Appendix 1 – Table of ContentsThe Evidence for Social Inclusion in Tasmania.....................................................................4Data on social inclusion and exclusion in Tasmania............................................................18Contextual factors impacting on social exclusion in Tasmania...............................................19

Demographic and geographic characteristics.................................................................19Urbanisation and rural decline...................................................................................19Population ageing..................................................................................................22Changing living arrangements...................................................................................24Regional variations.................................................................................................25Impact of contextual factors.....................................................................................27Other contextual factors..........................................................................................27

Social exclusion in Tasmania – findings from the research....................................................28Poverty, deprivation and financial hardship..................................................................28

Income inequality...............................................................................................29Poverty lines......................................................................................................32Economic resources.............................................................................................33Cost of living......................................................................................................34Deprivation.......................................................................................................35Food security.....................................................................................................37Emergency Relief................................................................................................38Financial exclusion..............................................................................................39

Housing affordability and homelessness.......................................................................40Homelessness....................................................................................................43

Education............................................................................................................46Literacy............................................................................................................46Year 12 retention and completion...........................................................................47Qualifications.....................................................................................................49Early years........................................................................................................50

Employment.........................................................................................................52Unemployment..................................................................................................52Participation rates...............................................................................................55Underemployment and part-time work....................................................................56

Health................................................................................................................. 57Disability..........................................................................................................59

Mental health....................................................................................................60Suicide.............................................................................................................62

Social capital, community connectedness and social cohesion...........................................63Trust and feelings of safety....................................................................................63Cultural diversity, acceptance of diversity and discrimination.........................................65Connecting to social networks and supports..............................................................66Unpaid care.......................................................................................................67Voluntary work..................................................................................................68Civic engagement...............................................................................................68Arts and cultural participation................................................................................69Sport and recreation participation...........................................................................69Festivals...........................................................................................................70Access to transport.............................................................................................71

Access to services..................................................................................................72Digital exclusion....................................................................................................73The case for place..................................................................................................75

Locational disadvantage in Tasmania.......................................................................75Vinson’s results..................................................................................................76NATSEM findings................................................................................................78SEIFA...............................................................................................................80Identifying areas for place-based programs...............................................................83

List of Figures

Figure 1 Population growth, Tasmanian urban centres vs balance of State, 1966-2006..............................20Figure 2 Population movements, by Statistical Sub-division, Tasmania, 2001 to 2006................................22Figure 3 Population by age group and sex, Tasmania, June 2006 vs June 2046...........................................23Figure 4 Labour market entrants and exits, Tasmania, 1971-2008 and projected 2009-2011......................24Figure 5 Change in household living arrangements, Tasmania, 1996-2006..................................................25Figure 6 Population by sex and age group, Break O’Day, 2006....................................................................26Figure 7 Population by sex and age group, Dorset, 2006.............................................................................26Figure 8 Population by sex and age group, Launceston, 2006......................................................................27Figure 9 Change in average equivalised disposable household incomes, low vs high income households,

1994-95 to 2007-08, Tasmania.......................................................................................................31Figure 10 Proportion of households dependent on government pensions and allowances, by state and

territory, 2007-08...........................................................................................................................32Figure 11 Tasmania Together benchmark 1.1.1 The cost of food, electricity, housing, transport and health as

a proportion of income for low income households.......................................................................35Figure 12 Incidence of deprivation, clients of welfare organisations vs general community,

Australia, 2006................................................................................................................................36Figure 13 Emergency Relief assistance provided, Tasmania, 2003-04 and 2007-08......................................39Figure 14 Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.5 Tasmanian house price to income ratio.................................41Figure 15 Number of applicants housed in public housing, Tasmania, 2006-2009........................................43Figure 16 Accommodation situation of people who were homeless in Tasmania on Census night 2006......44Figure 17 Main reason for seeking assistance from SAAP services, Tasmania, 2007-08................................45Figure 18 Proportion of people aged 15-74 with functional literacy levels, by highest year of school

completed, Tasmania, 2006...........................................................................................................47Figure 19 Year 10-12 direct retention rate (%) by region, Tasmania, 2005-07 to 2008.................................49Figure 20 Kindergarten Development Check (KDC) results for Burnie-Devonport (Central Coast),

Launceston (Tamar Valley), Greater Hobart and surrounds overlaid with Launching Into Learning school locations...............................................................................................................51

Figure 21 Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.9 Number of Tasmanians who are long-term unemployed.......53Figure 22 Children living in jobless families, Tasmania, 1997-2007...............................................................54Figure 23 Self-assessed health by household income quintile, Tasmania, 2004-05.......................................58Figure 24 Proportion of people who feel safe in public after dark, Tasmania, 2001-02 to 2007-08..............64Figure 25 People who had volunteered in past 12 months by age, Tasmania, 2006.....................................68Figure 26 Festivals by type, Tasmania, 2007-08............................................................................................70Figure 27 Proportion of households with internet connections, by state and territory, 2007.......................74Figure 28 Map of Tony Vinson’s rankings of Tasmanian LGAs by level of disadvantage................................77Figure 29 Map of Child Social Exclusion Index, Statistical Local Areas, Tasmania, 2006................................79Figure 30 Census variables included in the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, 2006.....80Figure 31 Map of SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage by LGA, Tasmania, 2006...............82Figure 32 Map of SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage by Suburb, major urban centres,

Tasmania, 2006..............................................................................................................................83Figure 33 Map of projected population growth by LGA 2007-2032 and Irrigation Schemes, Tasmania........86Figure 34 Map of drought-declared areas, Tasmania, as at 16 June 2009.....................................................87Figure 35 Map of employment in industries vulnerable to the global financial crisis, LGAs,

Tasmania, 2006..............................................................................................................................88Figure 36 Map of employed persons with no post-school qualifications, LGAs, Tasmania, 2006..................89

The Evidence for Social Inclusion in Tasmania

Strategies to address social exclusion and build social inclusion in Tasmania need to be based on the best available evidence. A strong focus of social inclusion policies both in Australia and overseas has been on developing a solid evidence base to assist policy-makers to identify the form and nature of social exclusion, its causes, and the people and places that are socially excluded.

How do we identify social exclusion and inclusion, in order to measure it? One of the difficulties in identifying and understanding social inclusion is that there is no commonly accepted definition of the term1. While definitions differ, there are some common themes. These include an emphasis on restrictions to accessing and capitalising on opportunities, and an emphasis on being excluded from both social and economic aspects of life2.

For the purposes of this report, we understand social exclusion as describing what occurs when individuals or communities experience multiple disadvantages simultaneously, making it difficult for them to participate in their community – for example, in work, in education or in joining a community group. More often than not, the most socially excluded people and places face a combination of these disadvantages or ‘barriers’ to social inclusion3.

With this broad understanding in mind, we can begin gathering the evidence for social inclusion and exclusion in Tasmania.

International Context Social inclusion strategies are appearing all over the world. There were none in 1990 and now there are over fifty, mostly in ‘advanced’ western countries. The European strategies have attracted the most interest4.

1 Hayes, A, Gray, M, and Edwards, Ben, 2008 Social Inclusion: Origins, Concepts and Key Themes, paper prepared by the Australian Institute of Family Studies for the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, p.7.2 Hayes, A., Gray, M, and Edwards, Ben, 2008 Social Inclusion: Origins, Concepts and Key Themes, paper prepared by the Australian Institute of Family Studies for the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, p.9.3 Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2008 A Social Inclusion Strategy for Tasmania: a consultation paper, pp.4-5.4 More information about the European Union approach to social inclusion is available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/poverty_social_exclusion_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/poverty_social_exclusion_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/common_objectives_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/counciltext_en.pdf

A1.4

The European Union introduced the Social Inclusion Process’ in 2000 and identified four objectives:Facilitate participation in employment and access by all to the resources,

rights, goods and services;Prevent the risks of exclusion;Help the most vulnerable; and

Mobilise all relevant bodies.Since 2006 the European Union has targeted the following key challenges:Eradicate child poverty by breaking the vicious circle of intergenerational

inheritance;Make labour markets truly inclusive;Ensure decent housing for everyone;Overcome discrimination and increase the integration of people with

disabilities, ethnic minorities and immigrants; andTackle financial exclusion and over-indebtedness.

There are four reasons that social inclusion is on the policy agenda.

1. There is a growing acceptance that the strategies of the past 50 years designed to simultaneously generate wealth and wellbeing have not worked for all.

For some groups and places social exclusion remains entrenched and seemingly intractable. Whilst overall levels of wellbeing have improved the rising tide has not lifted all ships and despite a raft of well intentioned government, business and community strategies there are people and places that face unacceptable levels of exclusion.

2. There is increasing evidence of new forms of exclusion arising – most prominently associated with ageing, mental illness, ICT, security of supply (food/water/energy) and violence.

These new forms of exclusion have raised broader concerns about the trajectory of societies and whether we have the balance right between our key social, economic and environmental settings. The claimed ‘loss of community’ is an example of how this concern is being expressed.

3. It is now widely accepted that social inclusion is not just a personal and social issue. It is also an important civic, economic and environmental issue.

Social inclusion is a civic issue because excluded people and places often don’t have their voices heard in the mainstream of politics and policy. High levels of social inclusion are correlated with high levels of productivity, economic growth and sustainability at the level of nations and places generally (such as cities and regions). Just how important social inclusion is to innovation, productivity and the economy is still being debated.

The frenzy for optimal return on financial capital today threatens health and sustainability at all levels, not only of individual institutions but of their members and indeed the larger social and natural systems in which they are embedded

Peter Senge and Otto Scharmer from Community Action Research

4. Finally and more positively, we now know a lot more about what works (and what fails) when it comes to social inclusion. There is an overwhelming growth of research and new practice around social inclusion on which to draw. The website of the Australian Social Inclusion Board provides an extensive summary of the research and portals to international experiences5.

We have learnt, for example, is that social exclusion is growing for some groups and places, social exclusion clusters at critical transition points, social inclusion supports social innovation as is integrally linked to economic growth and productivity, government makes a difference, and that social inclusion is everyone’s responsibility.

What we have learnt: Social exclusion is growing for some groups and places

The research is demonstrating that people most at risk of social exclusion are those who experience multiple and complex problems – financial, social, physical and psychosocial – which make it difficult

5 More information is available on the Board’s website at: http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/AusGov/Board/Pages/default.aspx

A1.5

for them to have their needs met and to flourish as human beings6. Having unmet needs stops them achieving wellbeing, accessing resources and utilising capabilities7.

At a personal level, people experiencing multiple disadvantages often have increased levels of depression and other mental health issues, higher levels of domestic violence and other criminal and antisocial behaviour, lower education and employment, inadequate income that results in diminished access to affordable and appropriate housing and transport, and increased geographic and/or social isolation.8

At a structural level, individuals, families and communities that experience multiple disadvantages live in areas which “often lack transport networks, recreational facilities and healthy, cheap food supplies. Because of high crime rates and low levels of disposable incomes, large retail companies often situate their outlets elsewhere”.9 These areas have low levels of employment and economic activity, less community facilities, some have lost industries and decreasing populations as people leave to find lifestyle and employment opportunities elsewhere10.

6 UK Social Exclusion Task Force, Reaching Out: Progress on Social Exclusion, Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion: http://www.cesi.org.uk/; Gateshead Council, Social Inclusion: Gateshead Council’s Social Inclusion Strategy, UK.7 Vale, D, Watts, B, & Franklin, J, 2009 The Receding Tide: Understanding Unmet Needs in a Harsher Economic Climate, The Interim Findings of the mapping needs project.8 Social Exclusion Task Force, 2007 Reaching Out: Think Family.9 DHHS submission to Social Inclusion Consultation, referring to the work of Kawachi, I. & Berkman, L, Neighbourhoods and Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.10 Vinson, T ‘Overview', Social Inclusion Unit, 2009 How’s Australia faring? A compendium of social inclusion indicators, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra see also Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009 Markedly Socially Disadvantaged Localities in Australia: Their Nature and Possible Remediation, Australian Government, Canberra.

A1.6

The Universities of Bristol and York and from the National Centre for Social Research are exploring the risks of social exclusion among people and families across four key life stages:Children and familiesYouth and young adulthoodWorking age without dependent childrenOlder age

The research uses an innovative approach to gain insights into the different triggers and risks that can lead to social exclusion. Understanding who experiences these risks and how they can impact on the lives of individuals and families is vitally important for improving public services. Findings from the research will be used to help policy makers and service providers to better identify those most in need of help. These studies provide further evidence supporting the Government’s drive to deliver more personalised and responsive public services.

Key findings A small number of families experience persistent and chronic social exclusion – the study

suggests 4% to 7%.Families experiencing complex problems are more likely to be lone parent families, have four

or more children, have a younger mother, have a mother from a Black ethnic group, live in rented accommodation and in the most deprived areas.

What we have learnt: Social exclusion clusters at critical transition points

The risk of social exclusion also tends to cluster at certain points across the lifecycle, when people experience a change in their role or status, in expectations and responsibilities. The research shows that critical transitions include early childhood and going to school for the first time; the transition to adulthood; leaving school or college; moving out of the family home; becoming a parent; becoming unemployed; retirement; and leaving prison, hospitals or hostels – especially after a significant length of time or period of ‘cycling in and out’. At these times people may experience a mismatch between the needs they have and the care, support and resources available to help them. At these times, they can be more vulnerable in their relationships as well as physical, mental and emotional resources, which weaken their capability to adapt to their changing needs11.

What we have learnt: Social inclusion supports social innovation and is integrally linked to economic growth and productivity

Communities in which individuals and families are active and confident, supported and connected, are places that can increase trust, the number and quality of personal networks and raise people’s level of education and training. The research is showing that these things help to create a sense of vitality which not only attracts but keeps people in the community, leads to new businesses and social enterprises that create job opportunities, provides spaces and activities where people can share their knowledge and ideas, and leads to improved health and job search capabilities. All these things stimulate economic activity and can help reduce the costs associated with providing services12.

11 Vale, D, Watts, B, & Franklin, J, 2009 The Receding Tide: Understanding Unmet Needs in a Harsher Economic Climate: The Interim Findings of the mapping needs project, The Young Foundation, UK, 12 Hothi, M, 2008 Neighbourliness + Empowerment = Wellbeing: Is there a Formula for Happy Communities? The Young Foundation, UK; See also, Office of the Third Sector, Social Enterprise Action Plan: Scaling New Heights, 2006.; Archer V, & Barraket, J, 2009 Economic Participation for Health; An Information and Resource Guide for Local Governments Working with Community Enterprise, University of Melbourne Centre for Public Policy and the Victorian Local Governance Association, Melbourne.; Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009 The Origins, Meaning , Definition and Economic Implications of the Concept Social Inclusion/Exclusion, Australian Government; Canberra.

A1.7

.....cont

Higher self esteem in adolescence is a protective factor against disadvantage in young adulthood.

Events such as becoming employed and finding a partner reduce the risk of falling into social exclusion.

Working age adults without dependent children who are older, unemployed or inactive, living alone, have few educational qualifications, and are renting their homes have a higher risk of exclusion.

Around 5% of older people have multiple risk markers of social exclusion, including poor access to services and transport, physical inactivity, fear of their local area after dark, low social support, and poor general and emotional health. Older people in this group are likely to be aged 80 and older, have no qualifications, and live alone.

Good health and social support can protect older people from becoming socially excluded, whereas becoming divorced or widowed significantly increases an older person’s risk of exclusion.

The social enterprise model embodies the principles of sustainable development. It generates innovative solutions that achieve fair, inclusive and sustainable wealth creation in an increasingly globalised economy.

The Social Enterprise Action Plan for Wales

What we have learnt: Governance makes a difference

The research is showing that people experience social exclusion when there are no effective mechanisms through which they can have a say on issues that matter to them. To be effective in overcoming social exclusion, governments, service providers, community groups, families, and individuals need to work together to find community-driven solutions that give people opportunities for economic, social and civic participation.

The research is identifying a key role for local government in bringing people and groups together to have a say and make a difference on the things that are important to them. Councils are well placed to address social opportunities through partnerships, harnessing the capacity of local leaders to help shape their own communities, and grassroots engagement that includes the voices of socially excluded people in making decisions and finding local solutions13.

The more complex the problems and issues that people have, the more likely they will need help and support from more than just one service provider or organisation to deal with these. Often, however, those who are most at risk of social exclusion also risk not being able to access the services and supports to help meet their needs and improve their health and well being. In part, people do not know about or lack the confidence to use services, and do not have informal supports that help with the emotional and practical issues they face. In part it is because the service system is complex, fragmented and difficult to use.

13 The Leadership Centre for Local Government, [year unknown] The Politics of Place, Leading Edge Publications, viewed 1 September 2009, <http://www.localleadership.gov.uk/images/leaderofplace_brochure.pdf>.; See also, Hothi, M, 2008 Neighbourliness + Empowerment = Wellbeing: Is there a Formula for Happy Communities? The Young Foundation, UK.

A1.8

How excluded families sometimes view the system:

Information on services is difficult to access or understand;

Services are not relevant to their specific needs;

Staff do not treat them with respect and lack knowledge to deal with problems;

The physical environment is intimidating;

Services respond to single issues without reference to the complexity of problems;

Services respond to problems when they reach crisis point rather than at an earlier stage;

Processes and services are inflexible;

Services are fragmented and poorly coordinated; and

The system may focus more on policing than on support – hence a fear of approaching for help.

Social Exclusion Task Force, Analysis and Themes from the Families at Risk Review

The research is showing the need for better service integration which recognises the multifaceted nature of problems, the complex relationships between individuals, households and their personal networks, and the multiple entry points through which people can get into the service system. An integrated service system needs to provide tailored, flexible and holistic services that recognise ‘one size does not fit all’.14 This requires governments, service providers and community groups to develop collaborative working arrangements and partnerships, and find different ways to manage resources.

Successful service integration must involve clear and consistent funding, information sharing and referral arrangements. It must involve staff who have a person-centred approach and the capacity to work effectively with both service users and other service providers. It must ensure that systems and services have the right incentives to focus their energies on people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, social exclusion. It must also ensure that services can identify and intervene earlier to support them15.

What we have learnt: Social inclusion is everyone’s responsibility

Social inclusion strategies can help build the capacity for individual, families and communities to take greater control of their futures, and the research is demonstrating that everyone can make a contribution. Individuals and groups can bring local knowledge, passion, energy and vision for change. Governments and service organisations can bring much needed resources.

National ContextWithin Australia, governments are recognising the opportunities and challenges for social inclusion. A recent paper by the Australian Institute of Family Studies for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet16 highlighted key opportunities and risks for a social inclusion agenda, including:

Opportunities

Underscoring the importance of having joined-up services (necessary to respond to individual’s needs and the interlocking nature of the problems they face);

Focusing the political discourse on the most disadvantaged in society and mobilising public support for addressing the issues of extreme disadvantage and exclusion;

Emphasising the importance of addressing the multiple barriers that people often face;

Highlighting the localised nature of disadvantage, the multiple disadvantages faced by people at risk of social exclusion and the process that has led to social exclusion, to facilitate the development and implementation of localised and tailored approaches;

Identifying the role social institutions play in systematically excluding certain groups or communities and offering the potential for structural changes that redress this; and

14 Social Exclusion Taskforce, no date, Reaching Out: Think Family – analysis and themes from the Families at Risk Review, Cabinet Office,

London.; Families Commission, 2009 Family-Centred Communities: The Planning Process, Families Commission; Department of Premier & Cabinet, 2007, Brighton Better Services Together Final Report (unpublished); Chris MacDonald, 2009 Information Paper for the Social Inclusion Commissioner. 15 Social Exclusion Taskforce, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force.aspx; Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion, http://www.cesi.org.uk/; Families Commission, http://www.nzfamilies.org.nz/files/Family-Centred-Communities.pdf. 16 Hayes, A, Gray, M, & Edwards, B, (Australian Institute of Family Studies), 2008 Social Inclusion: Origins, Concepts and Key Themes. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

A1.9

Recognising the cumulative nature of disadvantage, including across generations of the same family.

A1.10

Some potential risks

Stigmatising groups and communities identified as being socially excluded;

Whole-of-government approaches diffusing responsibility for addressing specific issues; and

Re-labelling existing government programs under the social inclusion agenda without reforming or better coordinating these policies to address the unmet needs of the socially excluded.

A1.11

Australia 2020 Summit: Social Inclusion as a first order issue

The Australia 2020 Summit debated and sought to develop options for the nation across crucial issues, including strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion. The following ideas were put forward to address social inclusion:

Develop a National Development Index containing social inclusion indicators—with social, economic and environmental measures—and publish a government report with the budget each year to measure progress. Consider voluntary reporting by other organisations on the index as well. Government should model good practice in social inclusion and diversity. Apply a social inclusion test to all policy.

Provide government funding for independent organisations to monitor and promote media coverage of positive community and social issues and strong images of diversity in Australia.

Ensure that by 2020 every child in Australia can speak a language other than English and will learn about the contribution of other cultures to Australia.

Develop and implement a charter of rights and National Action Plan for Social Inclusion in partnership with civil society, to enhance social inclusion and combat poverty, backed by measurable and evidence-based goals and targets. Discuss and promote social inclusion values in the community.

Establish community hubs—starting with known postcodes of disadvantage—which have one-stop shops to provide income support, housing, legal advice, and so on, and operate as centres of solidarity and learning. Harness data on structural causes of exclusion in that area and successful local approaches. Have a Social Inclusion Board for each of these areas, with specific targets to reduce disadvantage. Data from the hubs feed into the National Social Inclusion Index.

Modify curricula from kindergarten to postgraduate education to include civic and moral education and engagement, and social inclusion in the education system, which will ensure children are exposed to diverse value systems, other cultures and levels of disadvantage, with a specific focus on Indigenous issues.

Encourage language and cultural respect programs and local inter-faith fora, especially to help new migrant groups and emerging faith groups to share their values and feel less isolated, as well as to preserve their identities.

Strengthening Communities, Supporting Families and Social InclusionAustralian 2020 Summit Final Report

Challenges and opportunities presented by the Council of Australian Governments The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is a forum in which the States and Territories are working with the Commonwealth Government to meet the challenges and opportunities for social inclusion17. These cross a number of working groups and National Partnerships covering health, affordable housing, early childhood and schools, vocational education and training, and disability services such as the Indigenous Working Group, Low Socioeconomic Schools National Partnership, the Literacy and Numeracy National Partnership, Early Childhood National Partnership, and Homelessness National Partnership.

The National Reform Agenda recognises the importance of strengthening communities in the areas of literacy and numeracy, early childhood, health and ageing, and indigenous reform. Through this agenda governments are working together to generate productivity as well as social gains. The reforms focus attention on finding common approaches and collaborative ways of working to promote social inclusion.

Tanya Plibersek, the Commonwealth Minister for Housing, is leading the development of a strategy to reduce homelessness. Consultation on the Australian Government’s Green Paper illustrated how important it is to link up the different services and sources of support to prevent homelessness. It is critical to provide pathways out of homelessness which actually bring together the different practical supports that people need to meet the full range of challenges they confront. This will be a challenge for the Tasmanian Government’s homelessness plan.

