08 8584 8000
Navigation

Council Profile

Population & Demographics - October 2014

The townships of Loxton and Waikerie are the main service centres for the Council district and it also contains smaller towns and communities of Moorook, Kingston on Murray and various other outlying areas. 

The major towns, Loxton and Waikerie, are approximately 250 and 175 kilometres north‐east from metropolitan Adelaide respectively with the District encompassing an area of approximately 8,000 square kilometres.

Agriculture is the backbone of the economy with the District contributing significantly to the national output of food and beverage of the nation. Predominant crops include grapes and citrus, but also include nuts, berries and other ranges of fruit and vegetables. There is also a significant dryland farming contingent within the district comprising production of cereals, wool and meat.

Significant value added activities also occur locally with food and beverages being processed, packaged, stored and distributed within and from the local area.

Tourism also plays an important part in the mix of the local economy, with an increasing and coordinated effort evident in this sector in recent years. The district offers a good range of health, education and retail facilities which support local industries and employ a significant number of local residents. Locals also enjoy a wide range of high‐quality sporting facilities.

A summary of Councils finances for the 2014/15 Financial Year is below.

  • General Rate Revenue           $11.31 million
  • Operating Expenditure           $18.51 million
  • Operating Revenue                $18.59 million
  • Capital Expenditure                $4.56 million

The Council has the responsibility for maintaining approximately 396 km’s of sealed roads and 1,947 km’s of unsealed roads (formed, unformed, and sheeted roads) within the District as well as 437 km’s of State Government controlled roads that may require kerb and gutter maintenance.

Population & Demographics

Population and Age Profile

Age Group

2001

2006

2011

Population

%

Population

%

Population

%

0-4 years

798

6.7

698

6.0

618

5.5

5-14 years

1784

15.0

1688

14.5

1529

13.5

15-19 years

726

6.1

734

6.3

757

6.7

20-24 years

582

4.9

498

4.3

488

4.3

25-34 years

1500

12.6

1241

10.7

1029

9.1

35-44 years

1791

15.0

1631

14.1

1465

13.0

45-54 years

1736

14.6

1705

14.7

1631

14.5

55-64 years

1225

10.3

1502

12.9

1641

14.5

65-74 years

832

7.0

922

7.9

1161

10.3

75-84 years

618

5.2

739

6.3

636

5.6

85 years +

225

1.9

246

2.1

331

2.9

TOTAL

11879

100

11604

100

11287

100

 

Median Age

38

 

41

 

43

 

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2001, 2006, 2011 Census

The population of the District Council of Loxton Waikerie in 2011 was 11,287, of which 5660 (or 50.1%) were males and 5627 (or 49.9%) were females. The overall population has reduced by 2.7% (317 people) between 2006 and 2011. The population decline between 2001 and 2011 was 5.0% (592 people). The Council is aiming to address this population decline by facilitating population growth through regional development and economic diversification.

A significant change in the age profile is the ageing of the population. This is evident in the median age of the Council’s population increasing from 38 in 2001 to 43 in 2011. The median age for South Australia (39) and Australia (37) had not increased during the period 2006 to 2011. The ageing population is also identified by the percentage of people over 65 increasing from 14.1% in 2001 to 15.8% in 2011. As a result, provision of support and services for the elderly is a priority. Conversely the percentage of population under 20’s went from 27.8% to 25.7% during the same period. However, it should be noted that with over 25% of the population under 20, this is quite substantial and therefore support and services for youths in the district is also a priority.

The indigenous population of the Council area in 2011 was 232 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Of these, 116 (or 50.0%) were male and 116 (or 50.0%) were female. The median age was 23 years. The indigenous population represents 2% of the overall population.

Township Populations

 

2011

Township

Population

Median Age

Loxton

4365

43

Waikerie

2715

44

Loxton North

871

38

KOM & Moorook

763

43

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2011 Census

The following table provides a summary of the 2011 population in the main townships and districts across the Council area.

