Commonwealth Rent Assistance and the spatial concentration of low income households in metropolitan Australia authored by Bill Randolph and Darren Holloway for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute UNSW-UWS Research Centre

June 2007

AHURI Final Report No. 101

ISSN: 1834-7223 ISBN: 1 921201 90 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and the Australian States and Territories. AHURI Ltd gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from the Australian, State and Territory governments, without which this work would not have been possible. AHURI comprises a network of fourteen universities clustered into seven Research Centres across Australia. Research Centre contributions, both financial and in-kind, have made the completion of this report possible.

DISCLAIMER

AHURI Ltd is an independent, non-political body which has supported this project as part of its programme of research into housing and urban development, which it hopes will be of value to policy-makers, researchers, industry and communities. The opinions in this publication reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AHURI Ltd, its Board or its funding organisations. No responsibility is accepted by AHURI Ltd or its Board or its funders for the accuracy or omission of any statement, opinion, advice or information in this publication.

AHURI FINAL REPORT SERIES

AHURI Final Reports is a refereed series presenting the results of original research to a diverse readership of policy makers, researchers and practitioners.

PEER REVIEW STATEMENT

An objective assessment of all reports published in the AHURI Final Report Series by carefully selected experts in the field ensures that material of the highest quality is published. The AHURI Final Report Series employs a double-blind peer review of the full Final Report – where anonymity is strictly observed between authors and referees.

i CONTENTS

CONTENTS ...... II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Methodology...... 2 Spatial concentration of private rental low income households ...... 3 Socio-economic characteristics of private rental low income households ...... 3 Changes in the spatial concentration of private rental low income households...... 3 The location of low cost housing stock...... 4 Commonwealth Rent Assistance in 2001 ...... 4 Public housing waiting lists in 2001...... 4 The relationship between public housing waiting lists, Commonwealth Rent Assistance, low cost rental stock and private renter low income households in 2001 ...... 4 The changing location of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005...... 5 The changing relative distribution of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 ...... 5 The labour market profile of privately renter low income working households...... 6 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 2 BACKGROUND ...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Economic changes...... 9 2.3 Demographic and social changes ...... 10 2.4 Commonwealth Rent Assistance ...... 10 2.5 Housing and employment ...... 11 2.6 Disadvantage in the private rental market...... 11 2.7 Housing policy issues...... 13 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 14 3.1 Introduction ...... 14 3.2 Imputing missing household income figures from Census data...... 14 3.3 Other Data sources ...... 15 4 WHAT IS A LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD?...... 16 4.1 Introduction ...... 16 4.2 Our preferred approach...... 18 4.3 Comparing the populations of this project to the Yates et al (2003) study...... 19 4.4 Examining the changes in PRLIHs over time...... 19 5 LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE PRIVATE RENTAL MARKET ...... 25 5.1 Introduction ...... 25 5.2 The relative position of PRLIH in the housing market ...... 25 5.3 Location of low income households in the private rental market...... 29 5.3.1 Concentrations at the LGA/SLA level ...... 29 5.3.2 Concentrations at the suburb and postcode level ...... 31 5.4 Profile of low income households in the private rental market ...... 42 5.4.1 Dwelling type ...... 42 5.4.2 Rent paid ...... 42 ii 5.4.3 Household type...... 42 5.4.4 Age ...... 42 5.4.5 Country of birth ...... 43 5.4.6 Education...... 43 5.4.7 Occupation ...... 43 5.4.8 Industry...... 43 5.4.9 Income...... 44 6 CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW INCOME PRIVATE RENTERS IN 1991-2001 ...... 53 6.1 Introduction ...... 53 6.2 Changes in the number and location of private renter low income households, 1991-2001 ...... 53 6.3 Summary...... 54 7 AN EXAMINATION OF THE LOW COST PRIVATE RENTAL STOCK ...... 61 7.1 Introduction ...... 61 7.2 An analysis of very low cost private rental stock – LGA level ...... 61 7.3 An analysis of low cost private rental stock – LGA level ...... 69 7.4 Summary...... 69 7.5 An analysis of very low cost private rental stock – postcode level...... 77 7.6 An analysis of low cost private rental stock – postcode level...... 79 8 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOW INCOME PRIVATE RENTERS AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE ...... 81 8.1 Commonwealth Rent Assistance in 2001 ...... 81 8.2 Public housing waiting lists in 2001...... 93 8.3 The relationship between public housing waiting lists, Commonwealth Rent Assistance, low cost rental stock and PRLIHs in 2001 ...... 93 8.4 The changing location of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-200598 8.4.1 Absolute changes in the distribution of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 ...... 98 8.4.2 Relative changes in the distribution of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 ...... 109 9 THE LABOUR MARKET PROFILE OF LOW INCOME WORKING PRIVATE RENTERS ...... 113 9.1 Introduction ...... 113 9.2 Occupation and industry of PRLIWHs in six case study areas ...... 113 9.2.1 Occupation ...... 114 9.2.2 Industry...... 114 9.2.3 Summary ...... 115 9.3 Journey to work of private renter low income working households in six case study areas...... 120 9.3.1 Summary ...... 120 9.4 Journey to work of private renter low income working households by main workplace destinations...... 132 9.4.1 Summary ...... 132 10 CONCLUSION ...... 139 REFERENCES...... 142 APPENDIX 1: NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF PRLIHS BY LGA ...... 146 iii Sydney ...... 146 Melbourne ...... 147 Adelaide ...... 148 APPENDIX 2: THE NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF ‘VERY LOW’ COST AND ‘LOW’ COST PRIVATE RENTAL STOCK FOR POSTCODES IN SYDNEY, MELBOURNE AND ADELAIDE IN 2001 ...... 150 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Canterbury in 2001 ...... 162 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Wyong in 2001...... 164 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Darebin in 2001 ...... 166 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Moreland in 2001...... 168 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in West Torrens – East in 2001 ...... 170 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in West Torrens – West in 2001 ...... 172 APPENDIX 4: THE ORIGIN OF PRLIWHS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN THE AREAS WHICH EMPLOY A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PRLIWHS, 2001 .....174 Sydney ...... 174 Melbourne ...... 176 Adelaide ...... 177

iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction The private rental sector in Australia has been undergoing considerable change in recent years. Concerns have been raised about the lack of attention given to the private rental sector by policy makers, as recent government policies have concentrated on promoting home ownership or, to a lesser extent, on dealing with structural failures of the public housing stock (Beer, 1999; Yates and Wulff, 2000). Yet recent research indicates that landlords are withdrawing from the lower end of the private rental market. The process of inner city gentrification has removed large numbers of lower rental stock from its traditional strongholds (Forster, 2004; Randolph, 2004). While urban consolidation policies have led to a resurgence of the higher value rental investment sector in CBD locations, there has been a countervailing shift outwards to the middle and outer suburbs in the location of lower value rental stock. Concerns have also been raised that lower income households are being concentrated into the private rental sector for longer periods of time and in certain locations (Wulff, et al, 2001). Further, this may also act to constrain the labour market opportunities for these households. During the 1960s and 1970s the expansion of public housing provided relatively easy access to affordable housing, especially for those on low incomes. At the same time, the rapid expansion of home ownership and government policies supporting home owners allowed many to enter the home purchase market. Private rental was seen as the least preferred tenure as households increasingly moved into home ownership or public housing. However, during the 1980s and 1990s economic, demographic, social and policy changes contributed to the changing role of the private rental market in Australia. In particular, there was a move away from direct public housing provision to providing rent subsidies - Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) - which is paid directly to low income individuals. The private rental sector came to be seen as a preferred solution to the provision of low cost housing for those with low incomes, which involved a lower subsidy per dwelling, at least in the short term. However, as with public housing, CRA to private tenants is highly targeted on those in receipt of benefits and/or pensions. As a result, the bulk of this subsidy is directed to households reliant on welfare payments for their income. Apart from some family households, by and large, low paid working households do not receive CRA. As this group do not qualify for public housing nor are likely to be able to afford home ownership, given historically high property prices, they have been largely ignored by policy makers in the on-going policy debates on housing policy. In effect, the working poor in Australia are the forgotten sector in housing policy, falling between CRA, public housing and home ownership policy. By and large, they fend for themselves in the private rental market assisted in policy terms only by the poorly understood impacts of negative gearing on investment in lower value housing. With the impending shift toward more flexible and contingent employment practices, together with welfare to work polices determined to ensure those who are able to work do so, the role of the private rental sector in supporting the low paid workforce will become even more significant. This report focuses on the position of low income households including those in employment (i.e. the ‘working poor’) in the private rental market to better understand the outcomes of the current policy framework on the housing opportunities open to them. Despite their low policy visibility, this group are important. While there are many households who still use the private rental market as a stepping stone to home purchase, often as part of the new Generation X/Y young professional diaspora who are spending much of their 20s and 30s in more mobile lifestyles who rent in inner city locations before settling for home purchase once they can afford to do so, there is evidence that suggests an increasingly significant proportion of low income households in the private rental market are residing in this sector over long time periods (Wulff and Maher, 1998). Furthermore, research has also raised concerns that low income households in the private rental market are experiencing affordability problems, raising concerns over the operation of Commonwealth Rent Assistance policies. More recent AHURI research has identified the low paid service sector as the primary job sector for whom housing affordability problems are most profound (Yates, Randolph and Holloway, 2006). Unaffordable rental housing severely inhibits these 1 households’ ability to enter the home purchase market, and as a result of the operation of the market, they are being concentrated in certain areas of cities and are being constrained in their access to labour market opportunities, especially those in the central city (Randolph and Holloway, 2005). Many of those who work in these households are employed in low paid jobs that are nevertheless important to the functioning of the city economy. This project explores the ramifications of these processes through a detailed analysis of spatial trends in the provision of low income private rental dwellings and the location of low income working households who rent privately in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne. It examines the contention that lower income working renters are becoming more concentrated in certain areas of these cities. The report analyses the labour market position of low income working private renters, including their workplace locations, shedding light on the issue of whether affordable housing is needed to provide key sectors of the low income workforce with appropriate housing in areas near where they work. Finally, the research explores the spatial relationship between the distribution of low income households who rent privately, the provision of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (hereafter Commonwealth Rent Assistance or CRA) and the location of households on public housing waiting lists in each of the three cities. This analysis will inform policy making with regard to the spatial outcomes of housing policy, especially in relation to the changing structure of the lower income labour markets on which these households rely.

Methodology Currently there is no precise definition as to what constitutes a low income household. Part of this project addresses the housing and workplace relationships of low income households with at least one person in work, or the ‘working poor’. That is, an analysis focuses on low income households as well as those low income households in the workforce. The income ‘cut-off’ points are therefore designed to encapsulate a sufficient sample for both of these groups. The income threshold chosen for the research was the bottom quintile, or 20th percentile, of household income for households with at least one person employed. Because income levels vary around the country, the income threshold was varied to reflect the income distribution in each of the three cities examined in this project – Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. As the research uses the 2001 Census for the analysis, the upper income thresholds at this time used in this study are: $655.23 for Australia as a whole; $773.30 in Sydney; $706.55 in Melbourne; $625.05 in Adelaide. Most of the data used in this study was collated from a value added unit record file created by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) from the 2001 Census of Population and Housing for the study by Yates et al (2003). The main advantage of using this file was that each individual, and therefore household, was assigned with an actual income figure (not an income category). Further, all individuals who did not state their income were assigned an income figure. From this methodology we were able to analyse the social, spatial and labour market characteristics of 931,655 employed low income households in Australia. In Sydney, there were 117,545 low income households in the private rental market of which 69,873 had at least one person in work (60%). In Melbourne, there were 92,982 low income households of which 51,354 included at least one worker (55%). In Adelaide, there were 32,559 low income households of which 15,562 (48%) included at least one worker. Data from Centrelink on the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and the average amount paid by post-code were also used in the study. Data for the years 2000 to 2005 (i.e. including the years following the property boom) were used. Data on public housing waiting lists by geographic area are also used to compare with spatial locations of private renter low income households.

2 Spatial concentration of private rental low income households In Sydney, there were particularly high concentrations of private rental low income households (PRLIHs) in Canterbury and Wyong local government areas (LGAs), and in the suburbs of Liverpool, Campsie and Cabramatta. In Melbourne there were high concentrations of PRLIHs in Darebin and Moreland local government areas and in the suburbs of Frankston, Reservoir and Dandenong. In Adelaide there was a particularly high concentration of PRLIHs in West Torrens – East statistical local area (SLA), as well as higher concentrations in West Torrens – West SLA and Holdfast Bay-North. At the suburb level in Adelaide there were high concentrations of PRLIHs in Morphett Vale, Salisbury and Prospect.

Socio-economic characteristics of private rental low income households An analysis of a selected range of socio-economic variables from the 2001 census provided a profile of the social characteristics of households in the sector and how they differed from the population as a whole. A key finding is that 53% of PRLIHs in Sydney, 42% in Melbourne and 36% of PRLIHs in Adelaide live in flats. In fact, twice the proportion of PRLIHs in Sydney live in flats compared to the rest of the population, while the figure is approximately three times in Melbourne and Adelaide. Between 60% and 70% of PRLIHs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are lone person households and one parent families. This is clearly at odds with the general population, where the equivalent figure is approximately a third. The importance of this housing sub- market for single adult and single parent (i.e. single income) low income households reflects their basic lack of market capacity in the home ownership sector. The age profile of PRLIHs in all three cities is younger than for the population as a whole. In all three cities the proportion of persons aged under 34 is significantly higher than that for the population as a whole. Conversely, the proportion of persons aged over 55 in PRLIHs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide is significantly lower than that for the population as a whole. In Adelaide the proportion of individuals in PRLIHs born in Australia is similar to that for the population as a whole. However in Sydney and Melbourne the proportion of persons in PRLIHs born in Australia is less than that for the population as a whole. That is, there is an over-representation of overseas born persons in PRLIHs in Sydney and Melbourne. Further, despite the low incomes of households in PRLIHs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, the educational profile is similar to that for the population as a whole. PRLIHs, not surprisingly, pay less rent than other renters. Some 71% of PRLIHs in Sydney, 83% in Melbourne and 82% in Adelaide pay between $100 and $250 per week. Individuals in PRLIHs tend to be employed in lower skilled occupations and are over-represented in Intermediate and Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service jobs as well as Intermediate Production and Transport Workers. Conversely, individuals in PRLIHs are significantly under-represented at the top end of the occupational hierarchy, particularly in Managerial and Professional occupations. Interestingly, the industry profile of individuals in PRLIHs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide is not greatly different from the population as a whole, indicating that this sector of the housing market supplies a low income workforce to a wide range of industries and businesses in these cities.

Changes in the spatial concentration of private rental low income households Between 1991 and 2001 there was a 25% increase in the number of PRLIHs in Sydney, 14% in Melbourne and 21% in Adelaide. Generally speaking, there was a movement of PRLIHs away from inner city areas in the three cities (although Melbourne LGA itself is a notable exception) between 1991 and 2001 towards more suburban locations. Nevertheless, the areas with the highest number of PRLIHs in 1991 tended to also have the largest numbers in 2001 (for example, Canterbury in Sydney, Darebin and Moreland in Melbourne, and West Torrens in Adelaide). However, there was an interesting development in Adelaide over the 1991-2001 period. Areas around Playford in northern Adelaide and Onkaparinga in the south 3 recorded a large increase in the number of PRLIHs between 1991 and 2001 from very low bases.

The location of low cost housing stock There are clear concentrations of low cost private rental housing stock in certain areas in the three case study cities. In Sydney the low cost private rental stock is concentrated in the west, south west and Central Coast to the north. In Melbourne the low cost private rental stock is concentrated in the south-east, west and inner north, while in Adelaide the low cost stock is concentrated in the north and western parts of the city. In other words, the inner city areas in each of the three cities lack low cost private rental stock, although there appears to be more low cost stock in the inner suburbs of Adelaide and Melbourne than in Sydney. In Sydney there are significant concentrations of low cost stock in seven LGAs where over 75% of the private rental stock is classified as ‘low cost’. This compares with only one LGA in Melbourne and two SLAs in Adelaide.

Commonwealth Rent Assistance in 2001 In 2001 there were just over 54,000 Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Adelaide, 155,000 in Melbourne and 189,000 in Sydney. In Sydney, 57 postcode areas had over 1,000 recipients, compared to 45 in Melbourne and just 7 in Adelaide. In Sydney, two postcode areas, 2166 (Cabramatta) and 2170 (Liverpool) had over 5,000 recipients each (5,859 and 5,388 respectively). In Melbourne the largest number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients were recorded in postcode 3175 (Dandenong) and 3021 (Albanvale/Kings Park/St Albans), which had 4,520 and 3,324 recipients respectively. In Adelaide the largest number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients were recorded in postcode 5108 (Salisbury) and 5162 (Morphett Vale), which had 2,190 and 1,599 recipients respectively.

Public housing waiting lists in 2001 The largest number of public housing waiting list applicants were, generally, in the same areas as those where larger numbers of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients were recorded. In 2001 in Adelaide, the highest number of applicants on the public housing waiting list was located in and around Salisbury in the north and Onkaparinga in the south. In Melbourne the largest concentrations of public housing waiting list applicants was found around Brimbank, Darebin, Dandenong and the Mornington Peninsula. In Sydney the situation is generally the same. High numbers of public housing waiting list applicants can be found in the areas in the south-west and western parts of the city where there are also high numbers of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients. Interestingly though, despite large numbers of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Gosford-Wyong there are relatively few applicants from these areas on the public housing waiting list. This is likely to reflect the lower proportion of public housing in this region and the lower rents in the private rental sector, thereby acting as a deterrent for potential applicants.

The relationship between public housing waiting lists, Commonwealth Rent Assistance, low cost rental stock and private renter low income households in 2001 A correlation analysis at the postcode level in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide in 2001 reveals a very high correlation between the numbers of applicants on public housing waiting lists, number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and the location of low cost private rental stock and PRLIHs. In Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide the correlation coefficient between PRLIHs and Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients is greater than 0.9. The correlation between the number of PRLIHs and the number of public housing applicants is 0.9 in Adelaide and 0.8 in Sydney and Melbourne. The correlation between the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and the number of public housing applicants is 0.9 in Adelaide and Melbourne and 0.8 in Sydney. Finally, the correlation between the location of the low cost private rental stock and the number of PRLIHs is greater than 0.9 in the three cities. This is also similar to the correlation coefficients between the low 4 cost private rental stock and the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients. The correlation between the number of public housing applicants and the location of the low cost private rental stock is also significant at approximately 0.8 for the three cities. The implication of this analysis is that the locations of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients, waiting list applicants and the low income, low value rental housing sub-market are remarkably closely associated in each city. However, while some of these households are supported by Commonwealth Rent Assistance and others may eventually benefit from housing assistance through public housing, there are others, mainly those in work, who will receive little or no assistance in their housing needs.

The changing location of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 A separate analysis of the changes in Commonwealth Rent Assistance between 2000 and 2005 showed that the areas with the largest number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000 were generally the same areas with the highest number in 2005, although the order in which they appear has changed. In Sydney the five postcode areas with the largest number of recipients in 2000 were the same in 2005, although 2170 (Liverpool) replaced 2166 (Cabramatta) as the postcode area with the largest number of recipients. The postcode areas with the largest increase were in Sydney’s west and south-west, while the gentrifying inner city, the urban fringe and Cabramatta recorded the largest decreases. In Melbourne, the four postcode areas with the largest number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000 had the largest concentrations in 2005. They were also in the same order, with postcode 3175 (Dandenong) leading the way. Between 2000 and 2005 there was an increase in the number of recipients on the western and south-eastern fringes of Melbourne, while there were decreases in the gentrifying inner city and inner east. In Adelaide the three postcode areas with the largest number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000 were also the largest in 2005, and in the same order, with 5108 (Salisbury) having the largest number of any postcode area. Between 2000 and 2005 there was a decrease in the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in parts of inner Adelaide and the inner north-western coast, while there were increases in some of the more disadvantaged suburbs in the north and Morphett Vale in the south. Interestingly, between 2000 and 2005 Adelaide was the only city of the three case studies that had an increase in the total number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients.

The changing relative distribution of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 The research involved examining the relative change in the proportion of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients between 2000 and 2005. To do this, the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in a postcode area was expressed as a proportion of the metropolitan wide total in both years. The change between the two years was then calculated. This method allows the changing number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in each city over time to be accounted for. The analysis here confirms that, in general, there has been a decrease in the proportion of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in the inner cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, and in some outer areas on the fringes of the three cities, especially in coastal locations. Conversely, there was an increase in the relative proportion of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in certain middle suburban areas in each of the three cities. Over this five year period, therefore, there was a notable shift of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients into middle and outer suburban areas.

5 The labour market profile of privately renter low income working households The labour market characteristics of privately renting low income working1 households (PRLIWHs) in the two areas in each city with the highest number of this group were analysed. The six case study areas were Canterbury and Wyong LGAs in Sydney, Darebin and Moreland LGAs in Melbourne and West Torrens (East) and West Torrens (West) SLAs in Adelaide. Generally speaking the individuals in these case study areas are employed in the middle to lower end of the occupational hierarchy. Individuals are more likely to be employed as Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service Workers, Intermediate Production and Transport Workers and Labourers and Related Workers. Conversely, individuals in PRLIWHs are less likely to be employed as Managers and Administrators, Professional Workers or Advanced Clerical and Service Workers. However, this varies slightly between case study areas. For example, in the West Torrens case study areas, compared to the areas in Sydney and Melbourne, there was an over-representation of Managers and Administrators. In terms of their industry of employment, employed individuals in PRLIWHs in our case study areas were more likely to be employed in Retail Trade industries, Manufacturing, Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants, and Property and Business Services. In Melbourne and Adelaide there were also larger numbers of individuals in PRLIWHs employed in Health and Community Service industries. The workplace locations of workers in PRLIWHs varied with each location, but generally there was a marked pattern of the most important employment locations either within the local LGA or in the respective CBDs of each city. In Canterbury LGA in Sydney and Darebin and Moreland LGAs in Melbourne the largest proportion of employed persons in PRLIWHs worked within the LGA, with the next largest proportion working in the respective CBDs. In the Adelaide case study areas of West Torrens (East and West) the largest proportion of employed PRLIWHs worked in the Adelaide CBD, followed by the SLA itself. However, in Wyong LGA a much higher proportion of employed persons in PRLIWHs worked in the LGA itself as well as the nearby LGA of Gosford. Few individuals in Wyong worked in the Sydney CBD, a clear reflection of the commuting distance and costs involved. This has significant implications for local employment prospects for this group of low income workers in the Central Coast LGAs. Finally, where do individuals in PRLIWHs work in each city? Despite the outward movement of the sector, the research shows the strong attraction of the core employment areas for such workers. The main workplace destinations of PRLIWHs were City of Sydney LGA and Parramatta LGA in Sydney, City of Melbourne LGA and Port Phillip LGA in Melbourne, and City of Adelaide SLA and West Torrens-East SLA in Adelaide. In Sydney LGA, Melbourne LGA and Adelaide SLA there were a number of prominent nearby areas from which PRLIWHs commuted. But for Parramatta LGA, Port Phillip LGA and West Torrens-East SLA, the majority of PRLIWHs who worked in these areas also resided in these areas.

1 i.e. households where at least one person was working 6 1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been increasing concern about the role of the private rental market within the Australian housing system (Yates and Wulff, 200). Research has indicated that landlords are withdrawing from the lower end of the private rental market, and that investment returns and the effectiveness of negative gearing are lower in this sector of the housing market (Wood, 2001). Inner city gentrification has also removed large numbers of lower rental stock, pushing the investment market for this housing into the middle and outer suburbs. As such, concerns have been raised that lower income households who are reliant on private renting are being concentrated for longer periods in this market and in certain locations in the city. Further, this may also be acting to constrain the labour market opportunities for these households. This project explores the ramifications of these processes through a detailed analysis of spatial trends in the provision of low income private rental housing and low income households who rent privately at the local level in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne. In particular, it explores the extent to which lower income rental markets are becoming more concentrated or more dispersed in these cities. The proposed research will also contribute to the debate on the effect of the private rental market in constraining access to labour market opportunities for lower income working households. It explores this through an analysis of the labour market position of low income private renters, including their workplace locations, helping to address the issue of whether affordable housing is needed to provide key sectors of the low income workforce with appropriate housing in areas near where they work. Finally, the research explores the spatial relationship between the distribution of low income households who rent privately, the location of the lower cost rental stock, the location of recipients of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (RA) and the location of households on public housing waiting lists, to better understand the connection between these elements of housing assistance for those in the lower end of the housing market. It also analyses whether the location of RA recipients has changed over the recent past during a period of intense house price inflation. In particular, the project had the following aims: To measure the concentration of low income households in the private rented sector in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne at the local scale, and changes in the concentration or dispersal of this housing market sector in these cities over the 1991-2001 decade in relation to changes in the overall distribution of the rental market. To explore the extent to which lower income private renters are concentrated in certain localities in terms of the housing market segment they occupy, defined in terms of their property characteristics and rental levels. To establish whether the spatial concentration of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and households on the public housing waiting list is more or less concentrated than the spatial distribution of lower income private renters who are in employment. To establish the labour market position of those lower income households in the private rental sector who are in employment, and the relationship between their residential location and place of work in the three cities. These aims will be addressed through a series of five interlinked Research Questions focusing on lower income households in the private rental sector:- To what extent is the location of lower income households in the private rental sector concentrated within Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney, and has the level of concentration increased or reduced over the last decade? Have any changes been in line with the overall shift in the location of the private rental market in these cities during this time? Are lower income households disproportionately concentrated in certain segments of the private rental market in each city? To what extent do concentrations of private rental lower income households reflect the distribution of lower cost private rental opportunities across each city? Are economically 7 active lower income private renters more or less concentrated in suburbs where this housing market sector as a whole is concentrated? What is the relationship between lower income households in the private rental market and forms of housing assistance? Are households in receipt of Commonwealth Rent Assistance distributed across the city in the same way as those lower income private renters in employment? What is the spatial relationship between lower income private rental households and public housing waiting lists in these cities? What is the labour market profile of lower income private rental households, at the city- wide level with the highest concentrations of this group? Where do employed lower income private renters work and what is the relationship between their residential location and their workplace location? Are there any indications that lower income private renters are effectively excluded from job-rich locations as a result of their residential location, or do the majority of employed lower income private renters work relatively locally? The chapters that follow provide the core empirical findings of the research. Chapter 2 first sets the context for the research by reviewing the evidence of the current changes affecting the private rental market in Australian cities in recent years. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used in the research, in particular, the derivation of the ‘value-added’ Census data file used. Chapter 4 focuses on how the study defined low income for the purposes of this study. Chapter 5 addresses the first research question, namely are low income working households renting privately concentrated in part of the city and in addition profiles their characteristics. Chapter 6 goes on to establish whether the location of the sector has changed in recent years. Chapter 7 identifies the location of the low cost rental stock in the three cities analysed and chapter 8 analyses the relationship between the low cost rental stock, waiting list applicants, Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and the low paid renter sector. Chapter 9 explores the labour market profile of the sector, its relationship to employment concentrations and its journey to work characteristics in six case study local government areas. Chapter 10 offers some final observations from the findings in relation to the overarching research questions.