Commonwealth Government’s Social Inclusion StrategyThe Commonwealth Government has adopted a Social Inclusion strategy that takes a whole-of-government approach to providing Australians with opportunities to participate in their local community and Australian society. It recognises the importance of all Australians having the opportunity to work, to access the services they need, to connect with their family and friends, to become involved in their local community, to have the skills to deal with crises when these might arise, and to have the chance to make their voices heard. It also recognises there are barriers that prevent participation.

The Strategy identifies six early priority areas which include addressing the incidence of jobless families with children; delivering effective support to children at greatest risk of long term disadvantage; focusing on particular locations, neighbourhoods and communities to ensure programs and services are getting to the right places; addressing the incidence of homelessness; employment for people living with a disability or mental illness; and closing the gap for Indigenous Australians. In response to the global financial crisis, the priority focussing on jobless families has recently been adjusted to include the vulnerable unemployed (comprising the long term unemployed, the recently unemployed and low-skilled adults).

The Strategy is exploring new ideas and new ways of working across Commonwealth agencies, and in partnerships with State and Local Governments, the not-for-profit and private sectors to deliver targeted and tailored interventions that focus on the needs of disadvantaged groups and places. This

17 For a fuller discussion of COAG, collaborative federalism and the social inclusion agenda, please see Appendix 5.A1.12

work includes the development of a National Compact with the not-for-profit sector, in recognition of the critical role the sector plays in delivering services and advocating on behalf of disadvantaged people. It also includes the development of a toolkit for the Australian Public Service, to guide agencies on identifying groups at risk of exclusion, analysing the nature and causes of disadvantage and exclusion, strengthening protective factors and reducing risk factors, working with other agencies to coordinate efforts across government and other sectors, (re)designing delivery systems and promoting changes in culture, and establishing clear implementation plans and monitoring delivery.

A Social Inclusion Unit has been established in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which reports to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (who is also the Minister for Social Inclusion). The Unit advises on social inclusion issues such as place-based disadvantage and not-for-profit sector reform18. It also supports the Australian Social Inclusion Board, which acts as the main advisory body to the Commonwealth Government on ways to achieve better outcomes for the most disadvantaged Australians.

International experience shows that a targeted, coordinated and assertive approach is needed to tackle social and economic disadvantage. The approaches that have been successful overseas have focused on re-engagement and social and economic participation as a means of overcoming such disadvantage. In working to address social exclusion, we will also look to support effective, community-driven solutions to local problems. We will work across portfolios and across levels of government, and we will actively seek input from, and partnerships with, communities, business and non-profit organisations. Bringing economic and social policy together to reduce disadvantage is going to take a massive effort of cooperation between the Commonwealth, the States and the not-for-profit sector. But with a sense of realism, we can make huge inroads into disadvantage. New advisory and policy coordination bodies will be needed to guide it. Ours is the first government in Australia to ever have a Minister for Social Inclusion.

Ursula Stephens Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector

The Australian Social Inclusion Board recently released A Compendium of Social Inclusion Indicators to generate discussion about how to best measure and evaluate social inclusion in Australia. It has also published Social Inclusion Principles for Australia, papers on the elements of successful programs and services for children at risk of disadvantage and findings from mental health and disability sector consultations undertaken during 2008, and a brochure on how to build inclusive and resilient communities19.

18 Information Papers supporting each of the Strategy’s priority areas are available at 19 These publications are available at http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/AusGov/Board/Pages/default.aspx

A1.13

COMMONWEALTH SOCIAL INCLUSION PRINCIPLES FOR AUSTRALIA1 Reducing disadvantageMaking sure people in need benefit from access to good health, education and other services Funding and service delivery should promote equitable access to universal benefits and services for Australians in all their diversity, and invest more intensively in those at risk of, or experiencing, social exclusion.

2 Increasing social, civil and economic participationHelping everyone get the skills and support they need so they can work and connect with community, even during hard timesMaximum participation in economic, social and community life is a defining characteristic of an inclusive society. Achieving this outcome for all Australians means delivering policies and programs which support people to learn and strengthen their ability to participate actively in the labour market and in their communities. Over time people’s opportunities and capabilities are formed through their experience of family life and their participation in the communities, economies and institutions around them. People with well-established social networks and institutional connections are more likely to deal successfully with personal crisis and economic adversity. Policy design should be mindful of costs and benefits and the evidence about returns for investments. Resources should be weighted towards tailored approaches for those most in need while maintaining universal access and participation in services and community life. Services should be responsive to the diverse attributes, circumstances and aspirations of their clients. A key aspect of boosting participation is capacity building – supporting individuals’ personal capacity to address the issues that arise over the course of their lives, and supporting people to take independent decisions and to negotiate priorities through participation in their workplaces, their neighbourhoods and their communities. This is especially true for communities struggling with intergenerational disadvantage.

3 A greater voice, combined with greater responsibilityGovernments and other organisations giving people a say in what services they need and how they work, and people taking responsibility to make the best use of the opportunities availableAchieving social inclusion depends on the active involvement of the entire community. Providing opportunities for citizens and communities to identify their needs and give feedback about the design and delivery of policies and programs will be important.Individuals and service users must have a say in shaping their own futures and the benefits and services that are offered to them. Detailed feedback from users and community members and genuine and inclusive consultation are important sources of information to improve policy settings and service delivery. Where people are part of a democratic community and able to access opportunities, benefits and services, they also have an obligation to use their best efforts and take personal responsibility for taking part and making progress. Organisations – both government and non-government - also have responsibilities to listen and respond, and to make sure their policies, programs and services help to build social inclusion.

A1.14

.....cont (Commonwealth Social Inclusion Principles)

4 Building on individual and community strengthsMaking the most of people’s strengths, including the strengths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people from other cultures.Taking a strength-based, rather than a deficit-based, approach means respecting, supporting and building on the strengths of individuals, families, communities and cultures. Assuming, promoting and supporting a strong and positive view of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity and culture will be particularly important ways to reduce social exclusion for Indigenous Australians, working in parallel with specific initiatives to improve their health, education, housing and employment prospects. Recognising the varied and positive contributions of people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds will also be an important feature of the social inclusion approach.

5 Building partnerships with key stakeholdersGovernments, organisations and communities working together to get the best results for people in needAll sectors have a role to play in building a more socially inclusive Australia and the approach will rely on encouraging and supporting the diverse contribution of all. Strong relationships between government and these other stakeholders are key to achieving the joined up approach required for sustainable outcomes and to sharing expertise to produce innovative solutions. Building effective partnerships to tackle shared priorities is essential to improving social inclusion over time. Whether in forming city wide plans to reduce homelessness, or strengthening service provision in parts of the community sector, or jointly investing in new social innovations, policy on social inclusion needs to advance work through a diverse range of cross sector partnerships.

6 Developing tailored services

Services working together in new and flexible ways to meet each person’s different needsFor some members of the Australian population experiencing, or at immediate risk of, significant exclusion, mainstream services may not be sufficient or appropriate to mitigate against exclusionDeep, intensive interventions tailored at an individual, family or community level are one way to support those experiencing deep and complex social exclusion, by helping them tackle their actual problems. Different service providers may need to link together to do this. For example, linking health and family support services may make the most difference to parents of children at risk. Linking employment preparation effectively with drug or alcohol treatment may be necessary as a pathway out of homelessness. Successfully overcoming social exclusion may also involve learning to change deeply held attitudes and behaviours, for example through anger management or family counselling, in order to access new opportunities. Overcoming the fragmentation of government service systems for people at high risk of social exclusion, and in relation to important milestones in the lifecycle, such as transitions from adolescence to adulthood or the end of working life, is a priority.

A1.15

....cont (Commonwealth Social Inclusion Principles)7 Giving a high priority to early intervention and preventionHeading off problems by understanding the root causes and intervening earlyIt is important to tackle the immediate problems of social exclusion that many face, such as homelessness. But in the longer term it is clearly preferable to prevent such problems arising in the first place. Identifying the root causes of disadvantage and the connections between different types of disadvantage allows interventions to be designed to prevent the occurrence of problems and provide more effective support to those who are vulnerable before the disadvantage becomes entrenched.This is particularly important in preventing intergenerational transmission of disadvantage. Universal services such as schools and hospitals provide a range of opportunities to identify those at risk of disadvantage at an early stage. Giving priority to early intervention and prevention means focusing on children and young people, on the early identification of potential problems, and on taking effective action to tackle them.

8 Building joined-up services and whole of government(s) solutionsGetting different parts and different levels of government to work together in new and flexible ways to get better outcomes and services for people in need The multifaceted nature of social exclusion means that the services offered by any one agency can only go so far in meeting the complex needs of a person or groups of people. Separate silos of funding, policy-making and service delivery can be systemic barriers to providing effective support. Flexibility and cooperation across agencies, both between Commonwealth agencies and across levels of government, is one key to comprehensively address social exclusion. Integration, transparency and collaboration between Commonwealth, State and Territory governments are particularly important. Priorities include:

taking a 'people-first' view of what people and communities need, using evidence about their actual experiences and life outcomes;

developing policy through integrated, problem-solving projects which draw together all relevant agencies and knowledge; and

developing programs within a comprehensive social inclusion framework, researching and understanding the links between programs operating on the ground, and working across all levels of government, including through the Council of Australian Governments, to join up service delivery in strategic as well as practical ways.

9 Using evidence and integrated data to inform policyFinding out what programs and services work well and understanding why, so you can share good ideas, keep making improvements and put your effort into the things that workProgress towards social inclusion must be accompanied by better information, faster learning and better use of knowledge to improve outcomes. As far as possible, interventions should draw on:

practical experience of community and other delivery organisations; existing research and the evidence base on what works; and monitoring and evaluating strategies as they develop, focusing on outcomes as well as

processes.

A1.16

To the extent that interventions are experimental, they should be designed and evaluated in a way which builds on this evidence base. It will also be important for government to report regularly on .....cont(Commonwealth Social Inclusion Principles)

progress in social inclusion, using clear indicators and reporting from the perspective of the individual, the family, the neighbourhood or the community affected. Indicators should be responsive to effective policy interventions and identify the essence of the problem and have a clear and accepted interpretation.10 Using locational approachesWorking in places where there is a lot of disadvantage, to get to people most in need and to understand how different problems are connectedEvidence show that different kinds of disadvantage can be concentrated in particular locations in Australia. Focusing effort on building social inclusion in particular locations, neighbourhoods and communities can ensure that they are not left behind, and help us learn how planning, economic development, community engagement and service delivery can be integrated to achieve better overall outcomes.

11 Planning for sustainabilityDoing things that will help people and communities deal better with problems in the future, as well as solving the problems they face nowPolicies and programs should be focused on long-term sustainable improvement. To do this, it is important to ensure that interventions build an individual’s capacity and develop protective factors that will enable them to self-manage through life- course events.For the government, it will be important to establish benchmarks and adopt formal quantified targets that are ambitious but attainable, measurable and time specific, focus on long term policy goals, and integrate long term social inclusion objectives in broader reform efforts, such as budgetary reform and reforms being pursued through the Council of Australian Governments.

South Australia’s Social Inclusion Initiative South Australia was the first Australian jurisdiction to adopt a social inclusion strategy in 2002. The Social Inclusion Initiative recognises the need for a targeted, coordinated and assertive approach to tackling social and economic disadvantage, and has a strong emphasis on providing opportunities for the most vulnerable members of society to participate in the social and economic life of the community.

The Initiative provides the Government with advice on innovative ways to address some of the most difficult social problems, such as homelessness, drugs, suicide prevention, Aboriginal health, disability, mental health, school retention, and young offenders. Its focus is on addressing the most

A1.17

deeply excluded people and looking at one complex social issue at a time – to determine how systems need to change to deliver real benefits for each person20.

The Initiative has a direct reporting relationship with the Premier of South Australia. There is a Social Inclusion Board and Social Inclusion Commissioner who provide independent advice to the Premier and Cabinet, leadership on social inclusion and monitoring of the Initiative. The Social Inclusion Unit, located in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, supports both the Board and the Commissioner.

Victoria’s approach to social inclusionVictoria has adopted a community development approach to addressing complex social issues for disadvantaged individuals and a neighbourhood renewal approach for disadvantaged locations. Through partnerships with the Commonwealth Government, the community services sector, businesses and philanthropic organisations, and local communities across Victoria, it is investing in initiatives to address disability, mental health, homelessness, Indigenous health and protecting vulnerable children.

The policy agenda is based on the understanding that economic progress and social progress are linked together. Its four priorities are to help all Victorian children get the best start in life; improve education opportunities and help people into work; improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities; and develop liveable communities where people want to live, work and raise families.21

Social inclusion in TasmaniaSocial inclusion provides opportunities and also challenges specific to the Tasmanian context. Tasmania’s social future is inextricably tied to future economic and innovation capability. The ageing of the population will simultaneously increase demands on government outlays as the same time that industry faces an ever increasing skills shortage and competitive challenges from global markets. Social inclusion strategies need therefore to have a focus on long term actions to increase the participation rate, productivity levels and innovation capacity of Tasmanians in either the mainstream or the social economy.

Tasmania’s commitment to social inclusion is a step in the right direction. The Tasmanian Government’s Social Inclusion Unit, set up in 2008, is working with all levels of government, the community and business sectors to develop solutions to disadvantage that deliver practical results in the Tasmanian community. In its first 12 months, the Unit has reviewed Housing Tasmania’s work on rent setting, established Common Ground Tasmania as private sector led Non-Profit Company to lead business involvement in addressing homelessness in Tasmania, and worked with Housing Tasmania to develop a Tasmanian homelessness plan. It has also established a mechanism for agencies working together to coordinate community based infrastructure such as Integrated Care Centres, Child and Family Centres and Learning and Information Network Centres. Most recently it has established the Cars for Communities initiative, provided ongoing funding to Volunteering Tasmania to coordinate and invigorate volunteering, and helped fund organisations providing emergency relief to Tasmanians who are finding it hard to make ends meet.

20 Government of South Australia, 2009 People and Community at the Heart of Systems and Bureaucracy: South Australia’s Social Inclusion Initiative, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.21 Government of Victoria, 2009 A Fairer Victoria: Standing Together Through Tough Times, State Governmet of Victoria, East Melbourne.

A1.18

The Social Inclusion Unit has consulted widely with the Tasmanian community about social inclusion issues, and has collated a wide range of data to inform the development of Tasmania’s social inclusion strategy. The data is outlined in Appendix 1, and the results of the consultation in Appendix 2.

A1.19

Data on social inclusion and exclusion in Tasmania

The complex and multifaceted nature of social exclusion means that a range of different data sources are required to effectively identify and measure it.

There are a variety of quantitative and qualitative sources to choose from in measuring social exclusion in Australia and Tasmania, but each source has limitations. Quantitative statistics attempt to measure or quantify, in numeric terms, the number of Tasmanians (and particular groups of Tasmanians) that are socially excluded and the particular ways in which they are excluded. These are collected and collated by organisations such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), and a variety of other government and non-government sources.

Such statistics can provide indications of the number and proportions of the population, and particular groups and geographic communities within the population, that are affected by barriers to social inclusion such as a lack of educational qualifications; low income or chronic deprivation; long-term unemployment or poor health.

Many of the quantitative statistics available on social inclusion are drawn from sample surveys. Due to the effects of sample error, there may be difficulties in obtaining detailed breakdowns of data for small population groups (such as numerically small ethnic groups) or small geographic areas (such as small rural towns) from these surveys.

Not all sample surveys are able to reliably measure change over time, making them less useful for understanding the dynamic nature of social exclusion as a process. This is where longitudinal studies such as the Household Income and Labour Dynamics Survey (HILDA) and the Longitudinal Study of Australia’s Children (LSAC) can provide useful insights of trends at the Australian level (although these surveys are not designed to provide reliable State-level data due to their survey design22).

Generally, while quantitative statistics can illustrate broad areas of social exclusion and overall trends, they are less useful for identifying the inter-relationships between the various dimensions of social exclusion; how barriers combine to produce socially excluded individuals, communities and places. They may also be unable to provide much insight into the complex drivers behind social exclusion as a process.

This is where it is important to draw on qualitative studies that investigate the experiences of particular socially excluded individuals, groups and places. Qualitative data attempts to describe and explore the characteristics of social phenomena in non-numeric terms. For example, qualitative interviews with people who are socially excluded can help in understanding the barriers they face and how these interact to produce social exclusion. Qualitative studies provide an important means of capturing the voices of socially excluded individuals and provide insights into the complex interplay of factors involved in social exclusion.

The following analysis outlines some of the key quantitative and qualitative research and data on social exclusion in Tasmania, with a focus on the main areas where people may face barriers to social

22 More information on the sample design of the LSAC is outlined in Growing Up In Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children - Discussion Paper No. 2 - Proposed Study Design and Wave 1 Data Collection, by Carol Soloff, Christine Millward, Ann Sanson, the LSAC Consortium Advisory Group, and Sampling Design Team, accessible from http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup/home.html. Information on the HILDA survey sample design is available in The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey: Wave 1 Survey Methodology, by Nicole Watson and Mark Wooden, HILDA project technical paper series no. 1/02, May 2002, available from http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/hdps.html.

A1.20

inclusion, including: income and economic resources; housing; education; employment; health; social capital and social connectedness; and access to services and transport.

The data draws out the ways in which social exclusion is affecting Tasmanians, and how different population groups within Tasmania are affected, with a particular focus on Tasmanian Aborigines23. The data also illustrates how social exclusion varies by location in Tasmania.

Before we look at the data however, it is important to understand the impact of broader contextual factors on social exclusion and inclusion in Tasmania.

Contextual factors impacting on social exclusion in TasmaniaTasmania’s demographic, geographic and socio-economic conditions pose a number of challenges for addressing social exclusion in the State.

Demographic and geographic characteristicsTasmania is a state with a relatively small, ageing and regionally dispersed population. These aspects are discussed in turn below.

Urbanisation and rural declineMore than half of the population of approximately 500 00024 lives outside the capital city area, making Tasmania’s population one of the most regionally dispersed of any jurisdiction. At 30 June 2008, 42 per cent of the Tasmanian population lived in the Greater Hobart capital city region, with 22 per cent in the North-West and 28 per cent in the North, and 7 per cent in the Southern region outside Greater Hobart25. Most people live in urban centres within these regions, with nearly 90 per cent of the total population living in Hobart, Launceston, Burnie and Devonport26.

The population is becoming increasingly more urbanised, with the populations of local government areas (LGAs) on the urban fringe such as Sorell, Latrobe, Kingborough and Brighton being among the fastest growing LGAs in the State27. This growth has been enabled by factors such as the opening up of arterial roads and spread of affordable housing into urban fringe areas28. At the same time, populations in the rural areas of West Coast, King and Flinders Islands, and the Central Highlands have experienced significant declines29.

23 The data used in this report on Tasmanian Aborigines is primarily drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics collections including the Census of Population and Housing and surveys such as the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey. These collections use the ABS standard question for identification of people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin. More information on this question is available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/cashome.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/7464946b3f41b282ca25759f00202502!OpenDocument . The criteria used by the Tasmanian Government to determine eligibility for Tasmanian Government programs and services relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is available from the website of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, Department of Premier and Cabinet, see http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/cdd/oaa/eligibility_policy .24 The Estimated Resident Population (preliminary) of Tasmania at end December quarter 2008 was 500 300. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Australian Demographic Statistics, Dec 2008, Cat No 3101.025 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Population Data Cube, Jun 2009, Cat No 1307.626 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2007-08, Cat No 3218.027 Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2008 Tasmania’s Population 1996 – 2006: What’s Changed?, Information Paper No. 3, December 2008.28 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) Tasmania, 2007 Southern Region Overview Report, a report informing development of the Southern Integrated Transport Plan, October 2007, p.29.29 Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2008 Tasmania’s Population 1996 – 2006: What’s Changed?, Information Paper No. 3, December 2008.

A1.21

Figure 1 shows the steady growth in the population of the urban centres (Hobart, Launceston, Burnie and Devonport) since the 1960s30.

Figure 1 Population growth, Tasmanian urban centres vs balance of State, 1966-2006

Between 2001 and 2006 Censuses there was a clear pattern of movement from rural to urban areas within the State. Figure 2 shows intrastate movements between Statistical Sub-divisions (SSDs) within the State, with the urban SSDs of Greater Hobart, Greater Launceston and Burnie-Devonport gaining residents from intrastate movement, while the more rural SSDs lost residents31.

30 Data sourced from Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Australian Historical Population Statistics, 2008, Cat No 3105.0.65.00131 Australian Bureau of Statistics, analysis of Census data 2001 and 2006, unpublished internal paper.

A1.22

Figure 2 Population movements, by Statistical Sub-division, Tasmania, 2001 to 2006

Population ageingThe Tasmanian population is significantly older than the Australian population and is ageing at a faster rate than any other state or territory.32 Most developed countries are facing an ageing population (where older age groups make up increasing proportions of the population) in the coming decades. Over the next 20 years the proportion of Tasmanians under the age of 15 is projected to decline by approximately 7 per cent while the proportion of people aged 65 years and over could grow by almost 60 per cent33. The change in the age and sex structure in the Tasmanian population between 2006 and 2046 is illustrated in Figure 3.

32 Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2009 Demographic Change in Tasmania: Strategies for addressing challenges and opportunities, Strategies Paper, April 2009, accessible from: www.dcac.tas.gov.au 33 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101, ABS. Cat. No. 3222.0, Data Cube ‘Projected population, Tasmania, capital city/balance of state, 2006–2056’. The figures quoted are drawn from Series B projections.

A1.23

Figure 3 Population by age group and sex, Tasmania, June 2006 vs June 2046

Population ageing presents a number of challenges for the community such as maintaining a sufficient workforce, managing increased demand on health and social services, and planning appropriate transport and infrastructure in an environment of increased fiscal pressure. At the same time, demographic change may potentially bring opportunities, such as increased demand for industries providing services for older people, a larger number of older people available for mentoring and supporting others, and a change to more flexible and family-friendly work practices34.

The ageing of the population is partly driven by the fact that Tasmanians are living longer and having fewer children. But in Tasmania there has also been a significant impact by interstate migration. Between 1996 and 2006, Tasmania experienced a loss of around one-fifth of its young people aged 25 to 29 years, mostly due to out-migration. In losing these young people, Tasmania lost not only its young people of prime working age, but their potential children and hence, the young people of the future35. Over the same period, the proportion of the population aged 55 to 59 grew by nearly 50 per cent36.

Figure 4 illustrates the impact of population ageing on the labour force, as the numbers of young people of the age where they would be entering the labour market, is exceeded by the numbers of older persons exiting the labour market into retirement.

34 Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2009 Demographic Change in Tasmania: Strategies for addressing challenges and opportunities, Strategies Paper, April 2009, accessible from: www.dcac.tas.gov.au35 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Feature Article, ‘Ageing in Tasmania, 2006 (selected indicators)’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Mar 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.36 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Feature Article, ‘Ageing in Tasmania, 2006 (selected indicators)’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Mar 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.

