Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Ask RiotACT

Experts in Wills, Trusts
& Estate Planning

Which are Canberra’s most disadvantaged suburbs?

By richiedt 27 July 2015 9

ask-riotact-default

I was surprised to see a few of the suburbs that are mentioned and even more surprised to see a few that have lifted off the bottom shelf (including Kingston!)

An interesting read and I think it’s useful for Canberrans to know which areas of our city have the most need so we can help out more in those parts of town.

Here’s the related article from The Canberra Times.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
Which are Canberra’s most disadvantaged suburbs?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Spectra 4:08 pm 27 Jul 15

I was similarly surprised to see, amongst others, Fraser and Flynn on the ABC’s initial report. As has been noted, however, this was either a case of a misleading press release, or just lazy reporting (or both). The report was broken down only to postcode level, and the ABC’s report just listed suburbs in the postcode alphabetically, but in the case of 2615 lost interest after F.

Observing 4:04 pm 27 Jul 15

watto23 said :

Observing said :

As always, The Canberra Times didn’t read the report properly before rushing off to print garbage. The report was not about suburbs but a postcode analysis. It is a list of 26 postcodes of most and least disadvantage, not suburbs as reported by the Canberra Times. The group that did the report wouldn’t know a Bonython from its Richardson in Canberra. The postcode which happens to be the postcode of Richardson also is the postcode of Bonython. Unfortunately, Richardson is alphabetically higher up than Bonython is which followed by Chisholm in that postcode. Both of which are quoted as been most disadvantaged.

So the bottom line is, a bunch of people who know nothing about Canberra wrote a report and then a bunch of people that didn’t read the report properly misinterpreted it. How this is getting traction at all is mind boggling.

Now as a Bonython resident, that makes complete sense. Although I’ve been making a lot of jokes about dodging the drug dealers and hookers just to go for a walk around the block…. I do agree we have a internet blackspot in Bonython though. Only have Telstra in the exchange (no other companies in the exchange) and thus pay $20-30 more for an “off net” plan with most ISPs.

They also didn’t include for the ACT many of the indicators used for other states, like criminal convictions and domestic violence. I’d say that the ABS has much better figures for social disadvantage than these DOTE guys and you can look at it by suburb, not just postcode.

watto23 3:21 pm 27 Jul 15

Observing said :

As always, The Canberra Times didn’t read the report properly before rushing off to print garbage. The report was not about suburbs but a postcode analysis. It is a list of 26 postcodes of most and least disadvantage, not suburbs as reported by the Canberra Times. The group that did the report wouldn’t know a Bonython from its Richardson in Canberra. The postcode which happens to be the postcode of Richardson also is the postcode of Bonython. Unfortunately, Richardson is alphabetically higher up than Bonython is which followed by Chisholm in that postcode. Both of which are quoted as been most disadvantaged.

So the bottom line is, a bunch of people who know nothing about Canberra wrote a report and then a bunch of people that didn’t read the report properly misinterpreted it. How this is getting traction at all is mind boggling.

Now as a Bonython resident, that makes complete sense. Although I’ve been making a lot of jokes about dodging the drug dealers and hookers just to go for a walk around the block…. I do agree we have a internet blackspot in Bonython though. Only have Telstra in the exchange (no other companies in the exchange) and thus pay $20-30 more for an “off net” plan with most ISPs.

Observing 2:46 pm 27 Jul 15

As always, The Canberra Times didn’t read the report properly before rushing off to print garbage. The report was not about suburbs but a postcode analysis. It is a list of 26 postcodes of most and least disadvantage, not suburbs as reported by the Canberra Times. The group that did the report wouldn’t know a Bonython from its Richardson in Canberra. The postcode which happens to be the postcode of Richardson also is the postcode of Bonython. Unfortunately, Richardson is alphabetically higher up than Bonython is which followed by Chisholm in that postcode. Both of which are quoted as been most disadvantaged.

So the bottom line is, a bunch of people who know nothing about Canberra wrote a report and then a bunch of people that didn’t read the report properly misinterpreted it. How this is getting traction at all is mind boggling.

dungfungus 1:03 pm 27 Jul 15

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Obviously the reporter who sourced this article knows nothing about Canberra.
I mean, how many people actually reside in Fyshwick, Symonston, Majura, and Hume.

There are caravan parks with low cost housing if you know the areas, with quite a few people living there. Some areas also have a higher percentage of government housing, such as Narrabundah. I think it might even be about 20% and possibly it might be more in the lower section, and the government is still wanting to put more disadvantaged there by knocking down single government rental houses (the red brick duplexes) and replacing with multi-units, so increasing that, when some other suburbs have only about 1%. Makes a joke of ‘salt and pepper’!

Comparing areas that only have caravan enclaves against suburbs with established residences is like comparing chalk and clay.

chewy14 11:56 am 27 Jul 15

Dame Canberra said :

Interesting. I wouldn’t have expected to see Bonython on this list.

Also, I don’t understand why suburbs like Fyshwick make the list when they’re not (to my knowledge) residential? Help?

Yeah, I’d suggest the long stay caravan parks are the main ones and there is this facility in Hume where there are quite a few residents who have been very, very naughty citizens.

Maya123 10:17 am 27 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

Obviously the reporter who sourced this article knows nothing about Canberra.
I mean, how many people actually reside in Fyshwick, Symonston, Majura, and Hume.

There are caravan parks with low cost housing if you know the areas, with quite a few people living there. Some areas also have a higher percentage of government housing, such as Narrabundah. I think it might even be about 20% and possibly it might be more in the lower section, and the government is still wanting to put more disadvantaged there by knocking down single government rental houses (the red brick duplexes) and replacing with multi-units, so increasing that, when some other suburbs have only about 1%. Makes a joke of ‘salt and pepper’!

dungfungus 9:59 am 27 Jul 15

Obviously the reporter who sourced this article knows nothing about Canberra.
I mean, how many people actually reside in Fyshwick, Symonston, Majura, and Hume.

Dame Canberra 9:47 am 27 Jul 15

Interesting. I wouldn’t have expected to see Bonython on this list.

Also, I don’t understand why suburbs like Fyshwick make the list when they’re not (to my knowledge) residential? Help?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site