Township/District

Males

Females

Total Population

% of Population

Median Age

Loxton

2116

2249

4365

38.7

43

Waikerie

1329

1386

2715

24.1

44

Loxton North

459

412

871

7.7

38

Kingston on Murray

335

310

645

5.7

42

Paisley

210

201

411

3.6

43

Golden Heights

200

178

378

3.3

44

Taylorville

187

147

334

3.0

39

Wunkar

138

131

269

2.4

46

Paruna

101

97

198

1.8

49

Bugle Hut

88

83

171

1.5

41

Moorook South

63

55

118

1.0

47

Taplan

61

53

114

1.0

41

Council Wide

5660

5627

11287

100

43

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2011 Census

A significant proportion of the population, 62.8%, resides in the two major townships, Loxton and Waikerie.

Birthplace, Language & Ancestry

 

Council District

South Australia

Birthplace

Population

%

%

Australia

9950

88.1

73.3

Elsewhere

1337

11.9

26.7

 

 

Ancestry

Australian

4697

31.8

26.5

English

4157

28.1

29.3

German

2406

16.3

6.0

Scottish

773

5.2

6.2

Irish

687

4.7

5.8

 

Language Spoken at Home

English Only

10382

92.0

81.6

Two or more Languages Spoken

261

5.8

16.3

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2011 Census

The above table indicates that the population of the Council district is not very culturally diverse with a significant percentage of people born in Australia (88.1%) and English speaking only (92.0%). This is a much higher percentage than for the rest of SA whereby 73.3% of people are born in Australia and 81.6% of people are English speaking only.

The ancestry of the population is predominantly Australian and from the United Kingdom however there is also quite a significant amount of people with German ancestry compared to the rest of SA.

In the Council area 88.1% of people were born in Australia. The most common responses of other countries of birth were; England 2.3%, India 0.9%, New Zealand 0.5%, Germany 0.5% and Greece 0.5%.

Other languages spoken at home included; Greek 1.0%, Punjabi 0.9%, Italian 0.7%, German 0.3% and Hazaraghi 0.2%.

Religious Affiliation

Religious Affiliation

Council District

South Australia

Population

%

%

Lutheran

2610

23.1

4.5

No Religion

2609

23.1

28.1

Anglican

1332

11.8

12.6

United Church

1270

11.3

8.9

Catholic

1243

11.0

19.9

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2011 Census

There is a significantly higher percentage of Lutherans in the Council district compared to the state. This can be directly attributed to the relatively high percentage of people with German ancestry in the Council district. These figures are indicative of the history of the state where some 20,000 German Lutherans migrated to SA between 1838 and 1860, establishing settlements at Klemzig, Hahndorf, Lobethal and in the Barossa Valley. With the expansion of settlement the German Lutherans began to spread out across the state in search of larger landholdings, many settling in the Council district.

More people affiliate to a religion in the Council area (76.9%) compared to the overall state (71.9%).

Marital Status

The following table indicates the marital status of people as a percentage of the population over the age of 15.

Marital Status

Council District

South Australia

Population

%

%

Married

5010

54.8

48.4

Separated

259

2.8

3.0

Divorced

683

7.5

9.1

Widowed

708

7.7

6.3

Never Married

2480

27.1

33.3

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2011 Census

There is a higher percentage of people that are married in the Council district compared to the state and there is also a lesser percentage of people divorced or separated.

Selected Averages

Selected Average

Council District

South Australia

2006

2011

2011

Median individual income ($/week)

404

458

534

Median family income ($/week)

1020

1070

1330

Median household income ($/week)

759

830

1044

Median housing loan repayment ($/month)

780

1062

1500

Median Rent

114

135

220

Average household size

2.4

2.3

2.4

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2011 Census

Whilst the median income (individual, family & household) in the Council district is less than the median incomes for the state the people living in the Council district also pay much less for housing loan repayments and rent.