A1.24

Figure 4 Labour market entrants and exits, Tasmania, 1971-2008 and projected 2009-2011

The Tasmanian Aboriginal population is significantly younger in profile to the overall Tasmanian population. There are nearly twice as many children (aged 0 to 14 years) among the Tasmanian Aboriginal community as there are among the Tasmanian population as a whole (36 per cent compared to 20 per cent) and the median age of Tasmanian Aborigines at 20 years is 20 years younger than the median age of the non-Aboriginal population of 40 years37.

However, the Tasmanian Aboriginal population, like the overall Tasmanian population, is ageing, with the proportion of Tasmanian Aborigines aged 55 and over increasing from 5 per cent in 1996 to 9 per cent in 2006, and the proportion of young people (aged under 15) decreasing from 41 per cent to 36 per cent over the same period.

Changing living arrangementsThe last decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of households, outstripping the rate of growth of the population. The number of households in Tasmania increased by 7.9 per cent from 175 200 in 1996 to 189 100 in 200638. Nationally, the past few decades has seen the number of households grow rapidly while at the same time household sizes have been shrinking. These trends have been driven by factors such as the ageing population, longer life expectancies, and changing relationship patterns and living arrangements leading to smaller household sizes39.

In the 10 years to 2006 there was a 10 per cent decline in the number of households with children in Tasmania, while the number of childless couples increased by 17 per cent and the number of people living alone increased by 15 per cent (Figure 5)40.

37 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Feature Article, ‘Ageing in Tasmania, 2006 (selected indicators)’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Mar 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.38 Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2008 Tasmania’s Population 1996 – 2006: What’s Changed?, Information Paper No. 3, December 2008.39 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Year Book Australia, 2008 – Population chapter - Households and Families, Cat No 1301.0 40 Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2008 Tasmania’s Population 1996 – 2006: What’s Changed?, Information Paper No. 3, December 2008.

A1.25

In 2006 most Tasmanians (83 per cent) lived in family households41. Of all Tasmanian families, the most common types were two parent families. In 2006, couple families with children made up 41 per cent of all Tasmanian families, and couple families with no children also made up 41 per cent of all families42. One parent families make up the remaining 17 per cent of Tasmanian families. Aboriginal Tasmanians are less likely to live alone than non-Aboriginal Tasmanians (13 per cent of Aboriginal households were lone person households in 2006 compared to 28 per cent of other households) but are twice as likely to be living in one parent families (23 per cent of Aboriginal households were one parent family households compared to 11 per cent of other households)43.

Lone person households are projected to grow faster than any other household type in Australia over the coming decades44, and this may have implications for social inclusion across a range of areas, including in housing and settlement planning, transport and social support.

Figure 5 Change in household living arrangements, Tasmania, 1996-2006

Regional variationsDemographic change is not occurring uniformly across the Tasmanian population. There are regional differences, and differences between population groups.

One important regional trend is the ageing of rural areas compared to urban areas. Around Australia the proportion of young people in rural areas has been declining, as young people move to urban areas in search of educational and employment opportunities45. Population decline and ageing in

41 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing – Basic Community Profile, Tasmania, 2006, Cat No 2001.0, Table B22 – Relationship in Household by Age and Sex.42 2006 Census data sourced from Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators – Family and Community chapter, June 2009, Cat No 1307.643 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 Census data. ‘Aboriginal households’ are those where at least one resident identified as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; ‘other’ households are where no resident identified as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander on Census night 2006.44 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Year Book Australia, 2008 – Population chapter - Households and Families, Cat No 1301.045 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003 Australian Social Trends, 2003 – Feature Article: Population distribution: Youth migration within Australia, Cat No 4102.0

A1.26

some of these areas has been accompanied by a decline in key industries and withdrawal of services such as banking and schools, with consequent impacts on the sustainability and wellbeing of the remaining population46.

These patterns can be seen in Tasmania with the growth in the numbers of young people (those aged 15-29 years) in urban LGAs such as Kingborough, Hobart, West Tamar, and Sorell between 1996 and 2006, and the rapid decline of young people in the West Coast, Glamorgan-Spring Bay, Flinders and Central Highlands47. Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the different age structures between Break O’Day LGA and Dorset LGA, both of which contain rural areas and have higher numbers of older persons, and Launceston LGA with higher numbers of young people. The charts illustrate how the movement of younger people to urban centres creates a ‘hollowing out’ effect in the age structures of the more rural LGAs.

Figure 6 Population by sex and age group, Break O’Day, 2006

Figure 7 Population by sex and age group, Dorset, 2006

46 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003 Australian Social Trends, 2003 – Feature Article: Population distribution: Youth migration within Australia, Cat No 4102.047 Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2008 Tasmania’s Population 1996 – 2006: What’s Changed?, Information Paper No. 3, December 2008.

A1.27

Figure 8 Population by sex and age group, Launceston, 2006

Impact of contextual factorsThe trends outlined above - demographic change, changes in household types and dispersed settlement patterns - on social exclusion can be seen in the data in this chapter.

For example, the ageing population is a contributing factor in Tasmania’s lower labour force participation rates48, lower literacy levels49 and higher levels of disability50, as older people are less likely to participate in the labour force, to access the internet, and to have functional literacy levels, and are more likely to have a disability than younger people. The growth in the number of lone person households has implications for housing affordability, as households reliant on a single income may be more vulnerable to housing stress than dual-income households51. There will also be implications for urban planning as more houses that suit the needs of sole person households, and particularly those containing older people with special needs, may be required52.

As the population ages, there will be increasing demands on services for older people. However, Tasmania’s dispersed population poses particular challenges for delivering services, and contributes to social exclusion by making it more difficult for people outside the urban centres to access services, transport and also the internet. This also reinforces the need for a place-based focus to social inclusion strategies (see further below).

Other contextual factors A number of other environmental and socio-economic factors, not unique to Tasmania, will impact on social exclusion in the State.

Tasmania, like a number of other states and territories, has experienced a prolonged period of drought. Research indicates that this has effects on social exclusion in rural communities, including impacts on mental and physical health, financial security, education outcomes for children of

48 Demographic Change Advisory Council, Who is Not Participating in Tasmania’s Labour Force? – Summary Paper, July 2007.49 Feature Article, ‘Adult Literacy in Tasmania, 2006’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Jun 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.50 See Feature Article ‘People with a Need for Assistance in Tasmania, 2006’, in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Sep 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.51 Yates, J and Milligan, V, 2007 Housing affordability: a 21st century problem, report for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), September 2007, p.14-15.52 Yates, J and Milligan, V, 2007 Housing affordability: a 21st century problem, report for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), September 2007, p.14-15.

A1.28

farming families, and community capacity, with reduced ability of families to volunteer and participate in community projects53. As parts of Tasmania continue to experience dryness, it will be important to consider these impacts in drafting social inclusion policies.

There is evidence that the global financial crisis has increased demand on community service organisations in distributing emergency relief to individuals and families in financial crisis54, and this is expected to worsen as families and individuals come under financial strain from the impact of unemployment and continued cost-of-living pressures55. Tasmania is not immune to these impacts.

As well as its impacts on agriculture, other industries, infrastructure and the natural environment, climate change is predicted to have a range of social impacts that will affect social inclusion in Tasmania and around the country. Prices for essential items such as food, housing, transport, and domestic fuel and power are likely to increase, and the impacts of climate change on health and wellbeing are expected to result in increased medical and wellbeing management costs56. These impacts will be felt across the social spectrum, but socially excluded and disadvantaged households are particularly at risk57, and Tasmania’s regionally dispersed population also means rising fuel prices will have a particular impact in rural areas58.

Social exclusion in Tasmania – findings from the research

Poverty, deprivation and financial hardshipSocial exclusion is about more than just people who are ‘poor’: it also encompasses a range of other barriers to participation such as not having a job, lacking educational qualifications, and being excluded from social networks59.

However, not having sufficient money to support a decent standard of living is an important barrier to social inclusion. It is important to understand how and why this occurs in order to better understand social exclusion in the State.

Poverty is a difficult concept to define and measure as it is closely linked to assumptions about what constitutes a decent standard of living. Depending on the definition used, it has been estimated that the number of Australians in financial hardship could range from 2.6 million to 4.3 million60. To

53 Drought Policy Review Expert Social Panel 2008, It’s About People: Changing Perspective. A Report to Government by an Expert Social Panel on Dryness, Report to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, September.54 Sue King, Sue; Bellamy, John; Swann, Natalie; Gavarotto, Rachael and Philip Coller, 2009 Social Exclusion: The Sydney Experience, Anglicare Diocese of Sydney, Policy Unit Research Paper, June 2009.55 Access Economics, 2008 The impact of the global financial crisis on social services in Australia, An Issues Paper prepared by Access Economics for Anglicare Australia, Catholic Social Services Australia, The Salvation Army and UnitingCare Australia, November 2008.56 SGS Economics and Planning, 2008 Social Impacts of Climate Change in the ACT - Final Report, prepared for the ACT Chief Minister’s Department, May 2008, p.iii.57 SGS Economics and Planning, 2008 Social Impacts of Climate Change in the ACT - Final Report, prepared for the ACT Chief Minister’s Department, May 2008, p.iv.58 Tasmanian Climate Change Office, 2008 Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change, Department of Premier and Cabinet, July 2008.59 A useful discussion of the differences between the overlapping concepts of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion is outlined in Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm 60 Based on an analysis of the number of Australian households falling within different categories such as: being on a low income, having low economic resources, being welfare-dependent, having low levels of expenditure and high levels of financial stress, in 2003-04. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Measures of Australia’s Progress, 2006, Cat No 1370.0, p.71.

A1.29

effectively capture the diverse range of experiences of people who are struggling to make ends meet, we need a range of measures. These include measures of income and economic resources, poverty lines, living costs, deprivation and food security.

Income inequality

A starting point for identifying who may be at risk of poverty in Tasmania is to look at people living on low incomes. People on low incomes may be at risk of poverty, particularly if they have to manage high living costs and/or have particular needs, such as high education expenses for children, expensive medicines or equipment to assist with a disability.

The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) defines households in the bottom 40 per cent of the income distribution as low income households61. The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines low income households as those falling in the second and third deciles of the income distribution (that is, the 20 per cent of people in the second and third lowest income deciles). For the purposes of the following analysis, the ABS definition is used, as ABS is the source of the income data used here. It should be noted that any definition of ‘low income’ has its limitations, as income itself is limited as an indicator of the true financial situation of households62.

While average household incomes have increased over recent years in Tasmania, low income households have not kept pace with these increases to the same degree.

Over the period from 1994-95 to 2007-08 there was a 33 per cent increase in the real mean equivalised disposable incomes of low income households in Tasmania, compared to 40 per cent increase for all households and a 49 per cent increase for high income households 63 - see Figure 9. This indicates that the gap between rich and poor has widened in Tasmania as the economy has improved.

In 2007-08, the average weekly equivalised disposable income of a Tasmanian household in the ‘low income’ category was $35964. While income data for 2007-08 for Tasmanian Aborigines is not available, according to the 2006 Census, Tasmanian Aborigines had lower income than non-Aboriginal Tasmanians. Tasmanian Aborigines had a median gross personal income of $323 per week compared to $402 per week for non-Aboriginal Tasmanians65.

61 Tasmanian Council of Social Services, TasCOSS response to the A Social Inclusion Strategy for Tasmania: A Consultation paper, December 2008.62 For a discussion of definitions of ‘low income’ and other measures of economic resources and financial hardship, see Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Measures of Australia’s Progress, 2006, Cat No 1370.0, ‘Economic Hardship’ chapter.63 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia – Detailed Tables, 2007-08, Cat No 6523.0. It should be noted that some changes in the ABS method of calculating income introduced in the 2007-08 survey affect the comparability of the results for years earlier than 2003-04 – for more information see Appendix 4 of Cat No 6523.0. 64 Refers to average weekly disposable household income of households in the second and third deciles of the income distribution. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia – Detailed Tables, 2007-08, Cat No 6523.065 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Census Basic Community Profile Series 2006: Indigenous Profile, Tasmania, Cat No 2002.0.

A1.30

Figure 9 Change in average equivalised disposable household incomes, low vs high income households, 1994-95 to 2007-08, Tasmania66

For most Tasmanian households the main source of income is a wage or salary from a job. However, a significant proportion of households rely on government welfare payments as their main source of income. Although the proportion of welfare-dependent households has declined in recent years, Tasmania still has the highest proportion of welfare-dependent households of all states and territories at 34 per cent (Figure 10).67 Of these households, the majority (52 per cent) were in receipt of retirement pensions and benefits – although this was a lower proportion than the Australian average of 56 per cent. A higher proportion of welfare-dependent households in Tasmania were in receipt of unemployment and student allowances – 8 per cent compared to 5 per cent of Australian households68.

66 The graph illustrates the increases in mean weekly disposable household income (adjusted or ‘equivalised’ to account for different household sizes) of persons on a low income (defined as persons in the second and third deciles of the income distribution – that is, the 20% of people with household income between the bottom 10% and bottom 30% of incomes) and those on a high income (persons in the ninth and tenth income deciles), against all persons. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia – Detailed Tables, 2007-08, Cat No 6523.067 In 2007-08, 34.1 per cent of Tasmanian households were reliant on government pensions or allowances as their main source of income, the highest proportion of all states and territories (though this has declined from a high of 37.6 per cent in 2002-03). 2007-08 data is sourced from Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia, 2007-08, Cat No 6523.0; earlier years data sourced from Australian Social Trends, 2008, ABS Cat. No. 4102.0, Data Cube - Economic Resources Indicators. (Data is also presented in Tasmania Together indicator 1.1.2 ‘Proportion of households where primary source of income is government pensions or allowances’).68 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia, 2007-08 – Detailed Tables, Cat No 6523.0

A1.31

Figure 10 Proportion of households dependent on government pensions and allowances, by state and territory, 2007-08

Levels of dependency on income support payments are even higher among Tasmanian Aborigines – in 2002, approximately 48 per cent of Tasmanian Aborigines were reliant on government payments as their main source of income, and over one-third (36 per cent) of these households had been welfare-dependent for two years or longer.69 People who are dependent on welfare are at increased risk of deprivation and of financial hardship70.

Poverty lines

Another perspective on poverty is to consider the proportion of the population living below a set ‘poverty line’ – an income level considered sufficient for a reasonable standard of living in society. There are a range of different poverty lines in use, and each produces different results. Two commonly used poverty lines are the ’50 per cent median’ and ’60 per cent median’ lines, each representing an income value equal to 50 per cent and 60 per cent respectively of the median (middle) income value of the entire population.

In 2005-06 (the latest year for which the analysis has been conducted), 13 per cent of Tasmanians, or 64 000 people, were living below the 50 per cent poverty line - that is, living on after-tax incomes less than $281 per week. In the same year, 24 per cent of Tasmanians, or 120 000 people, were living

69 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2002 Cat No 4714.0. 70 The following study found that having an income below $300 per week – the level at which the basic welfare payment for singles falls- is a risk factor for deprivation. Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm

A1.32

below the 60 per cent poverty line – that is, incomes less than $337 per week.71 Groups most at risk of this type of income poverty are single people, lone parents, seniors (aged over 65) and young people aged under 25, the unemployed, people living in jobless households, and people dependent on social security payments72.

Poverty is a dynamic state, and people may move in and out of poverty over time as their circumstances change. Another perspective on poverty lines is to examine the numbers of people who remain living below the poverty line for an extended period of time. An analysis of data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA) survey over 2001 and 2005 found that 8 per cent of the survey population (Australia-wide) were persistently ‘poor’ (ie. living below the 60 per cent median poverty line) for two of the five years in that period, and 7 per cent were poor in all of the five years. Persistent poverty was more likely to be experienced by the elderly, people with disabilities, single mothers, non-aged singles and people of a non-English speaking background73.

Economic resources

A fundamental problem with poverty lines is their heavy reliance on assumptions about the average level of income a ‘typical’ household requires for a decent standard of living. Different households have different needs for food, electricity, housing, health, education and other expenses, and so it is difficult to define a ‘typical’ income level that captures this diversity.

Poverty lines also do not take into account the other types of resources households may be able to draw on to support their lifestyle, for example, ownership of assets such as their own home, the ability to draw on credit or savings, or non-cash support from family and friends. The ABS has developed a measure that identifies people who have both low income and low levels of wealth (that is, low levels of assets net of liabilities)74. In Tasmania in 2005-06, 17 per cent of Tasmanians were living in low income-low wealth households, compared to 13 per cent of Australians. This equates to approximately 83 000 people in Tasmania living in households with low access to economic resources75.

To fully understand the circumstances of those who are poor, it is necessary to examine the types of issues that cause pressure on household finances. These include rising living costs and exclusion from financial services.

71 Based on an analysis of the proportion of the population in each State and Territory living below the 50 per cent and 60 per cent median poverty lines, based on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Survey of Income and Housing data for 2005-06, published in Poverty in Australia: Sensitivity Analysis and Recent Trends, by Peter Saunders, Trish Hill and Bruce Bradbury, report commissioned by Jobs Australia on Behalf of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), SPRC Report 4/08, Social Policy Research Centre, March 2008, Table 23 p.44. (ABS Estimated Resident Population figures for June 2006 sourced from Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Sept 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6). The 50 and 60 per cent median poverty lines refer to values equivalent to 50 per cent and 60 per cent respectively of the median equivalised disposable household income (ie. the midpoint of all Australian household incomes, adjusted to account for different household sizes). In 2005-06 the 50 per cent value equated to $281 per week and the 60 per cent value equated to $337 per week.72 Saunders, Peter; Hill, Trish; and Bradbury, Bruce, 2008 Poverty in Australia: Sensitivity Analysis and Recent Trends, report commissioned by Jobs Australia on Behalf of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), SPRC Report 4/08, Social Policy Research Centre, March 2008, pp7-8..73 HILDA data cited in Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2009 How’s Australia Faring? A Compendium of Social Inclusion Indicators, May 2009, p.13.74 The measure is called households with ‘low economic resources’ and is defined as persons living in households that are in simultaneously both the lowest three income deciles and the lowest three net worth deciles. Data for Australia is available in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Measures of Australia’s Progress, 2006, Cat No 1370.0; 75Unpublished data from Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Income and Housing 2005-06, published in Tasmanian Council of Social Services (TasCOSS), 2007 An Unfair State? Poverty, Disadvantage and Exclusion in Tasmania, October 2007.

A1.33

Cost of living

At the same time as incomes have been rising in recent years, the cost of basic items such as food, electricity, transport and fuel have risen considerably. Over the three years from June 2005 the average price of food rose by 15 per cent, rents rose by over 17 per cent, household energy bills rose by 17 per cent and fuel rose by 41 per cent 76.

These cost of living increases have impacted more heavily on low income households as there is evidence that these households spend proportionally more of their income on basics such as food and housing costs than average households77. There is evidence that households dependent on aged and disability support pensions along with other types of income support payments have been particularly hard hit by price increases, due to their higher expenditure on items such as food, housing and transport78. ABS data indicates that nationally, while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose by 1.5 per cent over 2008-09, living costs for age pensioner households rose 2.8 per cent over the same period, and rose 1.9 per cent for recipients of other government transfers. In contrast, living costs for working households actually declined by 0.7 per cent79.

Figure 11 illustrates this impact. It charts the cost of basic living essentials as a proportion of the average welfare entitlement of a low income family with two children. In 2008 it is estimated that the cost of these essentials (food, electricity, housing, transport and health) for an unemployed couple with two children would take up almost 94 per cent of their welfare entitlement, leaving little room for emergency expenses or savings80.

The impact of climate change is expected to worsen these cost of living pressures further as the imposition of a price on carbon, environmental pressures and other effects cause increases in the costs of food, water, electricity, health services and transport81.

76 Australian Council of Social Services, 2008 Who is missing out? Hardship among low income Australians, 8 December 2008, p.1.77 See Australian Bureau of Statistics, Household Expenditure Survey, Australia, 2003-04, Cat No 6530.078 Analysis of the impact of changes in Consumer Price Index items on different household types and income groups, in Dufty, Gavin, 2008 Winners and Losers – the Relative Price Index, St Vincent de Paul Society, Victoria, September 2008.79 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Analytical Living Cost Indexes for Selected Australian Household Types, Jun 2009, Cat No 6463.080 The cost of purchasing essential items (food, electricity, housing, transport and health) for an unemployed couple with two children aged 6 and 12 has risen steadily from 71.0% in 2002 to 93.5% in 2008, although this has declined from the 2007 figure of 98.7%. The cost of essentials for an unemployed couple with no children would cost 74.7% of their welfare entitlement in 2008. This has risen from 71.0% in 2002 although has declined from a high of 77.7% in 2007. Source: Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.1 ‘The cost of food, electricity, housing, transport and health as a proportion of income for low income households’, see www.ttbenchmarks.com.au81 SGS Economics and Planning, 2008 Social Impacts of Climate Change in the ACT - Final Report, prepared for the ACT Chief Minister’s Department, May 2008.

A1.34

Figure 11 Tasmania Together benchmark 1.1.1 The cost of food, electricity, housing, transport and health as a proportion of income for low income households82

As well as increases in the costs of essentials, there is evidence that households are facing other types of ‘market exclusion’, that is - barriers that deny or limit access to products or services that they receive or are offered. Research in Victoria has identified examples of market exclusion faced by Victorian households including: fees imposed on school students such as for accessing computers or the internet; the introduction of co-payments and reduced service levels by services such as Meals on Wheels; the exclusion of low-income and disadvantaged clients from obtaining credit from mainstream financial institutions, leading them to rely on pay-day lenders and fringe lenders; and the billing and collection practices of essential service providers such as gas, water and utilities83. The research indicates that government cash and non-cash transfers to at-risk groups designed to reduce the impact of these changes have not been sufficient to address this market exclusion84.

Deprivation The above analyses of data on income levels, poverty lines and cost of living increases rely on assumptions about the level of income an ‘average’ household requires for a decent standard of living, as well as assumptions about what constitutes ‘essential’ items and how to price these.

A more direct method of identifying households in financial distress is to ask the households themselves to define what items they consider ‘essential’ for a decent standard of living, and then ask whether or not they are able to afford them. This was the approach used in a groundbreaking study of deprivation and social exclusion conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) in 200685.

82 Source: Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.1 ‘The cost of food, electricity, housing, transport and health as a proportion of income for low income households’, see www.ttbenchmarks.com.au83 The Society of St Vincent de Paul, Victoria, Submission to: Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission - Enquiry into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability, prepared by Gavin Dufty, Manager Research and Policy Unit, 27 March 2008.84 The Society of St Vincent de Paul, Victoria, Submission to: Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission - Enquiry into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability, prepared by Gavin Dufty, Manager Research and Policy Unit, 27 March 2008.85Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm.