8 2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Introduction At the end of World War II, detached dwellings on individual plots of land dominated Australia’s housing stock. The ‘great Australian dream’ of owning a separate house had widespread support among the Australian population. This sentiment was promoted strongly by government policies that encouraged a culture of home-ownership. The era of the mass homeownership and the ‘quarter acre lot’ had arrived. During this period, private rental accommodation was seen as a tenure of transition (Kendig 1981). That is, young households moved into private rental accommodation while saving to purchase their own dwelling. Moreover, at present, owner occupied housing still constitutes the majority of net household wealth in Australia (Yates 2000). It was not until the late 1970s and 1980s that academics began to investigate the nature of the private rental market in Australia (Paris 1985). Australia’s home-ownership rate grew rapidly in the post-war period reaching its high point of 72 per cent in 1966 (Beer 1999). But in 1945, private rental housing was the single largest tenure in Australia, accounting for 45 per cent of households (Beer 1993). However, within 20 years this had fallen by 50 per cent. This was due to a number of factors. Landlords sold their properties to tenants as rent controls introduced in 1941 made rental properties an unprofitable investment (Kendig 1979, Beer 1999). There was a rapid expansion of home ownership through mortgage funded debt, combined with favourable government policies for home owners, and this allowed many households to enter the home purchase market and to pay higher prices for housing than investors were willing or able to do. In effect, the expansion of home ownership recapitalised the private rental stock, encouraging its sale to homeowners (Hamnett and Randolph, 1987). In addition, the expansion of public housing during the 1960s and 1970s supported relatively easy access to these dwellings, especially to working households on low incomes, thereby removing much of the demand for private rental accommodation for this group (Paris 1993, Hayward 1996). However, during the late 1970s and 1980s a number of factors contributed to an increasing re-investment in the private rental market. In particular, demographic, economic and social changes in the last thirty years in Australia have contributed to the changing nature of the supply of private rental accommodation and the demand for this kind of housing.

2.2 Economic changes Economic restructuring during the late 1970s witnessed a parallel increase in unemployment in Australia, which placed greater demand on the public housing system in Australia. A number of commentators have contended that during this period public housing became welfare housing (Paris et al 1995). Although the Federal government increased the number of public housing dwellings in Australia during the 1980s and early 1990s to nearly 400,000 dwellings, there were still 210,000 households on the waiting list (Industry Commission 1993, Hayward 1996). Restructuring also meant deregulation of the financial markets in the mid 1980s, which saw the rate of increase in house prices outstrip the growth in wages and salaries (Yates 1987). Deregulation resulted in interest rates climbing to 17 and 18 per cent by the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many first time home buyers were confronted with high housing prices and high interest rates which made home ownership relatively unaffordable during the late 1980s. Further, the changing nature of the labour market during this period also influenced the home ownership market. During the early 1990s the shift towards a more ‘flexible’ economy, through the increased use of sub-contractors, the subsequent growth of self-employment and part-time workers (particularly amongst women), the increase in dual income households, and the decline in manufacturing employment in Australia made the entry into home ownership more difficult (Beer 1999, Beer and Forster 1996). In particular, the consequences of such shifts made securing a loan more difficult for those on low or fluctuating incomes.

9 Yates (2003) found that despite considerable tax changes since the late 1980s the indirect assistance provided through the tax system continues to provide assistance to those households who need it least. On average, outright owners receive more than five times the amount of assistance provided to purchasers, and high income outright owners receive a total tax benefit of approximately $9,000 per household per year (compared to the average of $4,200 for all outright owners).

2.3 Demographic and social changes In conjunction with the economic shifts in Australia, a number of demographic and social factors have also influenced the changing nature of the housing system in Australia. In particular, the decreasing size of households and the increase in one and two persons households have substantially impacted on the housing system in Australia. For example, Wulff (1997) and Wulff and Maher (1998) found that households are experiencing extended periods of time in the private rental market. These longer term renters are more likely to live alone, their economic position tends to be poorer (as a higher proportion receive pensions and benefits), and they are more likely to be divorced. At its simplest level, lone person households only have one income to rely on and therefore are much less able to compete in the housing market against two or multi-income households. The widening gap between housing market capacity of single persons and other households is therefore compounded, especially for those in low paid employment or those not in the workforce. The increasing separation and divorce rate in Australia has, consequently, increased the number of sole-parent and lone person households in Australia. These households increasingly rely on the private rental sector for accommodation, at least temporarily, as they re-establish their housing position after family break-up. Wulff et al (2001) note that between 1986 and 1996 half of the increased demand for lower priced private rented dwellings came from single person households. By 1996, single person households (lone person and single parent households) constituted 42 per cent of all private renters, up from 35 per cent in 1986. The increasing trend over the last thirty years for couples to have children later in life is also impacting on the private rental market. For whatever reasons, these households also chose to be in the private rental market. Wulff and Maher (1998), for example, found that never married persons aged 30-44 constituted the largest group of continual long-term renters.

2.4 Commonwealth Rent Assistance In more recent times there has also been a shift of government policy away from public housing provision to rent subsidies. Commonwealth Rent Assistance (RA) is a major form of direct housing assistance paid to individuals on low incomes who rent in the private market. RA is paid directly to the individual with the total amount paid being a proportion of the rent. The amount paid therefore varies by rental level up to a threshold. It also varies by household type. A number of concerns, however, have been raised about the effectiveness of RA. Firstly, RA is capped and therefore its value is eroded in areas where housing costs are high (Brotherhood of St Laurence 2003). Berry and Hall (2001) argue that RA has failed to sufficiently alleviate housing stress for lower income households. Their study concluded that singles and couples without children who are eligible to receive RA could not afford to rent a dwelling in either Sydney or Melbourne. Further, Burke et al (2002) contend that RA offers limited assistance to students in high rent housing markets, where many tertiary institutions are located. RA is also only effective if there is a sufficient supply of affordable dwellings in the private rental market. Unfortunately, affordable housing stocks have been decreasing in recent years (Yates and Wulff 2000). Wood (2001) contends that the taxation system, through negative gearing provisions and capital gains exemptions, has contributed to this trend by encouraging investors to purchase high value properties.

10 2.5 Housing and employment Social and economic change over the last few decades has impacted on the polarisation of household income in Australia (Gregory and Hunter 1995, Raskall 2002) and to increase social and spatial inequalities (Yates 2002a). In general, lower income households may be forced to locate in areas with limited employment opportunities because of the limited housing options they face. For example, Winter and Stone (1998) concluded that less skilled and lower paid workers were being marginalised by being forced into those categories at the bottom of the tenure hierarchy (public housing and those who are constrained to the private rental market). In Australia, the size of the private rental market means that the bulk of low income households who rent, rent privately. In 1999 the Commonwealth Government appointed a reference group to consult with the community and provide advice to the Government on welfare reform. In its final report, the McClure Report (2000) also expressed a concern that low cost housing in the most disadvantaged regions may tend to attract unemployed and underemployed people, adding locational disadvantage to their existing barriers in accessing employment. O’Connor and Healy (2002) found ‘strong and stable geographic links between housing markets and labour markets within the Melbourne metropolitan area at the regional level’ (p. vi). In their study of Melbourne they concluded that policies introduced in Melbourne during the 1990s had increased the spatial separation of specific labour market groups. They argued that the Core area is job and skills rich but ‘housing expensive’. However, the fringe areas of Melbourne do not have the highest concentrations of labour market disadvantage. Rather these areas are concentrated in the middle suburban areas of Melbourne. O’Connor and Healy therefore suggest that housing policy cannot be expressed without a better understanding of job-housing links. That is, knowledge of the number, type and location of jobs needs to be considered in planning policies associated with new suburban developments. Further, Stilwell (1989) also concludes that economic polarisation in Sydney intensified during the 1980s due to structural economic change, and that the changing conditions in labour markets and housing markets interact to reinforce spatial inequality. That is, as house prices increase, the existence of house price inequalities reinforces the spatial segregation in that the ‘losers’ from economic structural changes are forced into localities where house prices remain just within reach. As a consequence, Stilwell suggests, like O’Connor and Healy (2002), the viability of development schemes should be called into question unless employment opportunities for the growing population can be established. Randolph and Holloway (2004 and 2005) have also confirmed evidence for the increasing concentration of lower income households in middle distance metropolitan suburbs in housing markets associated with lower value rental. In both Sydney and Melbourne it is clear that areas of older housing between the gentrifying inner cities and the new middle to upper income fringe suburbs are a growing characteristic of our largest cities (see also Dodson 2003 and Reynolds and Wulff 2005 for Melbourne). Finally, National Shelter and ACOSS (2003) concluded in their examination of Commonwealth Rent Assistance that ‘Commonwealth Rent Assistance is currently not effective, on its own, in encouraging and/or allowing recipients to locate to areas with better job prospects’ (p. 16). In particular, the study found a tendency for high numbers of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients to live in areas with lower rents and above average unemployment levels, and this was more geographically pronounced in NSW and Queensland.

2.6 Disadvantage in the private rental market Due to some of the economic, demographic and social changes mentioned above, as well as some of the policy shifts of recent years, it can be argued that large sections of the private rental market are associated with some of the most disadvantaged of all groups in the Australian housing system. For example, Flood (1993) found that in 1990-91 outright owners received net subsidies of $2,000 per household per year, purchasers received $1,000 in

11 subsidies, public tenants $3,020 in subsidies per year, while private tenants only received $994 in subsidies per year (cited in Beer 1999). As early as 1985, Rossiter and Vipond found that private tenants, on average, spent 51 per cent of their income on accommodation costs, compared to 34 per cent for purchasers, 23 per cent for public tenants, and only 7 per cent for outright owners. In 1989, Wilson concluded from her survey of RA recipients that nearly three-quarters of them paid more than 30 per cent of their income in accommodation costs. The National Housing Strategy (1991) also concluded that while less than 10 per cent of all income units were in ‘housing stress’ in 1998, the predominant group in stress were in the private rental market. Private renters comprised 20 per cent of all income units, but of all those units experiencing housing stress, nearly 60 per cent were private renters. Between 1986 and 1996, owners became richer while renters became poorer (Yates 2002b). In her report on the housing outcomes arising from social, spatial and structural change, Yates concluded that between 1986 and 1996 the average weekly income of private renters decreased by 6 percentage points to $714 per week, whilst average weekly income for home purchasers increased by 3 percentage points to $1,036 per week. More recently, Randolph and Holloway (2002) contended that in 1999, 155,689 lower income households2 were in housing stress in Sydney. Of these, 106,713 (69 per cent) were private renters. This represented 64 per cent of all lower income households who rent privately, and 32 per cent of all private renters in Sydney. Importantly, the Randolph and Holloway (2002) study also found that while lower income private renter households in stress were geographically widespread across the Sydney metropolitan area, there were clear local concentrations of lower income renter households experiencing housing stress. The spatial concentrations of lower income private renters in stress were not only confined to high value inner city areas, but were numerically more concentrated in middle suburban areas of western Sydney. This is similar to the findings of O’Connor and Healy (2002) in Melbourne. Following up on their 2002 work in Sydney, Randolph and Holloway (2005) continued to explore these relationships through an examination of the relationship between housing tenure and disadvantage in Sydney and Melbourne. They concluded that socio-economic disadvantage in both cities was not tenure specific. In fact only a quarter of households in Census Collectors Districts (CDs) in Sydney and Melbourne classified as severely disadvantaged lived in public housing. Of those CDs in severe disadvantage with low and moderate levels of public housing, around one-third in Sydney and one-fifth in Melbourne were privately rented. Importantly, Randolph and Holloway (2005) concluded that between 1996 and 2001 the local government areas in Sydney and Melbourne that had an increase in the number of CDs in severe disadvantage were characterised by very low levels of public housing. That is, the shift in disadvantage is happening in the private housing market. As public housing waiting lists remain stubbornly high, low income households who do not qualify for an increasingly socially targeted social housing stock and are priced out of the increasingly unaffordable homeownership market have little alternative but to turn to the private rental market. However, little is known about the spatial concentrations of such households in Australia or of its current characteristics (Gleeson and Randolph 2002; Mee 2002). As we noted above, government housing policies are not well targeted on this group at the present time. If policies are to be developed that better address the needs of low paid workers in the private rental market then we need a better understanding of the housing market position of these households, both in terms of the market segmentation characteristics and their locational characteristics. This research project addresses this gap in our knowledge of this large group of low income working private renters.

2 Lower income households are households with below median household income. 12 2.7 Housing policy issues In their seminal piece of work on the private rental market in Australia, Wulff et al (2001) concluded that between 1986 and 1996 there was a decline in the low cost private rental stock of 28 per cent, despite an increase of 34 per cent across the entire private rental stock during this period. More recent evidence by the same authors (Wulff et al, 2005) shows that there was also a decline in low cost private rental stock from 1996 to 2001 of 0.2% despite an increase in private rental dwellings of 7.6 per cent over that period. This raises a number of housing policy issues in Australia. Debates in Australia continue over whether demand side assistance is preferred to supply side solutions. In general, the debate has centred on whether Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) is preferred over public housing provision. Since 1992, the amount of CRA payments from the Commonwealth has exceeded payments made to the States for public housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) (Seelig 2001). Wulff et al (2001) contend, however, that the debate needs to be expanded to address the question of why there has not been a supply side response to the increasing demand for low cost housing. The underlying assumption of CRA is that lower income households can be adequately housed in the private market by supplementing their income. However, there is little consideration of whether there are enough low rent private dwellings in appropriate locations that are affordable and are of an appropriate standard. Evidence suggests that many low income households who work remain poor after meeting their rent obligations (Hulse and Burke 2000). Research by National Shelter and ACOSS (2003) and King and Melhuish (2003) has shown that Commonwealth Rent Assistance affects the level of housing affordability depending on what part of Australia the household lives in. As such both pieces of work suggest that the structure of CRA provision needs to incorporate a regional or geographical factor that takes into account the regional variations in rents by households who receive Commonwealth Rent Assistance. Further, the vast majority of investors in the private rental market in Australia are individuals, not institutional investors (Yates 1996; O’Dwyer 1999; Berry 2000). Wood and Watson (1999) suggest that those individuals who invest in the lower end of the private rental market have, on average, lower incomes than rental investors overall. As such, they receive fewer tax advantages than other rental investors, and face higher operating costs. Combined, these factors add up to lower returns for these investors. Hulse and Burke (2000) also suggest that as the low cost rental stock contracts and rents increase, the nexus between labour market processes and housing problems will intensify. They further contend that programs which link the receipt of income supplements to work incentives will have limited success for many recipients unless there are parallel policies to address the underlying structural problems of the private rental market. While the proportion of private rental housing has grown in recent years, and outright owner occupation continues to grow as the population ages, the decreasing proportion of home purchasing and the stagnant proportion of public housing suggest that the private rental market will continue to be an important sector of the Australian housing system. However, as noted above, low income private renters in Australia, particularly those in employment, have been largely invisible to policy makers. Government policies aimed at promoting home ownership and the focus on maintaining existing public housing estates have done little to address the concerns of the lower income private rental market. This project aims to address the gaps in our knowledge about lower income working households in the private rental market by examining whether these households have become more spatially concentrated and how this may have affected their ability to access employment in job-rich locations.

13 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction This report uses Census data as a key source to examine the spatial and labour market characteristics of low income households in the private rental market. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed at the outset of this project. Firstly, one of the concerns, particularly for this project, is that the ‘normal’ Census data has a relatively high proportion of ‘partially stated’, or missing household income figures (Yates and Wulff 2001; Yates et al. 2003). In the 2001 Census, three per cent of households did not state their income, while a further eight per cent only partially stated their income. Using the data set generated by Yates et al. (2003), this study attempts to address the limitations of household income data from the Census by imputing household income figures for those households who did not, or only partially, stated their incomes at the 2001 Census. Details of this procedure are discussed below. This ‘value added’ data set was used for 2001 analyses only. The time series analysis presented in chapter 6, based on 1996 Census data, uses a slightly different methodology (see section 4.4). Secondly, also following Yates et al. (2003), we define a private rental household as one that is renting from a real estate agent or a private landlord not in the same household. The final issue that needs to be addressed in this project is ‘what is a low income household’? We discuss this issue fully in chapter 4. Before this though, we briefly examine the methodology for imputing missing Census variables to the data set used for this project.

3.2 Imputing missing household income figures from Census data The process of imputing missing household income figures is the same as that used for the Yates et al. (2003) study. This study should be consulted for a more detailed description of the procedure used. Here we provide a brief overview of the process. The data imputation procedure was undertaken by the ABS prior to any other tables being produced. Missing income values were imputed from ‘donor’ populations, that is, incomes were assigned from a particular sub-group of households with similar demographic characteristics and locational attributes of the households whose incomes were missing. The sub-groups or ‘donor’ populations were selected on the basis of location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan within each State/Territory), age of household reference person (5 levels), household type (6 levels)3 and employment status. Employment status was also sub-divided by LGA, sex and age. In essence, the only variable that had missing values was employment status, of which 3 per cent of cases were missing. The individuals for whom employment status was not known were assigned an employment status such that the probability of being employed was the same as that of the corresponding sub-group. These employment sub- groups were based on the LGA, sex and age of those individuals whose employment status was known. In all, 180 sub-groups or sub-populations were created. These 180 sub-groups were further split into three categories. Cases where income and employment data were reported for all household members formed a ‘donor’ category. Cases where income was only partially stated or completely unstated formed one ‘recipient’ category. All other households formed a second ‘recipient’ category. Each case or record in the ‘recipient’ categories was randomly assigned a ‘donor’s’ household income, as long as it was at least as great as the partial income. Overall, imputation was seen as desirable because preliminary checks suggested that for household income, the cases for which data were missing, were not a random subset of all households.

3 Non-classifiable households have been excluded from the analysis 14 3.3 Other Data sources Data from Centrelink on the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and the average amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance paid by post-code were also used in the study. Data for the years 2000 to 2005 (i.e. including the years following the property boom) were used, as well as data on numbers on public housing waiting lists by local government area.

15 4 WHAT IS A LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD?

4.1 Introduction The focus of this report concerns low income households in the private rental market and the labour market characteristics of these households who are in employment. But what exactly is a low income household and how might it be defined for this project? Currently there is no concise definition as to what constitutes a low income household. A number of cut-off points have been used by a number of commentators to define a low income household. Some definitions include: Households on welfare payments Households below the Henderson poverty line Households in the bottom income quintile Households with income below half of the median household income Households with incomes in the bottom 40 per cent of the income distribution range For example, Yates and Wulff (2000) used $300 in 1996 as the cut-off point for low income households in their study. That is, households earning less than $300 per week in 1996 were considered a low income household. Yates and Wulff (2000) also considered a low to moderate income household as one earning between $300 and $499 in 1996. Siminski and Saunders (2003), on the other hand, define a low income household as one whose income is in the bottom quintile (20 per cent) of the national income distribution, whilst Travers and Richardson (1993) describe the bottom quintile of incomes as being low income households or households with a low standard of living. However, Travers and Richardson (1993) also consider the subjectiveness of the matter, and point out that the bottom 10 or 20 per cent, half of the median, or the Henderson poverty line are all relatively good indicators of low- income groups. Adding to this complexity, Bray (2001) defined a low income household as those households in the bottom 43.2 per cent of all household incomes. Marshall et al. (2003) referred to low income households as those receiving income support payments. Further, The National Housing Strategy (1991) defined those on low incomes as being in the bottom 40 per cent of the income distribution range of all income units in Australia. Commentators interested in income distribution analyses and inequality have also recently adopted the idea of equivalent income scales. The major underlying factor for such an approach is that a household with a given level of economic stress will be of greater concern if it is larger since this stress will affect more individuals (Saunders 2003). The notion of equivalent household income is derived by applying an equivalence scale to household income. This equivalence scale measures the estimated needs of a household relative to the needs of a single person living alone. The degree of income inequality is then described by a series of standard indicators, in particular the Gini coefficient. One of the limitations of the equivalent income approach is that it assumes that income and resources are shared among the household members according to their needs (Saunders, 2003). For example, the equivalence scale used by the ABS assigns a value of 1.0 to the first adult, 0.5 to every other adult aged over 15, and 0.3 to each child under 15 years of age. Obviously, one of the problems of equivalency scales is that actual income is not represented. For example, in 2000-01 the mean disposable income for a household was $791 per week, however, mean equivalent disposable income was $469 (Saunders, 2003). Further adding to the complexity of defining what a low income household might be is the notion of using income cut-offs varied by different household types. This might be favoured for analyses focusing on households dependent on welfare payments, for example, as there are considerable differences between such payments for different households, especially between those with or without children. It is also clear that different type and sizes of household face different costs, not least in the housing costs they need to meet. An advantage of using such a technique is that all household types would be more equally represented in the resulting sample. For example, by taking the bottom quintile of incomes 16 for each household type would ensure that a comparable proportion of each household type is represented in further analyses. However, this is also the downside of using such a technique. Not only would the analysis need to be presented for different household types, but it could also be debated whether some households at income thresholds above basic welfare levels actually have ‘low’ incomes. For example, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 below show that, indicatively, the bottom and second quintile incomes for family households with older children is over $1,000. Anecdotally, many of these households may have at least two incomes, which ‘pulls’ the averages up for these households. Even allowing for the differential living costs these households face, can all these households really be considered to have low incomes when we compare the first and second quintile cut off points for lone person households, for example? Then there is the issue that incomes vary geographically. A low income in one city may be relatively more generous in another where housing costs, for example, are lower. Housing costs vary significantly between cities, as do household income levels. If using different household types as an approach is utilised, then we would need a complex matrix of income thresholds by location to capture the complexity of the situation, as Tables 4.1. and 4.2 illustrate. For example, at the 1st quintile, the average couple family with non-dependent children ‘earns’ almost 16 per cent less in Adelaide than in Sydney. Table 4.1: Income cut-offs for households in the 1st quintile of the household income distribution range, 2001 Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Couple family with children under 15 $772 $728 $669 $676 Couple family with dependent students (15-24) $1,004 $941 $892 $892 Couple family with children under 15 and dependent students (15-24) $833 $795 $765 $772 Couple family with non-dependent children $1,024 $913 $861 $873 Couple family without children $447 $419 $397 $397 One parent family with children under 15 $312 $313 $306 $309 One parent family with dependent students (15-24) $417 $426 $394 $394 One parent family with children under 15 and dependent students (15-24) $383 $388 $397 $388 One parent family with non-dependent children $523 $497 $458 $466 Other family $470 $451 $432 $434 Total family households $569 $529 $457 $472 Lone person household $220 $220 $207 $211 Group household $649 $562 $469 $494 Total households $414 $393 $337 $360

(source: ABS customised matrix)

17 Table 4.2: Income cut-offs for households in the 2nd quintile of the household income distribution range, 2001 Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Couple family with children under 15 $1,119 $1,020 $921 $954 Couple family with dependent students (15-24) $1,484 $1,364 $1,280 $1,309 Couple family with children under 15 and dependent students (15-24) $1,245 $1,154 $1,079 $1,112 Couple family with non-dependent children $1,459 $1,282 $1,192 $1,241 Couple family without children $844 $715 $613 $646 One parent family with children under 15 $426 $417 $386 $395 One parent family with dependent students (15-24) $664 $646 $580 $596 One parent family with children under 15 and dependent students (15-24) $531 $528 $511 $507 One parent family with non-dependent children $810 $751 $653 $684 Other family $799 $733 $651 $665 Total family households $980 $891 $739 $791 Lone person household $314 $303 $272 $280 Group household $1,052 $895 $720 $798 Total households $779 $702 $558 $623

(source: ABS customised matrix) 4.2 Our preferred approach For this project we have decided to use the second household income quintile cut-off points for all working households for each city as defining a low income household. We have chosen this for three reasons. Firstly, this project is not interested in the labour market outcomes of low income households by selected household types, but rather employed households4 on low incomes. Secondly, one of the emphases of this research is those employed households in the private rental market on low incomes, that is, the ‘working poor’. Therefore, the low income threshold needs to be appropriate for working households and not those dependent on welfare. Thirdly, by using a lower threshold such as the bottom income quintile of all households, we would exclude a large proportion of working households with what are, to all intents and purposes, very low incomes. These thresholds have been compared to the actual income profiles of households, renters and working households in the three case study cities. The results of this approach can be seen in Tables 4.3 to 4.5. These data have been extracted from the confidentialised unit record file (CURF) of the 2001 Census. As such the values and proportions will differ slightly from the results presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, as these tables are calculated using a combination of ABS Income surveys as well as the Census. However, once the incomes of those who did not state, or only partially stated, their income on Census night were imputed using the procedure outlined earlier, the ABS calculates that the exact income cut-offs for the bottom 20% (first quintile) of employed households in 2001 in each of the three cities and Australia would be: Australia $655.23 Sydney $773.30 Melbourne $706.55 Adelaide $625.05

4 Employed households refer to households in which at least one person is employed 18 Private renter Low Income Households comprise all of those households with incomes below those cut offs. Incomes are not equivalised. Later in the analysis, Private Renter Low Income Working Households are analysed. This is a subset of Private Renter Low Income Households in which at least one person is employed.

4.3 Comparing the populations of this project to the Yates et al (2003) study As the methodology used in this project is similar to that used in the Yates et al. (2003) study for AHURI, this section compares the number of households that were used in the Yates et al. study to the number of households to be used in this study.5 Table 4.6 presents these findings. While we have used income cut-off points for each of the three cities in our study, using the Australia wide figures from this study and Yates et al (2003) will provide an example of how the emphasises of this study compare to that of the Yates et al study. Thus if we use the Australia wide low income cut-off point (less than $334.50 per week) from the Yates et al (2003) study we find that this research analysed just under 1.13 million households. However, only 180,000 of these households had at least one person in employment. By using our income cut-off point of $655.23 across Australia we include over 2.7 million households, but importantly, just over 930,000 are employed households. While the focus of the Yates et al study was not on the ‘working poor’, using the same cut-off point would have included only very small numbers of working poor households, making sub-group analysis by area problematic. Using the bottom quintile income for employed households has enabled us to focus on low income households who are not in work and in private rental in each city, and also allowed us to analyse the labour market characteristics of those ‘working poor’ households. This is also important as analyses at spatial levels below the metropolitan area level are more robust than they would be using the low income cut-off point as that used in the Yates et al research.