Dwellings, Tenure & Households

Dwelling Type

Council District

South Australia

Number

%

%

Occupied Private Dwelling

4474

84.5

88.1

Unoccupied Private Dwelling

818

15.5

11.9

Occupied Private Dwellings

Dwelling Structure

Number

%

%

Detached Dwelling

4092

90.4

79.9

Semi Detached, Row or Terrace, Townhouse

232

5.2

10.7

Flat, Unit, Apartment

132

3.0

8.9

Other Dwellings

63

1.4

0.5

 

Tenure of Dwelling

Number

%

%

Owned Outright

1766

39.5

32.8

Owned with a Mortgage

1368

30.6

35.3

Rented

1143

25.6

27.9

Other Tenure Type

69

1.5

1.4

Tenure not Stated

126

2.8

2.5

 

Household Composition

Number

%

%

Family Household

3134

70.0

68.5

Single (or lone) Person Household

1268

28.3

27.9

Group Household

72

1.6

3.6

 

Household Income

Number

%

%

Less than $600 gross weekly income

 

35.3

27.7

More than $3000 gross weekly income

 

3.3

7.3

 

Weekly Rental Payments

Number

%

%

Households where rent payments are less than 30% of household income

 

93.8

90.7

Households where rent payments are more than 30% of household income

 

6.2

9.3

 

Mortgage Monthly Repayments

Number

%

%

Households where mortgage payments are less than 30% of household income

 

93.9

91.2

Households where mortgage payments are more than 30% of household income

 

6.1

8.8

Source: ABS, Community Profile Series, 2011 Census

SEIFA Indexes for the District Council of Loxton Waikerie 

SEIFA provides summary measures derived from the Census to measure different aspects of socio-economic conditions by geographic area. It has a number of applications, including research into the relationship between socio-economic disadvantage and various health and educational outcomes, determining areas that require funding and services, and identifying new business opportunities.

The concept of relative socio-economic disadvantage is neither simple, nor well defined. SEIFA uses a broad definition of relative socio-economic disadvantage in terms people's access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society. While SEIFA represents an average of all people living in an area, SEIFA does not represent the individual situation of each person. Larger areas are more likely to have greater diversity of people and households.

The Index of Relative Disadvantage and the Index of Relative Advantage and Disadvantage identify and rank areas in terms of relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. These two indexes are identified in the following table.

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage summarises variables that indicate relative disadvantage at the small area level. The index is designed to focus on disadvantage only. A low score on this index indicates a high proportion of relatively disadvantaged people in an area.

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage summarises variables that indicate either relative advantage or disadvantage. This index can be used to measure socio-economic wellbeing in a continuum, from the most disadvantaged areas to the most advantaged areas.

An area with a high score on this index has a relatively high incidence of advantage and a relatively low incidence of disadvantage.

Further explanation of the SEIFA indexes, ranking system, deciles and percentages are provided in Appendix 1.

Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (2011)

Locality

Score

Rank in Australia

Rank in SA

Min

Max

Pop’n

Rank

Decile

%

Rank

Decile

%

Loxton

926

1633

2

20

175

3

22

831

1031

4351

Waikerie

895

990

2

13

100

2

13

710

974

2715

Loxton North

961

2710

4

33

316

4

39

961

961

871

Kingston on Murray

935

1922

3

24

212

3

26

935

935

642

Paisley

993

3943

5

48

443

6

54

993

993

413

Golden Heights

961

2697

4

33

313

4

38

961

961

379

Taylorville

1000

4251

6

52

467

6

57

1000

1000

334

Wunkar

1005

4456

6

55

487

6

60

1005

1005

271

Paruna

945

2156

3

27

243

3

30

945

945

198

Bugle Hut

1051

4854

6

59

521

7

64

1015

1015

170

Moorook South

880

762

1

10

79

1

10

880

880

120

Taplan

977

3244

4

40

378

5

46

977

977

113

Council Wide

994

394

7

70

52

8

NA

940

1066

11266

Overall the Council area rated quite highly for the above index which indicates a relative lack of disadvantage and greater advantage in general. For example, an area may have a high score if there are (among other things):

  • many households with high incomes, or many people in skilled occupations; and
  • few households with low incomes, or few people in unskilled occupations.

Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (2011)

Locality

Score

Rank in Australia

Rank in SA

Min

Max

Pop’n

Rank

Decile

%

Rank

Decile

%

Loxton

943

1776

3

22

186

3

23

832

1049

4351

Waikerie

907

1032

2

13

98

2

12

680

986

2715

Loxton North

980

2925

4

36

333

5

41

980

980

871

Kingston on Murray

951

1995

3

25

213

3

26

951

951

642

Paisley

1013

4320

6

53

466

6

57

1013

1013

379

Golden Heights

987

3185

4

39

353

5

43

987

987

379

Taylorville

1002

3816

5

47

415

6

51

1002

1002

334

Wunkar

1018

4569

6

56

481

6

59

1018

1018

271

Paruna

955

2109

3

26

232

3

29

955

955

198

Bugle Hut

1026

4926

6

60

498

7

61

1026

1026

170

Moorook South

905

1000

2

13

96

2

12

905

905

120

Taplan

974

2734

4

34

307

4

38

974

974

113

Council Wide

947

168

3

30

22

4

NA

680

1049

11266

Source: ABS SEIFA Index Spreadsheets, 2011 Census

The above table indicates that overall the Council area has rated quite low for the above index, this indicates relatively greater disadvantage in general. For example, an area could have a low score if there are (among other things):

  • Many households with low income, many people with no qualifications, or many people in low skilled occupations.

Due to the differences in scope between the above SEIFA indexes, the scores of some areas can vary significantly between the two indexes. For example, a large area that has parts containing relatively disadvantaged people, and other parts containing relatively advantaged people. It appears the Council area has a low Index of Relative Disadvantage, due to its pockets of disadvantage. However, it’s Index of Relative Advantage and Disadvantage is above average, because the pockets of advantage may offset the pockets of disadvantage.

Whilst the SEIFA index information provides an indication of socio economic advantage and disadvantage across the Council area an interesting outcome from the ‘People and Place in Australia – the 2013 Regional Wellbeing Survey’ released in June 2013 indicates that residents of the Loxton Waikerie Council reported the second highest level of life satisfaction and community wellbeing across regional Australia and reported greater well being than Berri Barmera and Renmark Paringa Councils, both of which were closer to the rural and regional Australia average.

Education, Field of Study & Qualifications

Enrolments 

 

2006

2011

Pre School

166

140

Infants/Primary School

Government

925

775

Catholic

93

94

Other Non Government

219

253

Total

1237

1122

Secondary

Government

708

710

Catholic

3

0

Other Non Government

8

16

Total

719

726

Technical or Further Education Institution

Full Time Student

 

 

            Aged 15-24 years

25

25

            Aged 25 years and above

27

23

Part Time Student

 

 

            Aged 15-24 years

53

54

            Aged 25 years and above

120

127

Full/Part Time Status not stated

6

3

Total

231

232

University or Other Tertiary Institution

Full Time Student

 

 

            Aged 15-24 years

14

28

            Aged 25 years and above

20

26

Part Time Student

 

 

            Aged 15-24 years

9

12

            Aged 25 years and above

47

48

Full/Part Time Status not stated

0

0

Total

90

114

 

 

 

Other type of educational institution

49

71

 

 

 

Type of educational institution not stated

696

600

 

 

 

Total

3188

3005

In the Council area during 2011, 26.6% of people were attending an educational institution. Of these 37.4% were in primary school, 24.1% in secondary school and 11.5% in a tertiary or technical institution.