A1.35

In the study, a national sample of approximately 2 700 Australian adults and another sample of 700 clients of community sector welfare services were surveyed. Both groups of respondents were asked to identify the items they considered essential for life. A total of 26 items were identified as essential by a majority of respondents. The items that received the highest support for being ‘essential’ included basics such as ‘medical treatment if needed’, ‘warm clothes and bedding if it’s cold’, ‘a substantial meal at least once a day’, but also included intangible items such as ‘to be treated with respect by other people’, ‘to be accepted by others for how you are’, ‘and ‘supportive family relationships’86.

Respondents were then asked whether they had the items they considered essential, and if not, if it was because they could not afford it. Households who could not afford one or more of the 26 essential items were considered to be ‘deprived’. The study also identified a set of indicators of ‘social exclusion’, with three types of exclusion identified: disengagement (inability to afford items associated with participation in social and community activities such as having a social life and having hobbies or leisure activities for children); service exclusion (inability to access key services such as medical services, disability support services, dental or mental health services etc); and economic exclusion (restricted access to economic resources such as savings for an emergency, or living in a jobless households).

Figure 12 shows the proportion of the general community sample, and of the sample of clients of welfare organisations, who were deprived of each of the top 10 essential items in the survey.

Figure 12 Incidence of deprivation, clients of welfare organisations vs general community, Australia, 200687

86Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm.87 Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm.

A1.36

While the average incidence of deprivation among the general Australian population surveyed was low (on average 6 per cent of the population were deprived of one or more items), the incidence for certain groups such as Indigenous Australians, sole parent families, public housing renters, the unemployed, and clients of community sector welfare organisations, was much higher. The incidence of deprivation was also found to be higher among Tasmanians than other states and territories, although this was based on a relatively small sample.

The incidence of social exclusion (disengagement, service exclusion and economic exclusion) was higher than for deprivation, with an average incidence of exclusion across the three categories of 19 per cent. The groups most at risk of social exclusion were those who were at higher risk of deprivation – particularly public renters, the unemployed and Indigenous Australians.

Qualitative interviews with people living on low incomes illustrate the impact of deprivation, social exclusion, and income poverty on people’s lives. Interviews with 150 low income Tasmanians conducted by the Tasmanian Council of Social Services (TasCOSS)88 found that many are struggling to pay for basic needs, to the extent that many are only one incident (a medical emergency or unexpected bill) away from profound deprivation. The TasCOSS study found that poverty and deprivation impacts not only on standard of living – it can also lead to chronic debt, stigma, social isolation, poor health, inadequate housing, stress, and limited access to health services.

Food security

When finances are tight and living costs rise, struggling households find that food is the one area where expenditure can be curtailed in order to afford the costs of paying rent or mortgage, electricity and heating, transport, medical expenses, school fees, and other items. In the interviews by TasCOSS with low income Tasmanians, the experience of going without food was a consistent theme, with people either eating less food or less nutritious food in order to meet their basic costs. Meat, fish and vegetables were particularly expensive and people in rural and isolated areas found it particularly difficult to buy affordable fresh food89.

Food security is the ability of individuals, households and communities to acquire food that is sufficient, reliable, nutritious, safe, acceptable and sustainable90. While there is no data available yet that comprehensively measures all the aspects of food security (nutrition, cost, availability, sustainability) for Tasmania, there is survey data that identifies the numbers of people who have been unable to afford food at some time. This gives a broad indication of people who may be at risk of food insecurity in Tasmania.

In 2001 between 4 and 7 per cent of Tasmanians aged 18 and over reported that they had run out of food at some time in the previous 12 months and could not afford to buy more91. In 2002 approximately 2.4 per cent of Tasmanians aged 18 and over reported that they or their household had gone without meals sometime in the previous 12 months due to a shortage of money. A 2005 Tasmanian community survey found that 5 per cent of Tasmanian adults reported that they mostly or always worried about whether the amount of food they could afford would be enough for their

88 Tasmanian Council of Social Services (TasCOSS) (2009) ‘Just scraping by? Conversations with Tasmanians living on low incomes.’ Social Policy and Research Team.89 Tasmanian Council of Social Services, 2009 Just scraping by? Conversations with Tasmanians living on low incomes, Social Policy and Research Team, p.35.90 Department of Health and Human Services, 2004 Tasmanian Food and Nutrition Policy 2004, Tasmanian Government. 91 Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Health Survey 2004-05, unpublished data for Tasmania. The proportion of Tasmanians reporting that they had run out of food in the previous 12 months and could not afford to buy more was 5.5 per cent. Taking into account the error associated with this estimate, it is estimated that the true proportion (95 per cent confidence interval) could range from 4.2 to 6.8 per cent.

A1.37

household, and 4 per cent had gone without meals at some time in the past year due to a shortage of money92. Sole parents and concession card holders were found to be particularly at risk93.

National and international research identifies the following groups as being at-risk of food insecurity: the unemployed, people with limited formal education, people with a disability or mental illness, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, the frail elderly, people affected by alcohol or substance abuse, Indigenous Australians, and the homeless94. In the SPRC study of deprivation, the proportion of the general Australian population who reported that they were deprived of being able to obtain ‘a substantial meal at least once a day’ was only 1 per cent; however, the incidence of food deprivation was much higher for clients of community welfare organisations, with nearly 13 per cent reporting deprivation of a substantial meal at least once a day95.

Emergency Relief

An important source of support for people facing extreme financial hardship is community organisations distributing emergency relief. The Emergency Relief Program administered by the Commonwealth Government funds community organisations to distribute material relief in the form of purchase vouchers (for food, transport or the chemist), assistance with rent or accommodation costs, part-payment of utility accounts, material assistance such as food parcels or clothing, budgeting assistance or referrals to other services such as housing, employment, mental health or family support services96.

Analysis of emergency relief clients can provide another perspective on the circumstances of people in extreme financial hardship. A study by Anglicare Diocese of Sydney97 on clients of seven of their emergency relief centres found that clients with these characteristics were more likely to use emergency relief than others: women, Indigenous, relatively young (25-49 years), living alone or sole parents, and living in public or private rental accommodation. The vast majority (95 per cent) of clients were dependent on welfare benefits and the majority lived on incomes of less than $600 per fortnight. The study also found strong evidence of entrenched locational disadvantage: while clients using the services came from 116 postcodes across the diocesan area, almost one third of the clients came from the same four postcodes.

The study found that the most common issues cited by clients presenting to the emergency relief centres were those related to ‘low income leading to an inability to manage finances’, followed by unemployment, accommodation or housing issues, significant financial debt, and physical health. In focus groups these clients spoke of feelings of shame in accessing emergency relief; having limited aspirations and a sense of worthlessness; and their difficulties in accessing transport and services. The evidence also indicated that Anglicare’s Sydney emergency relief services are operating at

92Madden, Kelly and Law, Margie, 2005 The Tasmanian Community Survey: Financial Hardship, Anglicare Tasmania Social Action Research Centre, December 2005.93Madden, Kelly and Law, Margie, 2005 The Tasmanian Community Survey: Financial Hardship, Anglicare Tasmania Social Action Research Centre, December 2005.94 Research cited in Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania, 2008 Food Security in Tasmania: Planning for Population Health, unpublished report August 2008.95 Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm, Table 2 p.49.96 More information on the program is available from website of the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs - http://www.fahcsia.gov.au 97 Sue King, Sue; Bellamy, John; Swann, Natalie; Gavarotto, Rachael and Philip Coller, 2009 Social Exclusion: The Sydney Experience, ANGLICARE Diocese of Sydney, Policy Unit Research Paper, June 2009.

A1.38

capacity, with data indicating that on average, over a third of visits to a service in a given month result in the client being turned away98.

Figure 13 shows a recent increase in the number of clients accessing emergency relief services in Tasmania. In 2006-07, approximately 12 300 clients were assisted by community organisations dispensing emergency relief, and in 2007-08, this increased 29 per cent to approximately 15 900 clients99.

Figure 13 Emergency Relief assistance provided, Tasmania, 2003-04 and 2007-08

Anglicare Tasmania is currently conducting a study of Tasmanian emergency relief clients, a follow up to their 1997-98 and 2003-04 studies100. The results, due in coming months, will provide additional data on the needs of Tasmanian emergency relief clients and important information on the circumstances of people in extreme financial hardship.

Financial exclusion

For people attempting to manage on a low income, a sudden unexpected expense or rise in costs may require them to draw on savings, borrow from family or friends or seek credit to get by. There is evidence that people on low incomes or who have particular characteristics are excluded from mainstream financial services, and therefore find it particularly difficult to access credit and finance when facing financial hardship.

The SPRC study defined ‘economic exclusion’ in terms of the following eight indicators: not having $500 in emergency savings; having to pawn or sell something or borrow money in the previous 12 months; inability to raise $2 000 in a week; not having $50 000 worth of assets; had not spent $100

98 The average turn away rate over the period July 07-Feb 09 (calculated as the number of people turned away as a proportion of observed demand - visits plus turnaways) was 38 per cent, see Table 1, p.14 in Sue King, Sue; Bellamy, John; Swann, Natalie; Gavarotto, Rachael and Philip Coller, 2009 Social Exclusion: The Sydney Experience, ANGLICARE Diocese of Sydney, Policy Unit Research Paper, June 2009.99 Analysis of Emergency Relief Data Reports for 2003-04 to 2007-08 by the Tasmanian Social Inclusion Unit. Data reports provided by the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA).100 See $orting it out: an investigation into the needs and experiences of Tasmanians in financial crisis (Wolstenholme 1998) and Bread and board: when the basics break the budget (Madden 2004).

A1.39

on a special treat; does not have enough to get by on; being currently unemployed or looking for work; and living in a jobless household. The survey found that nearly one quarter (24 per cent) of the general population did not have $500 in emergency savings, and 14 per cent could not raise $2 000 in a week, with far higher rates of economic exclusion among clients of community welfare organisations (66 per cent did not have $500 in savings and 52 per cent could not raise $2 000). Rates of economic exclusion were higher also for sole parent families, the unemployed, people with a disability, private and public renters and Indigenous Australians101.

Although data for Tasmanians at risk of economic exclusion was not available from the SPRC survey, the 2006 ABS General Social Survey found that 13 per cent of Tasmanians were unable to raise $2 000 in a week for something important. While comparable data for Tasmanian Aborigines was not available from that survey, the 2002 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey found that around 34 per cent of Tasmanian Aborigines were unable to raise $2 000 in a week for something important102.

The deregulation of the banking industry has led to many lower income clients being excluded from the lending practices of the mainstream providers (such as banks, credit unions, and building societies, etc), and consequently many lower income clients have to seek other sources of finance103. These may include family or friends, no-interest loan programs or micro-credit programs, or ‘fringe’ providers such as pay day lenders. Research has shown that most people accessing payday loans do so to pay for essential items such as food, rent, car repairs and utility bills, rather than for lasting items104. A study by Anglicare Tasmania of pay day lending in Tasmania105 identified a number of problems these types of loans cause people on low incomes, such as increased debt (as inability to repay the loans leads to further financial hardship, causing a downward spiral in household finances), and their high expense, once fees and charges are taken into account, compared to mainstream credit products.

Housing affordability and homelessnessHaving a roof over one’s head is essential for social inclusion. Access to appropriate, safe and secure housing is important for maintaining health and for providing a stable base from which to engage with the wider world.

While the housing boom has led to prosperity for some, it has significantly reduced housing affordability for others. The rapid increase in land and property prices has put home ownership out of the reach of many lower income individuals and families. At the same time, low vacancy rates in the private rental market make it difficult to find affordable rentals.106

Over the period of the housing boom, the proportion of households who fully owned their home in Tasmania declined, and the proportion of households with a mortgage increased107. At the same time, the proportion of households in public housing declined while the proportion renting from

101 Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm102 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2002 Cat No 4714.0.103 Hughes, Camilla, 2009 Pay Day Lending in Tasmania, January 2009, Anglicare Social Action Research Centre, Tasmania, p.11.104 2008 study by the Consumer Action Law Centre and 2002 research in Victoria by Wilson reported in Hughes, Camilla, 2009 Pay Day Lending in Tasmania, January 2009, Anglicare Social Action Research Centre, Tasmania, p.15.105 Hughes, Camilla, 2009 Pay Day Lending in Tasmania, January 2009, Anglicare Social Action Research Centre, Tasmania.106 Legislative Council Select Committee Report on Housing Affordability in Tasmania, Parliament of Tasmania, 15 April 2008, Executive Summary, p.2.

A1.40

private landlords increased. Over the same period, there were large increases in the median mortgage and rent payments of Tasmanian households.108

There is disagreement on the best way to measure housing affordability; however, a range of measures indicate that housing affordability has become a problem in Tasmania in recent years109. Between 2001-02 and 2005-06 the Tasmanian house price to income ratio increased from 1:3.4 to 1:5.5, meaning that by 2005-06 it cost 5.5 times the median annual household income to purchase a house at the median annual sale price (Figure 14).

Figure 14 Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.5 Tasmanian house price to income ratio110

It is not only low-income households that face difficulties in affording housing costs. Research has indicated that between 2002-03 and 2005-06, housing affordability problems in Tasmania declined among low income households, but grew among middle and high income households. It is estimated that approximately 17 500 low income households (18 per cent of all low income households in Tasmania) were in housing stress in Tasmania in 2005-06.111 Housing stress was more likely to be experienced by private renters, first home buyers, younger households (15-34 years), lone and group households, and households who arrived in Australia less than ten years ago than other household types112.

107 On the 2006 Census night in Tasmania, 36.8% of all occupied private dwellings were fully owned. This was a 4.8 percentage points decrease on the 2001 Census night estimate of 41.6%. On the 2006 Census night in Tasmania, 32.3% of the total occupied private dwellings were owned with a mortgage, an increase of 4.1 percentage points on the 2001 Census estimate of 28.2%. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, December 2007, Feature Article: Tasmanian Housing Indicators, Cat No. 1307.6108 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, December 2007, Feature Article: Tasmanian Housing Indicators, Cat No. 1307.6109 Legislative Council Select Committee Report on Housing Affordability in Tasmania, Parliament of Tasmania, 15 April 2008, p.23.110 Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.5 Tasmanian house price to income ratio – see www.ttbenchmarks.com.au. 111 A commonly used measure of housing stress is the ‘30/40 rule’, which attributes stress to those households that spend more than 30% of their gross household income on housing and that fall in the bottom 40% of the equivalised income distribution. This measure is considered to provide a robust general estimate of the numbers of households in housing stress; however, it is considered to be a relatively conservative estimate as it excludes moderate income households who are marginal first home buyers in high-cost areas. Source: analysis of ABS Survey of Income and Housing 2005-06 data by Michelle Gabriel, reported in Gabriel, Michelle, 2007 Housing Stress in Tasmania: Recent Trends and Future Projections Report 2 December 2007, Housing and Community Research Unit, University of Tasmania.112 Gabriel, Michelle, 2007 Housing Stress in Tasmania: Recent Trends and Future Projections Report 2 December 2007, Housing and Community Research Unit, University of Tasmania.

A1.41

The situation for low-income private renters has worsened significantly: between 2001 and 2008 the proportion of households receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance in housing stress increased from 22 per cent to 29 per cent.113 A comprehensive three-year study into housing affordability by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) found that lower-income households in the private rental market are most affected by housing affordability pressures114.

Increases in housing costs (whether through rent increases or interest rate increases causing pressure on mortgage repayments) impact disproportionately on lower income households as they spend proportionately more of their income on housing costs. Data from 2005-06 indicates that households in the lowest quintile of equivalised disposable household income in Australia spend on average 23 per cent of their gross income on housing costs, compared to 14 per cent for all households.115

Public housing provides a source of affordable housing for very low income households who are unable to rent in the private market. In 2007-08, 7 per cent of Tasmanian households were in public housing, compared to 5 per cent of Australian households.116 Tasmanian Aboriginal households in 2006 were almost twice as likely as other households to be renting their dwellings (44 per cent of Tasmanian Aboriginal households – those with at least one person identified as of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent - were renting compared to 24 per cent of non-Aboriginal Tasmanians), and were nearly twice as likely to be living in public housing as other households (38 per cent compared to 22 per cent).

A decline in public housing stock at a time of increased demand for public housing has put increased pressure on the ability of the system to meet demand117, particularly as there are fewer affordable housing options available for public tenants to move to. A lack of affordable accommodation options for people on low incomes leads to tenants staying in public housing for longer, leading to low turnover while demand remains high118. The highest-need applicants currently wait an average of 19 weeks to be housed,119 and in the twelve months to 30 June 2009, the number of applicants housed decreased by 12.6 per cent, compared to the same period in 2008 (Figure 15). 120

113 Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.4 Housing stress experienced by low-income earners in the private rental market. Between June 2002 and June 2007 the proportion of all Tasmanian households receiving Commonwealth Rental Assistance spending more that 30% of their income on rental payments (a commonly-used definition of housing stress) increased from 21.9% to 27.1% .114 Yates, J and Milligan, V, 2007 Housing affordability: a 21st century problem, report for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), September 2007, p.1.115 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007, Housing Occupancy and Costs, Australia, 2005-06, Cat. No. 4130.0.55.001, Table 2.116 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia, 2007-08, Cat No 6523.0117 Legislative Council Select Committee Report on Housing Affordability in Tasmania, Parliament of Tasmania, 15 April 2008, Executive Summary, p.3; and 118 Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 Your Health and Human Services Progress Chart, August 2009, p.13.119 The average time to house Category 1(highest need) applicants was 19 weeks for the 12 months to June 2009, source: Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 Your Health and Human Services Progress Chart, August 2009, p.14.120 Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania, Your Health and Human Services Progress Chart, August 2009, available from www.dhhs.tas.gov.au

A1.42

Figure 15 Number of applicants housed in public housing, Tasmania, 2006-2009

The reduction in available houses has meant that the remaining properties need to be targeted to those with the highest needs. These tenants are among the most socially excluded in our society, with the vast majority dependent on welfare payments, particularly disability support and sole parent payments121. Concentrating the highest-need tenants in public housing creates pockets of exclusion and disadvantage in public housing areas which leads to stigmatisation and further social exclusion for the tenants122.

Housing affordability is a large and widespread problem, driven by a complex array of factors including growth in the number of households, changes in income and wealth, cost availability of finance and tax incentives, and supply factors including land availability, land development policies and construction costs123. The proportion of lower income households in housing stress is predicted to increase in the first half of the 21st century due to demographic and housing market pressures, and this will have implications for “economic performance and labour market efficiency, social cohesion and polarisation of cities, environmental considerations and the creation and distribution of wealth through home ownership.”124

Homelessness

For individuals and families who are unable to access either public or private housing, the ultimate outcome may be homelessness. Homelessness is difficult to measure accurately, as the homeless population is highly fluid and mobile, but analysis of Census data indicates that around 2 500 Tasmanians were homeless on Census night 2006125. This figure has changed little since Census night 2001, when approximately 2 400 people were homeless in Tasmania126.

121Analysis of Housing Tasmania tenant data, by Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet, December 2008.122 Atkinson, Rowland and Jacobs, Keith (2008) Public Housing in Australia: Stigma, Home and Opportunity, Housing and Community Research Unit (HACRU) Paper No. 01, School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania, 2008.123 Yates, J and Milligan, V, 2007 Housing affordability: a 21st century problem, report for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), September 2007. 124 Yates, J and Milligan, V, 2007 Housing affordability: a 21st century problem, report for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), September 2007, p.1.125Chamberlain, C, and MacKenzie, D, 2009 Counting the Homeless 2006: Tasmania, Cat No HOU 208, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.126Chamberlain, C, and MacKenzie, D, 2009 Counting the Homeless 2006: Tasmania, Cat No HOU 208, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

A1.43

Figure 16 indicates the main accommodation type of these people on Census night 2006. The majority were staying temporarily with friends or relatives, or in crisis accommodation funded under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), while the remainder were long-term residents of boarding houses or sleeping rough.

Figure 16 Accommodation situation of people who were homeless in Tasmania on Census night 2006127

Census data indicates that the Tasmanian homeless population is significantly younger than the Australian homeless population. In Tasmania 69 per cent of the homeless were aged 34 years or younger in 2006 compared to 58 per cent of the national population, and almost one-third (31 per cent) of the Tasmanian homeless population was aged 12 to 18, a figure 50 per cent higher than the national proportion of 21 per cent128.

Overall the homeless population in Tasmania is evenly split between males and females; although this varies by type of accommodation, with a higher proportion of males among those sleeping rough and staying in boarding houses. Tasmanian Aborigines are over-represented in all sectors of the homeless population: on Census night 2006, 8 per cent of the homeless population were Aboriginal compared to only 4 per cent of the general population129.

People who are homeless are often facing multiple and complex barriers to social inclusion, such as mental illness, financial insecurity, alcoholism or substance abuse, poor health or disability, along with lack of education, employment and access to social networks130. Relationship and family breakdown is also a common factor with nearly 1 in every 5 people (19 per cent) seeking crisis accommodation in Tasmania citing this as their main reason for seeking assistance (Figure 17)131.

127Chamberlain, C, and MacKenzie, D, 2009 Counting the Homeless 2006: Tasmania, Cat No HOU 208, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.128Chamberlain, C, and MacKenzie, D, 2009 Counting the Homeless 2006: Tasmania, Cat No HOU 208, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.129 Chamberlain, C, and MacKenzie, D, 2009 Counting the Homeless 2006: Tasmania, Cat No HOU 208, Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.130 Commonwealth of Australia, 2008 Which Way Home? A new approach to homelessness, May 2008.131 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2009 Homeless people in SAAP: SAAP National Data Collection annual report 2007–08 Tasmania supplementary tables, SAAP NDC Report Series 13, Cat No HOU 199, April 2009. Available from: www.aihw.gov.au

A1.44

Figure 17 Main reason for seeking assistance from SAAP services, Tasmania, 2007-08

Crisis accommodation services are at capacity levels: nationally in 2007-08 it is estimated that on average over half (59 per cent) of all people approaching crisis accommodation seeking shelter on a given night were turned away without being accommodated, and in the majority of cases (83 per cent) this was due to a lack of accommodation being available132. In 2007-08, Tasmania had the second-highest turn-away rate for adults and unaccompanied children seeking new SAAP accommodation of all states and territories after the ACT (70 per cent compared to 81 per cent for the ACT)133. On average in 90 per cent of cases, valid requests for accommodation in Tasmania were unable to be met due to a lack of accommodation being available.134

Nationally, families, including couples without children and couples with children, were more likely to be turned away than lone persons with or without children, indicating a lack of services providing accommodation suitable for families135. While couple families with children only make up a small proportion of the population using SAAP services nationally (4 per cent of SAAP support periods), the number of these families accessing SAAP increased by 46 per cent between 2000-01 and 2005-06136.