4.4 Examining the changes in PRLIHs over time The value added census value used in this project and Yates et al (2003) was for 2001. In trying to examine the changes in the location of low income private renters over time another methodology had to be employed in this instance. This was because the cost of re-producing the 2001 value added file for 1991 was too expensive. Throughout this time series analysis a low income household was still defined as a household that had an income below that of the ‘cut-off’ point for the bottom quintile for employed households. This ‘cut-off’ point is derived for each city (Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide). In 1991, the household income quintiles were obtained for Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. As the 1991 census income categories were used, the bottom quintile (or 20th percentile) figures for the three cities were rounded up or down to coincide with the nearest income band/category. In the event, the income cut-off point for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane was $25,000 ($481 per week) in 1991. All households under this income figure and in private rental were selected for further analysis. However, as the analysis required the use of income categories from the census the proportion of households in each of the cities under $25,000 differed from 20%. The proportion of households who earned under $25,000 per annum in 1991 was 17.2% in Sydney, 20.2% in Melbourne, and 24.4% in Adelaide. To compare the number of low income private renters in 2001, the proportions in 1991 were then used to select the number of PRLIHs from the value added census file created for 2001. In other words, the households with the bottom 17.2% of incomes in Sydney, 20.2% in Melbourne and 24.4% in Adelaide were selected for 2001 to compare with the 1991 data. The analysis of the changes in PRLIHs over time is presented in chapter 6. While this changes the base numbers involved in the analysis for 2001, this does not invalidate the

5 The employment status of individuals who did not state their employment status on Census night was re-imputed for this project. As such the numbers of persons and households will differ slightly from the numbers presented in the Yates et al study, although the differences are minimal. 19 analysis as the focus here is in the changing spatial distribution of this group, not the change in overall numbers per se. In any event, the use of a strictly comparable income baseline in both years means the results can also be taken as indicative of the changing numbers of lower income private renting households.

20 Table 4.3: The weekly household income distribution of all households, private renters and employed households in Sydney, 2001 All Households Percent Cumulative Private Renters Percent Cumulative Employed Percent Cumulative Negative income 3,100 0.2% 0.2% 1,600 0.5% 0.5% 1,100 0.1% 0.1% Nil income 10,500 0.7% 0.9% 5,400 1.7% 2.2% 600 0.1% 0.2% $1-$119 7,200 0.5% 1.4% 1,500 0.5% 2.7% 1,500 0.1% 0.3% $120-$159 10,400 0.7% 2.1% 1,500 0.5% 3.1% 2,300 0.2% 0.5% $160-$199 31,500 2.1% 4.1% 3,400 1.1% 4.2% 2,500 0.2% 0.8% $200-$299 85,600 5.6% 9.8% 13,500 4.2% 8.4% 11,400 1.1% 1.9% $300-$399 90,800 6.0% 15.8% 18,900 5.9% 14.4% 21,100 2.1% 4.0% $400-$499 76,800 5.1% 20.8% 16,200 5.1% 19.4% 33,700 3.3% 7.3% $500-$599 59,000 3.9% 24.7% 19,900 6.2% 25.7% 40,500 4.0% 11.2% $600-$699 69,000 4.5% 29.2% 21,600 6.8% 32.4% 50,900 5.0% 16.2% $700-$799 56,900 3.7% 33.0% 17,200 5.4% 37.8% 48,500 4.8% 21.0% $800-$999 115,600 7.6% 40.6% 30,300 9.5% 47.3% 102,600 10.1% 31.1% $1000-$1199 118,900 7.8% 48.4% 33,200 10.4% 57.7% 110,800 10.9% 41.9% $1200-$1499 111,700 7.4% 55.8% 26,200 8.2% 65.9% 107,800 10.6% 52.5% $1500 or more 368,600 24.3% 80.1% 75,900 23.8% 89.7% 358,000 35.1% 87.6% Partial incomes stated 109,600 7.2% 87.3% 23,000 7.2% 96.9% 91,700 9.0% 96.6% All incomes not stated 52,000 3.4% 90.7% 9,500 3.0% 99.9% 15,300 1.5% 98.1% Not applicable 140,600 9.3% 100.0% 300 0.1% 100.0% 19,600 1.9% 100.0% Total 1,517,800 100.0% 319,100 100.0% 1,019,900 100.0%

(source: ABS, 2001 Census CURF)

21 Table 4.4: The weekly household income distribution of all households, private renters and employed households in Melbourne, 2001 All Households Percent Cumulative Private Renters Percent Cumulative Employed Percent Cumulative Negative income 2,100 0.2% 0.2% 200 0.1% 0.1% 700 0.1% 0.1% Nil income 8,200 0.6% 0.8% 2,800 1.2% 1.3% 1,100 0.1% 0.2% $1-$119 5,500 0.4% 1.2% 1,200 0.5% 1.8% 1,600 0.2% 0.4% $120-$159 10,600 0.8% 2.0% 2,500 1.1% 2.9% 2,000 0.2% 0.6% $160-$199 26,700 2.0% 4.1% 4,000 1.8% 4.7% 3,200 0.4% 1.0% $200-$299 75,800 5.8% 9.9% 13,600 6.0% 10.7% 12,200 1.4% 2.4% $300-$399 91,800 7.0% 16.9% 17,100 7.5% 18.2% 22,800 2.6% 5.0% $400-$499 80,400 6.2% 23.1% 16,700 7.3% 25.5% 35,100 4.0% 8.9% $500-$599 64,300 4.9% 28.0% 19,700 8.6% 34.2% 45,900 5.2% 14.2% $600-$699 72,000 5.5% 33.5% 16,000 7.0% 41.2% 51,600 5.9% 20.0% $700-$799 57,600 4.4% 37.9% 13,700 6.0% 47.2% 51,100 5.8% 25.8% $800-$999 110,100 8.4% 46.4% 23,400 10.3% 57.5% 100,300 11.4% 37.3% $1000-$1199 104,200 8.0% 54.4% 22,100 9.7% 67.2% 98,000 11.1% 48.4% $1200-$1499 101,600 7.8% 62.1% 17,600 7.7% 74.9% 99,300 11.3% 59.7% $1500 or more 255,700 19.6% 81.7% 38,600 16.9% 91.8% 251,000 28.5% 88.2% Partial incomes stated 94,400 7.2% 89.0% 12,600 5.5% 97.4% 76,300 8.7% 96.9% All incomes not stated 44,900 3.4% 92.4% 5,800 2.5% 99.9% 14,700 1.7% 98.6% Not applicable 99,000 7.6% 100.0% 200 0.1% 100.0% 12,500 1.4% 100.0% Total 1,304,900 100.0% 227,800 100.0% 879,400 100.0%

(source: ABS, 2001 Census CURF)

22 Table 4.5: The weekly household income distribution of all households, private renters and employed households in Adelaide, 2001 All Households Percent Cumulative Private Renters Percent Cumulative Employed Percent Cumulative Negative income 400 0.1% 0.1% 100 0.1% 0.1% 200 0.1% 0.1% Nil income 1,100 0.2% 0.3% 300 0.4% 0.6% 100 0.0% 0.1% $1-$119 2,800 0.6% 0.9% 1,000 1.5% 2.0% 800 0.3% 0.4% $120-$159 4,600 1.0% 2.0% 500 0.7% 2.8% 1,100 0.4% 0.8% $160-$199 16,600 3.7% 5.6% 2,900 4.2% 7.0% 1,800 0.7% 1.4% $200-$299 38,600 8.5% 14.2% 6,000 8.8% 15.8% 4,800 1.7% 3.2% $300-$399 40,200 8.9% 23.0% 7,600 11.1% 26.9% 10,000 3.6% 6.8% $400-$499 37,800 8.3% 31.4% 7,400 10.8% 37.8% 17,400 6.3% 13.1% $500-$599 28,300 6.2% 37.6% 6,400 9.4% 47.1% 19,800 7.2% 20.2% $600-$699 31,100 6.9% 44.5% 5,900 8.6% 55.8% 22,500 8.1% 28.4% $700-$799 19,900 4.4% 48.9% 3,400 5.0% 60.8% 16,200 5.9% 34.2% $800-$999 39,000 8.6% 57.5% 7,000 10.2% 71.0% 35,200 12.7% 47.0% $1000-$1199 32,700 7.2% 64.7% 5,000 7.3% 78.3% 30,400 11.0% 58.0% $1200-$1499 32,200 7.1% 71.8% 4,500 6.6% 84.9% 31,300 11.3% 69.3% $1500 or more 58,500 12.9% 84.7% 5,600 8.2% 93.1% 57,000 20.6% 89.9% Partial incomes stated 26,800 5.9% 90.6% 3,000 4.4% 97.5% 20,800 7.5% 97.4% All incomes not stated 12,100 2.7% 93.3% 1,500 2.2% 99.7% 3,200 1.2% 98.6% Not applicable 30,300 6.7% 100.0% 200 0.3% 100.0% 4,000 1.4% 100.0% Total 453,000 100.0% 68,300 100.0% 276,600 100.0%

(source: ABS, 2001 Census CURF)

23 Table 4.6: The number of households using different household income cut-off points from this project and the Yates et al. study Employed Unemployed Other Household Income Cut-Off Point Total Households Households Households Australia This project – bottom 20% of employed 931,655 121,525 1,647,889 2,701,069 households ($0-$655.23) Yates et al (2003) – low income household 180,957 85,310 862,801 1,129,068 ($0-$334.50) Yates et al (2003) – low to moderate 485,599 32,341 687,203 1,205,143 income household ($334.51-$557.50) Household Income more than $557.50 3,991,715 13,809 405,060 4,410,584 Total Households 4,658,271 131,460 1,955,064 6,744,795 Sydney This project – bottom 20% of employed 200,143 16,333 303,668 520,144 households ($0-$655.23) Yates et al (2003) – low income household 24,022 10,632 152,931 187,585 ($0-$334.50) Yates et al (2003) – low to moderate 71,337 4,409 112,551 188,297 income household ($334.51-$557.50) Household Income more than $557.50 905,356 2,949 82,169 990,474 Total Households 1,000,715 17,990 347,651 1,366,356 Melbourne This project – bottom 20% of employed 173,466 16,857 266,702 457,025 households ($0-$655.23) Yates et al (2003) – low income household 25,947 11,711 135,415 173,073 ($0-$334.50) Yates et al (2003) – low to moderate 74,540 4,281 105,951 184,772 income household ($334.51-$557.50) Household Income more than $557.50 766,841 2,289 69,169 838,299 Total Households 867,328 18,281 310,535 1,196,144 Adelaide This project – bottom 20% of employed 54,416 8,842 117,628 180,886 households ($0-$655.23) Yates et al (2003) – low income household 10,317 6,728 63,178 80,223 ($0-$334.50) Yates et al (2003) – low to moderate 31,656 1,970 49,599 83,225 income household ($334.51-$557.50) Household Income more than $557.50 230,106 631 25,860 256,597 Total Households 272,079 9,329 138,637 420,045

(Source: ABS customised matrix)

24 5 LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE PRIVATE RENTAL MARKET

5.1 Introduction This chapter profiles low income households in the private rental market. The first section introduces the tenure distribution of employed and unemployed low income households before examining the spatial distribution of low income households in the private rental market. Finally, an analysis of the socio-economic characteristics of low income households in the private rental market is presented.

5.2 The relative position of PRLIH in the housing market In 2001, there were 577,031 low income households in the private rental market in Australia. This represented 21% of all low income households. The largest tenure group among all low income households were outright owner-occupiers (47%), reflecting the high proportion of older and retired people with low incomes. Home buyers accounted for just 12% of this group. In Sydney, 117,545 low income households rented privately (23% of all low income households in the city) while in Melbourne 92,982 low income households rented privately (20%) as did 32,559 households (18%) in Adelaide (see Table 5.1). The higher percentage in Sydney is likely to reflect both the problems lower income households have in buying a home in Sydney as well as the greater investment incentives from higher property markets in this city leading to greater rental supply. In other words, high property prices effectively squeeze lower income households out of home ownership on both the demand and supply side of the equation. Outright owners were again the largest group among low income households in the three case study areas: 51% in Melbourne, 47% in Sydney and 44% in Adelaide. Both Melbourne and Adelaide (14%) had a larger proportion of low income households than Sydney (10%) who were purchasing their dwelling, again most probably an outcome of differential affordability. Importantly though, Adelaide clearly had the largest proportion of low income households in the public rental sector. Some 16% of low income households in Adelaide rented publicly, compared to 12% in Sydney and 7% in Melbourne. However, low income private renters have a relatively high workforce participation rate. In Sydney, 60% (69,873) of the 117,545 low income households in the private rental market included at least one person in work. In Melbourne and Adelaide the figures were 55% (51,354) and 48% (15,562) respectively (Table 5.1). The second significant feature of Table 5.1 is the importance of the private rental sector as the largest tenure for unemployed low income households. In Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide between 43% and 46% of unemployed low income households rent privately. Only 17% of unemployed low income households in Sydney, 11% in Melbourne and 20% in Adelaide are in publicly rented housing. In contrast, a significantly higher proportion of employed low income households are owner- occupiers or purchasing their home compared to unemployed households. Some 32% of employed low income households in Sydney own their dwelling, as do 34% in Melbourne and 27% in Adelaide. And while 19% of employed low income households are purchasing their dwelling in Sydney, this is much lower than the proportions in Melbourne and Adelaide (26% and 29% respectively). Outright ownership is the dominant tenure for ‘other’ households, again, a reflection of the high proportion of retired and older people in this category. Nevertheless, around three in ten employed low income households in the three cities rent privately.

25 Table 5.1a: Tenure by labour force status for low income households, 2001 Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Employed Unemployed Other Total Employed Unemployed Other Total Employed Unemployed Other Total Fully owned 64,237 2,873 175,860 242,970 58,779 3,510 168,388 230,677 14,664 1,191 62,743 78,598 Being Purchased 37,882 1,491 12,067 51,440 44,347 2,446 16,196 62,989 15,858 1,215 7,390 24,463 6 Renting from Private Landlord 69,873 7,495 40,177 117,545 51,354 7,199 34,429 92,982 15,562 3,787 13,210 32,559 Renting from Public Landlord 11,718 2,811 45,698 60,227 5,119 1,850 23,020 29,989 4,340 1,784 21,886 28,010 Other Landlord Type 4,587 740 7,835 13,162 3,388 726 6,914 11,028 1,416 450 4,229 6,095 Total Rented 86,178 11,046 93,690 190,914 59,861 9,775 64,371 134,007 21,318 6,021 39,326 66,665 Other Tenure Type 6,000 521 11,721 18,242 5,238 624 8,049 13,911 1,336 251 4,964 6,551 Not Stated 5,846 402 10,310 16,558 5,241 502 9,706 15,449 1,240 164 3,206 4,610 Total 200,143 16,333 303,668 520,144 173,466 16,857 266,702 457,025 54,416 8,842 117,628 180,886

(Source: ABS customised matrix)

6 Includes persons who rent from a real estate agent, person not in the same household, person in the household, an employee, community or cooperative housing group. 26 Table 5.1b: Tenure by labour force status for low income households, 2001 Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Employed Unemployed Other Total Employed Unemployed Other Total Employed Unemployed Other Total Fully owned 32.1% 17.6% 57.9% 46.7% 33.9% 20.8% 63.1% 50.5% 26.9% 13.5% 53.3% 43.5% Being Purchased 18.9% 9.1% 4.0% 9.9% 25.6% 14.5% 6.1% 13.8% 29.1% 13.7% 6.3% 13.5% Renting from Private Landlord 34.9% 45.9% 13.2% 22.6% 29.6% 42.7% 12.9% 20.3% 28.6% 42.8% 11.2% 18.0% Renting from Public Landlord 5.9% 17.2% 15.0% 11.6% 3.0% 11.0% 8.6% 6.6% 8.0% 20.2% 18.6% 15.5% Other Landlord Type 2.3% 4.5% 2.6% 2.5% 2.0% 4.3% 2.6% 2.4% 2.6% 5.1% 3.6% 3.4% Total Rented 43.1% 67.6% 30.9% 36.7% 34.5% 58.0% 24.1% 29.3% 39.2% 68.1% 33.4% 36.9% Other Tenure Type 3.0% 3.2% 3.9% 3.5% 3.0% 3.7% 3.0% 3.0% 2.5% 2.8% 4.2% 3.6% Not Stated 2.9% 2.5% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 3.0% 3.6% 3.4% 2.3% 1.9% 2.7% 2.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(Source: ABS customised matrix)

27 Table 5.1c: Tenure by labour force status for low income households, 2001 Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Employed Unemployed Other Total Employed Unemployed Other Total Employed Unemployed Other Total Fully owned 26.4% 1.2% 72.4% 100.0% 25.5% 1.5% 73.0% 100.0% 18.7% 1.5% 79.8% 100.0% Being Purchased 73.6% 2.9% 23.5% 100.0% 70.4% 3.9% 25.7% 100.0% 64.8% 5.0% 30.2% 100.0% Renting from Private Landlord 59.5% 6.4% 34.2% 100.0% 55.2% 7.7% 37.0% 100.0% 47.8% 11.6% 40.6% 100.0% Renting from Public Landlord 19.5% 4.7% 75.9% 100.0% 17.1% 6.2% 76.8% 100.0% 15.5% 6.4% 78.1% 100.0% Other Landlord Type 34.9% 5.6% 59.5% 100.0% 30.7% 6.6% 62.7% 100.0% 23.2% 7.4% 69.4% 100.0% Total Rented 45.1% 5.8% 49.1% 100.0% 44.7% 7.3% 48.0% 100.0% 32.0% 9.0% 59.0% 100.0% Other Tenure Type 32.9% 2.9% 64.3% 100.0% 37.7% 4.5% 57.9% 100.0% 20.4% 3.8% 75.8% 100.0% Not Stated 35.3% 2.4% 62.3% 100.0% 33.9% 3.3% 62.8% 100.0% 26.9% 3.6% 69.5% 100.0% Total 38.5% 3.1% 58.4% 100.0% 38.0% 3.7% 58.4% 100.0% 30.1% 4.9% 65.0% 100.0%

(Source: ABS customised matrix)

28 5.3 Location of low income households in the private rental market 5.3.1 Concentrations at the LGA/SLA level The remainder of this chapter focuses on the position of low income households who rent privately. Table 5.2 and Figures 5.1 to 5.3 show the LGAs with the highest concentrations of low income private rental households in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide7. In Sydney, the highest concentrations of PRLIHs are located in Canterbury, Fairfield and Blacktown in the inner and outer west of the city and Gosford and Wyong to the far north of the metropolitan area. Altogether, these 10 LGAs accounted for 45% of the total PRLIHs in Sydney at this time, but only 36% of all households. This indicates the degree of concentration of the PRLIH sector in these 10 LGAs. In Melbourne, the largest concentrations of PRLIHs are found in the local government areas of Darebin and Moreland to the north of the CBD and Greater Dandenong to the south-east. Here, the top 10 LGAs accounted for almost half (49%) of the total PRLIHs in Melbourne, but only 38% of all households. In Adelaide there are significant concentrations of PRLIHs in West Torrens to the west of the CBD and Port Adelaide Enfield, to the north of the CBD. However, the concentration of PRLIH in the top 10 LGAs is noticeable lower than in Melbourne or Sydney, accounting for only a third (32%) of all PRLIHs and just 25% of total households. This finding might suggest a much lower level of spatial concentration of the low income rental market in Adelaide compared to the other two cities, although this is more likely to be a reflection of the larger number of SLAs in Adelaide, compared to LGAs in the other two cities. Overall, 10% of the households in these thirty areas were low income private renters, a proportion that remains remarkably uniform across the three cities. The individual percentage of all households in this group at the LGA/SLA level ranged around this average, from 15.7% in West Torrens – East SLA in Adelaide to 7.3% in Blacktown LGA in Sydney.

7 A full listing of these data by LGA is given in Appendix 1. 29 Table 5.2: The 10 local government areas/statistical local areas in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide with the highest number of low income private rental households Number of Low Income Total LGA/SLA % Private Renters Households Sydney Canterbury 6,575 43,455 15.1% Wyong 6,155 49,320 12.5% Fairfield 5,927 53,341 11.1% Blacktown 5,728 79,764 7.2% Gosford 5,557 57,924 9.6% South Sydney 4,941 36,973 13.4% Penrith 4,804 55,363 8.7% Parramatta 4,783 48,604 9.8% Randwick 4,600 44,500 10.3% Marrickville 4,249 27,940 15.2% Total 53,319 497,184 10.7% Melbourne Darebin 5,800 47,496 12.2% Moreland 5,583 50,511 11.1% Greater Dandenong 5,167 41,912 12.3% Port Phillip 5,066 35,660 14.2% Glen Eira 4,894 46,826 10.5% Kingston 4,122 48,872 8.4% Stonnington 3,913 36,529 10.7% Frankston 3,716 40,884 9.1% Boroondara 3,695 55,124 6.7% Mornington Peninsula 3,623 47,138 7.7% Total 45,579 450,952 10.1% Adelaide West Torrens - East 1,645 10,477 15.7% West Torrens - West 1,196 11,793 10.1% Holdfast Bay - North 1,105 8,511 13.0% Port Adelaide Enfield - East 1,040 11,081 9.4% Playford - Elizabeth 964 10,117 9.5% Charles Sturt - North-East 915 10,178 9.0% Charles Sturt - Coastal 905 12,465 7.3% Port Adelaide Enfield - Port 892 10,325 8.6% Marion - North 877 11,347 7.7% Norwood Payneham St Peters - West 873 7,583 11.5% Total 10,412 103,877 10.0%

30 5.3.2 Concentrations at the suburb and postcode level The results presented above at the LGA/SLA level tend to either over-state or underestimate some of the differences in the number of PRLIHs at lower spatial levels (Table 5.3 and Figures 5.4 to 5.6). While generally the largest concentrations of PRLIHs at the LGA/SLA level can also be seen at the suburb level, a few other areas emerge at this level. For example, in Sydney the highest concentration of PRLIHs at the suburb level is in Liverpool, although Liverpool LGA was not on our top ten list. Conversely, an examination of the top ten suburbs in Sydney shows that no suburb in Gosford or Wyong emerges, despite these two LGAs having high concentrations of PRLIHs. This suggests that there are a number of suburbs in Gosford-Wyong with significant numbers of PRLIHs, whereas in Liverpool LGA the suburb of Liverpool has significantly more PRLIHs than other suburbs in that LGA. Similarly, in Melbourne, the highest concentrations of PRLIHs are located in Frankston to the south of the CBD, Reservoir to the north and in Dandenong and Noble Park to the south west. In Adelaide, the highest concentration of PRLIHs can be found in the suburb of Morphett Vale to the far south and in Salisbury to the north. Further, in 12 suburbs in Sydney (Kanwal, Lisarow, Parklea, The Entrance, Meadowbank, Gosford, Lakemba, Wiley Park, Cabramatta, Haymarket, Fairfield and Harris Park), 25% or more of the households in that suburb were PRLIHs. In Melbourne and Adelaide though, only 2 (Albion and Gardenvale) and 1 (Evanston South) suburb(s) contained 25% or more PRLIHs. The location of PRLIHs at the suburb level is also reflected at the postcode level. These findings are further amplified by the postcode level maps presented in Figures 5.7 to 5.8. Again, the local nature of the low income rental market is clearly shown. These maps have been included here as they are utilised later in chapter 8 to explore the relationship between the sector and rental assistance recipients and waiting list data. The suburb and post code level analyses highlight how locally concentrated low income working private renters are within each city. Previous research by the authors has pin pointed the local nature of the housing market segments this group are closely associated with, for example, the low rise suburban flat market in Sydney which is clustered around local town centres and transport nodes (Randolph and Holloway, 2005; Bunker, Holloway and Randolph, 2005). Analysis at the LGA/SLA level clearly masks important local variations in the housing markets which structure the locational choices of this group.

31 Table 5.3: The 10 suburbs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide with the highest number of low income private rental households Number of Low Income Total Suburb % Private Renters Households Sydney Liverpool 1,717 7,098 24.2% Campsie 1,650 6,849 24.1% Cabramatta 1,627 6,066 26.8% Randwick 1,377 10,411 13.2% Ashfield 1,358 7,580 17.9% Marrickville 1,346 8,578 15.7% Auburn 1,326 7,650 17.3% Lakemba 1,275 4,657 27.4% Bankstown 1,268 7,838 16.2% Parramatta 1,265 5,772 21.9% Melbourne Frankston 1,834 14,165 12.9% Reservoir 1,793 17,013 10.5% Dandenong 1,534 6,280 24.4% Noble Park 1,515 11,850 12.8% St Kilda 1,500 7,444 20.2% Brunswick 1,359 8,113 16.8% Thornbury 1,250 6,998 17.9% St Albans 1,199 11,415 10.5% Preston 1,197 10,175 11.8% Hawthorn 1,175 7,895 14.9% Adelaide Morphett Vale 647 9,126 7.1% Salisbury 516 2,930 17.6% Prospect 514 5,004 10.3% Seaton 374 4,153 9.0% Adelaide 373 3,509 10.6% Brooklyn Park 372 1,989 18.7% Plympton 369 2,003 18.4% Glenelg North 365 2,804 13.0% North Adelaide 330 2,918 11.3% Norwood 327 2,702 12.1%

32 Figure 5.1: Location of low income private renters in Sydney by local government area in 2001

33 Figure 5.2: Location of low income private renters in Melbourne by local government area in 2001

34 Figure 5.3: Location of low income private renters in Adelaide by statistical local area in 2001

35 Figure 5.4: Location of low income private renters in Sydney by suburb in 2001

36 Figure 5.5: Location of low income private renters in Melbourne by suburb in 2001

37 Figure 5.6: Location of low income private renters in Adelaide by suburb in 2001

38 Figure 5.7: Location of low income private renters in Sydney by postcode in 2001

39 Figure 5.8: Location of low income private renters in Melbourne by postcode in 2001

40 Figure 5.9: Location of low income private renters in Adelaide by postcode in 2001

41 5.4 Profile of low income households in the private rental market Having established where PRLIHs live, this section focuses on who these households are, in terms of their socio-demographic and housing characteristics. An analysis of a selected range of socio-economic variables from the 2001 census provides a profile of the social characteristics of households in the sector and how they differ from the population as a whole. Overall, in 2001 there were 117,545 PRLIHs in Sydney, 92,982 in Melbourne, 32,559 in Adelaide and 577,067 across Australia. Table 5.4. and 5.5 set out the profile of PRLIHs from the 2001 Census.