Field of Study

Field of Study

2006

2011

Total

Males

Females

Total

Engineering & Related Technologies

558

567

43

610

Management & Commerce

344

140

296

436

Health

351

48

346

394

Education

329

92

282

374

Society & Culture

227

66

290

356

Agriculture, Environmental & Related Studies

261

241

46

287

Food, Hospitality & Personal Services

226

96

147

243

Architecture & Building

129

145

9

154

Natural & Physical Sciences

47

37

20

57

Creative Arts

41

21

27

48

Information Technology

24

21

7

28

Mixed Field Programmes

14

0

12

12

Field of Study Inadequately Described

38

17

13

30

Field of Study not Stated

859

379

367

746

Total

3448

1870

1905

3775

Qualifications

Qualification

2006

2011

Total

Males

Females

Total

Postgraduate Degree

34

23

20

43

Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate

66

22

54

76

Bachelor Degree

495

184

393

577

Advanced Diploma and Diploma

381

184

303

487

Certificate Level

1425

1042

673

1715

Total

2401

1289

1443

2898

The above table indicates that the number of people with a qualification has grown substantially in the period 2006 to 2011 with almost 500 more people indicating they had a qualification of certificate level or higher. 

Labour Force

 

2001

2006

2011

Males

Females

Total

Persons Aged 15 years and over

9358

9218

4582

4557

9139

 

 

 

 

 

 

Labour Force Status:

 

 

 

 

 

            Employed, worked full time

3693

3446

2100

945

3045

            Employed, worked part time

1724

1651

525

1224

1749

            Employed, away from work

0

216

152

179

331

            Hours worked not stated

159

180

 

 

 

            Unemployed, looking for             work

219

199

165

112

277

Total Labour Force

5795

5691

2942

2460

5402

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not in the Labour Force

3249

3155

1454

1931

3385

 

 

 

 

 

 

% Unemployed

3.8

3.5

5.6

4.6

5.1

% Labour Force Participation

64.0

57.6

64.2

54.0

59.1

The labour force in the Council area has declined over the period 2001 to 2011 and during the same period labour force participation declined by 5%.

In 2011, 69% of the people employed full time were males and 70% of people employed part time were female.

The unemployment rate has increased from 3.8% in 2001 to 5.1% in 2011.

Employment & Occupation

Sector of Employment

Sector of Employment

2006

2011

Total

Males

Females

Total

%

Agriculture, forestry & fishing

1510

921

298

1219

23.8

Health Care & Social Assistance

556

73

559

632

12.3

Retail Trade

579

235

293

528

10.3

Education & Training

342

95

308

403

7.9

Manufacturing

560

290

107

397

7.7

Construction

276

246

34

280

5.5

Accommodation & Food Services

244

84

165

249

4.9

Transport, Postal & Warehousing

206

152

49

201

3.9

Public Administration & Safety

186

120

80

200

3.9

Other Services

165

112

88

200

3.9

Administrative & Support Services

175

93

97

190

3.7

Wholesale Trade

212

107

46

153

3.0

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

92

36

60

96

1.9

Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

51

51

17

68

1.3

Financial & Insurance Services

68

17

49

66

1.3

Mining

18

41

6

47

0.9

Rental, Hiring & Real Estate Services

46

17

22

39

0.8

Information Media & Telecommunications

46

15

18

33

0.6

Arts & Recreation Services

19

17

10

27

0.5

Inadequate Description/Not Stated

136

56

44

100

2.0

Total

5493

2778

2350

5128

100

The importance of the agriculture and primary production sector to the local economy is indicated by almost a quarter of people employed in this sector, of which 76% were male. However the total number of people employed in this sector has decreased by almost 300 people between 2006 and 2011.

The next biggest sector of employment is the health sector which has experienced a rise in employment by 12% or 76 people. Of those people employed in health, 88% are female. The education sector is also dominated by females who make up 75% of this sector. The education sector also grew by 612 people (15%) from 2006 to 2011.

Several sectors experienced decline in the period 2006 to 2011, including:

  • The manufacturing sector declined by 30% (163 people),
  • The wholesale trade sector declined by 28% (59 people), and
  • The retail sector declined by 8% (51 people).

