We have an example of this already in the poor demographic
analysis in the GHD Social
Baseline Report and Population
and Demographic Study under taken by id. Both of these reports cover the
Waterloo Metro and Estate SSP sites.
The smallest
area for the release of Census data is the Statistical Area level 1 (SA1).
These areas can contain between 200 and 800 people and in the case of the seven
SA1 used to describe the “Waterloo SSP” only two of the seven Statistical Areas
exclusively cover public housing; the other five also include private housing.
The seven SA1 include around 522 non LAHC homes which make up about 21%
of all the homes included in the reports as part of the “Waterloo SSP”. The
table below indicates the SA1s and the public and private dwellings recorded in
the 2016 census.
The demographic
study says there are 3,647 residents living in the above Waterloo Precinct in
2016, which it, and the social baseline report, then use to profile this area.
This is not the Waterloo Estate nor does it reflect the estate’s demographics.
The SEIFA index
of disadvantage (the lower the number the more disadvantaged) illustrates this.
The two estate-only SA1s have an index of 493 and 426, while the other five
have indexes between 756 and 618. This reflects the statistical impact of the
well-off private owners or renters who live adjacent to the estate.
The specific
needs of public housing tenants will be obscured even more after a 70% private
/ 30% social housing redevelopment. On average, the area will look fine, but
the actual disadvantage of public housing tenants will not have diminished.
The SSP
demographic reports do not unpack the above data issues. Nor do they even
mention that private residents are included. They similarly do not look at the
long known issues of low Census completion rates in public housing, nor the
potential under-reporting of unregistered tenants. The latter problem was
likely to be greater in the 2016 Census because of the announcement that Census
data would be shared with other parts of government – a major fear for some
tenants who worried that by including unauthorised tenants they may
self-incriminate, which might impact their benefits or the rent they pay. These
are just some of the many issues.
In most cases,
people reading the reports will just assume that the figures reflect what is
happening on the estate when they do not. In the GHD Social Baseline report,
they go further after using the SA1 data, and infer that this area represents
only the estate. Graph 4.2.7 shows tenure comparisons between Waterloo and the
City of Sydney LGA but it did not graph the Waterloo precinct because “Tenure
for Waterloo Estate has not been included in this figure as all residents are
social housing tenants”. Had they graphed the SA1s data being used, it would
have shown a significant number of owners and private renters. The graph would
also have shown that the Census showed only 1425 respondents reported they
lived in social housing. This is far short of the over 2012 public housing
units covered by the seven SA1s.
The GHD report
does say FACS told them there were 3,585 residents living on the estate. In
response to my request to LAHC for the basis for this figure, they do not know
where the figure came from, other than that it is close to the combined SA1s’
resident figures of 3652. Sydney Council use an average of 1.9 occupants per
unit and for the 2012 properties this could indicate around 3800 people live on
the estate. There is reason to believe, because of the number of lone
occupants, that 1.9 is too high for the estate. The FACS official tenant figure
of 2,630 for Waterloo works out about 1.3 tenants per home. On its projections
id seem to have used a figure lower than that used by the City without making
it clear what occupation figure was used nor how the calculation was made.
GHD do quote some
other LAHC supplied figures about the estate and these seem to correspond to
the figures shown in LAHC’s Waterloo
Public Housing Renewal – Existing Property official occupation
released in late 2017.
After going
through the two reports, we have no better understanding of how many people
might live on the estate. The reports often do not make clear their data set or
their methodologies and jump between what they are describing. Not even
LAHC believe that there are only the 2,630 people who are shown in the document
referred to above as officially occupying LAHC housing on the Waterloo estate.
There might be around 3,600 people living on the estate but no one knows.
Certainly, the ABS demographics for the SA1s do not adequately describe the
people who live in public housing.
We also do not
have a clearer idea of what the needs might be for tenants as the ABS figures
are distorted by the 21% private returns. As an example, the LAHC figures
above, show that 30% of tenants are on Disability Support Pensions and that
around 18% need assistance. The GHD report puts the need for assistance at only
11%, while anecdotally health workers put it at well over 20%. It has also been
over 12 months since LAHC released its Waterloo figures. FACS has recently
completed client visits to all Waterloo tenants covered by the redevelopment,
so it should now have a clearer idea of its tenants needs and be able to update
the figures released in late 2017.
Naively we
hoped that the demographic studies might help us better understand the public
housing community who will be impacted by the redevelopment and who will be a
key part of the future community. Instead, the report proceeds from the
assumption that the SA1s accurately describe the community and then project in
an opaque way the extra 5000 to 5533 units from there. Worryingly, these
reports might do enough to help justify an increase in density in Waterloo.
But, these reports do not accurately reflect the demographics of the Waterloo
public housing tenants. They should not be the basis used to build a robust
master plan or human services plan that will meet the needs of public tenants
into the future.
This analysis was produced by Geoff Turnbull for REDWatch 11 January 2019.