5.4.1 Dwelling type Confirming the note above from previous research by the authors, the data show that the proportion of PRLIHs who live in flats in our three cities is significantly greater than that for the rest of the population. In Sydney only 33% of PRLIHs live in separate houses whereas 53% reside in flats. In Melbourne, 42% of PRLIHs live in flats, while in Adelaide 36% live in flats. This is twice the proportion of all households who live in flats in Sydney and approximately three times the proportion in Melbourne and Adelaide. Further, the proportion of PRLIHs who reside in semi detached dwellings in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide is also higher than that recorded for the population as a whole in the three cities.

5.4.2 Rent paid Not surprisingly, the weekly rents of PRLIHs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are concentrated in certain bands. Only 3% of households in Sydney, 7% in Melbourne and 15% in Adelaide pay less than $100 per week in rent. This compares with 14% in Sydney and Melbourne, and 32% of all households in the three cities. The majority of these low rent payers will be paying rebated rents in public housing. Conversely, only 15% of PRLIHs in Sydney, 6% in Melbourne, and 2% in Adelaide pay more than $300 per week in rent. This compares with 25% of all households in Sydney, and 11% and 3% of all households in Melbourne and Adelaide. In fact, the great majority of PRLIHs pay between $100 and $250 per week in rent. In Sydney, 71% of PRLIHs, 83% in Melbourne and 82% in Adelaide pay rents in this band.

5.4.3 Household type A significant proportion of PRLIHs are single person households. In fact, across the three cities the proportion of single person PRLIHs is at least twice as high as that for the population as a whole. In Sydney, 40% of PRLIHs are lone person households while another 22% are one parent families. Similarly, in Melbourne 46% of PRLIHs are lone person households and a further 21% are one parent families. In Adelaide, 49% of PRLIHs are lone person households and 25% are one parent families. Conversely, 30% of PRLIHs in Sydney are couple families compared with 59% of all households. In Melbourne, 22% are couple families compared with 60% of all households. Interestingly in Adelaide only 17% of PRLIHs are couple families compared to 55% for all households.

5.4.4 Age Perhaps surprisingly, the proportion of children (aged 0-14) in PRLIHs in the three cities is higher than for all households. The result is that overall, the age profile of PRLIHs is younger than that for all households. In Sydney, 27% of persons in PRLIHs are aged 0-14, 21% are aged 25-34 while 11% are aged over 55. For all households in Sydney the comparable figures are 20%, 16% and 21% respectively. A similar situation occurs in Melbourne and Adelaide. In Melbourne, 24% of persons in PRLIHs are aged 0-14 compared with 20% for the entire population. Some 12% of persons in PRLIHs in Melbourne are aged over 55 compared with 21% for the population as a whole. In Adelaide, 25% of persons in PRLIHS are aged 0-14 compared with 19% across the entire population, whereas, 10% of persons in PRLIHs in Adelaide are aged over 55 compared to 24% for the population as a whole. Further, there are significantly lower proportions of persons aged 45-54 in PRLIHs in the three cities compared to their populations as a whole.

42 In other words, the PRLIH sector has a much younger profile than the overall population and contains above average proportions of younger children, the latter reflecting the high proportions of single parents in the sector.

5.4.5 Country of birth Overall, the PRLIH sector is biased towards non-Australian born, although more so in Sydney. In Sydney, 52% of persons in PRLIHs were born in Australia compared with 62% for all Sydney households. In Melbourne, 60% of all persons in PRLIHs were born in Australia compared to 66% for the population as a whole. In Adelaide, 74% of persons in PRLIHs were born in Australia compared to 72% for the population as a whole. In Sydney, there were higher proportions of persons in PRLIHs who were born in Asia, the Middle East and Other Oceania countries compared to the entire Sydney population. Persons who were born in Asia, the Middle East and Other Oceania countries also comprise significant proportions of persons in PRLIHs in Melbourne and Adelaide. Conversely, in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide the proportion of persons in PRLIHs who were born in Europe is significantly lower than that for the entire populations of those cities.

5.4.6 Education Despite having larger overseas born populations, the level of educational qualifications for persons in PRLIHs is similar to that for the population as a whole. While there are slightly more persons with School Certificates and slightly fewer with a Bachelor Degree, the educational profile of persons in PRLIHs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide does not differ significantly from that of the entire population.

5.4.7 Occupation Given their low incomes, PRLIHs tend to work in occupations with lower skill and educational requirements. In Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, 6% of PRLIHs are employed as Labourers and Related workers. This compares with 3% of all employed persons in Sydney and Melbourne and 4% in Adelaide. Conversely, 8% of employed persons in PRLIHs in Sydney and Melbourne and 5% in Adelaide are employed as Managers, Administrators or Professional workers. This compares with 14% of all employed persons in Sydney, 13% in Melbourne and 11% in Adelaide. Employed persons in PRLIHs in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are over-represented in Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service jobs as well as Intermediate Production and Transport workers, and Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service workers.

5.4.8 Industry The industries that employed PRLIHs work in are not very different to the population as a whole. PRLIHs are slightly over-represented in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide in Personal Services, Retail Trade, Transport and Storage, Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants, and Cultural and Recreational Services. Conversely, persons in PRLIHs in the three cities are slightly under-represented in Finance and Insurance, Property and Business Services, Construction, Education, Electricity, Gas and Water Supply, Communication Services and Government Administration and Defence. This implies that low paid renters occupy low skilled positions across all industrial sectors, making up a substantial section of the workforce whose jobs support those in higher skilled or higher income occupations in their industries.

43 5.4.9 Income The weekly household income distributions of low income working households show a substantial variation between the three cities. As might be expected, incomes of this group are higher in Sydney, with three in ten (29%) receiving incomes over $600 per week (up to the income threshold of $773 in Sydney). This compares to 18% in Melbourne and just 4% in Adelaide. The income thresholds used for the latter two cities are lower, of course ($706 and $625 respectively), but nevertheless, these figures reflect clear income relativities between the three city’s low income working populations. This is reflected at the other end of the income range, with 33% of PRLIHs earning under $300 per week in Adelaide, compared to 28% in Melbourne and 22% in Sydney. Higher rental levels in Sydney and Melbourne are therefore to some extent compensated for by higher incomes in these two cities.

44 Table 5.4: Socio-economic profile of low income households in the private rental market Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Dwelling type Separate House 39,126 37,886 14,722 284,476 Semi detached dwellings 14,094 13,693 5,830 82,016 Flat, unit or apartment 61,750 39,332 11,661 196,397 Other dwelling 2,575 2,071 346 14,178 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067 Household type Couple with children 21,920 11,852 3,004 74,382 Couple family without children 12,984 9,028 2,606 59,105 One parent family 25,723 19,580 8,265 145,158 Lone person households 47,159 42,809 15,866 249,985 Group Households 7,533 7,549 2,253 39,052 Other households 2,226 2,164 565 9,385 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067 Age of reference person 15-24 years 16,020 15,182 6,645 99,645 25-34 years 34,028 26,610 9,545 155,025 35-44 years 30,408 20,804 7,162 130,752 45-54 years 17,112 12,870 4,184 80,008 55-64 years 9,887 7,850 2,252 50,501 65 years or more 10,073 9,652 2,771 61,136 Not Stated/Not Applicable 17 14 0 0 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067 Household income $0 4,822 3,045 550 14,668 $1-$39 298 248 65 1,205 $40-$79 381 363 92 1,861 $80-$119 760 793 264 4,351 $120-$159 1,722 1,923 871 12,861 $160-$199 4,052 4,414 2,160 32,758 $200-$299 13,842 14,955 6,586 107,999 $300-$399 18,007 16,330 7,029 120,892 $400-$499 18,930 16,614 7,044 117,086 $500-$599 20,339 17,393 6,659 112,415 $600 or more 34,392 16,904 1,224 50,888 Not Stated/Not Applicable 0 0 15 83 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067 Birthplace of all persons Australia 137,377 113,626 46,283 865,849 Other Oceania and Antarctica 13,785 5,856 971 45,097 Northern and Western Europe 12,903 10,640 5,467 72,597

45 Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Southern and Eastern Europe 10,328 10,855 2,166 31,022 Middle East 14,599 5,323 699 20,758 North Africa 2,012 870 125 3,292 Asia 52,015 28,270 3,684 96,527 North America 1,433 837 294 5,583 South and Central America 4,031 1,568 223 6,640 Carribbean 98 45 12 277 Sub Saharan Africa 2,692 2,340 381 9,603 Other/Not Stated 13,183 8,438 2,488 56,494 Total 264,456 188,668 62,793 1,213,739 Level of post-school qualification Postgraduate Degree 2,781 1,595 289 6,098 Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate 986 1,220 227 3,902 Bachelor Degree 12,379 9,355 2,287 37,577 Advanced Diploma and Diploma 8,672 6,706 1,592 31,585 Certificate 18,228 12,944 5,303 91,858 Not Stated/Not Applicable 74,499 61,162 22,861 406,047 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067 Weekly Rent $0-$49 389 659 293 5,582 $50-$99 2,698 5,816 4,670 72,319 $100-$149 15,241 32,319 15,494 228,220 $150-$199 38,616 34,256 9,885 172,066 $200-$249 29,249 10,562 1,330 53,880 $250-$299 14,251 3,960 377 19,916 $300-$349 7,555 1,955 145 9,272 $350-$399 3,947 957 62 4,661 $400-$449 1,939 516 39 2,393 $450-$499 1,008 277 14 1,214 $500 and over 2,652 1,705 235 7,461 Not Stated 0 0 15 83 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067 Occupation Managers and Administrators 1,990 1,296 290 6,846 Professionals 7,540 5,887 1,413 24,226 Associate Professionals 6,202 4,523 1,244 23,227 Tradespersons and Related Workers 7,109 4,947 1,591 29,044 Advanced Clerical and Service Workers 1,812 1,266 311 5,889 Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 13,381 10,218 3,431 53,951 Workers Intermediate Production and Transport 7,223 4,893 1,448 25,803 Workers

46 Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 7,646 6,068 1,942 34,595 Workers Labourers and Related Workers 6,691 5,160 1,980 36,431 Not Stated/Not Applicable 57,951 48,724 18,909 337,055 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067 Industry Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants 5,570 3,764 1,275 25,378 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 337 331 173 7,146 Communication Services 1,105 807 198 3,333 Construction 3,462 1,857 558 11,428 Cultural and Recreational Service 2,184 1,812 463 8,516 Education 2,723 2,585 710 12,543 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 133 77 32 643 Finance and Insurance 2,184 1,448 333 5,209 Government Administration and Defence 1,560 853 261 5,774 Health and Community Services 5,713 4,710 1,837 26,466 Manufacturing 7,588 6,441 1,990 28,086 Mining 29 16 13 476 Personal and Other Services 2,573 1,809 627 10,432 Property and Business Services 7,274 5,267 1,386 24,171 Retail Trade 9,228 7,639 2,491 44,534 Transport and Storage 3,602 2,029 546 10,889 Wholesale Trade 3,911 2,606 708 13,469 Not Stated/Not Applicable 58,369 48,931 18,958 338,574 Total 117,545 92,982 32,559 577,067

47 Table 5.5: Socio-economic profile of low income households in the private rental market (%) Low Income Private Rental Households All Households Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Dwelling type Separate House 33.3% 40.7% 45.2% 49.3% 63.1% 74.0% 75.1% 75.3% Semi detached dwellings 12.0% 14.7% 17.9% 14.2% 11.3% 10.3% 13.3% 8.9% Flat, unit or apartment 52.5% 42.3% 35.8% 34.0% 23.9% 14.3% 10.6% 13.0% Other dwelling 2.2% 2.2% 1.1% 2.5% 1.8% 1.5% 1.1% 2.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Household type Couple with children 18.6% 12.7% 9.2% 12.9% 35.9% 35.6% 29.8% 32.8% Couple family without children 11.0% 9.7% 8.0% 10.2% 23.1% 23.3% 25.3% 24.9% One parent family 21.9% 21.1% 25.4% 25.2% 10.7% 10.5% 11.2% 10.8% Lone person households 40.1% 46.0% 48.7% 43.3% 21.3% 22.3% 27.2% 22.9% Group Households 6.4% 8.1% 6.9% 6.8% 4.1% 4.1% 3.4% 3.7% Other households 1.9% 2.3% 1.7% 1.6% 4.9% 4.2% 3.0% 4.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Age of reference person 15-24 years 13.6% 16.3% 20.4% 17.3% NA NA NA NA 25-34 years 28.9% 28.6% 29.3% 26.9% NA NA NA NA 35-44 years 25.9% 22.4% 22.0% 22.7% NA NA NA NA 45-54 years 14.6% 13.8% 12.9% 13.9% NA NA NA NA 55-64 years 8.4% 8.4% 6.9% 8.8% NA NA NA NA 65 years or more 8.6% 10.4% 8.5% 10.6% NA NA NA NA Not Stated/Not Applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NA NA NA NA Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% NA NA NA NA

48 Low Income Private Rental Households All Households Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Age of all persons 0-14 years 27.0% 23.5% 25.4% 27.3% 20.2% 19.8% 18.9% 20.8% 15-24 years 16.5% 19.4% 21.3% 18.7% 14.0% 14.2% 13.8% 13.7% 25-34 years 20.8% 21.1% 20.6% 18.7% 16.0% 16.0% 14.0% 14.5% 35-44 years 16.2% 14.8% 14.2% 14.3% 15.7% 15.6% 15.1% 15.3% 45-54 years 8.8% 8.8% 8.2% 8.7% 13.4% 13.4% 14.1% 13.7% 55-64 years 5.3% 5.6% 4.7% 5.7% 8.8% 8.9% 9.4% 9.4% 65 years or more 5.5% 6.8% 5.7% 6.6% 11.9% 12.1% 14.6% 12.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Household income Less than $200 10.2% 11.6% 12.3% 11.7% 4.0% 4.1% 5.4% 4.6% $200-$299 11.8% 16.1% 20.2% 18.7% 5.7% 6.1% 8.9% 7.2% $300-$399 15.3% 17.6% 21.6% 20.9% 6.3% 7.2% 9.4% 8.4% $400-$499 16.1% 17.9% 21.6% 20.3% 5.4% 6.2% 8.3% 7.1% $500-$599 17.3% 18.7% 20.5% 19.5% 4.1% 4.8% 6.0% 5.2% $600 or more 29.3% 18.2% 3.8% 8.8% 58.3% 56.7% 50.8% 52.1% Not Stated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.1% 14.9% 11.2% 15.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Birthplace of all persons Australia 51.9% 60.2% 73.7% 71.3% 62.2% 65.7% 72.2% 72.6% Other Oceania and Antarctica 5.2% 3.1% 1.5% 3.7% 3.2% 1.8% 0.9% 2.4% Northern and Western Europe 4.9% 5.6% 8.7% 6.0% 6.3% 6.6% 11.6% 7.2% Southern and Eastern Europe 3.9% 5.8% 3.4% 2.6% 5.4% 8.4% 5.9% 4.1% Middle East 5.5% 2.8% 1.1% 1.7% 2.6% 1.3% 0.4% 0.9%

49 Low Income Private Rental Households All Households Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia North Africa 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% Asia 19.7% 15.0% 5.9% 8.0% 10.6% 8.0% 3.5% 5.2% North America 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% South and Central America 1.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% Caribbean 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sub Saharan Africa 1.0% 1.2% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.8% Other/Not Stated 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 4.7% 6.7% 5.8% 4.3% 5.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Level of post-school qualification Postgraduate Degree 2.4% 1.7% 0.9% 1.1% 2.3% 1.7% 1.3% 1.4% Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate 0.8% 1.3% 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% Bachelor Degree 10.5% 10.1% 7.0% 6.5% 9.8% 9.7% 7.5% 7.7% Advanced Diploma and Diploma 7.4% 7.2% 4.9% 5.5% 5.5% 5.2% 4.7% 4.8% Certificate 15.5% 13.9% 16.3% 15.9% 12.2% 11.1% 12.8% 12.5% Not Stated/Not Applicable 63.4% 65.8% 70.2% 70.4% 69.2% 70.8% 72.6% 72.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Weekly Rent $0-$49 0.3% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 5.6% 3.6% 12.2% 6.7% $50-$99 2.3% 6.3% 14.3% 12.5% 8.5% 10.0% 19.8% 15.0% $100-$149 13.0% 34.8% 47.6% 39.5% 8.1% 20.8% 30.7% 24.1% $150-$199 32.9% 36.8% 30.4% 29.8% 18.4% 29.7% 23.4% 23.9% $200-$249 24.9% 11.4% 4.1% 9.3% 18.4% 14.1% 5.7% 11.2% $250-$299 12.1% 4.3% 1.2% 3.5% 12.3% 7.1% 2.0% 5.6% $300-$349 6.4% 2.1% 0.4% 1.6% 8.9% 4.1% 0.9% 3.3%

50 Low Income Private Rental Households All Households Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia $350-$399 3.4% 1.0% 0.2% 0.8% 5.7% 2.2% 0.4% 2.0% $400-$499 2.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0.6% 5.3% 1.9% 0.4% 1.8% $500 and over 2.3% 1.8% 0.7% 1.3% 4.9% 2.7% 0.8% 2.3% Not Stated 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 4.0% 3.6% 3.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Occupation Managers and Administrators 1.7% 1.4% 0.9% 1.2% 4.1% 3.9% 3.1% 4.1% Professionals 6.4% 6.3% 4.3% 4.2% 9.7% 9.5% 8.2% 8.1% Associate Professionals 5.3% 4.9% 3.8% 4.0% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.2% Tradespersons and Related Workers 6.0% 5.3% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5.4% 5.3% 5.4% Advanced Clerical and Service Workers 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% 2.1% 1.8% 1.5% 1.7%

Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 11.4% 11.0% 10.5% 9.3% 7.9% 7.8% 7.8% 7.3% Workers

Intermediate Production and Transport 6.1% 5.3% 4.4% 4.5% 3.4% 3.7% 3.5% 3.6% Workers

Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 6.5% 6.5% 6.0% 6.0% 4.2% 4.5% 4.3% 4.2% Workers Labourers and Related Workers 5.7% 5.5% 6.1% 6.3% 3.1% 3.4% 4.0% 3.8% Not Stated/Not Applicable 49.3% 52.4% 58.1% 58.4% 54.9% 54.7% 57.0% 56.7% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Industry Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants 4.7% 4.0% 3.9% 4.4% 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% 2.2% Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.8% Communication Services 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% Construction 2.9% 2.0% 1.7% 2.0% 3.2% 3.0% 2.5% 3.0%

51 Low Income Private Rental Households All Households Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Sydney Melbourne Adelaide Australia Cultural and Recreational Service 1.9% 1.9% 1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.0% 1.1% Education 2.3% 2.8% 2.2% 2.2% 2.9% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% Finance and Insurance 1.9% 1.6% 1.0% 0.9% 2.8% 2.1% 1.6% 1.7% Government Administration and Defence 1.3% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.6% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% Health and Community Services 4.9% 5.1% 5.6% 4.6% 4.1% 4.3% 5.4% 4.3% Manufacturing 6.5% 6.9% 6.1% 4.9% 5.6% 7.4% 6.7% 5.4% Mining 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% Personal and Other Services 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.8% 1.6% Property and Business Services 6.2% 5.7% 4.3% 4.2% 6.6% 6.0% 4.7% 4.9% Retail Trade 7.9% 8.2% 7.7% 7.7% 6.1% 6.7% 6.5% 6.5% Transport and Storage 3.1% 2.2% 1.7% 1.9% 2.3% 1.8% 1.7% 1.9% Wholesale Trade 3.3% 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% 2.8% 2.8% 2.2% 2.3% Not Stated/Not Applicable 49.7% 52.6% 58.2% 58.7% 57.3% 56.8% 58.9% 59.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

52 6 CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOW INCOME PRIVATE RENTERS IN 1991-2001

6.1 Introduction One of the central research questions of this study was to establish whether the private renter low income households had changed locations between 1991 to 2001. Having established in Chapter 5 where the PRLIH sector was concentrated in 2001, this chapter presents an analysis of the changes in the number and location of low income private renters in the three case study cities over that decade. The data presented here comes from the 1991 census and the 2001 census value added file although the point at which a household is defined as a low income household differs from previous analyses (see Section 4.4 for a more detailed explanation). The data for Sydney and Melbourne are for local government areas (LGAs) while in Adelaide statistical local areas (SLAs) are used. Analysis at a finer spatial scale is not possible as the 1991 data are not available on a comparable post code or suburb basis.

6.2 Changes in the number and location of private renter low income households, 1991-2001 Under the definition of low income used for this section of the research (see above), there were 106,937 PRLIHs in Sydney in 2001, up from 85,229 in 1991 (Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1). This represents an increase of 25%. In 2001, the highest number of PRLIHs were found in Canterbury, Wyong and Fairfield LGAs, followed by Blacktown and Gosford. Ten years earlier in 1991 Canterbury was also the LGA with the highest number of PRLIHs. However, the position in 1991 for other LGAs was rather different with a number of inner city areas recording substantial losses of PRLIHs between 1991 and 2001. By 2001, the numbers of PRLIHs in these LGAs had declined significantly. Over this period LGAs with the largest increase in PRLIHs included Blacktown (2,761), Wyong (2,252) and Penrith (1,800). LGAs with the largest decrease in PRLIHs included Waverley (-706), Leichhardt (-527) and Marrickville (-528). Proportionally, the largest increases in PRLIHs between 1991 and 2001 was recorded in Blacktown and Wyong, while the areas which recorded the largest proportional decrease were the inner and eastern LGAs of Marrickville, Randwick, Waverley and South Sydney. However, in a potentially significant counter trend, the numbers of PRLIH tripled in the City of Sydney over the decade. The impact of higher density residential urban renewal here has clearly led to greater opportunities for this group in the CBD area despite their low incomes. In Melbourne there were 93,487 PRLIHs in 2001, an increase of 14% from the figure of 81,694 in 1991 (Table 6.2 and Figure 6.2). In 2001, the LGAs with highest number of PRLIHs were Darebin (5,835), Moreland (5,612) and Greater Dandenong (5,193). In 1991, however, the two LGAs with the largest number of PRLIHs were Port Phillip and Glen Eira. The numbers in Glen Eira have changed little since 1991, but the inner city LGA of Port Phillip recorded the largest loss of PRLIHs over the period (-1,904). Proportionally, the loss in Port Phillip was also the highest. In 1991 the LGAs of Darebin and Moreland also had significant numbers of PRLIHs. Between 1991 and 2001, the areas with the largest increase in the number of PRLIHs in Melbourne were Casey, Frankston and the City of Melbourne itself, the latter again paralleling the trend in Sydney towards an increase in housing opportunities in higher density central city residential development. These three LGAs also had the highest proportional increases. Conversely, other than Port Phillip, the LGAs with significant declines in the number of PRLIHs were recorded in Stonnington and Yarra. These LGAs along with Wyndham also had the largest proportional losses of this group. Figure 6.2 highlights the relative shift of this group away from inner city areas immediately surrounding the CBD, especially in the gentrifying suburbs to the east of the city. In Adelaide there were 35,803 PRLIHs in 2001, up from 29,558 in 1991 (Table 6.3 and Figure 6.3), an increase of 21%. In 1991, the SLAs with the largest number of PRLIHs were West Torrens – East (1,899), Holdfast Bay – North (1,472) and Norwood Payneham St Peters – West (1,267). These were closely followed by West Torrens – West, Campbelltown – West and Charles Sturt – Coastal. In 2001, West Torrens – East also had the largest number of 53 PRLIHs (1,817) and this was followed by Holdfast Bay – North (1,226). In 2001 West Torrens – West had the third largest number of PRLIHs. Between 1991 and 2001 though the largest increase in Adelaide were in SLAs with lower numbers of PRLIHs in 1991. This is slightly different from the situation in Sydney and Melbourne. For example, Playford – Elizabeth, Onkaparinga – South Coast and Playford – West Central all had the largest increase in the number of PRLIHs between 1991 and 2001. These areas had relatively low numbers of PRLIHs in 1991. Conversely, it was the areas with higher numbers of PRLIHs in 1991 that recorded the largest declines. The areas which recorded the largest declines between 1991 and 2001 were Norwood Payneham St Peters – West and Holdfast Bay – North and Unley – East. The changes in absolute numbers in Adelaide between 1991 and 2001 also hold true proportionally except in the case of West Torrens – East. West Torrens – East had the highest number of PRLIHs in Adelaide in both 1991 and 2001, however, the number has remained relatively stable over the ten year period. Due to a 21% increase across the Adelaide metropolitan area, particularly in areas around Onkaparinga and Playford, the proportion of PRLIHs in West Torrens – East has actually declined. Figure 6.3 highlights the relative shift away from the central and inner band of Adelaide, with relative increases in the suburbs to the north and south of the metropolitan area. The extent to which these changes are, in part, a product of sales of public housing in some of these areas, such as Salisbury and Elizabeth, is worthy of further research. Most notably, there is no evidence of a counter trend of a higher density led increase in PRLIH in Adelaide’s CBD.

6.3 Summary Overall, then, the numbers of households defined as PRLIH increased in all three cities between 1991 and 2001, by between 14% and 25%, with the greatest increase in Sydney. Within this overall increase in numbers, the distributions of PRLIH within the three cities have shown broadly similar trends. The greatest losses of this group were found in inner city and gentrified areas, some of which had significant concentrations of this group in 1991. The greatest increases were found in middle or outer city LGAs. On the other hand, several LGAs retained their position of high concentrations in both years: for example, Canterbury and Fairfield in Sydney, Darebin and Moreland in Melbourne, and West Torrens – West in Adelaide. There can be little doubt that the escalation of house prices in the inner and high value areas of all three cities have acted to push this group out of the central areas over this period, while the boom in investor activity across the city into lower value locations has acted as the key driver in this relocation of the PRLIH population. The most notable exceptions to this trend have been the increases in PRLIHs in the CBDs of Sydney City and Melbourne. Here, the significant increase in higher density residential construction during the 1991 – 2001 under urban consolidation policies decade has clearly resulted in an increase in rental opportunities for this group, despite their relatively low incomes. No such trend was in evident in the case of Adelaide’s CBD.