The lack of affordable housing means many people exiting crisis accommodation are unable to find stable accommodation elsewhere and become homeless again. Those that can find accommodation

132On an average day during 2007-08 Australia-wide, an estimated 654 people (436 adults and unaccompanied children and 218 accompanying children) required new and immediate accommodation in SAAP. Of these, 269 were able to be accommodated, while 385 people (59 per cent) (made up of 241 adults and unaccompanied children and 144 accompanying children) were turned away without receiving SAAP accommodation. Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009), Demand for SAAP accommodation by homeless people 2007–08: summary, Bulletin 71, May 2009. Accessible from: www.aihw.gov.au 133 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009), Demand for SAAP accommodation by homeless people 2007–08 – full report, May 2009, Table 7.1. Accessible from: www.aihw.gov.au 134 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009), Demand for SAAP accommodation by homeless people 2007–08 – full report, May 2009, Figure 4.1. Accessible from: www.aihw.gov.au 135Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2009, Demand for SAAP accommodation by homeless people 2007–08: summary, Bulletin 71, May 2009. Accessible from: www.aihw.gov.au 136 Commonwealth of Australia, 2008 Which Way Home? A new approach to homelessness, May 2008, p.20.

A1.45

may struggle to maintain tenancies without appropriate support to overcome their barriers to social inclusion. In addition to causing significant personal distress and impacting on health and wellbeing, homelessness prevents people from accessing opportunities to participate in the economic and social life of our community.

EducationEducation has a central role in lifting people out of poverty. People with higher levels of education are better able to access jobs, particularly higher-paying positions, and to participate in the wider society. However, education and training outcomes for young people and adults in Tasmania lag behind the rest of the nation. Tasmania has a high proportion of people with poor literacy skills, low levels of qualifications and low rates of young people continuing into further education.

Literacy

A high level of literacy is required to meet the challenges of a technology and information-rich society. The 2006 ABS Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALLS) collected and assessed information on the literacy skills of Australians aged 15-74 years across a range of literacy domains: prose literacy; document literacy; numeracy; and problem solving.

According to the 2006 ALLS, the proportion of Tasmanians aged 15-74 years with functional literacy skills was consistently below the national average. Around half of Tasmanians were assessed as having adequate prose (51 per cent) and document literacy skills (49 per cent) compared with 54 per cent and 53 per cent respectively for Australia. Less than half (44 per cent) of Tasmanians were assessed as having adequate numeracy skills, compared with 47 per cent for Australia, and around one third (37 per cent) were assessed as having sufficient health literacy skills, compared with 41 per cent for Australia137. A large majority of the Tasmanian population (73 per cent) also did not have functional levels of problem solving skills (i.e. goal-directed thinking and action in situations for which no routine solution is available) 138.

People with poor literacy skills were more likely than others to be on lower incomes, to be older, to be unemployed and to have lower educational qualifications139. Tasmania’s ageing population and higher numbers of lower income households contribute to the State’s poor literacy results. There were particularly marked differences in skill levels across all scales between those people who had completed Year 12 or equivalent and those who had completed only Year 10 or below, with those completing Year 12 having better literacy results140 (see Figure 18). This highlights the importance of retaining school students through to Year 12.

137 Feature Article, ‘Adult Literacy in Tasmania, 2006’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Jun 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.138 Feature Article, ‘Adult Literacy in Tasmania, 2006’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Jun 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.139 Feature Article, ‘Adult Literacy in Tasmania, 2006’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Jun 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.140 Feature Article, ‘Adult Literacy in Tasmania, 2006’ in Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Jun 2008, ABS Cat. No. 1307.6.

A1.46

Figure 18 Proportion of people aged 15-74 with functional literacy levels, by highest year of school completed, Tasmania, 2006

For migrants from non-English speaking countries, English literacy can be an important barrier to participating in Tasmanian society. In the 2006 Census, 2 215 persons in Tasmania indicated they spoke English not well or not at all, representing 0.5% of the Tasmanian population141. For newly-arrived refugees, learning English is one of the most important first steps to settlement, in order to access jobs and education, communicate with services, and make friends. Barriers to accessing English courses for these migrants include overcoming their ongoing experience of trauma and ill-health; issues with accessing to transport, child care and other supports to enable them to attend classes; and having low levels of education and literacy in their own languages142.

Year 12 retention and completion

As more and more jobs require higher levels of education, it is becoming increasingly important for young people to attain education at least until Year 12 and/or to progress to further education and training, to avoid being excluded from the labour market.

Retention rates are often used as a measure of the extent to which young people are continuing their education through to Year 12. In August 2008 the apparent retention rate of full-time Tasmanian students in all schools (government, non-government, Catholic and independent) from Year 10 to Year 12 was 65 per cent, compared to 76 per cent nationally. The female retention rate was higher than for males (71 per cent compared to 59 per cent)143.

Apparent Retention Rates should be interpreted with caution, however, due to their method of calculation. Apparent Retention Rates from Year 10 to 12 are calculated by taking the number of full-time students enrolled in Year 12 in a particular jurisdiction in a given year, and expressing this figure as a proportion of the full-time students who were enrolled in Year 10 two years’ previously. They are therefore called ‘apparent’ retention rates as their method of calculation assumes that the students enrolled in Year 12 are largely the same cohort of students who were enrolled in Year 10 in that jurisdiction two years’ previously. This does not take into account transfers into and out of the

141 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 Census of Population and Housing, Expanded Community Profile142 Flanagan, Jo 2007 2007 Dropped from the Moon: The settlement experience of refugee communities in Tasmania, Anglicare Tasmania Social Action Research Centre, September 2007, section 5.2 ‘Learning English’.143 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Schools, Australia, 2008, Apparent Retention Rate Data Cube, Cat No 4221.0

A1.47

student cohort in the jurisdiction between Year 10 and Year 12 caused by factors such as: students leaving or joining the educational system from other states or territories or overseas, students repeating years of education, students converting from full-time to part-time study and vice versa, mature age students, home-schooling and other factors.144

Direct retention rates, calculated by the Tasmanian Department of Education, overcome some of the limitations of Apparent Retention Rates by tracing a student directly from year to year through the Tasmanian government school/college system, and are published by region for Year 10 to Year 12145, and by individual school for Year 10 to Year 11146. Figure 19 indicates the direct retention rates by region for Tasmania for 2005-07 to 2008, indicating that in 2008 every region except the South, less than 50 per cent of students are retained from Year 10 to 12 in the Tasmanian government school/college system, and in the South 58 per cent of students are retained. It also illustrates that retention has declined in all regions between 2005-07 and 2008.

It should be noted, however, that measures of direct retention do not count students who may leave the Tasmanian government school system to go overseas or interstate, to join Catholic and independent schools, to undertake further study with TAFE, the Australian Technical College, apprenticeships or traineeships, or a Registered Training Organisation, nor students who may leave the school system to take up employment. The 2001 Year 10 School Student Destination Survey147 conducted by the Tasmanian Department of Education found that of the cohort of students enrolled in government and non-government schools in Tasmania in Year 10 in 2001, 61 per cent had progressed on to Year 11 in government schools in 2002, 22 per cent went to Catholic or independent schools, and a further 8 per cent had progressed to further employment, TAFE or training. A further 9 per cent were not in education, employment or training or untraceable.

144 For more information on these factors, see Explanatory Notes 20-23 in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Schools, Australia, 2008, Cat No 4221.0. An alternative suite of measures of student progression/retention including Apparent Grade Progression Rates, School Age Participation Rates and Apparent Continuation Rates have been developed and are published in Schools Australia, 2008. For more information on these measures see also Deriving Measures of Engagement in Secondary Education from the National Schools Statistics Collection (Cat. no. 1351.0.55.016) 145 These are published in Department of Education, 2008 Tasmania’s Education Performance Report 2008 – Government Schools.146 Individual school performance reports are published by the Tasmanian Department of Education online at http://schoolimprovement.education.tas.gov.au 147 Data sourced from presentation, 2001 Year 10 Destination Survey - Tracking the Destinations of the Full Cohort of 2001 Year 10 Students in Tasmanian Schools for 3 Years, accessible from http://www.vetnetwork.org.au/_dbase_upl/conference2004_frost1.pdf

A1.48

Figure 19 Year 10-12 direct retention rate (%) by region, Tasmania, 2005-07 to 2008148

Due to the limitations of retention measures, it is useful to examine broader measures of student engagement with education and training post-Year 12 and post-Year 10. Data indicates that participation in vocational education and training and university education in Tasmania is increasing149; however, there are still a high proportion of Tasmanian school leavers who do not progress to further training or employment. In 2008, 43 per cent of all school leavers aged 15-19 years in Tasmania were not fully engaged in further education or employment,150 the highest proportion of all states and territories and higher than the Australian average of 27 per cent.

Year 12 completion rates are lower for Tasmanian Aborigines, with only 21 per cent of Tasmanian Aborigines having an education to Year 12 or equivalent in 2006 compared to 35 per cent of non-Aboriginal Tasmanians151.

Qualifications

Despite improvements over the past 10 years, Tasmania still has the lowest proportion of working-age people with qualifications of all states and territories. Just over half (55 per cent) of Tasmanians aged 25-64 had post-school qualifications in 2008 compared to 61 per cent of all Australians aged 25-64152. Rates were even lower for Tasmanian Aborigines, with 27 per cent of those aged over 15

148 Source: Department of Education, 2008 Tasmania’s Education Performance Report 2008 – Government Schools.149 See Tasmania Together Indicator 3.4.2. Participation in post-secondary education and training – participation has increased from 13.7% in 2000 to 18.1% in 2007; 150 This refers to students aged 15-19 who, in the survey reference week, were not studying or working (and therefore either unemployed or not in the labour force); or studying part-time and not working (therefore unemployed or not in the labour force); or not studying but in part-time work. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends 2009, Education and Training Data Cube, ABS Cat. No. 4102.0151 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Indigenous Basic Community Profile, 2006152 The proportion of Tasmanians of working age (25-64 years) with non-school qualifications rose from 41.9% in 1998 to 55.3% in 2008, but is still the lowest of all states and territories (see Australian Social Trends 2008, Data Cube, ABS Cat. No. 4102.0, 'Education and Training' indicators.

A1.49

having a non-school qualification in 2006 compared to 39 per cent of all Tasmanians aged over 15; however, this was an increase on a rate of 21 per cent in 2001153.

This is concerning as evidence indicates that post-school education and training leads to higher status occupations and higher earnings for young people154, and can play a part in overcoming the disadvantages caused by social background. Highly qualified people are more likely to participate in the labour force than lower qualified people155. In 2007, young people aged 15 to 24 who were not in full time education in Tasmania had an unemployment rate double that of the general population156.

Early years

It is hoped that investment in early education and training will improve Tasmania’s educational outcomes in the future. In 2008, approximately 77 per cent of Tasmanian Kindergarten students met the necessary standards for numeracy, literacy and cognition against the Kindergarten Development Check (KDC) and 85 per cent of children in Prep were achieving expected literacy and numeracy outcomes157. There is evidence of locational differences in results, however. In 2007 lower proportions of Kindergarten students met the numeracy, literacy and cognition standards in West Coast (59 per cent), Brighton (62 per cent) and Glenorchy (74 per cent) than the Tasmanian average for that year (78 per cent)158.

Parents and families are the strongest influence on children’s educational outcomes, and supporting families to provide a healthy learning environment for their child is vital to ensure the child begins school ready to learn. One study found that children living in poverty are 18 months behind the average child when they start kindergarten159. Across Tasmania over 2 000 children were enrolled in Launching into Learning programs in 2007-08 which focus on schools forming strong relationships with families with children aged 0 to 4160. Figure 20 shows the locations of schools offering Launching into Learning programs against data on the proportion of children by LGA achieving the KDC markers for literacy, numeracy and cognition.

153 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Census Basic Community Profile Series 2006: Indigenous Profile, Tasmania, Cat No 2002.0.154 Marks, Gary N. (2008) The Occupations and Earnings of Young Australians: The Role of Education and Training, Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth, Research Report 55, November 2008.155 Demographic Change Advisory Council, Who is not participating in Tasmania’s labour force? - Summary Paper, Government of Tasmania, July 2007, p.8.156 In 2007, the Tasmanian unemployment rate for all people aged over 15 was 5.7 per cent, but the unemployment rate for young people aged 15 to 24 who were not studying full-time was 11.4 per cent. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Australian Social Trends – Work Data Cube, Tas summary 1997-2007, Cat no 4102.0157 Department of Education, 2008 Tasmania’s Education Performance Report 2008 – Government Schools.158 Refer to indicator 1.9.1 in Tasmanian Early Years Foundation, 2009 Outcomes in the Early Years: The State of Tasmania’s Young Children 2009, A Report on the Tasmanian Early Years Foundation’s Outcomes Framework, p.40.159 Study by Institute for Early Education Research, 2004 cited in Vinson, Tony 2009 Social Inclusion and Early Childhood Development, paper prepared for the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, January 2009, p.4.160 Refer indicator 4.1.3, Tasmanian Early Years Foundation, 2009 Outcomes in the Early Years: The State of Tasmania’s Young Children 2009, Report on the Tasmanian Early Years Foundation’s Outcomes Framework.

A1.50

Figure 20 Kindergarten Development Check (KDC) results for Burnie-Devonport (Central Coast), Launceston (Tamar Valley), Greater Hobart and surrounds overlaid with Launching Into Learning school locations161

Tasmanian school students also appear to be reaching acceptable levels of literacy and numeracy, although there are variations between years and between types of literacy and numeracy. In 2009 the large majority (around 90 per cent or more) of Tasmanian Year 3, 5 and 7 students achieved at or above the National Minimum Standard in reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation and numeracy. While over 90 per cent of Tasmanian Year 9 students reached the National Minimum Standard in reading and numeracy in 2009, the proportions were slightly lower for writing (84 per cent), spelling (87 per cent), and grammar and punctuation (89 per cent)162. Overall the 2009 literacy and numeracy results for Tasmanian school students were similar to the 2008 results.

Not all students are achieving equally well in educational outcomes, however. Although 2009 breakdowns of school students’ literacy and numeracy achievements by gender, location and other information is not yet available, 2008 results indicated that female students are outperforming males in their achievement levels163. There is evidence of a social gradient in reading and numeracy

161 Sourced from Figure 8, p. 43 in Tasmanian Early Years Foundation, 2009 Outcomes in the Early Years: The State of Tasmania’s Young Children 2009, Report on the Tasmanian Early Years Foundation’s Outcomes Framework. Note the KDC data in the map refers only to 12 of the 21 Kindergarten Development Check (KDC) markers, those relating to literacy, numeracy and cognition.162 The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA), National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy, NAPLAN Summary Report - Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy, 2009.163 Across all categories and years except one, Tasmanian female school students achieved better benchmark results than equivalent male school students in 2008. The one exception was for Year 9 numeracy where 93 per cent of males achieved the benchmark or better compared to 92 per cent for females. Source: The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA), National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN),

A1.51

scores, with lower socio-economic status leading to poorer results,164 and in 2008 there was an average percentage point gap of 7.4 per cent between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in achievement of expected standards in reading and numeracy, although this gap has steadily narrowed from 9.7 per cent in 2007 and 10.2 percent over 2005-07165.

EmploymentHaving a job is an important contributor towards social inclusion. As well as being a source of income, jobs provide social connections, as well as build self-esteem and a sense of purpose. Improvements in employment and labour force participation benefit society as a whole through improved productivity and economic growth166.

In the last 15 years there have been significant changes in the Tasmanian labour force. The unemployment rate has dropped considerably, while rates of participation in the labour force have increased, particularly for women, and the structure of jobs has changed with an increase in part-time and casual work167. These changes have had varying impacts on social exclusion in the State.

Unemployment

Tasmania has seen a huge drop in the unemployment rate from a high of 12.5 per cent in August 1993 to the record low of 3.7 per cent in October 2008168. The August 2009 rate of 4.8 per cent was a full percentage point below the Australian rate of 5.8 per cent169.

Unemployment rates vary for different groups, however. The annual average unemployment rate for Tasmania over 2006-07 was 5.7 per cent, but was higher for groups such as men (5.9 per cent), people living outside the capital city (6.3 per cent) and young people who were not full-time students (11.4 per cent).170. Unemployment rates for Tasmanian Aborigines are also higher - in 2006 the unemployment rate for Tasmanian Aborigines was 13.7 per cent, although this had improved from 19.7 per cent in 2001.

Unemployment rates are also higher in the North and North-West regions of the State than in the South, and vary by LGA. In 2006, George Town, Kentish and Tasman had unemployment rates of around 10 per cent compared to the State average of 7 per cent171. The South and North-West regions of the State have been shown to be regions experiencing persistent labour market disadvantage over time, and at smaller geographic level, the Central Highlands has shown persistently high unemployment rates over time172.

Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy, 2008.164 Refer to the ‘Socioeconomic equity’ measure used in Tasmanian Department of Education, Tasmania’s Education Performance Report 2008 – Government Schools, available from www.education.tas.gov.au 165 Refer to the ‘Indigenous equity’ measure used in Tasmanian Department of Education, Tasmania’s Education Performance Report 2008 – Government Schools, available from www.education.tas.gov.au 166 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Barriers to Work, Feature Article, Cat No 4102.0167 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Dec 2008, Feature Article: Tasmania's unemployment rate at record low, Cat No 1307.6168 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Dec 2008, Feature Article: Tasmania's unemployment rate at record low, Cat No 1307.6169 Trend series, source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Labour Force, Australia, August 2009, Cat No 6202.0170 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Australian Social Trends – Work Data Cube, Tas summary 1997-2007, Cat no 4102.0171 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Labour data cube, Table 12, Cat No 1307.6.172 Analysis by K Henry cited in Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2009 How’s Australia Faring? A Compendium of Social Inclusion Indicators, May 2009, p.37.

A1.52

The reduction in unemployment in Tasmania has been accompanied by a substantial decrease in long-term unemployment in recent years (Figure 21).173

Figure 21 Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.9 Number of Tasmanians who are long-term unemployed 174

However, the long-term unemployed (those unemployed for 12 months or more) still make up a large proportion of Tasmania’s total unemployed: at July 2009 the total long-term unemployed made up over one-third (35 per cent) of all unemployed people looking for full-time work in Tasmania, the highest proportion of all states and territories175. Long-term unemployment is a key cause of social exclusion and poverty. The long-term unemployed face particular barriers to social exclusion as the effects of a prolonged lack of income, loss of skills, experience and self-confidence compounds over time and affects their ability to obtain work176.

Unemployment can impact not only on the social exclusion of individuals, but also their families. Australia has an unusually high incidence of children growing up in households with no adults working.177 Tasmania has the highest proportion of children living in jobless families of all states and territories, with 22 per cent of all children aged under 15 living in families where no parent was employed in 2006.178 Figure 22 illustrates a general increasing trend in the proportion of children living in jobless families in Tasmania, from 16 per cent in 1997 to 22 per cent in 2006. Living in a jobless household can impact on children’s participation in school, and has also been linked to family violence, substance abuse, illness and premature death.179

173 Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.9 Number of Tasmanians who are long-term unemployed. The number has dropped from 6 900 in 2001 to 2 200 in 2008 (year average). At July 2009, the number of long-term unemployed in Tasmania was 2 400 (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Jul 2009, Cat No 6291.0.55.001)174 Australian Bureau of Statistics data used in Tasmania Together Indicator 1.1.9 Number of Tasmanians who are long-term unemployed.175 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Jul 2009, Cat No 6291.0.55.001176 Research cited in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000 Australian Social Trends, 2000 – Feature Article: Under-utilised Labour: Long-term unemployment., Cat No 4102.0177 In 2005-06, 13 per cent of children aged 0 to 18 years in Australia lived in a jobless household. This rate is higher than all but four of 27 EU member states and higher than the EU27 average of 9.7 per cent. Source: Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2009 How’s Australia Faring? A Compendium of Social Inclusion Indicators, Australian Government, May 2009, p32.178 21.6% of Tasmanian children aged under 15 are living in families where no resident parent is employed. This is the highest proportion of all states and territories besides the NT for which separate data is not published. Source: Australian Social Trends, Data Cube 4102.0, Family and Community Indicators, 2008.

A1.53

Figure 22 Children living in jobless families, Tasmania, 1997-2007

Rates of joblessness are higher for sole parent families, particularly those headed by a female parent and where the youngest child is under five. Nearly half (48 per cent) of all children living in one parent families in Tasmania in 2006 had no parent employed, compared to only 8 per cent of children living in couple families. Sole parents were more likely to be employed the older their children were, with 70 per cent of single parents with children aged 0 to 4 years not being employed compared to 25 per cent of single parents with dependent children aged 18-20 years180. This may indicate a lack of child care support as a barrier to employment for these women.

Despite the improvements in unemployment in recent years, the global financial crisis is expected to cause an increase in unemployment rates in Australia and Tasmania. In particular, workers employed in construction, mining, manufacturing, retail, accommodation and tourism, financial services and real estate industries are thought to be particularly at-risk, as well as part-time workers and people with low qualifications181. LGAs in Tasmania at particular risk due to the proportions of their population employed in vulnerable industries and with no post-school qualifications are: the West Coast, George Town and Brighton182. Other groups particularly at-risk of rises in unemployment due to the financial crisis include: the long term unemployed, young people, and recently retrenched people over the age of 45183.

179Siegel, 1994 cited in Vinson, Tony, 2009 Jobless families in Australia: their prevalence, personal and societal costs, and possible policy responses, paper prepared for the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), January 2009, p.2.180 2006 Census data presented in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Cat No 1307.6 June 2009181 Mitchell, William and Baum, Scott, 2009 Red alert suburbs: An employment vulnerability index for Australia’s major urban regions, Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), University of Newcastle and the Urban Research Program (URP), Griffith University.182 Based on calculations by the Social Inclusion Unit, Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet, using 2006 Census data for Tasmania. Of all Tasmanian LGAs in 2006, West Coast and George Town had the highest levels of employment in vulnerable industries, and higher-than-average proportions of employed people with no post-school qualifications. Brighton had a very high proportion of employed with no post-school qualifications (61 per cent) and a higher-than-average proportion of persons working in vulnerable industries. 183 Australian Government, 2009 Keep Australia Working - Interim Report, report to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard by the Minister for Employment Participation, Senator Mark Arbib, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment, Jason Clare, available from:

A1.54

Participation rates

The labour force participation rate (that is, the proportion of the population aged over 15 who are either employed or unemployed) is an important measure of labour supply and activity. Participation in the labour force has economic benefits for the community as well as boosting individual self-esteem, skills and social connections184.

While Tasmania’s labour force participation rate has increased in recent years, it is still lower than the national rate - with 60 per cent of Tasmanians participating in the labour force in 2009 compared to 65 per cent of Australians185.

Some people may choose not to participate in the labour force, due to having caring responsibilities, being retired or having other commitments such as study. Others may wish to participate but face barriers such as lacking ‘job ready’ skills (education, previous experience and interpersonal skills), lacking access to social networks that assist in finding job opportunities, physical or mental health issues or a disability, a lack of access to child care, discrimination or other issues.

Participation in the labour force tends to decline with age, and is also impacted by factors such as poor health and disability, and the lack of educational qualifications. Tasmania’s ageing population, in combination with higher rates of disability and low educational qualifications, may therefore be contributing to the State’s lower participation rates186, along with the State’s higher rates of diseases and risk factors affecting health status187.