The mining sector, while very small making up 0.9% in 2011 experienced over a 60% increase since 2006.  

Occupation 

Occupation

2006

2011

Total

Males

Females

Total

%

Managers

1329

775

319

1094

21.3

Labourers

1269

653

360

1013

19.8

Technicians & Trades Workers

608

489

103

592

11.5

Professionals

576

202

423

625

12.2

Clerical & Administrative Workers

479

62

441

503

9.8

Community & Personal Service Workers

426

84

410

494

9.6

Sales Workers

387

131

243

374

7.3

Machinery Operators & Drivers

336

329

15

344

6.7

Inadequately Described

80

54

35

89

1.7

Total

5110

2779

2349

5128

100

The occupation of people working in the above sectors of employment indicates that 21.3% of people were managers. It should be noted that this includes farm managers and this may explain the 18% (235 people) decrease in managers in the period 2006 to 2011 due to the decrease in people working in the agricultural sector. There was also a decrease of 20% (256 people) of labourers during this period. This is likely to be in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors. 

APPENDIX 1

SEIFA Index Explanation

SEIFA provides summary measures derived from the Census to measure different aspects of socio-economic conditions by geographic area. It has a number of applications, including research into the relationship between socio-economic disadvantage and various health and educational outcomes, determining areas that require funding and services, and identifying new business opportunities.

The concept of relative socio-economic disadvantage is neither simple, nor well defined. SEIFA uses a broad definition of relative socio-economic disadvantage in terms people's access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society. While SEIFA represents an average of all people living in an area, SEIFA does not represent the individual situation of each person. Larger areas are more likely to have greater diversity of people and households.

Adopting a notion of relative (rather than ‘absolute’) disadvantage, involves assessing whether an area is disadvantaged with reference to the situation and standards applying in the wider community at a given point in time. The use of relative concepts to measure socio-economic disadvantage has been generally accepted in academic literature.

Another aspect of disadvantage as measured in SEIFA is that it is multidimensional. For example, consider a community with a relatively high level of financial wellbeing. On this basis we may conclude that this area is relatively advantaged. However, if this community also has very high crime rates, or poor levels of general health, these factors may cause us to view the area as relatively disadvantaged.

A measure of relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage could include any number of social and economic dimensions. The dimensions that are included in SEIFA are guided by international research and the constraints of Census data. Census does collect information on the key dimensions of income, education, employment, occupation and housing. It is generally agreed that these are important indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage. They are also core dimensions incorporated in other national area level indexes of socio-economic disadvantage or deprivation.

SEIFA measures relative advantage and disadvantage at an area level, not at an individual level. Area level and individual level disadvantage are separate, though interrelated, concepts. Area level disadvantage depends on the socio-economic conditions of a community or neighbourhood as a whole. These are primarily characteristics of the area’s residents, such as indicators of income, education or employment. They may also be characteristics of the area itself, such as a lack of public resources, transport infrastructure or high levels of pollution. Based on international research and also the information collected in Census it is possible to broadly define relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage in terms of people’s access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society.

A SEIFA score is created using information about people and households in a particular area. This score is standardised against a mean of 1000 with a standard deviation of 100. This means that the average SEIFA score will be 1000 and the middle two-thirds of SEIFA scores will fall between 900 and 1100 (approximately). A SEIFA score provides more information and is used for more sophisticated analysis. Deciles should be used for most analyses.

To determine the SEIFA rank, all the areas are ordered from lowest score to highest score. The area with the lowest score is given a rank of 1; the area with the second lowest score is given a rank of 2 and so on, up to the area with the highest score which is given the highest rank, being 37,457 for a collection district (CD) index. Deciles divide a distribution into ten equal groups. In the case of SEIFA, the distribution of scores is divided into ten equal groups. The lowest scoring 10% of areas are given a decile number of 1; the second-lowest 10% of areas are given a decile number of 2 and so on, up to the highest 10% of areas which are given a decile number of 10.