54 Table 6.1 The number of PRLIHs by LGA in Sydney in 1991-2001 Number of Number of Percentage Point Absolute Change PRLIHs 1991 PRLIHs 2001 Change Ashfield 1,935 1,951 16 -0.4% Auburn 1,436 2,248 812 0.4% Bankstown 1,874 3,214 1,340 0.8% Baulkham Hills 761 989 228 0.0% Blacktown 2,448 5,209 2,761 2.0% Blue Mountains 1,528 2,056 528 0.1% Botany Bay 1,037 1,161 124 -0.1% Burwood 886 1,205 319 0.1% Camden 343 702 359 0.3% Campbelltown 1,480 3,084 1,604 1.1% Canterbury 4,788 6,105 1,317 0.1% Concord 329 401 72 0.0% Drummoyne 552 550 -2 -0.1% Fairfield 4,156 5,543 1,387 0.3% Gosford 3,647 5,134 1,487 0.5% Hawkesbury 1,046 1,454 408 0.1% Holroyd 1,725 2,759 1,034 0.6% Hornsby 1,919 2,033 114 -0.4% Hunter's Hill 120 114 -6 0.0% Hurstville 1,310 1,942 632 0.3% Kogarah 890 1,307 417 0.2% Ku-ring-gai 702 622 -80 -0.2% Lane Cove 622 570 -52 -0.2% Leichhardt 2,635 2,108 -527 -1.1% Liverpool 2,234 3,840 1,606 1.0% Manly 1,220 849 -371 -0.6% Marrickville 4,391 3,863 -528 -1.5% Mosman 696 624 -72 -0.2% North Sydney 2,095 1,861 -234 -0.7% Parramatta 3,041 4,344 1,303 0.5% Penrith 2,559 4,359 1,800 1.1% Pittwater 968 833 -135 -0.4% Randwick 4,529 4,137 -392 -1.4% Rockdale 2,110 2,863 753 0.2% Ryde 2,424 2,831 407 -0.2% South Sydney 4,749 4,455 -294 -1.4% Strathfield 503 863 360 0.2% Sutherland Shire 2,409 3,400 991 0.4% Sydney 419 1,341 922 0.8% Warringah 2,617 2,533 -84 -0.7% Waverley 3,149 2,443 -706 -1.4% Willoughby 972 1,197 225 0.0% Wollondilly 422 688 266 0.1% Woollahra 2,058 1,405 -653 -1.1% Wyong 3,495 5,747 2,252 1.3% Total 85,229 106,937 21,708

55 Table 6.2: The number of PRLIHs by LGA in Melbourne in 1991-2001 Number of Number of Percentage Point Absolute Change PRLIHs 1991 PRLIHs 2001 Change Banyule 1,828 2,145 317 0.1% Bayside 1,557 1,421 -136 -0.4% Boroondara 4,288 3,718 -570 -1.3% Brimbank 2,437 3,612 1,175 0.9% Cardinia 655 951 296 0.2% Casey 1,578 3,139 1,561 1.4% Darebin 5,103 5,835 732 0.0% Frankston 2,398 3,740 1,342 1.1% Glen Eira 5,148 4,921 -227 -1.0% Greater Dandenong 4,123 5,193 1,070 0.5% Hobsons Bay 1,743 2,237 494 0.3% Hume 1,199 2,110 911 0.8% Kingston 3,530 4,139 609 0.1% Knox 1,664 2,160 496 0.3% Manningham 1,101 1,340 239 0.1% Maribyrnong 2,740 2,935 195 -0.2% Maroondah 1,935 2,478 543 0.3% Melbourne 1,831 3,149 1,318 1.1% Melton 427 902 475 0.4% Monash 2,745 3,269 524 0.1% Moonee Valley 2,998 2,808 -190 -0.7% Moreland 5,014 5,612 598 -0.1% Mornington Peninsula 2,681 3,638 957 0.6% Nillumbik 488 514 26 0.0% Port Phillip 7,001 5,097 -1,904 -3.1% Stonnington 4,559 3,944 -615 -1.4% Whitehorse 2,786 3,126 340 -0.1% Whittlesea 1,362 2,157 795 0.6% Wyndham 918 1,717 799 0.7% Yarra 3,614 2,779 -835 -1.5% Yarra Ranges 2,243 2,701 458 0.1% Total 81,694 94,469 11,793

56 Table 6.3: The number of PRLIHs by SLAs in Adelaide in 1991-2001 Number of Number of Percentage Point Absolute Change PRLIHs 1991 PRLIHs 2001 Change Adelaide (C) 890 779 -111 -0.8% Adelaide Hills (DC) - Central 158 200 42 0.0% Adelaide Hills (DC) - Ranges 147 172 25 0.0% Burnside (C) - North-East 505 592 87 -0.1% Burnside (C) - South-West 675 635 -40 -0.5% Campbelltown (C) - East 511 685 174 0.2% Campbelltown (C) - West 1,091 903 -188 -1.2% Charles Sturt (C) - Coastal 1,034 993 -41 -0.7% Charles Sturt (C) - Inner East 777 873 96 -0.2% Charles Sturt (C) - Inner West 666 822 156 0.0% Charles Sturt (C) - North-East 945 1,009 64 -0.4% Gawler (M) 380 619 239 0.4% Holdfast Bay (C) - North 1,472 1,226 -246 -1.6% Holdfast Bay (C) - South 471 490 19 -0.2% Marion (C) - Central 691 870 179 0.1% Marion (C) - North 827 969 142 -0.1% Marion (C) - South 115 264 149 0.3% Mitcham (C) - Hills 343 461 118 0.1% Mitcham (C) - North-East 401 411 10 -0.2% Mitcham (C) - West 754 808 54 -0.3% Norw. P'ham St Ptrs (C) - East 806 830 24 -0.4% Norw. P'ham St Ptrs (C) - West 1,267 992 -275 -1.5% Onkaparinga (C) - Hackham 170 342 172 0.4% Onkaparinga (C) - Hills 149 222 73 0.1% Onkaparinga (C) - Morphett 375 714 339 0.7% Onkaparinga (C) - North Coast 483 680 197 0.3% Onkaparinga (C) - Reservoir 162 304 142 0.3% Onkaparinga (C) - South Coast 400 817 417 0.9% Onkaparinga (C) - Woodcroft 291 682 391 0.9% Playford (C) - East Central 88 354 266 0.7% Playford (C) - Elizabeth 292 1,049 757 1.9% Playford (C) - Hills 18 14 -4 0.0% Playford (C) - West 111 153 42 0.1% Playford (C) - West Central 84 549 465 1.2% Port Adel. Enfield (C) - Coast 728 917 189 0.1% Port Adel. Enfield (C) - East 835 1,136 301 0.3% Port Adel. Enfield (C) - Inner 619 861 242 0.3% Port Adel. Enfield (C) - Port 949 944 -5 -0.6% Prospect (C) 931 869 -62 -0.7% Salisbury (C) - Central 603 921 318 0.5% Salisbury (C) - Inner North 217 604 387 1.0% Salisbury (C) - North-East 371 592 221 0.4% Salisbury (C) - South-East 503 702 199 0.3% Salisbury (C) Bal 69 118 49 0.1% Tea Tree Gully (C) - Central 264 463 199 0.4% Tea Tree Gully (C) - Hills 96 181 85 0.2% Tea Tree Gully (C) - North 39 302 263 0.7% Tea Tree Gully (C) - South 618 785 167 0.1% Unley (C) - East 981 749 -232 -1.2% Unley (C) - West 942 871 -71 -0.8% Walkerville (M) 205 173 -32 -0.2% West Torrens (C) - East 1,899 1,817 -82 -1.3% West Torrens (C) - West 1,140 1,315 175 -0.2% Total 29,558 35,803 6,245 57 Figure 6.1: The percentage point change in PRLIHs in Sydney by LGA in 1991-2001

58 Figure 6.2: The percentage point change in PRLIHs in Melbourne by LGA in 1991-2001

59 Figure 6.3: The percentage point change in PRLIHs in Adelaide by SLA in 1991-2001

60 7 AN EXAMINATION OF THE LOW COST PRIVATE RENTAL STOCK

7.1 Introduction This chapter examines the locational characteristics of the lower cost private rental stock in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. This in part addresses the question of the nature of the relationship between the location of private renter low income households and the location of the low cost rental stock (see also Section 8.3). The chapter is in four parts. Section 7.2 below supplements the work done by Yates et al (2003) and examines the spatial concentration of the ‘very low’ cost rental stock (defined as being privately rented dwellings with rents in the bottom 15% of all privately rented dwellings for each city) for local government areas (LGAs) in the three cities. Section 7.3 then analyses the spatial concentration of the ‘low’ cost rent stock at the LGA level. The ‘low’ cost rental stock is defined here as being in the bottom 40% of all rental stock (in terms of weekly rent) in each of the three cities. The 40th percentile was taken as it approximates the same percentage of all households that is equivalent to the bottom income quintile of employed low income private renters that has been used throughout this report to define a low income working household (see Tables 4.4 to 4.6)8. Finally, Sections 7.4 and 7.5 examine both the ‘very low’ cost private rental stock and the ‘low’ cost rental stock at the postcode level. The total numbers of very low cost and low cost dwellings identified for each of the three cities is shown in Table 7.1, together with the total number of private rented dwellings. Table 7.1: The number of very low cost and low cost private rental stock in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, 2001 Very low cost rental Low cost rental All private rental dwellings dwellings dwellings Sydney 47,907 136,498 312,331 Melbourne 33,936 94,469 224,212 Adelaide 9,846 29,091 65,538

7.2 An analysis of very low cost private rental stock – LGA level Of the 312,331 private rented dwellings in Sydney in 2001, 47,907 were identified as very low cost for the purposes of this study (i.e. where the rent was approximately at or below the 15th percentile of all rents). Three local government areas had significantly higher numbers of very low cost private rental dwellings than other LGAs (Table 7.2 and Figure 7.1). These three included Fairfield (4,399), Wyong (4,266) and Canterbury (4,073). As a proportion of all the private rental stock in an LGA, Wyong and Fairfield had the highest proportions of very low cost stock (45% and 43% respectively) (Figure 7.2). Canterbury LGA had the fourth highest proportion. Although Wollondilly on Sydney’s south-western fringe has low numbers of private rental stock, a large proportion is of very low cost (39%). All LGAs in Sydney with high numbers of very low cost private rental stock were located in the inner west and western parts of the metropolitan area. In Melbourne, 33,936 privately rented dwellings out of a total of 224,212 were identified as being very low cost. Greater Dandenong had the highest number of very low cost private rental dwellings (3,103) (Table 7.2 and Figure 7.3). This was followed by Darebin (2,642), Moreland (2,346) and Maribyrnong (1,966). Maribyrnong and Greater Dandenong also had the highest proportion of their stock in the very low cost range (35% and 34% respectively) (Figure 7.4), and these two were the only LGAs in Melbourne, which had more than 30% of their stock in the very low cost range. Conversely, Sydney had six LGAs where more than 30% of their stock that was classified as very low cost stock. In Melbourne the LGAs with the

8 In practice, the actual figures used to define the low income stock varied slightly above the 40% threshold due to the data boundaries used by the ABS. The actual figures were 43.7% for Sydney, 42.1% for Melbourne and 44.3% for Adelaide. 61 largest number of very low cost private rental stock were located in the south-east and western parts of the city. Of the 65,538 private rental dwellings in Adelaide, 9,846 were classified as having very low rents. West Torrens – East had the largest number of very low cost private rental dwellings in Adelaide (780) (Table 7.2 and Figure 7.5). This was followed by West Torrens – West (597) and Port Adelaide Enfield – Port (543). Port Adelaide Enfield – Port had the highest proportion of very low rent stock (39%) (Figure 7.6). This was the only SLA in which 30% or more of the private rental stock was very low cost. This was followed by West Torrens- West (27%) and Port Adelaide Enfield – Inner (25%). Generally speaking the very low cost private rental stock in Adelaide is concentrated in the west and north of the metropolitan area. Table 7.2: The location of the very low cost private rental stock in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide (LGAs/SLAs with the top ten numbers and proportion), 2001 Number of Dwellings Proportion of an area’s stock Classified as Very Low classified as very low cost Cost Private Rental Stock private rental stock Sydney Fairfield 4,399 Wyong 45% Wyong 4,266 Fairfield 43% Canterbury 4,073 Wollondilly 39% Gosford 2,949 Canterbury 34% Penrith 2,873 Blue Mountains 33% Blacktown 2,600 Campbelltown 32% Liverpool 2,506 Liverpool 29% Campbelltown 2,235 Hawkesbury 29% Marrickville 2,083 Penrith 28% Parramatta 1,618 Gosford 28% Melbourne Greater Dandenong 3,103 Maribyrnong 35% Darebin 2,642 Greater Dandenong 34% Moreland 2,346 Mornington Peninsula 28% Maribyrnong 1,966 Brimbank 25% Glen Eira 1,850 Frankston 24% Mornington Peninsula 1,799 Yarra Ranges 24% Kingston 1,765 Cardinia 23% Port Phillip 1,662 Darebin 23% Frankston 1,651 Kingston 20% Brimbank 1,614 Moreland 19% Adelaide West Torrens - East 780 Port Adel. Enfield - Port 39% West Torrens - West 597 West Torrens - West 27% Port Adel. Enfield - Port 543 Port Adel. Enfield - Inner 25% Holdfast Bay - North 368 West Torrens - East 25% Port Adel. Enfield - East 353 Salisbury - Central 23% Charles Sturt - Coastal 333 Playford - West 22% Port Adel. Enfield - Inner 332 Charles Sturt - Inner West 21% Charles Sturt - North-East 319 Adelaide Hills - Ranges 20% Salisbury - Central 317 Port Adel. Enfield - Coast 20% Port Adel. Enfield - Coast 306 Charles Sturt - Inner East 19%

62 Figure 7.1: The location of very low cost private rental stock in Sydney LGAs in 2001

63 Figure 7.2: The proportion of private rental stock in each LGA which is very low cost in Sydney in 2001

64 Figure 7.3: The location of very low cost private rental stock in Melbourne LGAs in 2001

65 Figure 7.4: The proportion of private rental stock in each LGA which is very low cost in Melbourne in 2001

66 Figure 7.5: The location of very low cost private rental stock in Adelaide SLAs in 2001

67 Figure 7.6: The proportion of the private rental stock in each SLA which is very low cost in Adelaide in 2001

68 7.3 An analysis of low cost private rental stock – LGA level This section presents an analysis of the low cost private rental stock in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, i.e. dwellings with in lowest 40% in terms of cost. The figures presented here are generally reflective of the results presented above (section 7.2). Overall, Sydney (136,498) had the greatest number of low cost private rental dwellings, followed by Melbourne (94,469) and Adelaide (29,091). However, there are significant concentrations of this stock. In fact, 13 LGAs in Sydney recorded over 60% of the private rental stock as being low or very low cost. This compares to nine LGAs in Melbourne and six SLAs in Adelaide. This suggests a higher degree of polarisation in the lower cost rental market in Sydney and Melbourne compared with Adelaide. In Sydney, Blacktown LGA has the largest number of low cost private rental dwellings (9,772) (Table 7.3 and Figure 7.7). This is followed by Canterbury (8,551), Wyong (8,385) and Fairfield (8,351), all of which have a large number of very low cost private rental stock. Interestingly, Canterbury, Fairfield and Wyong all have a significant proportion of low cost stock as a well as very low cost stock whereas Blacktown has much less very low cost private rental dwellings (see above) (Figure 7.8). Further, although Campbelltown has 6,259 low cost private rental dwellings, this is 89% of all the private rental stock in Campbelltown. This is the highest proportion of any LGA in Sydney. This is followed by Wyong (87%), Wollondilly (87%) and Fairfield (82%). Most of the low cost private rental stock in Sydney is concentrated in the western suburbs of Sydney and in the Central Coast to the north (Gosford and Wyong LGAs). There are few low cost private rental dwellings in the inner city and northern suburbs of Sydney. In Melbourne, Greater Dandenong has the largest number of low cost private rental dwellings (7,265) (Table 7.3 and Figure 7.9). There is also a large gap to the next largest LGAs – Darebin (6,230) and Moreland (5,996). Greater Dandenong also has the highest proportion of low cost private rental stock in Melbourne (80%) (Figure 7.10). This is followed by Cardinia (73%) and Melton (72%). Generally speaking the largest numbers of low cost private rental stock in Melbourne are located in the south east and western suburbs of the city and to the immediate north of the centre (e.g. Darebin). A significant amount of the low cost private rental stock in Adelaide is concentrated in the north and western parts of the metropolitan area, similar to the very low cost stock (Table 7.3 and Figure 7.11). West Torrens – East and West Torrens – West have the highest number of these dwellings (1,709 and 1,197 respectively), followed by Playford – Elizabeth (1,154) and Holdfast Bay – North (1,115). However, as a proportion of total private rental stock, Playford – Elizabeth and Playford – West Central have the largest proportions of low cost stock (83% and 80% respectively) (Figure 7.12). There is then a large gap to Port Adelaide Enfield – Port (68%) and Salisbury – Central (62%).

7.4 Summary This above analysis indicates the following: Sydney had the by far the largest low and very low cost rental stock of the three cities. The proportion of the total rental stock that was classified as low cost reached a higher percentage in some Sydney LGAs compared to Melbourne or Adelaide. The very low cost stock is likely to be numerically concentrated in a more limited number of districts in all three cities. These tend to be either nearer the city centre compared to the low cost stock, or in more distant suburban locations on the metropolitan periphery, such as Wyong in Sydney, the Mornington Peninsula in Melbourne or Playford in Adelaide. The low cost stock is more likely to be concentrated in the outer metropolitan areas than the very low cost stock, and forms a higher proportion of the rental stock in outer districts.

69 Table 7.3: The location of the low cost private rental stock in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide (LGAs/SLAs with the top ten numbers and proportion), 2001 Proportion of an Number of Dwellings area’s stock Classified as Low Cost classified as low Private Rental Stock cost private rental stock Sydney Blacktown 9,772 Campbelltown 89% Canterbury 8,551 Wyong 87% Wyong 8,385 Wollondilly 87% Fairfield 8,351 Fairfield 82% Penrith 8,135 Hawkesbury 80% Gosford 7,820 Penrith 80% Parramatta 6,468 Blue Mountains 79% Campbelltown 6,259 Gosford 74% Liverpool 5,862 Blacktown 74% Marrickville 5,309 Canterbury 71% Melbourne Greater Dandenong 7,265 Greater Dandenong 80% Darebin 6,230 Cardinia 73% Moreland 5,996 Melton 72% Frankston 4,683 Frankston 69% Glen Eira 4,615 Mornington Peninsula 69% Port Phillip 4,592 Brimbank 65% Kingston 4,472 Yarra Ranges 62% Mornington Peninsula 4,418 Maribyrnong 62% Brimbank 4,242 Wyndham 60% Casey 3,627 Darebin 53% Adelaide West Torrens - East 1,709 Playford - Elizabeth 83% West Torrens - West 1,197 Playford - West Central 80% Playford - Elizabeth 1,154 Port Adel. Enfield - Port 68% Holdfast Bay - North 1,115 Salisbury - Central 62% Port Adel. Enfield - East 1,001 Onkaparinga - North Coast 61% Port Adel. Enfield - Port 954 Playford - West 60% Norw. P'ham St Ptrs - West 915 Gawler 56% Charles Sturt - Coastal 894 Port Adel. Enfield - Inner 56% Salisbury - Central 861 West Torrens - East 54% Charles Sturt - North-East 860 West Torrens - West 54%

70 Figure 7.7: The location of low cost private rental stock in Sydney in 2001

71 Figure 7.8: The proportion of private rental stock in each LGA which is low cost stock in Sydney in 2001

72 Figure 7.9 The location of low cost private rental stock in Melbourne in 2001

73 Figure 7.10: The proportion of private rental stock in each LGA which is low cost stock in Melbourne in 2001

74 Figure 7.11: The location of low cost private rental stock in Adelaide in 2001

75 Figure 7.12: The proportion of private rental stock in each SLA which is low cost stock in Adelaide in 2001

76 7.5 An analysis of very low cost private rental stock – postcode level The postcode analysis of the low cost rental stock reflects that of the LGA analysis presented above, but again confirms the more localised nature of the low cost rental sub-markets revealed in the analysis in chapter 5. In Sydney in 2001 the postcodes with the highest number of very low cost private rental dwellings were located in the west (particularly the central west), south-west and the Central Coast to the north (see Appendix 2). The postcodes with the highest number of very low cost private rental dwellings were 2166 (Cabramatta/Canley Vale) with 2,426 dwellings, postcode 2170 (Liverpool) with 2,144 dwellings and postcode 2195 (Wiley Park/Lakemba) with 1,731 dwellings (Table 7.3). There were few very low cost private rental dwellings in the inner city and northern parts of the Sydney metropolitan area. In Melbourne the very low cost private rental housing was concentrated in postcodes in the south-east, west and inner north of the metropolitan area. The postcodes with the highest concentrations of very low cost private rental dwellings were 3175 (Dandenong) with 1,621 dwellings, postcode 3163 (Carnegie/Glen Huntly/Murrumbeena) with 1,078 dwellings and postcode 3199 (Frankston) with 1,029 dwellings. There are relatively few very low cost private rental dwellings in Melbourne in the east and middle-outer northern suburbs of the city. In Adelaide the very low cost private rental housing is concentrated to the west of the CBD and in the north of the city. In 2001 the postcodes with the highest number of very low cost private rental dwellings were 5038 (Camden Park/Plympton) with 433 dwellings, 5108 (Salisbury) with 351 dwellings and postcode 5032 (Brooklyn Park/Lockleys/Underdale) with 314 dwellings. The concentration of very low cost private rental housing in Adelaide seems to be more dispersed than that of Melbourne or Sydney, although there are few very low cost private rental dwellings in the outer east and southern areas of the city. This section has not detailed the proportions of very low cost rental stock in each of the postcodes in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. This is because the proportions become skewed in the outer fringe postcode areas in each of the three cities (see Appendix 2). That is, in the outer fringe areas there are numerically few private rental dwellings and therefore that stock which is classified as very low cost tends to be a significant proportion of the private rental stock, even though they are few in number. Thus any proportional analysis shows that there are higher concentrations of very low cost private rental housing on the fringes of the three cities, however, there is nowhere as much stock in absolute terms as in other postcode areas. This also applies to section 7.6 below.

77 Table 7.4: The location of the very low cost private rental stock in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide (postcodes with the top ten numbers), 2001 Number of Dwellings Suburb(s) Classified as Very Low Cost Private Rental Stock Sydney 2166 Cabramatta, Cabramatta West, Canley Heights, Canley Vale, 2,426 Casula, Chipping Norton, Hammondville, Liverpool, Liverpool South, 2170 2,144 Lurnea, Moorebank, Mount Pritchard, Prestons, Warwick Farm 2195 Lakemba, Wiley Park 1,731

Bateau Bay, Berkeley Vale, Blue Bay, Chittaway Bay, Chittaway 2261 Point, Gleening Valley, Killarney Vale, Long Jetty, Shelly Beach, The 1,456 Entrance, Tumbi Umbi

Airds, Ambarvale, Appin, Blair Athol, Bradbury, Campbelltown, 2560 Englorie Park, Gilead, Glen Alpine, Leumeah, Rosemeadow, Ruse, 1,188 St Helens Park, Woodbine

2165 Fairfield, Fairfield East, Fairfield Heights, Fairfield West 1,180 Bidwill, Blackett, Dharruk, Emerton, Lethbridge Park, Minchinbury, 2770 1,110 Mount Druitt, Shalvey, Tregear, Whalan, Willmot 2263 Charmhaven, Gorokan Lake, Lake Haven, Norah Head, Toukley 1,056 Gwandalan, Kanwal, Lake Munmorah, Mannering Park, Rocky 2259 1,028 Point, South Tacoma, Summerland Point, Tacoma, Tuggerah 2750 Emu Heights, Emu Plains, Jamisontown, Leonay, Penrith, Penrith 1,028 Melbourne Bangholme, Dandenong, Dandenong East, Dandenong North, 3175 1,621 Dandenong South, Dunearn 3163 Carnegie, Glen Huntly, Murrumbeena 1,078 3199 Frankston, Frankston East, Frankston Heights, Frankston South, 1,029 3174 Noble Park, Noble Park East, Noble Park North 846 3011 Footscray, Seddon, Seddon West 826 3020 Albion, Glengala, Sunshine, Sunshine North, Sunshine West 822 Brooklyn, Kingsville, Kingsville West, Maidstone, Tottenham, West 3012 764 Footscray 3071 Thornbury 751 3056 Brunswick, Brunswick Lower, Brunswick North 638 3182 St Kilda, St Kilda South, St Kilda West 619 Adelaide 5038 Camden Park, Plympton, Plympton Park, South Plympton 433 5108 Paralowie, Salisbury, Salisbury Downs, Salisbury North 351 5032 Brooklyn Park, Lockleys, Underdale 314 5045 Glenelg, Glenelg East, Glenelg North, Glenelg South 299 5023 Findon, Seaton, Seaton North 245 5037 Glandore, Kurralta Park, Netley, North Plympton 243 5014 Albert Park, Alberton, Cheltenham, Hendon, Queenstown, Royal 235 Felixstow, Firle, Glynde, Joslin, Marden, Payneham, Payneham 5070 229 South, Royston Park 5082 Fitzroy, Ovingham, Prospect, Prospect East, Prospect West, 222 5033 Cowandilla, Hilton Plaza, Marleston, Richmond, West Richmond 218

78

7.6 An analysis of low cost private rental stock – postcode level The results presented above in section 7.5 are similar to those presented in this section. This is not surprising given that the low cost stock also includes the very low cost private rental stock. In 2001, the low cost rental stock in Sydney is concentrated in the west, south west and Central Coast of the metropolitan area. There is a particularly high concentration of low cost private rental dwellings in the central west (see Appendix 2). In 2001, the postcode areas with the highest number of low cost private rental dwellings were 2170 (Liverpool) with 4,611 dwellings, 2166 (Cabramatta/Canley Vale) with 3,428 dwellings and postcode 2560 (Campbelltown) with 3,156 dwellings (Table 7.4). This was closely followed by two postcode areas on the Central Coast (2261 and 2250). In Melbourne, as noted above, the largest concentrations of low cost private rental housing are in the south east, west and inner northern areas of the city. In 2001 the postcode areas with the largest number of low cost private rental housing were 3175 (Dandenong) with 3,240 dwellings, 3163 (Carnegie/Glen Huntly/Murrumbeena) with 2,531 dwellings, and postcode 3199 (Frankston) with 2,513 dwellings. This is closely followed by postcode 3174 (Noble Park) in the south east and 3073 (Reservoir) in the inner north of the metropolitan area. In Adelaide, the largest number of low cost private rental housing is located in the north and western parts of the metropolitan area. In 2001 postcode 5108 (Salisbury) had the highest number of low cost private rental housing with 1215 dwellings. This was significantly higher than the next two highest areas – 5113 (Elizabeth Downs/Elizabeth North/Elizabeth West) with 971 dwellings and postcode 5045 (Glenelg) with 942 low cost private rental dwellings. This was followed by 5038 (Camden Park/Plympton) with 828 dwellings and 5070 (Payneham) with 679 dwellings. Table 7.5: The location of the low cost private rental stock in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide (postcodes with the top ten numbers), 2001 Number of Dwellings Suburb(s) Classified as Low Cost Private Rental Stock Sydney Casula, Chipping Norton, Hammondville, Liverpool, Liverpool South, 2170 4,611 Lurnea, Moorebank, Mount Pritchard, Prestons, Warwick Farm Cabramatta, Cabramatta West, Canley Heights, Canley Vale, 2166 3,428 Lansvale Airds, Ambarvale, Appin, Blair Athol, Bradbury, Campbelltown, 2560 Englorie Park, Gilead, Glen Alpine, Leumeah, Rosemeadow, Ruse, 3,156 St Helens Park, Woodbine