Analysis of people who are not participating in the labour force, but wish to, can help shed further light on the reasons for Tasmania’s lower participation rate, and the barriers that may exclude people from participation. Of the approximately 158 000 Tasmanians aged over 15 who were not participating in the labour force, there are around 20 000 who are ‘marginally attached’ to the labour force188. These are people who are not currently working and want to work, but do not meet the strict criteria for being considered ‘unemployed’. Data limitations make it difficult to determine exactly why this group is not working, but it is thought that lack of educational skills and qualifications may be a factor, and possibly also a lack of access to child care189 - the participation rate for women with children aged under 4 was only 50 per cent in Tasmania in 2007190. Nationally, the reasons most commonly cited by men for not actively looking for work were ‘attending an educational institution' (35 per cent), followed by 'own long-term health condition or disability' (19 per cent). By comparison, the most commonly reported main reason for women was 'caring for children' (31 per cent), followed by 'attending an educational institution' (18 per cent)191.

In addition to those who are ‘marginally attached’, there are also somewhere around 1 000 Tasmanians who have been discouraged from seeking work. These people want to work but believe

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Employment/KeepAustraliaWorking/Pages/home.aspx 184 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Dec 2008, Feature Article: Tasmania's unemployment rate at record low, Cat No 1307.6185 Trend estimate of labour force participation rate, June 2009. Source: Tasmania Together Benchmark 9.1.1 Workforce participation rate, see www.ttbenchmarks.com.au 186 Demographic Change Advisory Council, Who is not participating in Tasmania’s labour force? - Summary Paper, Government of Tasmania, July 2007.187Demographic Change Advisory Council, 2008 Tasmania’s Workforce: health impacts on participation and productivity in the face of an ageing population, Summary Paper, March 2008. Available from: www.dcac.tas.gov.au 188 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Australian Social Trends – Work Data Cube, Tas summary 1997-2007, Cat no 4102.0189 Demographic Change Advisory Council, Who is not participating in Tasmania’s labour force? - Summary Paper, Government of Tasmania, July 2007.190 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Australian Social Trends – Work Data Cube, Tas summary 1997-2007, Cat no 4102.0191 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Persons Not In The Labour Force, September 2008, Cat No 6220.0

A1.55

that they will not find a job because they: perceive that they will be considered too old or young by employers; lack the necessary schooling, training, skills or experience; have difficulties because of their language or ethnic background; or because they believe there are no jobs available in their area or line or work, or no jobs available at all.192 It will be important to address these barriers in order to improve Tasmania’s labour force participation rate in future.

Underemployment and part-time work

Over the past decade there has been a significant change in the structure of work, with an increase in part-time and casual work and the introduction of more flexible working hours. The casualisation of the workforce has been accompanied by a significant increase in the proportion of women working: the female labour force participation rate has increased from 39 per cent in October 1978 to 55 per cent in October 2008, while the male participation rate decreased from 79 per cent to 71 per cent over the same period, narrowing the gap between the two considerably193.

In 2007-08, Tasmania had a very high proportion of people employed part-time with almost one third (31 per cent) of the total employed being part-time, compared with 28 per cent for Australia194. The vast majority of these part-time workers are women. In 2007-08, females employed part-time represented almost one quarter (22 per cent) of the total persons employed in Tasmania195.

The concentration of women in part-time employment has impacts on pay equity for women, including lower access to training and more limited opportunities for career advancement, and less secure employment conditions196. Women still only receive 89 per cent of the average weekly earnings of full-time adult males197. Of Tasmanian employees, 27 per cent lacked paid leave entitlements (sick leave and/or holiday leave) in their job, but this proportion was higher for women (32 per cent) than men (23 per cent)198.

Higher rates of part-time working has led to an increased phenomenon of underemployment – that is, people who are working but would prefer to work more hours. A significant proportion (25 per cent) of part-time workers in Tasmania would prefer to work more hours199. These ‘underemployed workers’ are more likely to be female and in the younger age groups (under 44 years). Some of the issues cited by these workers in obtaining extra hours included there being no vacancies available in their line of work, lacking necessary skills or education, and unsuitable hours200.

Since mid-2008 there has been a sharp rise in underemployment nationally, increasing from 6 per cent in May 2008 to 8 per cent in August 2009. A similar sharp rise has been observed in both male

192 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Australian Social Trends – Work Data Cube, Tas State Summary Table 2.6, Cat No 4102.0193 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Dec 2008, Feature Article: Tasmania's unemployment rate at record low, Cat No 1307.6194 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Dec 2008, Feature Article: Tasmania's unemployment rate at record low, Cat No 1307.6195 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Dec 2008, Feature Article: Tasmania's unemployment rate at record low, Cat No 1307.6196 Study by Australian Office for Women (2007), cited in Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2009 How’s Australia Faring? A Compendium of Social Inclusion Indicators, May 2009, p21.197 Tasmania Together benchmark 9.2.4, Pay equity between men and women in Tasmania, accessible from www.ttbenchmarks.com.au 198 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Australian Social Trends – Work Data Cube, Tas State Summary Table 2.6, Cat No 4102.0199 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Australian Social Trends – Work Data Cube, Tas State Summary Table 2.6, Cat No 4102.0200 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Underemployed Workers, Australia, September 2008, Cat No 6265.0

A1.56

and female underemployment over the same period201. This may be a result of a reduction in working hours, as there has been a drop in aggregate monthly hours worked over a similar period (July 2008 to August 2009)202, possibly as a result of the impact of the global financial crisis.

Research indicates that people who are most vulnerable to joblessness or under-employment are people aged over 50, sole parents, Indigenous Australians, people with disabilities and migrants with English as a second language203. People from communities with entrenched joblessness and disadvantage over time are also vulnerable.

HealthPoor health is both a cause and a result of social exclusion. Across all societies, the poor and the disadvantaged experience worse health than those who are wealthier, have less access to health services and die younger204.

Poor health can lead to social exclusion through reducing the ability to participate in paid work and therefore obtain sufficient income and obtain social networks. In turn, social exclusion can lead to poorer health. Having a low income can produce significant mental and physical stress, and reduce the ability to pay for required medication and access required services and supports.

Despite improvements in the health of Tasmanians over recent years, there are still significant inequalities in health between different groups in the Tasmanian community. There is a distinct social gradient in health in Tasmania, with people on lower incomes more likely to report poorer self-assessed health, as can be seen in Figure 23205:

201 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Labour Force, Australia, August 2009, Cat No 6202.0202 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009, Labour Force, Australia, August 2009, Cat No 6202.0203 Cartwright (2004) cited in Vinson, Tony, 2009 Jobless families in Australia: their prevalence, personal and societal costs, and possible policy responses, paper prepared for the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), January 2009, p3.204 Kelly, Michael P; Morgan, Antony; Bonnefoy, Josiane; Butt, Jennifer and Bergman,Vivian, 2007 The social determinants of health: Developing an evidence base for political action, Final Report to the World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health from the Measurement and Evidence Knowledge Network, October 2007.205 Department of Health and Human Services, Health Indicators, Tasmania, 2008, p95.

A1.57

Figure 23 Self-assessed health by household income quintile, Tasmania, 2004-05

People from lower socio-economic groups are also more likely to die before the age of 75 from avoidable causes than people from higher socio-economic groups206, and are more likely to smoke and be sedentary (not undertaking sufficient exercise for health) 207. There is also a link between lower socio-economic status and higher levels of psychological distress208.

The ageing population in combination with Tasmania’s higher levels of people of low socio-economic status has contributed to Tasmania’s poor performance on a number of health indicators209. While the life expectancy of Tasmanians has improved greatly in recent years, there still remains a significant gap in life expectancy between Tasmanians and Australia as a whole. The life expectancy of Tasmanians at birth – at 82.4 years for females and 77.7 years for males - is the second-lowest in the nation behind the Northern Territory, and lower than the national average of 83.7 years for females and 79.0 years for males210. This gap is likely to widen over time due to the high levels of risk factors in the Tasmanian population (high smoking rates, poorer levels of nutrition and exercise)211.

In 2007-08, 25 per cent of Tasmanians 18 years and over reported that they currently smoke, higher than the Australian value of 21 per cent. In the same year, 64 per cent of Tasmanians were overweight or obese, 72 per cent undertook inadequate physical exercise for general health, and 13 206Source: Data from the Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania on avoidable mortality rates by socio-economic group. The data refers to the numbers of people dying before the age of 75 from selected causes considered to be potentially avoidable through lifestyle modification, immunisation, cancer screening or medical interventions. Over the period 2004-2006, the average annual avoidable death rate for lower socio-economic groups was 235.9 per 100 000 population, while the rate for higher socio-economic groups was 156.8 per 100 000 population, a difference of 79.1 more deaths per 100 000 for lower socio-economic groups than higher socio-economic groups. This data will be reported annually under a new Tasmania Together benchmark.207 Department of Health and Human Services, Health Indicators, Tasmania, 2008, pp. 75-95.208 Department of Health and Human Services, Health Indicators, Tasmania, 2008, p. 62.209 Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania 2008 State of Public Health Report 2008, available from: www.dhhs.tas.gov.au 210 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Deaths, Australia, 2007, ABS. Cat. No. 3302.0 Data Cube ‘Life expectancy, Australia, states and territories, 1997 to 2007’211 Department of Health and Human Services, State of Public Health Report 2008, p.5.

A1.58

per cent consumed alcohol at risky or high risk levels212. Despite some significant gains in health over the past few decades, there remain significant gaps in health outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations Australia-wide213. Indigenous people suffer higher rates of chronic and communicable disease and have an average life expectancy approximately 18 years less than for non-Indigenous Australians214.

While data on life expectancy and mortality for Tasmanian Aborigines is not available, other data indicates there may be gaps in health outcomes for Tasmanian Aborigines compared to non-Aboriginal Tasmanians. In 2004-05, 42 per cent of Tasmanian Aborigines reported that they had ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ health compared to 58 per cent of non-Aboriginal Tasmanians, and were also far more likely to report having ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ health (31 per cent compared to 18 per cent)215.

Disability

Tasmania has higher rates of people with a disability than other jurisdictions. In 2006, approximately 24 000 Tasmanians (5 per cent of the population) required daily assistance with self-care, mobility or communication because of a long-term health condition, disability or old age. This was higher than the national average of 4 per cent. This is partly due to the older population profile the State, as the incidence of disability increases with age216. The same proportion of Tasmanian Aborigines (5 per cent) reported a need for assistance in 2006 also.

Barriers to full participation in work and social life, coupled with the costs of equipment, medication and accessing service providers puts people with a disability at increased risk of disadvantage and social exclusion217. Participation in the labour force is much lower for people of working age with a need for assistance than for the rest of the population, suggesting that severe disability or a long-term health condition continue to pose significant barriers to employment. In 2006 in Tasmania, only 16 per cent of people with a need for assistance of working age (aged 15-64 years) were participating in the labour force (14 per cent employed, 2 per cent unemployed) compared to 74 per cent of people without a need for assistance (69 per cent employed, 5 per cent unemployed). The majority of people of working age with a need for assistance who were employed were working part-time hours (65 per cent), the reverse situation to people of working age without a need for assistance, of whom the majority (65 per cent) were working full-time218.

People with a disability are active participants in social and community life. In 2003, 92 per cent of people with a disability (and 87 per cent of those with a profound or severe disability) in Tasmania reported that they had participated in one or more of a number of social and community activities away from home in the previous 3 months, including visiting relatives or friends, going to a restaurant or club, church activities, voluntary activities, performing arts or arts group activities or

212 ABS 2007-08 National Health Survey data summarised in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Tasmanian Key Indicators, Jul 2009, Cat No 1304.6213 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2006 cited in Vinson, Tony 2009 Indigenous Social Exclusion, report prepared for the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), January 2009.214 Vinson, Tony 2009 Indigenous Social Exclusion, report prepared for the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), January 2009.215 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey 2004-05, State Tables, Cat. No. 4715.6.55.005, Table 6. Persons: Summary health characteristics, by Indigenous status, age standardised rates, Tasmania, 2004-05.216 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Source: Feature Article, ‘People with a Need for Assistance in Tasmania, 2006’, in 1307.6 - Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Sep 2008.217 Hinton, Teresa, (2006) My Life as a Budget Item: Disability, budget priorities and poverty in Tasmania, Social Action Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania, October 2006.218 Source: Feature Article, ‘People with a Need for Assistance in Tasmania, 2006’, in 1307.6 - Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, Sep 2008.

A1.59

other special interest group activities219. In the 2006 Census, 10 per cent of people reporting a need for assistance, or approximately 2 100 people, had undertaken voluntary work in the previous 12 months, although this volunteering rate was less than half that of those without a need for assistance (23 per cent)220.

These statistics do not capture the relative difficulties that people with a disability may face in participating in these social and community activities, such as a lack of access to appropriately designed and accessible buildings and facilities, and difficulties in accessing public transport (see ‘Access to Transport’ and ‘Access to Services’ further below). They also face difficulties in accessing the support required for daily living and to participate in employment and educational opportunities221. In Tasmania in 2003 over one-third (38 per cent) of people with a disability who reported a need for assistance with daily life activities such as communication, mobility, meal preparation, housework, and other activities reported that this need was either only partly met or not met at all222. Experiences of discrimination and stigma are also reported by people with a disability as significant barriers to their inclusion in social, economic and civic life223.

Mental health

Poor mental health can impact on people’s ability to participate in the workforce, in education and in social life, impacting on their financial wellbeing as well as self-esteem. The stigma associated with mental illness can compound this social exclusion. Mental ill-health is associated with both individual and societal factors such as economic disadvantage, poor housing, lack of social support and the level of access to, and use of, health services. Lower socio-economic status is associated with an increased risk of mental disorders, particularly depression and anxiety disorders.224

In 2007, 45 per cent of Australians aged 16 to 85 years (or 7.3 million people) had, at some point in their lifetime, experienced at least one mental disorder (anxiety, mood or substance use disorders), according to the ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing225. One in five (20 per cent) Australians had a lifetime mental disorder for which they had experienced symptoms in the 12 months prior to the survey (‘12 month mental disorders’)226. The most common 12-month disorders were anxiety disorders involving feelings of tension, stress or nervousness (14 per cent) such as panic disorder, social phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress; followed by affective (mood) disorders (6 per cent) including depressive episodes and bipolar affective disorder;

219 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2003, Cat No 4430.0, State Tables for Tasmania.220 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census data 2006, generated from CDATA Online. Denominator excludes people who did not state whether or not they had undertaken voluntary work.221 Qualitative information from submissions to the consultation on the development of the National Disability Strategy, source: National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009 SHUT OUT: The Experience of People with Disabilities and their Families in Australia, National Disability Strategy Consultation Report, 2009.222 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2003, Cat No 4430.0, State Tables for Tasmania. Daily life activities included: cognition or emotion, communication, health care, housework, meal preparation, mobility, paperwork, property maintenance, self-care, and transport. 223 Qualitative information from submissions to the consultation on the development of the National Disability Strategy, source: National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009 SHUT OUT: The Experience of People with Disabilities and their Families in Australia, National Disability Strategy Consultation Report, 2009.224 Fryers et al, 2005 cited in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results, 2007, Cat No 4326.0225 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results, 2007, Cat No 4326.0226 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results, 2007, Cat No 4326.0

A1.60

and substance use disorders (5 per cent) including harmful alcohol use, alcohol dependence, and drug use disorders227.

Women were more likely to experience anxiety and affective disorders than men, while men were more likely than women to have substance use disorders. The experience of 12-month mental disorders declined with age, with more than a quarter (26 per cent) of people aged 16-24 years and a similar proportion (25 per cent) of people aged 25-34 years having a 12-month mental disorder compared with 6 per cent of those aged 75-85 years old228. Anxiety disorders were the most common disorders across all age groups, although substance use disorders were more common among young people.

Due to small sample sizes, the data for Tasmania from the survey was not reliable enough to determine a definitive estimate of the proportion of Tasmanians suffering mental disorders. The data indicates that the proportion of Tasmanians with a lifetime mental illness falls somewhere within the range of 37 per cent to 53 per cent, and the proportion of those with a lifetime mental illness who have experienced symptoms in the past 12 months lies somewhere within 9 per cent to 20 per cent.229

Other data providing an indication of the prevalence of mental illness in Tasmania includes data from the 2007-08 ABS National Health Survey on the proportion of Tasmanians with ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of psychological distress (between 9 and 13 per cent)230 and data from the 2006 ABS General Social Survey on the proportion of Tasmanians who had experienced a mental illness in the previous 12 months (between 8 and 12 per cent)231.

The National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing identified groups at higher risk of mental illness in Australia. The following groups were at higher risk of 12-month mental disorders than the Australian average (20 per cent): people living in one parent families with children (34 per cent), the unemployed (29 per cent), people who had ever experienced homelessness (54 per cent), people who had ever been incarcerated (in a gaol, prison or correctional facility) (41 per cent), people with a severe disability (43 per cent), and people who had no family or friends to rely on (33 per cent of those with no family to rely on and 25 per cent with no friends to rely on)232.

It is important that people with mental illnesses are able to access the support they require to be included in the economic and social life of their community. The deinstitutionalisation of mental health services in previous decades has seen the emphasis on mental health care shift away from long stays in institutions to community-based mental health services. Around one-third (35 per cent)

227 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results, 2007, Cat No 4326.0228 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results (ABS cat. no. 4326.0)229 Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, published in the Productivity Commission’s report on Government Services, Table 3. The estimate for Tasmanians suffering a lifetime mental illness (with or without 12-month symptoms) was 44.8 per cent with a 95% confidence interval (the range within which we can be 95% confident the figure is correct, taking into account sample error) of +/- 8.2 percentage points. The estimate for Tasmanians with a lifetime mental illness for which symptoms were experienced in the previous 12 months was 14.1 per cent, +/- 5.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval).230The estimate for the proportion of Tasmanians with high or very high levels of psychological distress in 2007-08 was 11.0 per cent, +/- 2 percentage points (95% confidence interval). Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Health Survey, 2007-08, Summary of Results, Australia, Cat No 4362.0. The 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing found a strong association between ‘very high’ and ‘high’ levels of psychological distress and having a 12-month mental disorder, with 80 per cent of those scoring ‘very high’ and 57 per cent of those scoring ‘high’ having a 12-month mental disorder.231 Australian Bureau of Statistics, General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006232 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results, 2007, Cat No 4326.0

A1.61

of Australians with a 12-month mental disorder in 2007 accessed mental health services in the 12 months prior to the survey233. These services ranged from professional treatment of physical and emotional problems, such as visits to a general practitioner or psychologist; hospital admissions; and self-management strategies, such as using the Internet or going to a self-help group. Women and older people were more likely to have used services than men and those in the younger age groups (16-34 years) 234.

However, of people with a 12-month mental disorder who used services, just over a quarter (26 per cent) did not have their need for counselling met or only had their need partially met. A slightly higher proportion, 29 per cent, did not have their need for information met or only had their need partially met. Of the Australians with a 12-month mental disorder who did not use services, 14 per cent perceived they had an unmet need for assistance. The most common unmet need was for counselling, followed by social intervention (help to sort out practical issues, such as housing or money problems, or help to meet people for support or company) and information235.

Suicide

Suicide is the main cause of premature death among people with a mental illness. More than 10 per cent of people with a mental illness die by suicide within the first 10 years of diagnosis.236 Of people who reported having serious thoughts about suicide in the 12 months prior to the ABS 2007 Mental Health and Wellbeing survey, 72 per cent had a 12-month mental disorder.

Among the general population, Tasmania has a high rate of suicide. Over 2003-2007, Tasmania had the second-highest age-standardised death rate by suicide of all jurisdictions after the Northern Territory, of 15.4 deaths by suicide per 100 000 population, higher than the Australian rate of 9.8 per 100 000237. Research has found higher suicide rates in rural and regional locations and in areas of entrenched socio-economic disadvantage238.

Consultation with communities around Tasmania by the Tasmanian Steering Committee for Suicide Prevention during 2007-08 confirmed these findings, with attendees at community forums in rural and remote areas citing issues such as isolation, lack of public transport, reduced services, and the cost of students having to travel to study away from home as issues relevant to suicide prevention. At community forums in urban areas of the State, financial issues, breakdown of support networks and lack of social cohesiveness, difficulties accessing GP’s and lack of trauma support were cited by attendees as issues. Other issues identified by schools, non-government organisations and councils included disengagement from the community or school, family or relationship breakdowns, stigma around being different, the need for community based training in recognising and responding to depression, as well as improved training for health service professionals in suicide prevention. 239

233 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results, 2007, Cat No 4326.0234 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results (ABS cat. no. 4326.0)235 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results (ABS cat. no. 4326.0)236 SANE, 2008 quoted in Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results (ABS cat. no. 4326.0)237 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009 Causes of Death, Australia, 2007, Cat No 3303.0, Data Cube – Suicides, Table 11.5. Standardised death rates enable the comparison of death rates between populations with different age structures by relating them to a standard population. The current standard population is all persons in the Australian population at 30 June 2001.238 LIFE Framework 2007, p 12 quoted in Tasmanian Suicide Prevention Steering Committee, Voices of Tasmanians on Suicide Prevention, April 2009, Department of Health and Human Services, Statewide System Development - Mental Health Services.

A1.62

Social capital, community connectedness and social cohesionThe relationships and connections that people have with family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues and the wider society are important for providing support and for connecting people to work, education and other opportunities. The resources that these connections provide to individuals and communities is often described as ‘social capital’240, as they can provide an investment in community wellbeing in a similar way as financial capital can provide an investment in the economic growth of a community.

Research has indicated that social capital provides benefits across a range of areas including health, education, employment and family wellbeing as well as in building community strength and resilience241. Social capital can help prevent social exclusion by building strengths in individuals and communities and in facilitating community participation242.

The social capital of individuals or communities encompasses a range of factors such as the number and types of networks and connections people share with each other and the wider society, and their purpose; the levels of trust, reciprocity, cooperation and inclusiveness that exist within these networks and social groups; and the ability of the networks to provide support, share information and connect people to the community and to power structures243.

The main source of quantitative data on social capital that is available for all of Australia and for each state and territory is the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ General Social Survey (GSS), which collected a limited range of social capital items in 2002 and a more extensive range in 2006. Selected information from the 2006 GSS and other sources is presented below, covering the aspects of social capital outlined above. An important data gap in this area is data on social capital and community connection at the community level in Tasmania – due to sample size the GSS cannot produce reliable data at geographic levels below that of whole states and territories. It will be necessary to address this gap before it is possible to understand the influence of social capital on social exclusion and inclusion at local community level.

Trust and feelings of safety

Having trust in others, including in professionals and people in positions of power, is one indicator of a well-functioning community. In 2006, 55 per cent of Tasmanians felt that 'most people' could be trusted, while 90 per cent trusted their doctor, and 76 per cent trusted their local police. In Tasmania, levels of trust in 'most people', their doctor and local police tended to increase with income levels244.