Percentiles divide a distribution into 100 equal groups. In the case of SEIFA, the distribution of scores is divided into 100 equal groups. The lowest scoring 1% of areas is given a percentile number of 1; the second-lowest 1% of areas is given a percentile number of 2 and so on, up to the highest 1% of areas which are given a percentile number of 100. SEIFA percentiles are provided to allow users to create their own groupings, such as quartiles (which contain 25% of CDs).

Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

This index is a general socio-economic index that summarises a wide range of information about the economic and social resources of people and households within an area. Because this index focuses on disadvantage, only measures of relative disadvantage are included. This means that, unlike the other indexes, a high score (or decile) reflects a relative lack of disadvantage rather than relative advantage.

This index summarises 17 different measures, such as low income, low education, high unemployment and unskilled occupations.

A low score indicates relatively greater disadvantage in general. For example, an area could have a low score if there are (among other things):

  • Many households with low income, many people with no qualifications, or many people in low skilled occupations.

A high score indicates a relative lack of disadvantage in general. For example, an area may have a high score if there are (among other things):

  • Few households with low incomes, few people with no qualifications or in low skilled occupations.

This index is preferred in situations where the user:

  • wants to look at disadvantage and lack of disadvantage; and
  • wants a broad measure of disadvantage, rather than a specific measure (such as low income).

An example would be where a user:

  • Wants to ensure an allocation of funds goes to disadvantaged areas.
Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage

This index is also a general socio-economic index that was created using measures of relative disadvantage (similar to those used in the Index of Relative Disadvantage), as well as measures of relative advantage.

There are 21 measures included, such as: low or high income, internet connection, occupation and education. This index does not include Indigenous status.

A low score indicates relatively greater disadvantage and a lack of advantage in general.

For example, an area could have a low score if there are (among other things):

  • many households with low incomes, or many people in unskilled occupations; and
  • few households with high incomes, or few people in skilled occupations.

A high score indicates a relative lack of disadvantage and greater advantage in general.

For example, an area may have a high score if there are (among other things):

  • many households with high incomes, or many people in skilled occupations; and
  • few households with low incomes, or few people in unskilled occupations.

This index is preferred in situations where the user:

  • is not looking only at disadvantage and lack of disadvantage;
  • wants advantage to offset any disadvantage in an area;
  • is using a variable in their analysis, such as Indigenous status, that has been included in the construction of another index but not this index; or
  • is unable to identify a specific aspect of disadvantage, such as income, that is important to their particular analysis.

An example would be where a user:

  • considers the issue being examined to be affected by both advantage and disadvantage. For example, this index would be suitable if the user is looking at health status and anticipates disadvantaged people to have worse health and advantaged people to have better health. If disadvantaged people are expected to have worse health, but it is less-disadvantaged people (rather than advantaged people) that are expected to have better health, then the Index of Relative Disadvantage would be more appropriate to use; or
  • is analysing information that is not included in the index, such as home ownership or Indigenous status.

Due to the differences in scope between this index and the Index of Relative Disadvantage, the scores of some areas can vary significantly between the two indexes. For example, consider a large area that has parts containing relatively disadvantaged people, and other parts containing relatively advantaged people. This area may have a low Index of Relative Disadvantage, due to its pockets of disadvantage. However, its Index of Relative Advantage and Disadvantage may be moderate, or even above average, because the pockets of advantage may offset the pockets of disadvantage.