Bateau Bay, Berkeley Vale, Blue Bay, Chittaway Bay, Chittaway 2261 Point, Gleening Valley, Killarney Vale, Long Jetty, Shelly Beach, The 3,010 Entrance, Tumbi Umbi

Calga, East Gosford, Erina, Gosford, Gosford South, Gosford West, 2250 Lisarow, Mangrove Mountain, Mooney Mooney, Mount White, 2,991 Narara, North Gosford

2195 Lakemba, Wiley Park 2,817 2148 Blacktown, Huntingwood, Kings Park, Marayong, Prospect 2,787 2150 Harris Park, Parramatta 2,735 Emu Heights, Emu Plains, Jamisontown, Leonay, Penrith, Penrith 2750 2,617 South Girraween, Greystanes, Mays Hill, Pendle Hill, Wentworthville, 2145 2,583 Westmead

79 Number of Dwellings Suburb(s) Classified as Low Cost Private Rental Stock Melbourne Bangholme, Dandenong, Dandenong East, Dandenong North, 3175 3,240 Dandenong South, Dunearn 3163 Carnegie, Glen Huntly, Murrumbeena 2,531 Frankston, Frankston East, Frankston Heights, Frankston South, 3199 2,513 Karingal 3174 Noble Park, Noble Park East, Noble Park North 2,168 Keon Park, Reservoir, Reservoir East, Reservoir North, Reservoir 3073 2,044 South 3021 Albanvale, Keabla, Kings Park, St Albans 1,791 3020 Albion, Glengala, Sunshine, Sunshine North, Sunshine West 1,629 3182 St Kilda, St Kilda South, St Kilda West 1,559 3056 Brunswick, Brunswick Lower, Brunswick North 1,382 3071 Thornbury 1,371 Adelaide 5108 Paralowie, Salisbury, Salisbury Downs, Salisbury North 1,215 Davoren Park, Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, 5113 971 Elizabeth West 5045 Glenelg, Glenelg East, Glenelg North, Glenelg South 942 5038 Camden Park, Plympton, Plympton Park, South Plympton 828 Felixstow, Firle, Glynde, Joslin, Marden, Payneham, Payneham 5070 679 South, Royston Park 5032 Brooklyn Park, Lockleys, Underdale 649 5112 Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth South, Hillbank 647 5162 Morphett Vale, Woodcroft 621 Fitzroy, Ovingham, Prospect, Prospect East, Prospect West, 5082 553 Thorngate 5022 Grange, Henley Beach, Henley Beach South, Kirkcaldy, Tennyson 541

80 8 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOW INCOME PRIVATE RENTERS AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE

In this section the relationship between Commonwealth Rent Assistance, public housing waiting lists and low income private renters in 2001 is examined. In particular, the correlation between these three variables is analysed, together with the location of the low cost private rental stock. This chapter therefore addresses the third substantive research question, namely whether the spatial concentration of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (RA) recipients and households on the public housing waiting list are more or less concentrated than the spatial distribution of lower income private renters who are in employment. The primary form of housing assistance for tenants in the private rented sector is Commonwealth Rent Assistance. This form of assistance is paid to benefits and pensions recipients only. While this includes some lower income working households with children, the majority of working households who rent privately are unlikely to qualify for this form of assistance. It is also well understood that the majority of waiting list applicants live in private rental housing. Eligibility rules now more or less exclude all low income working households from accessing this second form of housing assistance. It is instructive to see how far low income households who rent privately are associated with RA recipients and those on the waiting list for public housing assistance in order to judge how far these three groups share similar housing markets, or whether the market in effect segregates these into distinctive demand segments. The final component of this section also examines whether the concentration of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients has changed between March 2000 and March 2005 (the longest time series available). Before this we begin with an analysis of Commonwealth Rent Assistance payments in 2001.

8.1 Commonwealth Rent Assistance in 2001 In 2001, there were just over 54,000 recipients of Commonwealth Rent Assistance payments in Adelaide, 155,000 in Melbourne and 189,000 in Sydney9 (Tables 8.1 to 8.3). In Adelaide, 38 per cent of recipients were from 20 postcode areas. In Melbourne and Sydney, 29 per cent and 34 per cent of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients lived in 20 postcode areas. In total just over $26 million was paid in Commonwealth Rent Assistance payments per fortnight to recipients in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney in 2001. This $26 million was made up of $3 million in Adelaide, $10 million in Melbourne and $13 million in Sydney. In Adelaide, there were 7 postcode areas in 2001 that contained over 1,000 Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients (Figure 8.5). Postcode 5108 (around Salisbury) contained the largest number of recipients at 2,190. Of these seven postcode areas, 4 were concentrated in the far north of Adelaide CBD, while the other 3 were to the immediate north, south west and far south of the CBD. In comparison with Adelaide, Melbourne contained 45 postcode areas in which there were over 1,000 Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2001 (Figure 8.4). In fact, there were 9 postcode areas in which there were over 2,000 recipients. The highest number of recipients was concentrated in postcode 3175 (around Dandenong) of which there were 4,520 recipients in 2001. The postcode areas of which there were over 1,000 recipients were geographically spread across the Melbourne metropolitan area. Those areas with over 2,000 recipients were concentrated in Brimbank to the west of Melbourne CBD, north of the CBD around Darebin, and Dandenong and Mornington Peninsula in the south-east. In contrast to both Melbourne and Adelaide, Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Sydney are concentrated in a large number of postcode areas. While this may be related to the populations of postcode areas in Sydney, in 2001, 57 postcode areas in Sydney each contained over 1,000 Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients (Figure 8.3). However, there were also 24 postcode areas in Sydney with over 2,000 recipients and 2 areas in which there were over 5,000 recipients. Postcode 2166 (around Cabramatta) had the highest

9 These figures exclude postcode areas for which there are less than 20 recipients. This included 11 postcode areas in Adelaide, 18 in Melbourne and 5 in Sydney. 81 number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2001 with no less than 5,859 recipients. The postcode areas with over 1,000 recipients were geographically spread across Sydney, although there were none to the immediate north of the Sydney CBD. The highest number of recipients in Sydney were located in the south-west (Fairfield-Liverpool- Campbelltown), west (Parramatta to Penrith) and Gosford and Wyong in the north. The distribution of the amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance paid to recipients on a fortnightly basis was also different in Sydney compared to both Melbourne and Adelaide (Figures 8.6 to 8.8). To begin with, average RA in Sydney was generally higher, reflecting the generally higher rent levels here. However, the highest amount of assistance per recipient in Melbourne and Adelaide was found in areas located on the fringe postcodes. In contrast, while there were fringe areas in Sydney where per recipient payments were high, areas of high average payments were found across the city in both the middle and inner suburbs. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the average amounts paid do not vary greatly between the three cities. For example, average payments per suburb range from $62 to $76 in Sydney, $59 to $69 in Melbourne and $54 to $72 in Adelaide. This finding also holds within each city, as shown in Figures 8.6 to 8.8. The flat rate nature of Commonwealth Rent Assistance means that recipients receive broadly similar amount regardless of location. This detailed spatial analysis therefore might reflect what some have regarded to be a shortcoming of the Commonwealth Rent Assistance system, namely the failure to compensate for rent differentials across and between regions.

82 Table 8.1: Number of Commonwealth Rent AssistanceCommonwealth Commonwealth Rent Assistance Recipients, 2001 – Top 20 Postcodes in Sydney Total Total Total Amount Fortnightly Number of of CRA per Postcode Suburb(s) Amount of CRA Fortnight per CRA Recipients Recipient Cabramatta, Cabramatta West, Canley Heights, Canley 2166 $364,164 5,859 $62.15 Vale, Lansvale Casula, Chipping Norton, Hammondville, Liverpool, 2170 Liverpool South, Lurnea, Moorebank, Mount Pritchard, $368,433 5,388 $68.38 Prestons, Warwick Farm Bateau Bay, Berkeley Vale, Blue Bay, Chittaway Bay, 2261 Chittaway Point, Gleening Valley, Killarney Vale, Long $273,045 3,907 $69.89 Jetty, Shelly Beach, The Entrance, Tumbi Umbi 2165 Fairfield, Fairfield East, Fairfield Heights, Fairfield West $253,030 3,789 $66.78 Gwandalan, Kanwal, Lake Munmorah, Mannering Park, 2259 Rocky Point, South Tacoma, Summerland Point, Tacoma, $233,383 3,776 $61.81 Tuggerah Calga, Central Mangrove, East Gosford, Erina, Gosford, Gosford South, Gosford West, Lisarow, Mangrove 2250 $235,278 3,584 $65.65 Mountain, Mooney Mooney, Mount White, Narara, Niagara Park, North Gosford Girraween, Greystanes, Mays Hill, Pendle Hill, South 2145 $224,511 3,202 $70.12 Wentworthville, Wentworthville, Westmead Bidwill, Blackett, Dharruk, Emerton, Lethbridge Park, 2770 Minchinbury, Mount Druitt, Shalvey, Tregear, Whalan, $215,491 3,189 $67.57 Willmot Airds, Ambarvale, Appin, Blair Athol, Bradbury, 2560 Campbelltown, Englorie Park, Gilead, Glen Alpine, $217,878 3,181 $68.49 Leumeah, Rosemeadow, Ruse, St Helens Park, Woodbine 2200 Bankstown, Bankstown North, Condell Park, Mount Lewis $211,757 2,970 $71.30 Arndell Park, Blacktown, Huntingwood, Kings Park, 2148 $199,704 2,933 $68.09 Marayong, Prospect 2195 Lakemba, Wiley Park $221,581 2,930 $75.62 2144 Auburn, Auburn South $199,377 2,831 $70.43 Box Head, Daleys Point, Empire Bay, Ettalong Beach, 2257 Hardys Bay, Killcare, Pretty Beach, Umina Beach, $173,046 2,486 $69.61 Wagstaffe Charmhaven, Gorokan Lake, Lake Haven, Norah Head, 2263 $162,073 2,383 $68.01 Toukley Emu Heights, Emu Plains, Jamisontown, Leonay, Penrith, 2750 $154,484 2,353 $65.65 Penrith South 2204 Marrickville, Marrickville South $153,474 2,257 $68.00 2010 Darlinghurst, Surry Hills, Taylor Square $151,064 2,226 $67.86 2194 Campsie $159,707 2,214 $72.14 Abbotsbury, Bossley Park, Edensor Park, Greenfield Park, 2176 $138,923 2,182 $63.67 Prairiewood, St Johns Park, Wakeley Total $4,310,403 63,640 $68.06 Sydney $12,765,179 188,707 $67.09

Note: Excludes 5 postcode areas where the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients was less than 20. Fortnightly amounts of Commonwealth Rent Assistance have been rounded.

Source: Centrelink Data 2001

83 Table 8.2: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance Recipients, 2001 – Top 20 Postcodes in Melbourne Total Amount Total Number Total Fortnightly of CRA per Postcode Suburb(s) of CRA Amount of CRA Fortnight per Recipients Recipient Bangholme, Dandenong, Dandenong East, 3175 Dandenong North, Dandenong South, $289,007 4,520 $63.94 Dunearn 3021 Albanvale, Kealba, Kings Park, St Albans $211,276 3,324 $63.56 Frankston, Frankston East, Frankston 3199 $219,435 3,300 $66.50 Heights, Frankston South, Karingal Keon Park, Reservoir, Reservoir East, 3073 $208,876 3,113 $67.10 Reservoir North, Reservoir South Noble Park, Noble Park East, Noble Park 3174 $181,545 2,769 $65.56 North 3182 St Kilda, St Kilda South, St Kilda West $175,314 2,671 $65.64 Albion, Glengala, Sunshine, Sunshine 3020 $165,419 2,638 $62.71 North, Sunshine West Brunswick, Brunswick Lower, Brunswick 3056 $135,296 2,124 $63.70 North Gilberton, Preston, Preston Lower, Preston 3072 South, Preston West, Regent West, $133,919 2,106 $63.59 Sylvester 3171 Sandown Village, Springvale $114,425 1,922 $59.53 3011 Footscray, Seddon, Seddon West $115,314 1,865 $61.83 Chartwell, Cocoroc, Derrimut, Point Cook, 3030 $123,938 1,842 $67.28 Quandong, Werribee, Werribee South Batman, Coburg, Coburg North, Merlynston, 3058 $118,583 1,832 $64.73 Moreland 3046 Glenroy, Hadfield, Oak Park $119,272 1,768 $67.46 Cranbourne, Cranbourne East, Cranbourne 3977 North, Cranbourne South, Cranbourne $119,784 1,765 $67.87 West, Devon Meadows, Five Ways, Skye 3163 Carnegie, Glen Huntly, Murrumbeena $118,924 1,732 $68.66 3183 Balaclava, St Kilda East $112,534 1,653 $68.08 Brooklyn, Kingsville, Kingsville West, 3012 $101,140 1,602 $63.13 Maidstone, Tottenham, West Footscray Croydon, Croydon Hills, Croydon North, 3136 $109,721 1,585 $69.22 Croydon South Bonbeach, Chelsea, Chelsea Heights, 3196 $94,263 1,450 $65.01 Edithvale Total $2,967,985 45,581 $65.26 Melbourne $10,030,008 155,033 $64.65

Note: Excludes 18 postcode areas where the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients was less than 20. Fortnightly amounts of Commonwealth Rent Assistance have been rounded.

Source: Centrelink data 2001

84 Table 8.3: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance Recipients, 2001 – Top 20 Postcodes in Adelaide Total Amount Total Number Total Fortnightly of CRA per Postcode Suburb(s) of CRA Amount of CRA Fortnight per Recipients Recipient Paralowie, Salisbury, Salisbury Downs, 5108 $100,000 2,190 $67.67 Salisbury North 5162 Morphett Vale, Woodcroft $100,000 1,599 $67.14 Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South, Elizabeth Downs, 5113 $98,004 1,476 $66.40 Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, Elizabeth West Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, 5112 $74,027 1,182 $62.63 Elizabeth South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank Glenelg, Glenelg East, Glenelg North, 5045 $74,648 1,155 $64.63 Glenelg South Gilles Plains, Greenacres, Hampstead 5086 $77,528 1,113 $69.66 Gardens, Hillcrest, Manningham, Oakden Andrews Farm, Blakeview, Craigmore, Gould Creek, Humbug Scrub, One Tree Hill, 5114 $70,952 1,024 $69.29 Sampson Flat, Smithfield, Smithfield Plains, Smithfield West, Uleybury, Yattalunga Brahma Lodge, Salisbury East, Salisbury 5109 $63,702 975 $65.34 Heights, Salisbury Park, Salisbury Plain Camden Park, Plympton, Plympton Park, 5038 $62,415 937 $66.61 South Plympton Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Park, 5043 $57,145 928 $61.58 Morphettville, Park Holme Adelaide, Adelaide BC, Halifax St, Hutt St, 5000 $48,052 889 $54.05 Sturt St Fitzroy, Ovingham, Prospect, Prospect East, 5082 $59,211 885 $66.91 Prospect West, Thorngate Brighton, Dover Gardens, Hove, North 5048 $62,860 875 $71.84 Brighton, South Brighton Felixstow, Firle, Glynde, Joslin, Marden, 5070 $49,875 871 $57.26 Payneham, Payneham South, Royston Park 5032 Brooklyn Park, Lockleys, Underdale $49,649 809 $61.37 Aberfoyle Park, Chandlers Hill, Flagstaff Hill, 5159 $55,950 806 $69.42 Fountain Valley, Happy Valley, Woodlea 5023 Findon, Seaton, Seaton North $52,642 790 $66.64 Mile End, Mile End South, Thebarton, 5031 $45,584 786 $57.99 Torrensville 5074 Campbelltown, Newtown $47,659 772 $61.73 Eastwood, Frewville, Fullarton, Highgate, 5063 $48,044 757 $63.47 Parkside Total $1,297,947 20,819 $64.58 Adelaide $3,434,826 54,232 $64.20

Note: Excludes 11 postcode areas where the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients was less than 20. Fortnightly amounts of Commonwealth Rent Assistance have been rounded. Source: Centrelink data 2001

85 Figure 8.1: The proportion of postcode areas by the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients

60%

50%

40%

Sydney 30% Melbourne Adelaide

20%

10%

0% Less than 500 501-1,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-3,000 3,001 or more

Note: Excludes postcode areas with less than 20 recipients receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance

Figure 8.2: The proportion of postcode areas by the amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance per recipient

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% Sydney Melbourne 40% Adelaide

30%

20%

10%

0% $1-$39 $40-$49 $50-$59 $60-$69 $70-$79 $80 or more

Note: Excludes postcode areas with less than 20 recipients receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance

86

Figure 8.3: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients by postcode in Sydney in 2001

87 Figure 8.4: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients by postcode in Melbourne in 2001

88 Figure 8.5: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients by postcode in Adelaide in 2001

89 Figure 8.6: Amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance per recipient in Sydney in 2001

90 Figure 8.7: Amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance per recipient in Melbourne in 2001

91 Figure 8.8: Amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance per recipient in Adelaide in 2001

92

8.2 Public housing waiting lists in 2001 The second major form of housing assistance available to lower income households is public housing. The majority of households who access public housing come from the private rental market (Burke et al 2005). There is, therefore, likely to be some relationship between those on public housing waiting lists and the lower income segments of the rental market. However, again, whether the low income working segment is closely spatially associated with those on the waiting lists, who are likely to have become increasingly dominated by non- working and benefit dependent households as a result of increased targeting of public housing over the last twenty years, has not been explored in detail. In effect this form of housing assistance has been withdrawn from the low income working population who now are expected to meet their housing needs in the private rental sector, or to buy. As we have seen, the latter option seems to be increasingly constrained, leading to greater numbers of low income working households living in private rental accommodation for long periods (Wulff and Maher 1998). A close spatial coincidence between wait list applicants and PRLIH would confirm that this group is again being excluded from the only other form of housing assistance available to low income households while others in essentially the same housing market, and who are also likely to be in receipt of RA while they wait for public housing allocation, may be assisted. The waiting list data used in this section was obtained from each of the respective State Housing Authorities for the three cities in mid-2004. The data presented in Figures 8.9 to 8.11 suggest that the largest numbers of applicants on public housing waiting lists are in areas in which there are also high numbers of PRLIHs and PRLIWHs. In Sydney, high numbers of public housing waiting list applicants can be found in the areas in the south west and western parts of the city where there were also high numbers of PRLIHs and Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients (Figure 8.9). One significant exception is in Gosford-Wyong, where despite large numbers of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients, there were relatively low numbers of waiting list applicants. This may be a function of both the more limited supply of public housing here as well as the more prevalent supply of low cost rental housing. In Melbourne the largest concentrations of public housing waiting list applicants can be found around Brimbank, Darebin, Dandenong and Mornington Peninsula (Figure 8.10). These areas also have large numbers PRLIHs and Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients. In Adelaide, the largest numbers of applicants on the public housing waiting list are located in and around Salisbury in the north and Onkaparinga in the south (Figure 8.11). Both these areas also have large numbers of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients.

8.3 The relationship between public housing waiting lists, Commonwealth Rent Assistance, low cost rental stock and PRLIHs in 2001 In order to better understand the relationship between the four sets of data analysed above (numbers of applicants on public housing waiting lists, number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients, the location of PRLIHs and the low cost private rental stock), a simple correlation analysis was undertaken for the postcode level data. Table 8.4 confirms the significant association between these four sets of data across the three cities. In Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide the correlation coefficient between PRLIHs and Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients is greater than 0.9. The correlation between the number of PRLIHs and the number of public housing applicants is 0.9 in Adelaide and 0.8 in Sydney and Melbourne. Thirdly, the correlation between the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and the number of public housing applicants is 0.9 in Adelaide and Melbourne and 0.8 in Sydney. Finally, the correlation between the location of the low cost private rental stock and the number of PRLIHs is greater than 0.9 in the three cities. This is also similar to the correlation coefficients between the low cost private rental stock and the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients. The correlation between the number of public housing applicants and the location of the low cost private rental stock is also significant at approximately 0.8 for the three cities. It is important to understand that these results do not 93 show causality. However, it is clear that there is a very strong association between the four variables at the postcode level and that the associations are statistically significant. What does this mean? Put simply, it means that all four elements of the low cost and low income housing market largely coexist in the same spatial housing sub-markets. While there are some variations, waiting list applicants, Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients and low paid working private renters all compete for housing in the same low cost rental housing market. For those in highest needs (defined increasingly by lone parenthood, medical vulnerability or disability) and for those eligible for RA, some form of housing assistance is available. For the working poor, no such assistance is available or likely to be available. Yet as noted above, the financial benefits for working for this group may be marginal once their full housing costs are taken into account, and of course there is no prospect of gaining access to subsidised public housing to lessen the rent burden. For many, this form of tenure will remain their only lifetime option as will be the locations in which their housing is concentrated. Table 8.4: Correlation coefficients of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients, public housing waiting lists, PRLIHs and low cost private rental dwellings in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney Number of Number of Number of Commonweal Low Cost Number of Public th Rent Private PRLIHs Housing Assistance Rental Applicants Recipients Dwellings Sydney Number of PRLIHs - 0.93* 0.78* 0.94* Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance Recipients 0.93* - 0.83* 0.94* Number of Public Housing Applicants 0.78* 0.83* - 0.79* Number of Low Cost Private Rental 0.94* 0.94* 0.79* - Dwellings Melbourne Number of PRLIHs - 0.92* 0.82* 0.96* Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance 0.92* - 0.91* 0.93* Recipients Number of Public Housing Applicants 0.82* 0.91* - 0.85* Number of Low Cost Private Rental Dwellings 0.96* 0.93* 0.85* - Adelaide Number of PRLIHs - 0.97* 0.87* 0.98* Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance Recipients 0.97* - 0.94* 0.89* Number of Public Housing Applicants 0.87* 0.94* - 0.79* Number of Low Cost Private Rental Dwellings 0.98* 0.89* 0.79* -

* Correlation is significant at 0.01 level

Note: Public housing waiting list data for Adelaide is at June 2003, while Commonwealth Rent Assistance data is for 2001. Public housing waiting list data for both Melbourne and Sydney is for 2001. Number of PRLIHs and low cost private rental dwellings is for 2001.

94

Figure 8.9: Number of applicants on the public housing waiting list by postcode in Sydney in June 2003

95 Figure 8.10: Number of applicants on the public housing waiting list by postcode in Melbourne in 2001

96 Figure 8.11: Number of applicants on the public housing waiting list by postcode in Adelaide in 2003

97

8.4 The changing location of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 We have seen that there has been a marked spatial shift in the relative and absolute location of the PRLIH population in the three cities between 1991 and 2001, with the principle outcome being a suburbanisation of the sector. And the close association between this population and Commonwealth Rent Assistance (RA) recipients has also been established. Has the shift in the PRLIH sector been associated with comparable changes in the location of RA recipients? This section reviews RA data for 2000 and 2005, the only time scale available for the analysis of these data, to see if any similar locational changes can be detected. While obviously not strictly comparable to the 1991 to 2001 period used in chapter 6, if there have been changes of a similar nature then they are likely to be reflected in trends during the 2000 to 2005 period. Indeed, given the state of the residential property market during this period, such trends may even have accelerated. The changes are to some extent related to the overall decline in RA recipients in Sydney and Melbourne, following the general fall in unemployment over this period, although it is noticeable that numbers of RA recipients rose in Adelaide. The trends will also be influenced by an increase in the number of families receiving CRA since 200010. Nevertheless, within each city, there has been a marked and consistent shift in the location of recipients.