Another measure of trust is feeling safe in one’s community. People in Tasmania feel safer than people in any other state or territory. In 2007-08, 95 per cent of Tasmanians felt safe at home during the day, 86 per cent felt safe at home at night, 92 per cent felt safe in public during the day and 67 per cent felt safe in public at night245. There was a general upward trend in the proportion of

239 Tasmanian Suicide Prevention Steering Committee, Voices of Tasmanians on Suicide Prevention, April 2009, Department of Health and Human Services, Statewide System Development - Mental Health Services.240 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 Aspects of Social Capital, 2006, Cat No 4911.0241 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 Aspects of Social Capital, 2006, Cat No 4911.0, p.vi242 The Roeher Institute, 2003 Policy Approaches to Framing Social Inclusion and Social Exclusion: An Overview, Toronto, ON, p.14.243 These elements are articulated more fully in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Social Capital Framework, outlined in Measuring Social Capital: An Australian Framework and Indicators, 2004, Cat No 1378.0.244 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, Cat No. 4159.6.55.001, Table 27.245 Source: Tasmania Together indicators 2.1.2 – see above. See also indicators published in the Tasmanian Department of Police and Emergency Management Annual Report 2007-08, p.42-43.

A1.63

Tasmanians who reported that they felt safe at home during the day and night, and in public during the day and night, between 2001-02 and 2007-08 (Figure 24)246.

Figure 24 Proportion of people who feel safe in public after dark, Tasmania, 2001-02 to 2007-08

Older Tasmanians and those on lower incomes are less likely to feel safe than Tasmanians in general. While overall 51 per cent of Tasmanians felt safe walking alone in their local area after dark in 2006, this proportion dropped to 39 per cent for persons aged 65 to 74 years, and to 23 per cent for persons aged 75 and over. People in the lowest income quintile were also less likely to report feeling safe, with 81 per cent reporting feeling safe at home alone after dark compared to 87 per cent of all Tasmanians, and only 36 per cent reporting feeling safe walking alone in their local area after dark compared to 51 per cent of all Tasmanians247.

In contrast to other states and territories, Tasmania has relatively lower crime rates. In 2005 Tasmania had the second-lowest crime victimisation rate of all states and territories for personal crimes such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (at 4.7 per cent), and the lowest crime victimisation rate for household crimes (break-ins and motor vehicle theft) (4.5 per cent)248. There was a significant decrease in crime victimisation rates in Tasmania for both types of crimes between 1997-98 and 2004-05249.

However, there is evidence that Tasmanian Aborigines may suffer higher crime victimisation rates than Tasmanians in general. In 2002, approximately 22 per cent of Tasmanian Aborigines reported

246 There has been a general upward trend in the proportion of Tasmanians who felt safe according to the following Tasmania Together Indicators between 2001-02 and 2007-08 (with some fluctuations between years):2.1.2.1 Feeling safe at home during the day2.1.2.2 Feeling safe at home at night2.1.3.1 Feeling safe in public during the day2.1.3.2 Feeling safe in public at night.See www.ttbenchmarks.com.au for the results.247 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, Cat No. 4159.6.55.001248 Source: Australian Social Trends, 2008, ABS Cat. No. 4102.0, Data Cube – Other Areas of Social Concern Indicators, Table 2.249 Tasmania Together Indicator 2.1.4 Crime victimisation rate, see www.ttbenchmarks.com.au

A1.64

that they had been a victim of physical or threatened violence in the previous 12 months250. This had increased significantly from 1994 when 14 per cent reported being victimised. In comparison, approximately 8 per cent of the general Tasmanian population reported being a victim of physical or threatened violence in the previous 12 months in the same year251. The victimisation rates for Tasmanian Aborigines were highest among unemployed people (42 per cent) and younger people aged 15-24 (34 per cent)252.

Another source of information on crime and safety is data on family violence. However, available data is limited. Between 2000-01 and 2006-07 there was an increase in reported family violence; however this was in part attributable to improved reporting procedures and changed community attitudes resulting from the Safe At Home reforms253. Reported incidents decreased from 5012 to 4767 between 2006-07 and 2007-08 in line with predictions under the Safe at Home program of a short-term increase in reported incidents followed by a medium-to-long term decrease254.

There has also been an increase in the number of children on care and protection orders since 2003, which has been attributed to a variety of reasons including: the ongoing effect of the Safe at Home initiative and mandatory notification requirement for children affected by family violence; an increasing number of families who experience multiple and complex issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, family violence, poverty and disability; and the cumulative effect of an increasing number of children under nine years of age requiring care and protection orders255.

Cultural diversity, acceptance of diversity and discrimination

The level of inclusiveness and acceptance of diversity within the community is another indicator of levels of social capital.

The Tasmanian population is less ethnically diverse than the Australian population as a whole. At the 2006 Census, 11 per cent of the Tasmanian population or approximately 50 000 people, were born overseas, compared to 22 per cent of the Australian population256. Of people born overseas, the largest proportion (45 per cent) were born in the United Kingdom, followed by New Zealand (8 per cent), the Netherlands (5 per cent), Germany (4 per cent) and the United States of America (2 per cent).

Tasmania is different to other states and territories in that a high proportion of migrants to the State are refugees. In 2006, 28 per cent of all overseas settlers coming to Tasmania were humanitarian entrants, and a further 1 per cent were family stream migrants from refugee source countries257. Overall, the number of Humanitarian Entrants to Tasmania more than trebled from 2001-2005258. Between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2009, 888 humanitarian entrants settled in Tasmania. The most common source countries for these migrants were: Burma (129 migrants, including 28 born in 250 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS), 2002, Cat. No. 4714.0251 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 General Social Survey (GSS), Tasmania, 2002, Cat. No. 4159.6.55.001. There are some differences in the scope, collection methodologies and collection periods of the GSS and NATSISS that may affect the comparability of results from the two surveys – see paragraphs 72-78 of the Explanatory Notes in Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS), 2002, Cat No 4714.0.252 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2002, Cat. No. 4714.0253 See Tasmania Together benchmark 2.1.5 Reported level of family violence, www.ttbenchmarks.com.au 254 See Tasmania Together benchmark 2.1.5 Reported level of family violence, www.ttbenchmarks.com.au 255 See Tasmania Together Indicator 2.2.2 Children on Care and Protection Orders. www.ttbenchmarks.com.au 256 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 Census QuickStats: Tasmania, available from www.abs.gov.au 257 DIAC, 2007 data cited in Flanagan, Jo 2007 2007 Dropped from the Moon: The settlement experience of refugee communities in Tasmania, Anglicare Tasmania Social Action Research Centre, September 2007.258 DIAC, 2007 data cited in Flanagan, Jo 2007 2007 Dropped from the Moon: The settlement experience of refugee communities in Tasmania, Anglicare Tasmania Social Action Research Centre, September 2007.

A1.65

Thailand), Bhutan (153 including 37 Nepalese born Bhutanese), Sudan (120), Ethiopia (60), and Other Central and West Africa (66)259. Humanitarian and family stream migrants have been identified as groups facing particular barriers to settlement in Australia, along with the dependents of skilled migrants with low levels of English proficiency260.

According to the 2006 Census, 2,215 persons in Tasmania indicated that they spoke English ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’. This number was 0.5% of the Tasmanian population that responded to the Census (476,479). Within these 2,215 persons, the three most common languages spoken were Chinese languages (Cantonese, Mandarin or other, 320 people), Arabic (133 people) and Greek (119 people).

Topics such as experiences of discrimination, stigma and racism are extremely difficult to measure reliably, so quantitative statistics in this area are hard to find. In a 2007-08 survey, only 39 per cent of Tasmanians agreed that Tasmanians are accepting of people from different ethnic groups, religions and people's sexual orientation261.

The number of accepted complaints to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is another potential indicator of discrimination occurring within the Tasmanian community, although it must be interpreted with caution as an increase in complaints may indicate increased awareness of discrimination issues and/or an increased confidence or willingness to report incidents of discrimination. Also, the data does not count incidents of discrimination that go unreported. The number of complaints has fluctuated over time but has shown an increasing trend between 2003-04 and 2007-08, with 247 complaints accepted in the 2007-08 year262.

Qualitative data sheds some light on the experience of discrimination for groups such as people with a disability, and people with mental illnesses. Discrimination and rights was identified as an issue in 39 per cent of the more than 750 submissions to the National Disability Strategy Community Consultations during 2009263. Other research has identified discrimination, harassment and abuse against other marginalised groups such as refugees, people with mental health problems, people who are homeless, and gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people264.

Connecting to social networks and supports

A strong community has strong social networks that provide day-to-day support as well as providing help in times of crisis. In 2006, 93 per cent of Tasmanian adults felt able to ask small favours from people living outside their own household, and 94 per cent felt able to get support in times of crisis. This proportion did not vary significantly by age group or for people with a disability, however people with poorer health were less likely to feel able to call on either small favours or support in times of crisis (83 per cent and 84 per cent respectively)265. Slightly lower proportions of people in the lowest income quintile also reported that they could ask for small favours and get support from 259 Data extracted for the Tasmanian Social Inclusion Unit by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship from their Settlement Database. Data extracted on 11 September 2009.260 Flanagan, Jo 2007 2007 Dropped from the Moon: The settlement experience of refugee communities in Tasmania, Anglicare Tasmania Social Action Research Centre, September 2007.261 Source: data from a 2007-08 survey of the Tasmanian population conducted for Tasmania Together. A new survey is under development to obtain more up-to-date data on acceptance of diversity for use as a new Tasmania Together benchmark.262 See Tasmania Together Indicator 5.6.1 Number of accepted complaints to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, accessible from http://www.tasmaniatogether.tas.gov.au/obr/benchmark_reports 263 National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009 SHUT OUT: The Experience of People with Disabilities and their Families in Australia, National Disability Strategy Consultation Report, 2009 264 Various sources cited in Flanagan, Jo 2007 2007 Dropped from the Moon: The settlement experience of refugee communities in Tasmania, Anglicare Tasmania Social Action Research Centre, September 2007, p.48.265 Australian Bureau of Statistics, General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4159.6.55.001, Tables 2, 13-14 and 15

A1.66

others outside the household, but the proportion receiving support was still very high (90 per cent for each). Similarly, the proportion of Tasmanian Aborigines receiving support from someone outside the household is very high (93 per cent for Tasmanian Aboriginal people compared with 96 per cent for non-Aboriginal people).266

Despite the above statistics indicating most Tasmanians are able to access social support when required, there is evidence some groups still suffer from social isolation particularly as regards regular social contact with others. In 2006, while 84 per cent of Tasmanians reported that they had face-to-face contact with family or friends, face to face contact decreased with age, from 91 per cent of persons aged 18-24 years to 77 per cent of persons aged 75 years and over. The only exception was for the 65-74 year age group where 88 per cent of persons indicated that they had had face to face contact in the previous week267. In the SPRC survey of deprivation and social exclusion, 13 per cent of the general population reported that they had no regular social contact with other people. This proportion increased to 24 per cent for clients of community organisations268.

Unpaid care

Unpaid carers are a vital source of social support for people severe disabilities or health problems due to old age or other problems.

In 2003, 15 per cent of the Tasmanian population (approximately 70 000 people) were providing ongoing caring assistance (that is, lasting for six months or more) to people with a disability and 3 per cent of the population (15 000 people) were primary carers aged over 15 years269. It is estimated that over half of Tasmania’s primary carers are caring for 20 hours or more each week270. In 2006, the Census also recorded approximately 41 000 Tasmanians (12 per cent of the population) who had, in the two weeks prior to Census Night, spent time providing unpaid care, help or assistance to family members or others because of a disability, a long term illness or problems related to old age. A slightly higher proportion of Tasmanian Aborigines (14 per cent) reported providing unpaid care in two weeks prior to the Census. Most unpaid carers are women.

While caring responsibilities can be rewarding they can also bring restricted employment options, extra costs, and high risks of poverty, hardship, social isolation and poor health271.

266 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2002 Cat No 4714.0.267 Source: General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4159.6.55.001268 Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and Griffiths, M., Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage: Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia, project report from the ARC Linkage Project, Left Out and Missing Out: Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, November 2007. Accessed from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/index.htm269 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2003, ABS Cat. No. 4430.0, State Tables for Tasmania. The definition of a carer as used in the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers is: “A person of any age who provides any informal assistance, in terms of help or supervision, to persons with disabilities or long-term conditions, or older persons (i.e.aged 60 years and over). This assistance has to be ongoing, or likely to be ongoing, for at least six months. Assistance to a person in a different household relates to 'everyday types of activities', without specific information on the activities. Where the care recipient lives in the same household, the assistance is for one or more of the following activities: cognition or emotion, communication, health care, housework, meal preparation, mobility, paperwork, property maintenance, self care, or transport.” “A primary carer is a person who provides the most informal assistance, in terms of help or supervision, to a person with one or more disabilities. The assistance has to be ongoing, or likely to be ongoing, for at least six months and be provided for one or more of the core activities (communication, mobility and self care).”270 Tasmania Together Indicator 5.3.2. Primary carers devoting more than 20 hours per week. An estimated 54.4% of people aged 15 or more who were the primary carer of a person with a disability in the year 2003 in Tasmania, were providing an average 20 hours or more a week care. 271 Hinton, Teresa, (2006) My Life as a Budget Item: Disability, budget priorities and poverty in Tasmania, Social Action Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania, October 2006, p.3. Also see Tasmanian Council of Social Service (2008) Enhancing Quality of Life : Addressing poverty and disadvantage through the HACC program , Home and Community Care Consumer

A1.67

Voluntary work

Volunteering is vital to the effective functioning of communities and can be an important tool for addressing social disadvantage and increasing social inclusion. Tasmanians volunteer at slightly higher rates than the national average, with 36 per cent of Tasmanians having undertaken some form of voluntary work in the 12 months to 2006 compared to 34 per cent for Australia as a whole (Figure 25)272. Volunteering rates were highest in the older age groups (those aged 35 through to 74 years) dropping off with increasing age. Most volunteers were female (56 per cent), and aged 35-44 or 45-54 years. Volunteering rates were lower for Tasmanian Aborigines (16 per cent).

Figure 25 People who had volunteered in past 12 months by age, Tasmania, 2006

However, while the proportion of Tasmanians who volunteer has increased since 1995, there has been a decrease in the number of hours people have volunteered their time for, with median annual hours dropping by 30 per cent from 78 in 2000 to 55 in 2006273. Demographic changes and changes in the labour market have impacted on the amount of time and the level of commitment people are able to give to volunteering activities. The ageing population will also impact on the volunteer workforce as many current volunteers are in the middle-to-older age groups (35-54 years)274.

Civic engagement

Another important way in which people or communities can be socially included is in engaging with decision making processes. In 2006, only just over one-third (37 per cent) of the Tasmanian adult population felt they had opportunities to have a real say within their community on important issues either all of the time or most of the time,275 although nearly half (48 per cent) had participated in some sort of decision-making process or civic activity, such as attending a community consultation or public meeting, contacting a MP, signing a petition, writing a letter to an editor or boycotting products in the previous 12 months276.

Consultation Project Report.272 Source: General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4159.6.55.001273 Voluntary Work, Australia, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4441.0, Table A3 p.75.274 Volunteering Tasmania, Budget Priority Statement, 2009-10 Tasmanian Budget, pp. 7-9, available from www.volunteeringtas.org.au 275 Tasmania Together Indicator 8.1.1. Proportion of people who think there are opportunities to have a real say on important issues.276 Tasmania Together Indicator 8.1.2. Proportion of people participating in a decision-making process.

A1.68

Arts and cultural participation

Arts and cultural activities are another means for communities to get together and participate in joint activities. The majority of Tasmanian adults (82 per cent) attended at least one cultural and leisure venue or event in the 12 months prior to June 2006277. This was slightly lower than the Australian participation rate of 85 per cent. The most visited venues or events were cinemas (56 per cent) libraries (36 per cent) botanic gardens (32 per cent) and zoological parks and aquariums (32 per cent)278.

However, lower attendance rates were found among those living outside the capital city (78 per cent had attended at venue or event compared to 87 per cent of those living in Hobart); among older persons (only 61 per cent of people aged 75 and over attended an event compared to 97 per cent of 15-17 year olds); among those with lower education levels (99 per cent attendance rate for people with a Bachelor Degree or higher vs 76 per cent attendance rate for those with only Year 12 or below levels of education); and income (74 per cent of those in the lowest and second income quintiles vs 92 per cent in fourth and highest quintiles). Persons born overseas had a slightly higher participation rate (83 per cent than those born in Australia (81 per cent).

Sport and recreation participation

Participation in organised sport and recreational activities provides a means for people to meet and make social connections while also engaging in exercise.

During 2008, 41 per cent of Tasmanians participated at least once in physical activity organised by a club, association, fitness centre or other organisation, the same as the national figure of 41 per cent. In addition, 12 per cent of Tasmanians were regular participants in organised physical activity, also the same as the national rate of 12 per cent. Among the most popular activities were: aerobics, football, golf, netball, outdoor cricket and lawn bowls. Men were more likely to participate in organised sport than females (14 per cent vs 10 per cent)279. Higher rates of regular participation in physical activity (organised or unorganised) was associated with higher levels of educational attainment, particularly completing the highest level of schooling in Tasmania. The unemployed in Tasmania also had lower levels of regular participation compared to the employed280.

An ABS survey of participation in sport and recreation281 found similar patterns of lower levels of sport participation among the unemployed. The survey also found the reasons for non-participation in sport varied by socio-economic status: ongoing illness or injury was the main constraint to participation for people from the most socio-economically disadvantaged areas, while lack of time due to work or study took over as the main constraint for others282.

FestivalsFestivals such as agricultural shows, sports carnivals, music festivals and others have been found to be important generators of social capital as well as economic benefits for rural and regional areas. A

277 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Attendance at Selected Cultural Venues and Events, Australia, 2005-06, Cat. No. 4114.0278 Source: General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4159.6.55.001279Sport and Recreation Tasmania Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts, 2009 Participation of Australians and Tasmanians in Exercise, Recreation and Sport An analysis of the 2008 Exercise, Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS) result, July 2009280Sport and Recreation Tasmania Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts, 2009 Participation of Australians and Tasmanians in Exercise, Recreation and Sport An analysis of the 2008 Exercise, Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS) result, July 2009281 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Participation in Sport and Physical Recreation 2005-06, Cat No 4177.0282 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 Participation in Sport and Physical Recreation 2005-06, Cat No 4177.0

A1.69

study of over 2,800 rural and regional festivals held over 2007-08 across New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania283 found that while most festivals were small in size, it is estimated that many generated significant social and economic capital for their local regions. In addition to providing direct income from ticket sales, festivals generate business for local industries, paid employment and volunteering opportunities, and support family and community life through expanding social networks and encouraging improvements in social cohesion.

Of the 226 festivals held across all areas (both rural and urban) in Tasmania in 2007-08, the majority (86 festivals or 38 per cent of the total) were sports festivals, followed by community festivals (45 festivals, 20 per cent) and gardening and agricultural festivals (20 and 19 festivals respectively, representing 9 and 8 per cent each of all festivals held). Sports, agricultural and community festivals were among the top three most common types of festivals in New South Wales and Victoria also (Figure 26).

Figure 26 Festivals by type, Tasmania, 2007-08

While the major centres in Tasmania (Hobart, Launceston and Devonport) tended to have the most number of festivals overall, rural and regional areas such as King Island, Central Highlands and Break O’Day had the most number of festivals per capita284.

283 University of Wollongong, 2009 Reinventing Rural Places: The extent and impact of festivals in rural and regional Australia, ARC Festivals Project report.284 University of Wollongong, 2009 Reinventing Rural Places: The extent and impact of festivals in rural and regional Australia, ARC Festivals Project report.

A1.70

Access to transport Access to transport is vital for social inclusion. Lack of access to reliable and appropriate transport can lead to exclusion from work and study opportunities as well as impeding access to services and to social networks. For people on low incomes, accessing affordable transport is particularly difficult, further limiting their ability to access services, participate in social outings, and access jobs, training and shopping285. Other barriers to social exclusion such as unemployment, poor skills, bad housing, old age and poor health can also limit access to transport286. For a state with a highly dispersed and ageing population such as Tasmania, transport is a particularly vital issue. The topic of transport was raised many times in the Unit’s consultations for the social inclusion strategy, particularly in the context of being able to access goods and services.

In Tasmania in 2006, 88 per cent of people aged 18 and over reported that they felt they could easily get to the places they needed to go (a broad measure of access to transport). However, only 78 per cent of people in the lowest income quintile, 73 per cent of one parent families, 72 per cent of people with a core activity restriction (disability) could easily get to the places needed, indicating that some groups still face barriers to accessing transport287. Although directly comparable data for 2006 for Tasmanian Aborigines is not available, in 2002, 78 per cent of Tasmanian Aborigines aged 15 and over reported that they could easily get to places needed.288

In a country such as Australia with high levels of urban sprawl and sparsely settled areas, issues of transport are particularly important and strongly linked to urban planning and infrastructure issues289. This has led to Australia becoming highly car dependent, with the associated problems of congestion, pollution and disadvantage for those unable to afford a car.

Tasmania too is highly dependent on private car use. Tasmania has the second-highest number of registered motor vehicles per 1 000 population after Western Australia, and car ownership has been steadily increasing since 1987290. The focus on car based transport has contributed to dispersed settlement patterns and low density housing, and location of affordable housing in urban fringe areas291. These urban fringe areas - which include the surrounding areas of Hobart and Launceston and along the North West Coast between Wynyard and Port Sorell292 - are characterised by high population growth rates, higher proportions of young people (aged under 19 years), higher unemployment and larger proportions of families with children compared to urban and rural

285 Tasmanian Council of Social Services, 2009 Just scraping by? Conversations with Tasmanians living on low incomes, Social Policy and Research Team.286 Stanley, Janet; Stanley, John; Currie, Graham (2007) ‘Introduction’, in No Way to go: transport and social disadvantage in Australian communities, edited by Currie, Graham; Stanley, Janey; Stanley, John. Melbourne: Monash University ePress, pp.1.1-1.11. 287 Australian Bureau of Statistics, General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, Cat No 4159.0.55.001288Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2002, Cat. No. 4714.0 289 Dr Jago Dodson referenced in Stanley, Janet; Stanley, John; Currie, Graham (2007) ‘Introduction’, in No Way to go: transport and social disadvantage in Australian communities, edited by Currie, Graham; Stanley, Janey; Stanley, John. Melbourne: Monash University ePress, pp.1.1-1.11. 290 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) Tasmania, 2007 Southern Region Overview Report, a report informing development of the Southern Integrated Transport Plan, October 2007.291 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) Tasmania, 2007 Southern Region Overview Report, a report informing development of the Southern Integrated Transport Plan, October 2007. 292 The urban fringe includes the towns of Sorell, Brighton, New Norfolk, Huonville, Kettering, Woodbridge, Exeter, George Town, Deloraine, Cressy, Longford, Perth/Evandale, Wynyard, Penguin, Ulverstone and Port Sorell. Source: Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007 Connected Communities: Better Bus Services in Tasmania, Report of the Core Passenger Services Review, Volume 1 Main Report, November 2007, p.xviii.

A1.71

areas293. These areas face high demand for travel to the major urban centres for school, work and services.

