94.

Briton, B. ‘Tightening of the mortgage belt: the Australian dream of home ownership’. The Guardian, 2003 December 10 [cited 2005 Jul 10]. Available from: http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1167housing.html.

Brenchley, F. ‘Slicker city: urban rivalry’. The Bulletin 2003; November 25: p. 12.

Bunker, R; Holloway, D. ‘More than fringe benefits: the values, policies, issues and expectations embedded in Sydney’s rural–urban fringe’. Australian Planner 2002; 39 (2): 66–71.

Burchell, D. ‘The western Sydney factor’. Australian Policy Online. 2002 [cited 2004 Mar 11]. Available from: http://www.apo.org.au.

Catley, B. ‘Oz election: Howard’s expensive battlers’. The National Business Review On Line, 2004 [cited 2004 Oct 5]. Available from: http://www.nbr.co.nz.

Dusevic, T. ‘In search of Sydney past: for one lifelong resident, the city is losing its identity as it becomes more like other global cities and less like the rest of Australia’. Time International 2000 July 31; 156: 54.

Forster, C. Australian Cities: Continuity and Change. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 1995.

Gleeson, B. ‘The suburbs. Fear in the tank, hope on the horizon. What’s driving suburban Australia’. Australian Policy Online, 2004a [cited 2005 Jul 8]. Available from: www.apo.org.au.

Gleeson, B. ‘The future of Australia’s cities: Making space for hope’. Professorial Lecture. Griffith University; 2004b February 19.

Gwyther, G. ‘Socio–spatial differentiation and the master planned community in a global city’. Research paper no. 8, Urban Frontiers Program. Sydney: University of Western Sydney; 2002.

Harding, A; Greenwell, H; Blake, M. AMP:NATSEM Income and Wealth Report, Issue 1. Canberra: AMP Life Limited; 2002.

Hawley, J. ‘Be it ever so humongous’. The Sydney Morning Herald, Good Weekend Supplement. Sydney: 2003 August 23: pp. 24–31.

Ley, D. ‘Urban structure and urban restructuring’. Urban Geographer 1986; 7: 530–535.

McHugh, E. ‘Metropolis now’. Panorama 1999 December: 135–139.

Marcuse, P. ‘The enclave, the citadel and the ghetto: What has changed in the post-Fordist US city’. Urban Affairs Review 1997: 33; 228–264.

Peel, M. Good Times, Hard Times: The Past and the Future in Elizabeth. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press; 1995.

Pusey, M. The Experience of Middle Australia: The Dark Side of Economic Reform. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

Randolph, W. ‘The changing Australian city: New patterns, new policies and new research needs’. Urban Policy and Research 2004; 22: 481–493.

Salt, B. The Big Shift: Welcome to the Third Australian Culture. Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books; 2001.

Searle, G. ‘The spatial restructuring of Sydney’s economy, 1981–1991: Case studies of 12 industries/activities’. Paper presented at Regional Science Association Conference (ANZ Section); 1993.

Swan, W. Postcode: the Splintering of a Nation. North Melbourne: Pluto Press Australia; 2005.

Wilson, W. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner-City, the Underclass and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987.

Wilson, W. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 1997.

Cite this chapter as: Baum, Scott; O’Connor, Kevin; Stimson, Robert. ‘Suburbs of advantage and disadvantage’. Fault Lines Exposed. Melbourne: Monash University ePress; 2005. pp. 03.1–03.47.

 

Fault Lines Exposed: Advantage and Disadvantage Across Australia’s Settlement System

   by Scott Baum, Kevin O’Connor & Robert Stimson