8.4.1 Absolute changes in the distribution of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 In 2000, there were 37,229 Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) recipients in the ten postcode areas containing the largest number of recipients in Sydney (Table 8.5). This represented 20% of all CRA recipients in Sydney in 2000. The five postcode areas with the largest number of CRA recipients were 2166 (Cabramatta/Canley Vale), 2170 (Liverpool), 2261 (The Entrance/Bateau Bay), 2165 (Fairfield) and 2259 (Tuggerah/Lake Munmorah). In 2005 these same postcode areas also had the largest number of CRA recipients, although the order had changed (Table 8.5). In 2005 the five postcode areas with the largest number of CRA recipients were 2170, 2166, 2259, 2165 and 2261. Interestingly though, the ten postcode areas with the largest number of CRA recipients in 2005 in Sydney contained 38,315 recipients. This represents 21% of all CRA recipients in Sydney at this time, suggesting a marginally increased concentration in these ten areas. At the same time, there has been a noticeable shift in the location of CRA recipients (Table 8.8 and Figure 8.12). The postcode areas with the largest increases in the number of CRA recipients between 2000 and 2005 were located in south west Sydney, western Sydney and in Gosford and Wyong on the Central Coast. These areas included middle ring areas of disadvantage as well as newer housing areas on the fringe of Sydney where new residential development has been associated with the investment market. For example, Randolph and Holloway (2003) found that some 17% of dwellings in the most recent new suburbs in Western Sydney were privately rented in 2001. At the same time, there were significant decreases in the number of CRA recipients in the gentrifying inner city, Cabramatta in Sydney’s west, and in the rural residential area on the edge of the new release areas in Liverpool (postcode 2171). The latter may be an outcome of cheap rental properties being vacated prior to urban development. The loss of RA recipients in Cabramatta, is harder to explain, but may simply reflect general economic improvement over this period. In Melbourne, there were 28,652 CRA recipients in the ten postcode areas containing the largest number of recipients (Table 8.6). This represented 19% of all CRA recipients in Melbourne in 2000. The four postcode areas with the largest number of CRA recipients were 3175 (Dandenong), 3199 (Frankston), 3021 (Albanvale/St Albans), and 3073 (Reservoir). In 2005 these same four postcode areas also had the largest number of CRA recipients and in the same order as in 2000 (Table 8.6). Interestingly though, the ten postcode areas with the

10 Unpublished data, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Between 2000 and 2005 the numbers of families with children among CRA recipients increased by 21,231 or 17.3%, in the three cities. 98 largest number of CRA recipients in 2005 in Melbourne contained 27,860 recipients, slightly less than the number of recipients in 2000. Overall this still represents 19% of all Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Melbourne. Similar to Sydney, there has been a significant decrease in the number of CRA recipients between 2000 and 2005 in the gentrifying inner city and inner east of Melbourne (Table 8.8 and Figure 8.13). Conversely, there has also been an increase in the number of CRA recipients in areas on the western and south-eastern fringe areas of Melbourne. In 2000, there were 11,743 CRA recipients in the ten postcode areas containing the largest number of recipients in Adelaide (Table 8.7). This represented 22% of all CRA recipients in Adelaide in 2000. The five postcode areas with the largest number of CRA recipients in 2000 were 5108 (Salisbury), 5162 (Morphett Vale/Woodcroft), 5113 (Davoren Park/Elizabeth Park), 5045 (Glenelg) and 5086 (Greenacres/Manningham). The three postcode areas with the largest number of recipients in 2000 were again the largest in 2005, and in the same order (Table 8.7). In fact, the ten postcode areas with the largest number of CRA recipients in 2000 were the largest ten in 2005, although with different rankings. Interestingly, though unlike Sydney and Melbourne, there was an increase in the number of CRA recipients in Adelaide between 2000 and 2005. As such, the ten postcode areas with the largest number of recipients represented 24% of all CRA recipients in Adelaide in 2005. Overall there was a decrease in the number of CRA recipients in parts of inner Adelaide and the inner north-western coast, although not to the same extent as the changes in inner Sydney and Melbourne (Table 8.8 and Figure 8.14). Similar to Sydney though there was an increase in the number of CRA recipients in some of the more disadvantaged northern suburbs of Adelaide (Salisbury and Elizabeth) as well as Morphett Vale/Woodcroft in the south.

99

Table 8.5: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000 and 2005 – top 10 postcodes in Sydney Top 10 Top 10 Number of CRA Number of CRA Postcodes Suburb(s) Postcodes Suburb(s) Recipients 2000 Recipients 2005 2000 2005 Casula, Chipping Norton, Hammondville, Liverpool, Cabramatta, Cabramatta West, Canley Heights, Canley 2166 6091 2170 Liverpool South, Lurnea, Moorebank, Mount Pritchard, 5,398 Vale, Lansvale Prestons, Warwick Farm Casula, Chipping Norton, Hammondville, Liverpool, Cabramatta, Cabramatta West, Canley Heights, 2170 Liverpool South, Lurnea, Moorebank, Mount Pritchard, 5112 2166 5,057 Canley Vale, Lansvale Prestons, Warwick Farm Bateau Bay, Berkeley Vale, Blue Bay, Chittaway Bay, Gwandalan, Kanwal, Lake Munmorah, Mannering 2261 Chittaway Point, Gleening Valley, Killarney Vale, Long Jetty, 3657 2259 Park, Rocky Point, South Tacoma, Summerland Point, 4,339 Shelly Beach, The Entrance, Tumbi Umbi Tacoma, Tuggerah 2165 Fairfield, Fairfield East, Fairfield Heights, Fairfield West 3647 2165 Fairfield, Fairfield East, Fairfield Heights, Fairfield West 3,739 Gwandalan, Kanwal, Lake Munmorah, Mannering Park, Bateau Bay, Berkeley Vale, Blue Bay, Chittaway Bay, 2259 Rocky Point, South Tacoma, Summerland Point, Tacoma, 3537 2261 Chittaway Point, Gleening Valley, Killarney Vale, Long 3,660 Tuggerah Jetty, Shelly Beach, The Entrance, Tumbi Umbi Calga, Central Mangrove, East Gosford, Erina, Gosford, Calga, Central Mangrove, East Gosford, Erina, Gosford South, Gosford West, Lisarow, Mangrove Gosford, Gosford South, Gosford West, Lisarow, 2250 3451 2250 3,509 Mountain, Mooney Mooney, Mount White, Narara, Niagara Mangrove Mountain, Mooney Mooney, Mount White, Park, North Gosford Narara, Niagara Park, North Gosford Bidwill, Blackett, Dharruk, Emerton, Lethbridge Park, Girraween, Greystanes, Mays Hill, Pendle Hill, South 2770 Minchinbury, Mount Druitt, Shalvey, Tregear, Whalan, 3131 2145 3,230 Wentworthville, Wentworthville, Westmead Willmot Bidwill, Blackett, Dharruk, Emerton, Lethbridge Park, Girraween, Greystanes, Mays Hill, Pendle Hill, South 2145 2944 2770 Minchinbury, Mount Druitt, Shalvey, Tregear, Whalan, 3,175 Wentworthville, Wentworthville, Westmead Willmot Airds, Ambarvale, Appin, Blair Athol, Bradbury, Airds, Ambarvale, Appin, Blair Athol, Bradbury, Campbelltown, Englorie Park, Gilead, Glen Alpine, 2560 Campbelltown, Englorie Park, Gilead, Glen Alpine, 2879 2560 3,171 Leumeah, Rosemeadow, Ruse, St Helens Park, Leumeah, Rosemeadow, Ruse, St Helens Park, Woodbine Woodbine Arndell Park, Blacktown, Huntingwood, Kings Park, 2195 Lakemba, Wiley Park 2780 2148 3,037 Marayong, Prospect Total 37,229 Total 38,315 Sydney 182,590 Sydney 181,443

Note: Excludes 6 postcode areas in 2000 and 4 in 2005 where the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients was less than 20. Source: Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 100 Table 8.6: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000 and 2005 – top 10 postcodes in Melbourne Number of Number of Top 10 Top 10 Commonwealth Commonwealth Postcodes Suburb(s) Postcodes Suburb(s) Rent Assistance Rent Assistance 2000 2005 Recipients 2000 Recipients 2005 Bangholme, Dandenong, Dandenong East, Dandenong Bangholme, Dandenong, Dandenong East, 3175 4,436 3175 4,493 North, Dandenong South, Dunearn Dandenong North, Dandenong South, Dunearn Frankston, Frankston East, Frankston Heights, Frankston Frankston, Frankston East, Frankston Heights, 3199 3,285 3199 3,540 South, Karingal Frankston South, Karingal 3021 Albanvale, Kealba, Kings Park, St Albans 3,247 3021 Albanvale, Kealba, Kings Park, St Albans 3,312 Keon Park, Reservoir, Reservoir East, Reservoir North, Keon Park, Reservoir, Reservoir East, Reservoir 3073 3,010 3073 2,911 Reservoir South North, Reservoir South 3182 St Kilda, St Kilda South, St Kilda West 2,919 3174 Noble Park, Noble Park East, Noble Park North 2,684 Chartwell, Cocoroc, Derrimut, Point Cook, Quandong, 3174 Noble Park, Noble Park East, Noble Park North 2,761 3030 2,374 Werribee, Werribee South Albion, Glengala, Sunshine, Sunshine North, Sunshine Albion, Glengala, Sunshine, Sunshine North, 3020 2,696 3020 2,306 West Sunshine West 3056 Brunswick, Brunswick Lower, Brunswick North 2,162 3182 St Kilda, St Kilda South, St Kilda West 2,293 Cranbourne, Cranbourne East, Cranbourne North, Gilberton, Preston, Preston Lower, Preston South, Preston 3072 2,114 3977 Cranbourne South, Cranbourne West, Devon 2,074 West, Regent West, Sylvester Meadows, Five Ways, Skye Gilberton, Preston, Preston Lower, Preston South, 3011 Footscray, Seddon, Seddon West 2,022 3072 1,873 Preston West, Regent West, Sylvester Total 28,652 Total 27,860 Melbourne 153,243 Melbourne 148,450 Note: Excludes 18 postcode areas in 2000 and 14 in 2005 where the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients was less than 20.

101 Table 8.7: Number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000 and 2005 – top 10 postcodes in Adelaide Number of Number of Top 10 Top 10 Commonwealth Commonwealth Postcodes Suburb(s) Postcodes Suburb(s) Rent Assistance Rent Assistance 2000 2005 Recipients 2000 Recipients 2005 Paralowie, Salisbury, Salisbury Downs, Salisbury 5108 Paralowie, Salisbury, Salisbury Downs, Salisbury North 2,062 5108 2,275 North 5162 Morphett Vale, Woodcroft 1,545 5162 Morphett Vale, Woodcroft 1,754 Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South, Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park 5113 Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, 1,240 5113 South, Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth 1,675 Elizabeth West Park, Elizabeth West Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth 5045 1,159 5112 1,295 Glenelg, Glenelg East, Glenelg North, Glenelg South South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank Andrews Farm, Blakeview, Craigmore, Gould Creek, Gilles Plains, Greenacres, Hampstead Gardens, Hillcrest, Humbug Scrub, One Tree Hill, Sampson Flat, 5086 1,067 5114 1,132 Manningham, Oakden Smithfield, Smithfield Plains, Smithfield West, Uleybury, Yattalunga Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Gilles Plains, Greenacres, Hampstead Gardens, 5112 1,011 5086 1,117 South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank Hillcrest, Manningham, Oakden Andrews Farm, Blakeview, Craigmore, Gould Creek, 5114 Humbug Scrub, One Tree Hill, Sampson Flat, Smithfield, 954 5045 Glenelg, Glenelg East, Glenelg North, Glenelg South 1,040 Smithfield Plains, Smithfield West, Uleybury, Yattalunga Brahma Lodge, Salisbury East, Salisbury Heights, Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Park, Morphettville, Park 5109 906 5043 1,006 Salisbury Park, Salisbury Plain Holme Brahma Lodge, Salisbury East, Salisbury Heights, 5038 Camden Park, Plympton, Plympton Park, South Plympton 903 5109 928 Salisbury Park, Salisbury Plain Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Park, Morphettville, Park Camden Park, Plympton, Plympton Park, South 5043 896 5038 904 Holme Plympton Total 11,743 Total 13,126 Adelaide 52,545 Adelaide 54,875 Note: Excludes 11 postcode areas in 2000 and 13 in 2005 where the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients was less than 20.

102

Table 8.8: Change in the number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide in 2000-2005 – top 10 postcodes with the largest increases and decreases Change in Change in Number of Number of Commonw Commonwe Postcode Suburb(s) ealth Rent Postcode Suburb(s) alth Rent Assistance Assistance Recipients Recipients 2000-2005 2000-2005 Sydney Alison, Callungra, Cedar Brush Creek, Chain Valley Bay, Crangan Bay, Dooralong, Durren Durren, Frazer Park, Gwandalan, Halloran, Hamlyn Terrace, Cabramatta, Cabramatta West, Jilliby, Kanwal, Lake 2259 802 2166 Canley Heights, Canley Vale, -1034 Munmorah, Lemon Tree, Lansvale Little Jilliby, Mannering Park, Mardi, Point Wolstoncroft, Ravensdale, Rocky Point, South Tacoma, Summerland Point, Tacoma, Tuggerah, Tuggerawong Arndell Park, Blacktown, Bondi, Bondi Beach, North 2148 Huntingwood, Kings Park, 412 2026 -719 Bondi, Tamarama Marayong, Prospect Kellyville, Kellyville Ridge, 2155 355 2204 Marrickville, Marrickville South -528 Rouse Hill Darlinghurst, Surry Hills, Taylor 2160 Merrylands, Merrylands West 339 2010 -460 Square Austral, Badgerys Creek, Bringelly, Catherine Field, Cecil Currans Hill, Harrington Hills, Cecil Park, Edmondson 2567 Park, Mount Annan, 314 2171 Park, Horningsea Park, Hoxton -408 Narellan, Narellan Vale Park, Kemps Creek, Leppington, Rossmore, Voyager Point, West Hoxton Elizabeth Bay, Garden Island, Kings Cross, Potts Point, 2220 Hurstville, Hurstville Grove 312 2011 -338 Rushcutters Bay, Woolloomooloo Bankstown, Bankstown 2200 North, Condell Park, 302 2195 Lakemba, Wiley Park -316 Manahan, Mount Lewis Airds, Ambarvale, Appin, Blair Athol, Bradbury, Campbelltown, Englorie Clovelly, Clovelly West, 2560 Park, Gilead, Glen Alpine, 292 2031 -302 Randwick Leumeah, Rosemeadow, Ruse, St Helens Park, Woodbine Casula, Chipping Norton, Hammondville, Liverpool, Lewisham, Petersham, 2170 Liverpool South, Lurnea, 286 2049 -255 Petersham North Moorebank, Mount Pritchard, Prestons, Warwick Farm

103 Change in Change in Number of Number of Commonw Commonwe Postcode Suburb(s) ealth Rent Postcode Suburb(s) alth Rent Assistance Assistance Recipients Recipients 2000-2005 2000-2005 Girraween, Greystanes, Mays Hill, Pendle Hill, South 2145 286 2203 Dulwich Hill -241 Wentworthville, Wentworthville, Westmead Melbourne St Kilda, St Kilda South, St 3045 Melbourne Airport 869 3182 -626 Kilda West Calder Park, Delahey, Footscray, Seddon, Seddon 3037 Hillside, Plumpton, 644 3011 -619 West Sydenham, Taylors Hill Chartwell, Cocoroc, Derrimut, Point Cook, Albion, Glengala, Sunshine, 3030 572 3020 -390 Quandong, Werribee, Sunshine North, Sunshine West Werribee South Craigieburn, Donnybrook, 3064 Kalkallo, Mickleham, 567 3184 Brighton Road, Elwood -385 Roxburgh Park Fountain Gate, Narrewarren, Brunswick, Brunswick Lower, 3805 561 3056 -328 Narrewarren South Brunswick North Hoppers Crossing, Tarneit, 3029 516 3168 Clayton, Notting Hill -319 Truganina Burnside, Cairnlea, Caroline Batman, Coburg, Coburg North, 3023 Springs, Deer Park, Deer 470 3058 -300 Merlynston, Moreland Park North, Ravenhall Pakenham, Pakenham 3810 South, Pakenham Upper, 431 3101 Cotham, Kew -283 Rythdale Cannons Creek, Cranbourne, Cranbourne East, Cranbourne North, 3977 Cranbourne South, 427 3065 Fitzroy -282 Cranbourne West, Devon Meadows, Five Ways, Junction Village, Skye 3201 Carrum Downs 379 3183 Balaclava, St Kilda East -279 Adelaide Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South, 5113 Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth 435 5111 Edinburgh -240 North, Elizabeth Park, Elizabeth West Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Eastwood, Frewville, Fullarton, 5112 284 5063 -173 South, Elizabeth Vale, Highgate, Parkside Hillbank Evanston, Evanston Glenelg, Glenelg East, Glenelg 5116 Gardens, Evanston Park, 236 5045 Jetty Road, Glenelg North, -119 Evanston South, Hillier Glenelg South Paralowie, Salisbury, Mile End, Mile End South, 5108 Salisbury Downs, Salisbury 213 5031 -90 Thebarton, Torrensville North 104 Change in Change in Number of Number of Commonw Commonwe Postcode Suburb(s) ealth Rent Postcode Suburb(s) alth Rent Assistance Assistance Recipients Recipients 2000-2005 2000-2005 5162 Morphett Vale, Woodcroft 209 5088 Holden Hill -67 Andrews Farm, Blakeview, Craigmore, Gould Creek, Humbug Scrub, One Tree Modbury, Modbury Heights, 5114 Hill, Sampson Flat, 178 5092 -65 Modbury North Smithfield, Smithfield Plains, Smithfield West, Uleybury, Yattalunga Felixstow, Firle, Glynde, Joslin, Clearview, Enfield, 5085 175 5070 Marden, Payneham, Payneham -64 Northfield, Northgate South, Royston Park Moana, Seaford, Seaford Cowandilla, Hilton, Marleston, 5169 Heights, Seaford Meadows, 135 5033 -61 Richmond, West Richmond Seaford Rise Bibaringa, Buchfelde, Concordia, Gawler, Gawler Belt, Gawler East, Gawler Exeter, Semaphore, 5118 River, Gawler South, Gawler 111 5019 Semaphore Park, Semaphore -58 West, Hewett, Kalbeeba, South Kangaroo Flat, Kingsford, Ward Belt, Willaston Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Grange, Henley Beach, Henley 5043 Park, Morphettville, 110 5022 Beach South, Kirkcaldy, -57 Parkholme Tennyson Note: No account is taken of changes in postcode boundaries between 2000 and 2005.

105

Figure 8.12: The change in number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients by postcode in Sydney in March 2000- March 2005

106 Figure 8.13: The change in number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients by postcode in Melbourne in March 2000- March 2005

107 Figure 8.14: The change in number of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients by postcode in Adelaide in March 2000- March 2005

108

8.4.2 Relative changes in the distribution of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in 2000-2005 This section examines the relative change in the proportion of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) recipients between 2000 and 2005. To do this we have calculated the location quotients for the number of CRA recipients in each postcode area as a proportion of the metropolitan wide total in 2000 and 2005. We have then calculated the change between the two years. This method allows us to take account of the changing number of CRA recipients in each city over time. The analysis here confirms the data presented above in that, generally speaking, there has been a decrease in the proportion of CRA recipients in the inner cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Conversely there has been an increase in the relative proportion of CRA recipients in certain outer suburban areas in each of the three cities. In Sydney, greatest relative losses were recorded in the inner Sydney, the inner east and northern Sydney (Figure 8.15). There have also been decreases in the outer south-west and north west of Sydney in the rural fringe and Blue Mountains. At the same time, there were increases in the proportion of Sydney’s CRA recipients in the western suburbs (along the Parramatta to Penrith corridor), in south-western Sydney (Fairfield to Campbelltown) and to the north in Gosford-Wyong. In Melbourne, there has also been a decrease in the relative proportion of Melbourne’s RA population in the inner city, around Mornington in the south and in the rural fringe areas to the outer east and north-east. (Figure 8.16). Conversely, there were relative increases in the proportion of recipients in eastern Melbourne (Croydon-Noble Park), the south-east (Dandenong-Frankston), around Rosebud in the far south, and in the outer west of Melbourne. In Adelaide a similar picture emerges. There were decreases in the relative proportion of Adelaide’s RA recipients in the inner city and in the inner north west (up to Port Adelaide/Prospect), and in the outer south-east between 2000 and 2005 (Figure 8.17). In contrast, relative increase was recorded mainly in the outer south (around Morphett Vale) and in the north of Adelaide (Salisbury-Elizabeth-Gawler). Although there were also a few postcode areas in the north (e.g. Edinburgh) who recorded decreases. The picture of the relative shift in RA recipients therefore appears remarkably similar in all three cities: Losses in inner and higher value central suburbs as well as in the ‘life style’ and rural fringe areas, contrasting to increases in middle suburban and some outer suburban and coastal areas. In Adelaide, the relative shift to the north of the city and the increases in the south along the coast are notable features. These shifts may reflect the increasing numbers of families on rent assistance noted above, which might be expected to augment the increases recorded in more suburban areas.

109

Figure 8.15: The change in location quotient of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Sydney in 2000-2005

110 Figure 8.16: The change in location quotient of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Melbourne in 2000-2005

111 Figure 8.17: The change in location quotient of Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients in Adelaide in 2000-2005

112

9 THE LABOUR MARKET PROFILE OF LOW INCOME WORKING PRIVATE RENTERS

9.1 Introduction One of the key questions that the research set out to explore was how the respective housing and labour market positions of private renting low income working households (PRLIWHs) compare in terms of where they live and how far they travel to work. The loss of lower cost rental accommodation from inner city areas (which this research has confirmed) has meant that working PRLIHs are now living further from job rich central city locations. However, employment has been moving away from the metropolitan CBDs for some years (O’Connor and Healy 2002, Fagan et al 2004, Yates et al 2005) as these cities have expanded. Therefore it might be expected that job opportunities, especially in the lower skill service sector, would also have moved. Manufacturing employment has also decentralised and new employment in warehousing, distribution and transport have increasingly shifted to suburban locations11. The fourth question the research set out to explore was to establish the labour market position of lower income working households in the private rental sector and the relationship between their residential location and place of work in the three cities. More specifically, in order to unpack this issue more fully, three secondary questions were posed: What is the labour market profile of lower income working private rental households, at the city-wide level with the highest concentrations of this group? Where do employed lower income private renters work and what is the relationship between their residential location and their workplace location? Are there any indications that employed lower income private renters are becoming effectively excluded from job-rich locations as a result of their residential location, or do the majority of employed lower income private renters work relatively locally? This chapter attempts to answer these questions through an analysis of the employment and workplace profiles of PRLIWH in the three cities. It is beyond the scope of this research project to provide a comprehensive review of the PRLIWH in all three cities, so in order to reduce the complexity of the analysis, we focus on an analysis of the data for the two LGAs in each city with the highest population of PRLIWHs. These LGAs are taken to be broadly representative of the characteristics of the labour market position of the PRLIWH sector as well as providing an indication of the relationship between workplace and residence for this group in each city.

9.2 Occupation and industry of PRLIWHs in six case study areas As we have previously noted in 2001 there were 59,964 PRLIWHs in Sydney, 44,258 in Melbourne and 13,650 in Adelaide. This section examines the occupation, industry and journey to work of the reference person in each private renter low income household in six case study areas12 across the three cities. The six case study areas that have been selected are two local government areas (LGAs) containing the largest number of PRLIWHs in Sydney and Melbourne and the two statistical local areas (SLAs) in Adelaide with the largest number of PRLIWHs. The six case study areas are Canterbury and Wyong in Sydney, Darebin and Moreland in Melbourne and West Torrens (East) and West Torrens (West) in Adelaide.

11 For an overview of the suburbanisation of employment in Australia see Forster 2004, pp. 51-77. 12 The analysis of the occupation and industry for each PRLIWH presented in this chapter is based on that of the reference person. While this ignores the labour market activity of any other household member, the complexity of analysing the labour market position of all working household members is beyond the scope of this project. 113 9.2.1 Occupation In Canterbury LGA in 2001, there were 2,987 employed PRLIWHs (Table 9.1). The largest number of PRLIWHs were employed as Intermediate Production and Transport Workers (574), Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service Workers (464) and Labourers and Related Workers (448). In Wyong LGA the largest number of PRLIWHs were employed as Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service Workers (517) and Labourers and Related Workers (388). In both Canterbury and Wyong there was an over-representation of Tradespersons, Intermediate Production and Transport Workers, Labourers and Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service Workers among this group (Table 9.2). In Darebin and Moreland LGAs there were 2,769 and 2,720 employed PRLIWHs in 2001 respectively (Table 9.1). As with the case study areas in Sydney, the largest number of PRLIWHs were employed in occupations in the middle to lower end of the occupational hierarchy. In Darebin LGA these were Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service Workers (625). There were also a large number of PRLIWHs employed as Intermediate Production and Transport Workers and Labourers and Related Workers. However, unlike the LGAs in Sydney there were large number of PRLIWHs who were Professional workers in Darebin (412). In Moreland LGA the largest number of PRLIWHs are also employed as Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service Workers (656) and Professional Workers (412). In both Darebin and Moreland there was an over-representation of Intermediate Production and Transport Workers, Labourers and Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service, and an under- representation of Managers and Administrators, Professional and Associate Professionals and Advanced Clerical and Service Workers (Table 9.2). Darebin and Moreland also differ from the Sydney case study areas in that there is an under-representation of Tradespersons. Turning to Adelaide, in West Torrens (East) and West Torrens (West) the largest number of PRLIWHs were employed as Intermediate Production and Transport Workers (187 and 127, respectively) (Table 9.1). Unlike the Sydney and Melbourne case study areas there was a significant number of PRLIWHs in West Torrens (East) and West Torrens (West) employed as Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service Workers. There were also a significant number or PRLIWHs employed as Managers and Administrators. However, in both West Torrens (East) and West Torrens (West) there were few PRLIWHs employed as Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service Workers and Professional Workers. In West Torrens (East and West) there was an under-representation of Professional and Associate Professionals, and Advanced Clerical and Service Workers (Table 9.2). As in Melbourne, there was also an under-representation of Tradespersons. However, what distinguishes the West Torrens case study areas from those in Sydney and Melbourne is the over-representation of Managers and Administrators.

9.2.2 Industry In Canterbury LGA, the largest numbers of employed PRLIWHs worked in the Manufacturing sector (531) followed by Retail Trade (406) and Property and Business Services (328) (Table 9.3). Similarly, in Wyong LGA the largest employers of PRLIWHs were the Retail sector (428), the Manufacturing sector (316) and Property and Business Services (229)(Table 9.4). Proportionally, however, the Accommodation Cafes and Restaurants sector employs disproportionate numbers of PRLIWHs in the two Sydney areas. In Darebin LGA the largest employers of PRLIWHs were the Manufacturing sector (461) and Retail Trade (409) (Table 9.3). This was similar to the situation in the Sydney case study areas. However, unlike Sydney there were a significant number of PRLIWHs in Darebin employed in Health and Community Services. In Moreland there were also a significant number of PRLIWHs employed in Health and Community Services. However, there were a larger number of PRLIWHs in Moreland LGA employed in the Retail sector (382), Manufacturing (378) and Property and Business Services (328) (Table 9.4). In both areas, the proportion of PRLIWH employed in the Accommodation Cafes and Restaurants sector was well above average. In West Torrens (East) the largest number of PRLIWHs were employed in the Retail sector (136) followed by Manufacturing (104) and Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants (95) (Table 9.3). In West Torrens (West) the largest number of PRLIWHs were employed in the

114 Retail sector (103) followed by Manufacturing (90) and Health and Community Services (68). (Table 9.4).

9.2.3 Summary Overall, the common thread through all these areas is the overrepresentation of PRLIWHs employed as Intermediate Production and Transport Workers, Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service Workers and Labourers. Variations to this general theme include the role of Tradespeople in Sydney, Professional workers in Melbourne and Managers and Administrators in Adelaide. As for industry of employment, Manufacturing and Retail sectors dominate the industrial sector or PRLIWHs. To an extent this reflects the overall importance of these sectors in the wider workforce. However, in relative terms, the Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants industries were also particularly overrepresented for this group. Employment in the Health and Community Services sectors were relatively important in Melbourne and Wyong.