APPENDIX 2

Comparative Table of Selected Statistics for Townships and Localities with the Council District

 

Loxton

Waikerie

Loxton North

KOM

Paisley

Golden Heights

Taylorville

Wunkar

Paruna

Bugle Hill

Moorook South

Taplan

Council Wide

Population

Males

Females

4365

2116

2249

2715

1329

1386

817

459

412

645

335

310

411

210

201

378

200

178

334

187

147

269

138

131

198

101

97

171

88

83

118

63

55

114

61

53

11287

5660

5627

Median Age

43

44

38

42

43

44

39

46

49

41

47

41

43

% of Residents Born in Australia

89.5

85.5

90.9

83.0

91.3

91.8

91.3

88.2

87.4

88.4

83.5

84.1

88.1

% of people who only speak English

92.8

90.4

92.5

88.6

91.5

95.8

93.1

94.1

92.9

89.3

95.8

94.8

92.0

Marital Status

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

Never Married

 

1897

100

254

336

1017

 

1126

50

182

255

608

 

395

23

42

21

186

 

289

14

56

19

143

 

227

13

27

7

59

 

186

6

19

21

64

 

156

0

12

13

61

 

139

6

11

8

56

 

87

4

15

7

46

 

77

9

3

0

39

 

61

7

3

3

26

 

54

7

8

0

24

 

5010

259

683

708

2480

Household Composition

Families

Single Person

Group

 

 

1198

557

24

 

 

742

370

26

 

 

240

55

6

 

 

186

58

5

 

 

118

37

0

 

 

114

37

0

 

 

91

24

4

 

 

82

13

0

 

 

55

21

0

 

 

45

10

3

 

 

36

17

0

 

 

34

10

0

 

 

3134

1268

72

Average Children per Family

1.9

1.9

2.0

1.8

1.8

2.0

2.3

2.3

2.2

2.0

1.6

2.4

1.9

All Private Dwellings

1975

1300

330

299

306

188

154

123

128

62

69

55

5292

% of Private Dwellings Occupied

90.1

87.4

91.5

81.9

51.0

79.2

76.0

78.0

58.6

91.9

76.8

83.9

84.5

Tenure of Dwellings

Owned Outright Owned Mortgage

Rented

Other

Not Stated

 

666

559

469

32

52

 

415

283

371

23

46

 

109

135

52

4

0

 

98

97

49

0

4

 

68

55

28

0

5

 

72

44

28

0

5

 

46

31

37

0

5

 

55

23

16

0

0

 

38

26

9

3

0

 

21

16

16

3

0

 

30

11

13

0

0

 

20

12

10

0

3

 

1766

1368

1143

69

126

Median Individual Income ($/week)

476

405

478

434

448

483

565

450

511

639

447

440

458

Median Family Income ($/week)

1111

1008

1146

895

1062

1019

1125

1018

1055

1104

949

1083

1070

Median Household Income ($/week)

842

735

991

784

805

929

895

937

949

1111

900

1125

830

Median Housing Loan repayment ($/month)

1127

921

1000

811

1083

975

1300

1083

600

875

899

1896

1062

Median Rent ($/week)

140

144

140

115

100

160

60

95

70

128

138

53

135

Average Household Size

2.2

2.2

2.7

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.8

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.1

2.8

2.3

Average Motor Vehicles per Dwelling

1.7

1.7

2.1

1.9

2.4

2.1

2.6

2.6

3.0

3.1

2.0

2.5

1.9

% of People that did voluntary work through an organisation or group (in last 12 months)

29.4

28.7

29.0

23.8

35.5

33.7

36.4

41.0

21.2

28.1

21.9

28.9

29.4

APPENDIX 3

Quick Stat Sheets
  • District Council Loxton Waikerie
  • Loxton
  • Waikerie
  • Loxton North
  • Kingston on Murray & Moorook
  • Paisley
  • Golden Heights
  • Taylorville
  • Wunkar
  • Paruna
  • Bugle Hill
  • Moorook South
  • Taplan 

 

Administration
Principal Office - Loxton
29 East Terrace
Branch Office - Waikerie
Strangman Road
Visitor Information Centres
Loxton
On the Roundabout - Bookpurnong Terrace
Waikerie District Visitor Information Centre
Strangman Road, Waikerie
Libraries
Loxton:
East Terrace
Waikerie
Strangman Road
Connect with us
Facebook
Top