In Tasmania in 2006, 10 per cent of households had no motor vehicle. LGAs with the highest proportions of households lacking a motor vehicle included the urban LGAs of Hobart (13 per cent), Glenorchy (14 per cent) and Launceston (12 per cent), but also the more remote LGAs of West Coast and Flinders Island (both had 11 per cent of households with no motor vehicle).294

People at particular risk of transport disadvantage include people who have any of the following characteristics: aged over 60, with a disability, on low incomes, not in the labour force, younger than 17, and enrolled in an educational institution295. Factors affecting the level of disadvantage include proximity to services, adequacy and availability of public transport services, ability to use alternative methods of transport, and ability to access vehicles belonging to others. Young people living on the urban fringe and in rural/regional areas face particular transport difficulties, and this affects their ability to participate in education, employment and recreational opportunities296. For young Tasmanians living in rural areas, the need to travel long distances or relocate to further their education post-school has been identified as a barrier to further educational study297.

The aged and people with a disability are particularly affected due to their particular needs (such as for wheelchair accessible transport or ramps to access buses). In 2003, 87 per cent of people with a disability were able to use all or some forms of public transport, and of these, 11 per cent required help or assistance to do so298. However, a significant proportion (27 per cent) of people with a disability reported having difficulties in using public transport, such as lack of seating or difficulty standing, getting into or out of vehicles or carriages, and fear and anxiety299. For older people living on low incomes, the costs of public and private transport may be prohibitive. Services such as Home and Community Care (HACC) community cars provide some assistance for eligible customers300.

Access to servicesRelated to the issue of transport is the issue of access to services. The ability to access services ranging from retail services through to health and human services, employment and educational services, recreational spaces and facilities and parks and amenities, is important for social inclusion.

What defines an ‘accessible’ service however depends on need. It may encompass travel time/distance, waiting times to obtain services, opening hours, affordability, and the appropriateness, range and quality of services provided. It can also encompass issues of equity of access for people with particular needs such as people with a disability, the frail aged, people from rural and regional areas, Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse populations. It is therefore a difficult concept to measure comprehensively.293 Based on analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data reported in the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, 2007 Connected Communities: Better Bus Services in Tasmania, Report of the Core Passenger Services Review, Volume 1 Main Report, November 2007, p.25.294 Census 2006 data for Tasmania.295 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) Tasmania, 2007 Southern Region Overview Report, a report informing development of the Southern Integrated Transport Plan, October 2007. 296 Stanley, Janet; Stanley, John; Currie, Graham (2007) ‘Introduction’, in No Way to go: transport and social disadvantage in Australian communities, edited by Currie, Graham; Stanley, Janey; Stanley, John. Melbourne: Monash University ePress, pp.1.1-1.11297 Tasmanian Council of Social Services, 2009 Just scraping by? Conversations with Tasmanians living on low incomes, Social Policy and Research Team.298 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Disability, Ageing and Carers, 2003, Tasmanian State Tables, Cat No 4430.0299 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Disability, Ageing and Carers, 2003, Tasmanian State Tables, Cat No 4430.0300 Tasmanian Council of Social Services, 2008 Enhancing Quality of Life: Addressing Poverty and Disadvantage through the HACC Program, HACC Consumer Consultation Report.

A1.72

The ABS General Social Survey asks a general question regarding whether or not respondents find it difficult to access service providers. In 2006, 22 per cent of Tasmanians reported difficulties in accessing service providers in the survey. This rose to 33 per cent for people in areas outside the major cities and towns and to 41 per cent of people with a core activity restriction (the most severe type of disability).301 While the data is not sufficiently reliable to discern the main reasons for difficulties in accessing service providers in Tasmania, nationally the main reasons cited by people who reported difficulties were that there were ‘inadequate services’ in the area where the respondent resided, followed by ‘transport/distance’, ‘cost of service’ and ‘no services in area’302.

Further research is required to further define service accessibility in terms of the services most important for social inclusion, the dimensions of accessibility that are most important to measure and the types of services most often accessed.

An important issue for socially excluded groups is the difficulties they have in navigating the increasingly complex array of services provided by both public and private providers. One study of services available in Western Sydney identified 36 different programs administered by a range of agencies and organisations across all three levels of government and the community sector, all attempting to address various aspects of disadvantage and place-specific issues in those areas303.

Digital exclusionThe ability to access and use computers and telecommunications technology is becoming increasingly important for participation in modern society. The internet and mobile phones are used for accessing services, jobs, education and social networks. People without access to these technologies are increasingly at risk of social exclusion as a result – a phenomenon dubbed ‘digital exclusion’304.

In the 10 years to 2008, the proportion of Australian households with access to computers at home increased by nearly a third to 75 per cent, while the proportion of households with access to the internet at home more than quadrupled from 16 per cent to 67 per cent.

Tasmanian households’ level of access to the internet and computers is lower than the Australian average. In 2007, only 56 per cent of Tasmanian households had home internet access, and 66 per cent had access to a home computer. The level of internet access was the lowest proportion of any state or territory, and compared with 64 per cent of Australian households with home internet access and 73 per cent of households with access to a computer (Figure 27)305.

301 Source: General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4159.6.55.001. In 2006, 32.9% of the population living in areas classified as outside the ‘Inner Regional’ classification in the ABS Remoteness Areas classification reported difficulties in accessing service providers compared to 22.2% of the general population.302 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007 General Social Survey: Summary Results, Australia, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4159.0. 303 Randolph, Bill 2004 ‘Social Inclusion and Place-Focused Initiatives in Western Sydney: A Review of Current Practice’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 39 No 1, February 2004304 Notley, Tanya and Foth, Marcus 2008 Extending Australia’s digital divide policy: an examination of the value of social inclusion and social capital policy frameworks, Institute for Creative Industries and Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 2007.305 Source: Australian Social Trends 2008, Data Cube, ABS Cat. No. 4102.0, Other Areas indicators (data relates to 2007).

A1.73

Figure 27 Proportion of households with internet connections, by state and territory, 2007

Tasmania also has the lowest proportion of households with broadband internet connections, at 39 per cent of households compared to 52 per cent of Australian households. 306

People who are less likely to have access to the internet nationally include: Indigenous Australians, people living in regional and remote areas, people with low or no qualifications, people on low incomes, people with a disability, and single parent households with children aged under 15 years307. In 2006, 49 per cent of Tasmanian Aboriginal households had an internet connection compared to 53 per cent of non-Aboriginal households308.

The use of internet technology to connect to others is an important social use of digital technology. Research from the General Social Survey found that in the three months to July 2006, 91% of the Tasmanian population aged 18 years and over used a fixed telephone to contact family or friends living outside the household. This was followed by mobile phone/SMS (70%), Internet such as email or chat rooms (37%), and mail (including cards) or fax (26%)309.

There is evidence that Tasmanian households may lag behind the rest of the nation when it comes to access to modern communications technology. In 2002 (the latest data available), Tasmanian households generally had the lowest levels of all Australian states and territories of access to other household technologies such as mobile phones, PayTV, DVD players, answering and fax machines. Only 62 per cent of Tasmanian households had access to mobile phones, compared to 72 per cent of

306 Source: General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006, ABS. Cat. No. 4159.6.55.001. In 2006, 32.9% of the population living in areas classified as outside the ‘Inner Regional’ classification in the ABS Remoteness Areas classification reported difficulties in accessing service providers compared to 22.2% of the general population.307 ABS data cited in Notley, Tanya and Foth, Marcus 2007 Extending Australia’s digital divide policy: an examination of the value of social inclusion and social capital policy frameworks, Institute for Creative Industries and Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 2007. 308 An Aboriginal household is one that has at least one Tasmanian Aborigine as a usual resident. Source: Census 2006, Indigenous Profile, Tasmania.309 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Tasmanian State and Regional Indicators, 1307.6

A1.74

Australian households310. More up-to-date data is required to assess whether this is the case in Tasmania in 2009.

The case for placeThe data outlined above provides a snapshot of the ways in which some Tasmanians are socially excluded, and groups who are most at risk. In addition to these analyses it is also important to examine social exclusion through the lens of place. There is strong evidence that social exclusion can become concentrated in certain communities and lead to entrenched disadvantage over time. A number of studies both in Australia and overseas have identified localities that are disadvantaged on a number of indicators and there is evidence that this concentration of poverty is growing in Australia311.

Disadvantaged areas may lack employment opportunities, educational facilities, services or infrastructure such as housing or recreational facilities, and may also have lower levels of social capital, or high pollution and crime rates. Many of these disadvantages are inter-related: for example, poor access to services may lead to poorer health, which in term inhibits the ability to access education, employment and other opportunities. In this way, barriers to social inclusion combine to create a ‘web of disadvantage’ that is difficult to break out of, and becomes entrenched in communities over time312.

One of the most important recent studies of this in Australia is Tony Vinson’s study ‘Dropping Off The Edge: the distribution of disadvantage in Australia.’ Vinson mapped a range of indicators of disadvantage such as low income, home purchase stress, mortality, suicide, prison admissions, unemployment and internet access (among many others), sourced from both the Census and administrative data collections, across geographic areas in Australia. Localities were ranked according to their score on each of the indicators, with localities with the highest negative score (the highest proportion of early school leavers, the highest number of residents on sickness/disability payments, and so on) being ranked highest. In analysing the number of times each locality appeared in the top ranking positions on each indicator, Vinson found evidence of a significant concentration of disadvantage. In general, he found that 1.7 per cent of the localities in each jurisdiction accounted for more than seven times their share of the top ranking positions across all indicators313. This disadvantage was entrenched and persisted over time: the rank order of Victorian and New South Wales places on his disadvantage scale was very similar in both 2004 and 2007314.

Locational disadvantage in Tasmania

Vinson’s study is a useful starting point for identifying disadvantaged and socially excluded localities in Tasmania. Two other studies that identify disadvantaged areas in Australia are: the study of child social exclusion by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM); and the ABS Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). Both of these sources use Census data, which is available for smaller geographic areas than the sources used in Vinson’s study. The results of these sources are listed along with Vinson’s below.

310 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2003, Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2001-02, Cat No 8146.0311 Vinson, Tony 2009 Markedly Socially Disadvantaged Localities in Australia: their nature and possible remediation, paper for the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), January 2009.312 Vinson, Tony 2009 Markedly Socially Disadvantaged Localities in Australia: their nature and possible remediation, paper for the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), January 2009.313 Vinson, Tony 2007 Dropping off the edge: the distribution of disadvantage in Australia, a report of Jesuit Social Services and Catholic Social Services Australia.314 Vinson, Tony 2009 Markedly Socially Disadvantaged Localities in Australia: their nature and possible remediation, paper for the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), January 2009.

A1.75

Vinson’s results

Vinson identified seven LGAs in Tasmania that consistently ranked highly against his indicators of disadvantage. The most disadvantaged of these were Break O’Day, Central Highlands and Derwent Valley. The next most disadvantaged were Brighton, George Town, Southern Midlands and Tasman.

Of these seven LGAs:

All were in the top seven ranked positions on disability/sickness support payments; Six ranked equally highly on long-term unemployment; Five occupied one of the top seven rank positions on limited computer use and internet access,

and imprisonment; and Four were similarly placed on mortality, low family income, criminal convictions, general

unemployment and suicide315.

Vinson’s results are mapped in Figure 28.

315 Vinson, Tony 2007 Dropping off the edge: the distribution of disadvantage in Australia, a report of Jesuit Social Services and Catholic Social Services Australia, p28.

A1.76

Figure 28 Map of Tony Vinson’s rankings of Tasmanian LGAs by level of disadvantage

A1.77

NATSEM findings

The NATSEM study316 used 2006 Census data to identify the Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in Australia most at risk of child social exclusion based on the following nine indicators, calculated as the proportion of children aged 0-15 who were:

1. Living in single parent families2. Living in families where no-one in the family had completed Year 123. Living in households where the highest occupation in the family was a blue collar worker4. Living in public housing5. Living in families where no parent was working6. Living in dwellings with no internet connection7. Living in households with no motor vehicle8. In families where no parent had done voluntary work over the past 12 months9. In households with income in the bottom quintile of equivalised gross household income for

all households in Australia.

In Tasmania, 15 SLAs fell within the bottom quintile (weighted by child population317) of areas in Australia most at-risk of child social exclusion – these included: Break O’Day, Brighton, the urban part of Derwent Valley, Glenorchy, Launceston, Southern Midlands and the West Coast, among others. The 15 SLAs are shown in Figure 29.

Overall, Tasmania had the second-highest proportion of children at risk of social exclusion of all states and territories after the Northern Territory, and there was a high level of disparity between the proportions of children living in low risk versus high risk areas. Nearly half (46 per cent) of all children aged 15 and under in Tasmania in 2006 were living in SLAs in the bottom quintile of the child social exclusion index, while 8 per cent were living in SLAs in the top quintile (ie. those least at risk)318.

In interpreting these figures it should be noted that they count all children living in the high and low risk areas. The highest-risk SLAs are those with the highest proportions of children at risk of social exclusion; within those SLAs, there will still be some children who are not at risk. Similarly, within low-risk SLAs there will be some children who have a high number of risk factors.

The larger the geographic area under study, the more likely it is that there will be significant variation in the socio-economic circumstances the individuals and families living in that area. This is why it is important to analyse disadvantage for the smallest geographic unit possible, to avoid missing pockets of disadvantage lying within larger areas. SEIFA provides a useful tool for this.

316 National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling 2008, Child social exclusion: an updated index from the 2006 Census, Paper for presentation at the 10th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, July 9-11, 2008.317The quintiles used in the NATSEM study were weighted by child population to account for SLAs of different population sizes. So the bottom social exclusion quintile represents the bottom 20 per cent of children facing the highest risks of being socially excluded, rather than the bottom 20 per cent of SLAs.318 National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling 2008, Child social exclusion: an updated index from the 2006 Census, Paper for presentation at the 10th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, July 9-11, 2008, Figure 4, p.21.

A1.78

Figure 29 Map of Child Social Exclusion Index, Statistical Local Areas, Tasmania, 2006

A1.79

SEIFA

SEIFA is a collection of four indexes which compare the relative social and economic conditions of cities, towns and suburbs across Australia. SEIFA is calculated using a range of variables from the Census, the latest SEIFA indexes being sourced from the 2006 Census. Each index summarises a different aspect of the socio-economic conditions of people living in an area319.

The most commonly-used index is the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD), which can be used to identify areas with high proportions of people and households with characteristics associated with disadvantage such as low income, low levels of qualifications, unemployment and employment in low skilled occupations (see Figure 30). Unlike the Vinson and NATSEM studies, SEIFA scores are calculated for a range of different geographic areas of different sizes, including small areas such as suburbs and CDs. This allows for the identification of pockets of disadvantage within wealthier areas.

Figure 30 Census variables included in the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, 2006320

% Occupied private dwellings with no internet connection

% Employed people classified as Labourers

% People aged 15 years and over with no post-school qualifications

% People with stated annual household equivalised income between $13,000 and $20,799 (approximately the 2nd and 3rd deciles of the income distribution)

% Households renting from Government or Community organisation

% People (in the labour force) unemployed

% One parent families with dependent offspring only

% Households paying rent less than $120 per week (excluding $0 per week)

% People aged under 70 who have a long-term health condition or disability and need assistance with core activities

% Occupied private dwellings with no car

% People who identified themselves as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Straight Islander origin

% Occupied private dwellings requiring one or more extra bedrooms (based on Canadian National Occupancy Standard)

% People aged 15 years and over who are separated or divorced

% Employed people classified as Machinery Operators and Drivers

% People aged 15 years and over who did not go to school

% Employed people classified as Low Skill Community and Personal Service Workers

% People who do not speak English well

319 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Information Paper: An Introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), 2006, Cat No 2039.0320 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008 Information Paper: An Introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), 2006, Cat No 2039.0

A1.80

An analysis of SEIFA IRSD data by the Social Inclusion Unit indicates that 38 600 people, or 8 per cent of the Tasmanian population, were living in CDs ranked among the most disadvantaged 5 per cent of all CDs in Australia in 2006. This was the second-highest proportion of all states and territories after the Northern Territory321, confirming the findings of the NATSEM study that Tasmania has particularly high levels of locational disadvantage compared to other jurisdictions.

Figure 31 shows SEIFA IRSD data for Tasmanian LGAs, with LGAs grouped into deciles based on their score on the SEIFA IRSD. That is, the lowest-scoring 10 per cent of LGAs in Tasmania are grouped into decile 1, the next lowest-scoring 10 per cent of areas into decile 2, and so forth.

321 Calculated by the Australian Social Inclusion Unit from data in: Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia - Data only, 2006, ABS Cat. No. 2033.0.55.001, data cube ‘SEIFA, Census Collection Districts, Data Cube only, 2006’ using the SEIFA Index of Relative Disadvantage (IRSD).

A1.81

Figure 31 Map of SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage by LGA, Tasmania, 2006

A1.82

Within LGAs, there can be significant variation in SEIFA scores. Figure 32 shows the SEIFA decile rankings of suburbs within the Greater Hobart, Greater Launceston and Burnie-Devonport areas. This map highlights the pockets of disadvantage that are obscured in the LGA map. For example: while Clarence LGA as a whole ranks in decile 9 (ie. among the second-least disadvantaged 10 per cent of LGAs in Tasmania) on SEIFA IRSD, the suburbs of Rokeby and Clarendon Vale within the LGA both fall in decile 1. This illustrates the importance of SEIFA for identifying areas of disadvantage that cannot be seen in studies at SLA or LGA level (it is notable that Clarence was not identified as disadvantaged in the Vinson or NATSEM studies).

Suburbs in the lowest SEIFA IRSD decile in Tasmania include the urban housing estates in Bridgewater and Gagebrook (Hobart), Ravenswood and Rocherlea (Launceston), and Shorewell Park (Burnie), as well as regional and rural towns such as Beaconsfield, Zeehan, St Marys and Nubeena.

Figure 32 Map of SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage by Suburb, major urban centres, Tasmania, 2006

Identifying areas for place-based programs

As outlined in the main report, addressing locational disadvantage requires investment in place-based programs. These programs should engage the whole community in identifying their priority issues and developing sustainable solutions that involve all spheres of government, business and the community working together.

In identifying areas for these programs it is important not only to consider areas that are currently disadvantaged, but those areas at risk of disadvantage and social exclusion in future. These may include communities that are facing rapid population growth or decline; areas facing industrial change such as the decline of manufacturing industries and consequent unemployment; areas

A1.83

affected by drought or climate change; and areas on the cusp of rapid economic and social growth due to the advent of new infrastructure.

The Tasmanian Social Inclusion Unit has completed a preliminary analysis of areas in Tasmania that may be potential candidates for place-based programs under a comprehensive Social Inclusion Strategy. The analysis has involved the identification and mapping of key data sources including:

Indicators of currently disadvantaged areas:

Areas identified by the Vinson, NATSEM and the SEIFA IRSD analyses outlined above; and

Other indicators of disadvantage including: low adult literacy levels322, remoteness from services323, and poor results against a number of child health and wellbeing indicators.324

Indicators of other areas at-risk of social exclusion:

Areas of projected population growth or decline;325

Areas at risk from the global financial crisis;326 Areas affected by drought;327 and

Areas targeted for investment in irrigation infrastructure.328

The Vinson, NATSEM and SEIFA analyses have been demonstrated above in Figure 28, Figure 29, Figure 31 and Figure 32.

Figure 33 below illustrates areas that may require special attention from a planning and liveability point of view to avoid social exclusion occurring in future. The map shows areas of projected population growth and decline, along with the locations of irrigation infrastructure. Areas of rapid growth and decline and those facing drought and/or risk from the global financial crisis will require careful consideration of issues such as service provision, employment and educational opportunities among other issues. As outlined in Strategy 9 (planning and liveability for social inclusion), strategic and integrated planning will also be required in areas planned for irrigation infrastructure to ensure that the human capital and social infrastructure is in place to capitalise on opportunities for innovation.

The remaining maps illustrate the other risk factors listed above. Figure 34 shows areas of drought, while the other maps illustrate the spread of risk across Tasmanian LGAs from the global financial crisis, as measured by the proportion of people in each LGA employed in vulnerable industries (), and the proportion of employed people in each LGA with no post-school qualifications (Figure 36).

322 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, rankings of Tasmanian LGAs based on estimated proportions of adults lacking functional literacy skills, requested from ABS and based on techniques outlined in 1352.0.55.094 - Research Paper: Experimental Estimates of Adult Literacy for Local Government Areas (Methodology Advisory Committee), Jun 2008 .) 323 Based on the ABS Remoteness Areas classification, and the Section of State classification.324 Sourced from the analysis of LGA results in Tasmanian Early Years Foundation, 2009 Outcomes in the Early Years: The State of Tasmania’s Young Children 2009, Report on the Tasmanian Early Years Foundation’s Outcomes Framework.325 Demographic Change Advisory Council, population projections by LGA, available from: www.dcac.tas.gov.au 326 An analysis of 2006 Census data by the Tasmanian Social Inclusion Unit, based on a similar analysis conducted by Mitchell, William and Baum, Scott, 2009 Red alert suburbs: An employment vulnerability index for Australia’s major urban regions, Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), University of Newcastle and the Urban Research Program (URP), Griffith University.327 Areas declared as Exceptional Circumstances-declared areas by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), see: http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/ec/tasmania 328 Areas targeted for irrigation projects by the Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board, outlined in brochure released Tuesday 23 April 2009.

A1.84

This preliminary analysis illustrates the sorts of factors that could be taken into account in targeting areas for place-based programs in Tasmania. It also highlights the diversity of issues facing Tasmanian communities, indicating the importance of implementing programs that are tailored to the particular needs of each community.

However, it is important not only to consider risk factors in determining places to target for social inclusion programs. The framework for social inclusion in Tasmania outlined in Chapter 2 specifies that a focus on assets in communities, as resources to leverage in giving communities ‘a hand up, rather than a hand out’, is one of the organising principles for Tasmania’s Social Inclusion Strategy. Communities have a range of strengths and assets that they can draw on in developing solutions to place-based disadvantage. Currently there is a lack of reliable data in Tasmania on social capital and community assets that is available consistently across all LGAs in the State. To fill this data gap, a dedicated community survey may be required (see Appendix 4), or a ‘community audit’329. This involves talking to people and service providers in a particular location to develop a picture of the suite of services available to residents, how they interact and the gaps or barriers to access. A balanced view of community strengths and assets is required to fully understand the impact of social exclusion on communities and to identify the best way to address this.

329 Social Inclusion Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2009 The Australian Public Service Social Inclusion Policy Design and Service Delivery Toolkit, Commonwealth of Australia, 2009.

A1.85

Figure 33 Map of projected population growth by LGA 2007-2032 and Irrigation Schemes, Tasmania

A1.86

Figure 34 Map of drought-declared areas, Tasmania, as at 16 June 2009

A1.87

Figure 35 Map of employment in industries vulnerable to the global financial crisis, LGAs, Tasmania, 2006

A1.88

Figure 36 Map of employed persons with no post-school qualifications, LGAs, Tasmania, 2006

A1.89