115

Table 9.1: Occupation for Private Renter Low Income working Households in selected case study areas in 2001 West West Adelaide Canterbury Wyong Sydney SD Darebin Moreland Melbourne SD Torrens Torrens SD (East) (West) Managers and 61 51 163,318 36 51 128,740 103 75 33,229 Administrators Professionals 246 161 384,574 412 412 318,791 12 9 87,678 Associate Professionals 215 209 214,824 229 291 176,500 62 57 55,730 Tradespersons and Related 421 319 201,443 281 267 181,504 79 32 56,428 Workers Advanced Clerical and 54 73 82,610 59 66 60,387 14 14 16,258 Service Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales 464 517 312,936 625 656 260,498 6 0 83,649 and Service Workers Intermediate Production 574 283 133,754 389 278 122,315 187 127 37,197 and Transport Workers Elementary Clerical, Sales 416 314 164,650 334 360 149,227 122 82 45,761 and Service Workers Labourers and Related 448 388 120,722 336 310 113,755 75 81 42,171 Workers Inadequately Described 23 10 15,880 34 8 13,130 68 68 4,252 Not Stated 65 31 21,514 34 21 19,454 3 3 4,476 Total 2,987 2,356 1,816,225 2,769 2,720 1,544,301 731 548 466,829

116 Table 9.2: Occupation for private renter low income working households in selected case study areas in 2001 West West Adelaide Canterbury Wyong Sydney SD Darebin Moreland Melbourne SD Torrens Torrens SD (East) (West) Managers and 2.0% 2.2% 9.0% 1.3% 1.9% 8.3% 14.1% 13.7% 7.1% Administrators Professionals 8.2% 6.8% 21.2% 14.9% 15.1% 20.6% 1.6% 1.6% 18.8% Associate Professionals 7.2% 8.9% 11.8% 8.3% 10.7% 11.4% 8.5% 10.4% 11.9% Tradespersons and Related 14.1% 13.5% 11.1% 10.1% 9.8% 11.8% 10.8% 5.8% 12.1% Workers Advanced Clerical and 1.8% 3.1% 4.5% 2.1% 2.4% 3.9% 1.9% 2.6% 3.5% Service Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales 15.5% 21.9% 17.2% 22.6% 24.1% 16.9% 0.8% 0.0% 17.9% and Service Workers Intermediate Production 19.2% 12.0% 7.4% 14.0% 10.2% 7.9% 25.6% 23.2% 8.0% and Transport Workers Elementary Clerical, Sales 13.9% 13.3% 9.1% 12.1% 13.2% 9.7% 16.7% 15.0% 9.8% and Service Workers Labourers and Related 15.0% 16.5% 6.6% 12.1% 11.4% 7.4% 10.3% 14.8% 9.0% Workers Inadequately Described 0.8% 0.4% 0.9% 1.2% 0.3% 0.9% 9.3% 12.4% 0.9% Not Stated 2.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% 1.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

117 Table 9.3: Industry of employment for private renter low income working households in selected case study areas in 2001 West West Adelaide Canterbury Wyong Sydney SD Darebin Moreland Melbourne SD Torrens Torrens SD (East) (West) Agriculture, Forestry and 6 30 11,151 7 9 12,329 3 3 5,586 Fishing Mining 0 0 2,156 0 3 2,378 0 0 1,519 Manufacturing 531 316 220,923 461 378 246,350 104 90 71,532 Electricity, Gas and Water 0 9 11,025 0 6 6,833 0 0 3,331 Supply Construction 187 193 125,383 102 87 100,540 24 18 26,710 Wholesale Trade 213 134 110,264 149 139 92,264 40 26 23,444 Retail Trade 406 428 242,616 409 382 225,310 136 103 69,771 Accommodation, Cafes and 238 229 86,426 227 275 63,938 95 57 20,636 Restaurants Transport and Storage 296 84 90,266 140 144 60,133 29 26 17,708 Communication Services 60 25 43,233 46 55 34,993 12 11 8,622 Finance and Insurance 72 42 111,359 82 76 71,266 15 14 17,282 Property and Business 328 229 262,442 282 349 201,817 81 50 49,983 Services Government Administration 63 50 61,772 60 78 44,301 16 15 20,909 and Defence Education 88 83 115,802 179 180 106,944 41 20 34,234 Health and Community 215 275 161,922 365 290 144,018 75 68 57,305 Services Cultural and Recreational 48 67 50,597 98 121 42,676 24 12 10,921 Services Personal and Other 101 100 65,036 98 90 51,337 27 23 18,816 Services Other/Not Stated 135 62 43,852 64 58 36,874 9 12 8,521 Total 2,987 2,356 1,816,225 2,769 2,720 1,544,301 731 548 466,830

118

Table 9.4: Industry of employment for private renter low income working households in selected case study areas in 2001 West West Adelaide Canterbury Wyong Sydney SD Darebin Moreland Melbourne SD Torrens Torrens SD (East) (West) Agriculture, Forestry and 0.2% 1.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% 1.2% Fishing Mining 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Manufacturing 17.8% 13.4% 12.2% 16.6% 13.9% 16.0% 14.2% 16.4% 15.3% Electricity, Gas and Water 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% Supply Construction 6.3% 8.2% 6.9% 3.7% 3.2% 6.5% 3.3% 3.3% 5.7% Wholesale Trade 7.1% 5.7% 6.1% 5.4% 5.1% 6.0% 5.5% 4.7% 5.0% Retail Trade 13.6% 18.2% 13.4% 14.8% 14.0% 14.6% 18.6% 18.8% 14.9% Accommodation, Cafes and 8.0% 9.7% 4.8% 8.2% 10.1% 4.1% 13.0% 10.4% 4.4% Restaurants Transport and Storage 9.9% 3.6% 5.0% 5.1% 5.3% 3.9% 4.0% 4.7% 3.8% Communication Services 2.0% 1.1% 2.4% 1.7% 2.0% 2.3% 1.6% 2.0% 1.8% Finance and Insurance 2.4% 1.8% 6.1% 3.0% 2.8% 4.6% 2.1% 2.6% 3.7% Property and Business 11.0% 9.7% 14.4% 10.2% 12.8% 13.1% 11.1% 9.1% 10.7% Services Government Administration 2.1% 2.1% 3.4% 2.2% 2.9% 2.9% 2.2% 2.7% 4.5% and Defence Education 2.9% 3.5% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6.9% 5.6% 3.6% 7.3% Health and Community 7.2% 11.7% 8.9% 13.2% 10.7% 9.3% 10.3% 12.4% 12.3% Services Cultural and Recreational 1.6% 2.8% 2.8% 3.5% 4.4% 2.8% 3.3% 2.2% 2.3% Services Personal and Other 3.4% 4.2% 3.6% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.7% 4.2% 4.0% Services Other/Not Stated 4.5% 2.6% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% 2.4% 1.2% 2.2% 1.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

119

9.3 Journey to work of private renter low income working households in six case study areas The journey to work (JTW) patterns of employed reference persons in PRLIWHs in the two Sydney case study areas were very different, reflecting their geographical location within the Sydney metropolitan area. In 2001, the largest proportion of employed PRLIWHs in Canterbury LGA worked in Canterbury itself (18%), although this is low compared to the other case study areas. A further 12% work in the Sydney CBD while the majority of other workers commute to a wide range of LGAs in the Sydney metropolitan area (Table 9.5 and Figure 9.1). For example, 8% work in the nearby LGA of Bankstown and 9% work in South Sydney. Similarly, the largest proportion of employed PRLIWHs in Wyong LGA work in that LGA, however, at 55% this is much higher than Canterbury and all the other case study areas (Figure 9.2). The geographic location of Wyong means that a much lower proportion work outside the LGA limits. A further 19% work in the nearby regional centre of Gosford. Very few employed PRLIWHs work in the Sydney CBD or inner suburbs. In fact 9% of PRLIWHs in Wyong work outside the Sydney metropolitan area, most probably commuting to Newcastle and its surrounds. In contrast, the two Melbourne case study areas had much more similar work journey patterns. This is not surprising given their relative geographical proximity. In Darebin 26% of employed PRLIWHs work in the LGA itself, while a further 20% work in the Melbourne CBD (Table 9.6 and Figure 9.3). The rest of the employed PRLIWHs in Darebin commute to a wide range of LGAs in the Melbourne metropolitan area, although 9% work in Yarra LGA. Similarly, in Moreland, 28% of employed PRLIWHs work in the LGA itself, while 28% work in the Melbourne CBD (slightly higher than that for Darebin) (Figure 9.4). Again, the rest of the employed PRLIWHs commute to a number of LGAs in the metropolitan area. In Adelaide, the two case study areas are in close geographical proximity and, like the Melbourne case study areas, have similar journey to work patterns. Interestingly though, unlike both Melbourne and Sydney the largest proportion of employed PRLIWHs do not work in the SLA itself, but rather in the Adelaide CBD (Table 9.7 and Figure 9.5). In 2001, in West Torrens (East) 16% of employed PRLIWHs worked in the SLA itself, while 25% worked in the Adelaide CBD. The rest of the employed PRLIWHs in West Torrens (East) commute to SLAs across the Adelaide metropolitan area. Similarly, in West Torrens (West) 13% of employed PRLIWHs work in the SLA itself, a further 11% work in nearby West Torrens (East), while 19% work in the Adelaide CBD (Figure 9.6). Again, the rest of the employed PRLIWHs in West Torrens (West) also commute to numerous SLAs in the Adelaide metropolitan area. This analysis shows that for most of the case study areas, the two most important employment locations for the PRLIWHs are either the local area itself or the relevant CBD. The significant exception to this is Wyong, where the level of local employment far exceeds that of the other five case study LGAs, clearly an outcome of its geographic location well to the north of the Sydney CDB. Three quarters of Wyong’s PRLIWH workers worked in the two Central Coast LGAs. In the Adelaide examples, more people worked in the CBD than worked locally.

9.3.1 Summary Several points can be made from this analysis. First, if the lower cost private rental market is shifting outwards, then a reliance on CBD employment may become increasingly difficult for the PRLIWH group in some of these areas. Second, the closed nature of Wyong’s low income labour market suggest these workers are highly dependent on local economic conditions with little recourse to external employment opportunities. The need to locate in the low cost rental market in these areas, on affordability and access grounds, may well severely constrain their employment prospects. This is clearly the case in Wyong. Third, the over- representation of hospitality workers among the PRLIWH group also reinforces the problems some may be facing if the low cost rental market continues to suburbanise and move away

120 from the inner city where hospitality employment is concentrated. Shift work will only add to the problems these people face in getting to work. Fourthly, the prominence of local jobs for this group also reinforces the perception that for many, local employment in low skilled local labour markets does not suggest a wide range of potentially skilled or well remunerated employment is going to be available to them. From this analysis, it seems as if the PRLIWH sub-market provides workers for either the poorly paid local service sector jobs or lower skilled jobs in suburban manufacturing. However, the overrepresentation of hospitality workers indicates that there will be a continuing need to find job opportunities in those places where hospitality employment is concentrated. In all three cities, this will remain the CBD or associated tourist and entertainment centres.

121 Table 9.5: Journey to work of employed persons in PRLIWHs in Canterbury and Wyong, 2001 Canterbury % Wyong % Ashfield 52 1.7% 0 0.0% Auburn 70 2.3% 5 0.2% Bankstown 235 7.8% 0 0.0% Baulkham Hills 5 0.2% 5 0.2% Blacktown 21 0.7% 5 0.2% Blue Mountains 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Botany Bay 80 2.7% 0 0.0% Burwood 44 1.5% 0 0.0% Camden 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Campbelltown 12 0.4% 0 0.0% Canterbury 530 17.7% 3 0.1% Concord 23 0.8% 0 0.0% Drummoyne 23 0.8% 0 0.0% Fairfield 19 0.6% 5 0.2% Gosford 3 0.1% 443 19.0% Hawkesbury 0 0.0% 3 0.1% Holroyd 11 0.4% 0 0.0% Hornsby 6 0.2% 52 2.2% Hunter's Hill 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Hurstville 63 2.1% 0 0.0% Kogarah 33 1.1% 0 0.0% Ku-ring-gai 9 0.3% 16 0.7% Lane Cove 17 0.6% 4 0.2% Leichhardt 53 1.8% 0 0.0% Liverpool 27 0.9% 3 0.1% Manly 4 0.1% 3 0.1% Marrickville 169 5.6% 3 0.1% Mosman 4 0.1% 0 0.0% North Sydney 35 1.2% 7 0.3% Parramatta 50 1.7% 10 0.4% Penrith 6 0.2% 4 0.2% Pittwater 0 0.0% 3 0.1% Randwick 38 1.3% 0 0.0% Rockdale 50 1.7% 0 0.0% Ryde 38 1.3% 7 0.3% South Sydney 256 8.5% 9 0.4% Strathfield 70 2.3% 5 0.2% Sutherland Shire 39 1.3% 0 0.0% Sydney 359 12.0% 26 1.1% Warringah 16 0.5% 7 0.3% Waverley 11 0.4% 0 0.0% Willoughby 44 1.5% 20 0.9% Wollondilly 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Woollahra 21 0.7% 0 0.0% Wyong 0 0.0% 1,274 54.7% Sydney Undefined 12 0.4% 3 0.1% Outside Sydney SD 4 0.1% 82 3.5% Extended JTW Areas 217 7.2% 209 9.0% Other States 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Not Stated 219 7.3% 111 4.8% Total Employed 2,998 100.0% 2,327 100.0%

122 Table 9.6: Journey to work of employed persons in PRLIWHS in Darebin and Moreland, 2001 Darebin % Moreland % Banyule 152 5.5% 38 1.4% Bayside 4 0.1% 0 0.0% Boroondara 84 3.0% 42 1.5% Brimbank 19 0.7% 48 1.8% Cardinia 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Casey 0 0.0% 4 0.1% Darebin 735 26.4% 124 4.5% Frankston 0 0.0% 3 0.1% Glen Eira 7 0.3% 6 0.2% Greater Dandenong 5 0.2% 9 0.3% Hobsons Bay 11 0.4% 24 0.9% Hume 87 3.1% 186 6.8% Kingston 12 0.4% 7 0.3% Knox 7 0.3% 5 0.2% Manningham 23 0.8% 9 0.3% Maribyrnong 32 1.1% 51 1.9% Maroondah 4 0.1% 5 0.2% Melbourne 545 19.6% 777 28.3% Melton 0 0.0% 3 0.1% Monash 15 0.5% 23 0.8% Moonee Valley 37 1.3% 106 3.9% Moreland 130 4.7% 591 21.6% Mornington Peninsula 3 0.1% 3 0.1% Nillumbik 10 0.4% 5 0.2% Port Phillip 92 3.3% 108 3.9% Stonnington 50 1.8% 37 1.3% Whitehorse 38 1.4% 17 0.6% Whittlesea 126 4.5% 46 1.7% Wyndham 13 0.5% 16 0.6% Yarra 255 9.2% 158 5.8% Yarra Ranges 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Melbourne Undefined 10 0.4% 10 0.4% Outside Melbourne 5 0.2% 13 0.5% Extended JTW Areas 148 5.3% 139 5.1% Other State 3 0.1% 3 0.1% Not Stated 121 4.3% 125 4.6% Total 2,783 100.0% 2,741 100.0%

123 Table 9.7: Journey to work of employed persons in private renter low income working households in West Torrens (East) and West Torrens (West), 2001 West Torrens West Torrens % % (East) (West) Adelaide 175 24.6% 103 19.2% Adelaide Hills - Central 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Adelaide Hills - Ranges 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Burnside - North-East 6 0.8% 0 0.0% Burnside - South-West 11 1.5% 12 2.2% Campbelltown - East 3 0.4% 0 0.0% Campbelltown - West 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Charles Sturt - Coastal 8 1.1% 12 2.2% Charles Sturt - Inner East 31 4.4% 14 2.6% Charles Sturt - Inner West 12 1.7% 12 2.2% Charles Sturt - North-East 21 3.0% 19 3.5% Gawler 3 0.4% 0 0.0% Holdfast Bay - North 23 3.2% 18 3.4% Holdfast Bay - South 3 0.4% 5 0.9% Marion - Central 21 3.0% 12 2.2% Marion - North 19 2.7% 21 3.9% Marion - South 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Mitcham - Hills 5 0.7% 3 0.6% Mitcham - North-East 8 1.1% 3 0.6% Mitcham - West 18 2.5% 13 2.4% Norw. P'ham St Ptrs - East 3 0.4% 3 0.6% Norw. P'ham St Ptrs - West 19 2.7% 14 2.6% Onkaparinga - Hackham 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Onkaparinga - Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Onkaparinga - Morphett 3 0.4% 0 0.0% Onkaparinga - North Coast 0 0.0% 5 0.9% Onkaparinga - Reservoir 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Onkaparinga - South Coast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Onkaparinga - Woodcroft 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Playford - East Central 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Playford - Elizabeth 3 0.4% 3 0.6% Playford - Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Playford - West 3 0.4% 0 0.0% Playford - West Central 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Port Adel. Enfield - Coast 5 0.7% 7 1.3% Port Adel. Enfield - East 4 0.6% 3 0.6% Port Adel. Enfield - Inner 6 0.8% 5 0.9% Port Adel. Enfield - Port 14 2.0% 28 5.2% Prospect 6 0.8% 6 1.1% Salisbury - Central 3 0.4% 3 0.6% Salisbury - Inner North 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Salisbury - North-East 3 0.4% 3 0.6% Salisbury - South-East 3 0.4% 3 0.6% Salisbury Bal 8 1.1% 4 0.7% Tea Tree Gully - Central 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Tea Tree Gully - Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Tea Tree Gully - North 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Tea Tree Gully - South 4 0.6% 0 0.0% Unincorp. Western 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Unley - East 15 2.1% 6 1.1% Unley - West 7 1.0% 10 1.9% Walkerville (M) 3 0.4% 0 0.0% 124 West Torrens West Torrens % % (East) (West) West Torrens - East 111 15.6% 57 10.6% West Torrens - West 38 5.4% 69 12.9% Adelaide Undefined 5 0.7% 5 0.9% Outside Adelaide SD 67 9.4% 39 7.3% Other State 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Not Stated 10 1.4% 16 3.0% Total 710 100.0% 536 100.0%

125

Figure 9.1: The workplace destinations of private renter low income working households who live in Canterbury in 2001

126 Figure 9.2: The workplace destinations of private renter low income working households who live in Wyong in 2001

127 Figure 9.3: The workplace destinations of private renter low income working households who live in Darebin in 2001

128 Figure 9.4: The workplace destinations of private renter low income working households who live in Moreland in 2001

129 Figure 9.5: The workplace destinations of private renter low income working households who live in West Torrens-East in 2001

130 Figure 9.6: The workplace destinations of private renter low income working households who live in West Torrens-West in 2001

131

9.4 Journey to work of private renter low income working households by main workplace destinations Section 9.2 and 9.3 above examined the occupation, industry and journey to work of six case study areas across Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. The case study areas were selected where there was a large concentration of private renter low income households (PRLIWHs). This section examines the reverse of this by analysing the origin of PRLIWHs in areas in which the largest number of PRLIWHs work in each city and where PRLIWHs come from to get to these areas. The six areas selected for this analysis include Sydney LGA and Parramatta LGA in Sydney, Melbourne LGA and Port Phillip LGA in Melbourne, and Adelaide SLA and West Torrens-East SLA in Adelaide. In Sydney there were 6,908 PRLIWHs who worked in Sydney LGA and 2,315 who worked in Parramatta LGA (see Appendix 4). PRLIWHs who worked in Sydney LGA were more likely to travel from nearby areas than from outer suburban areas (Figure 9.7). PRLIWHs who worked in the Sydney LGA travelled from the nearby areas of South Sydney (846), Randwick (412) and Marrickville (496). There were also a large number of PRLIWHs who commuted from Canterbury (359), North Sydney (301), Leichhardt (388) and Sydney LGA itself (391). Similarly, PRLIWHs who worked in Parramatta LGA commuted from nearby areas (Figure 9.8). In particular, the majority of PRLIWHs who worked in Parramatta LGA actually lived in the LGA (730) but there were also significant numbers commuting from Blacktown (263), Holroyd (274) and Penrith LGAs (165), all three to the west of Parramatta. A similar picture emerges in Melbourne where 7,452 PRLIWHs worked in Melbourne LGA and 2,328 PRLIWHs worked in Port Phillip LGA. Again, those who commuted to Melbourne LGA to work did so from nearby LGAs (Figure 9.9). The main areas in which PRLIWHS resided and commuted to Melbourne LGA include Moreland (777), Port Phillip (743) and Melbourne LGA itself (757). There were also significant concentrations of PRLIWHs who commuted to work in Melbourne LGA from Stonnington (620), Yarra (551) and Darebin (545). Few PRLIWHs commuted to Melbourne LGA from the outer suburbs. For those PRLIWHs who worked in Port Phillip LGA the largest number of PRLIWHs actually resided in Port Phillip LGA itself (882) (Figure 9.10). Other LGAs where significant number of PRLIWHs commuted to Port Phillip LGA include Glen Eira (203) and Stonnington (185). A similar pattern is found in Adelaide SLA. Overall, 2,526 PRLIWHS worked in Adelaide SLA and 661 worked in West Torrens-East SLA. In 2001, the three largest source areas for PRLIWHs working in Adelaide SLA were West Torrens-East (175), Norwood, Payneham and St Peters-West (164) and Adelaide SLA itself (209) (Figure 9.11). There were few other SLAs from which there were a significant number of PRLIWHs who worked in Adelaide SLA. These include Norwood, Payneham, St Peters-East (103), Prospect (115), Unley-East (114), Unley-West (113) and West Torrens-West (103). For those PRLIWHs who worked in West Torrens-East, the majority of PRLIWHs lived in the LGA itself (111) (Figure 9.12), with West Torrens-West (57) and Charles Sturt-Inner East (33) of lesser importance. It appears that the Adelaide labour catchments are relatively more dispersed than those in Melbourne and Sydney. 9.4.1 Summary Labour market catchments for the main locations of PRLIWH employment suggest that these workers live relatively locally to the their workplaces. For the central CBD areas, most low income renters commuted from LGAs on the periphery of the area or relatively close by. Those areas where the second largest concentration of these jobs were found, in most cases also constituted the largest source of PRLIWHs to the local labour force. This suggests that low-income workers in the private rental market tend to be locally tied to the job markets to which they supply labour. If, as we have shown above, the housing market for this group is becoming detached from employment centres, then it follows that access to these centres is likely to become more difficult for these households.

132

Figure 9.7: The origin of private renter low income working households who work in Sydney LGA in 2001

133 Figure 9.8: The origin of private renter low income working households who work in Parramatta LGA in 2001

134 Figure 9.9: The origin of private renter low income working households who work in Melbourne LGA in 2001

135 Figure 9.10: The origin of private renter low income working households who work in Port Phillip LGA in 2001

136 Figure 9.11: The origin of private renter low income working households who work in Adelaide SLA in 2001

137 Figure 9.12: The origin of private renter low income working households who work in West Torrens – East SLA in 2001

138

10 CONCLUSION

In recent years concerns have emerged over the capacity of lower income households to afford to live in our largest cities. Rapidly increased residential property prices have effectively excluded many lower income households who are not already home-owners from the home ownership market. On the other hand, the boom in residential investment, which has fuelled property price rises and affordability problems, has provided a supply of homes for this group. The supply of such property, underpinned by the prospect of capital gains, together with the limited market capacity of those who rely on it, has meant rents have not escalated by anywhere near the rate that underlying property prices have. To that extent, the limited policy framework directed at low income private renters has been successful. However, there is certainly evidence that this group of low income renters suffers affordability problems (Yates, et al, 2006; Randolph and Holloway, 2002). The current market reversal in domestic property values may also mean rents will rise as investors seek to sustain total returns in the light of falling capital gains. If so, then this group may find its affordability position deteriorate. Perhaps more problematic would be if investors chose to withdraw from the market in any great numbers. But more importantly for the research reported here, this investment boom has had perverse locational outcomes for the households seeking to let accommodation in the lower rent segment of the private rental market.. This report has documented the shifting location of low income households in the rental market in three major Australian cities: Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. It has shown clearly that this housing sub-market has been progressively moving away from the central and inner city locations and into more suburban areas of these cities. These trends are evident is all three cities, despite somewhat different housing market structures and trends in each city. This locational shift has been a joint result of gentrification in the inner city, while rental investors have sought lower value investment opportunities in suburban locations. Low income renters have moved out to let those properties. The result is that the lower cost rental market, together with the lower income households who occupy it, has, in part, become more concentrated in certain lower cost middle suburbs of our cities, at the same time as being more generally dispersed across the suburban housing stock. As the research has also shown, these households are effectively in the same lower cost rental markets as others who receive housing assistance through the Commonwealth Rent Assistance system, or who are waiting for rehousing in public housing. To all intents and purposes, they occupy the same housing sub-market. But many of this group, especially those in work, get no support from the housing assistance system whatsoever. Their low incomes and the low skill characteristics of the labour markets they occupy suggest there may be little scope for this group to move on to home ownership, while they are effectively excluded from public housing. A number of housing policy implications can be suggested from these results. Firstly, given the role of the investment market in generating the changes, it is highly likely that any down turn in investment sentiment could lead to a potentially significant impact on this group of low income working renters. If the supply of rental stock started to contract in these areas there would be little alternative accommodation. Moreover, declining supply would generate rent rises, with accompanying affordability problems. The point is that this market is highly vulnerable to shifts in investor sentiment and is therefore likely to be volatile over the longer term. This is not a positive outcome for the quantity of subsidy flowing into the sector, either in CRA or through negative gearing and other tax allowances. Secondly, as noted above, the working poor are effectively excluded from most housing assistance support. They are the least visible sector of the population in housing policy terms. Yet they are also likely to become more numerous. Both the welfare reforms and the workplace relations agenda being actively pursued by the Australian Government are targeting this group. Those on the margins of work are to be encouraged into the workforce. Those in the workforce may find their conditions of work compromised as employers take advantage of new workplace legislation to improve productivity. Both these policy interventions, as well as the continuing growth of lower paid, casual and part-time and 139 insecure employment, means that the working poor will remain a significant, if not a growing, component of the Australian workforce. In the absence of either affordable or accessible alternatives, the private rental market will be expected to absorb a significant share of any growth in this section of the workforce. There must be some doubt as to its capacity to undertake this role. With the current rental investment downturn, growth in the lower end of the private rental market has probably stopped, even if it has not actually declined. Any substantial increase in the working poor may be matched by a housing market that is increasingly constrained. Given the importance the Australian Government places on encouraging non-workers back into the workforce and given the kinds of jobs they are likely to find themselves in, then it seems highly appropriate that a more coherent approach to the housing needs of this group should be considered. It’s time at least to reconsider the housing position of the working poor if only to assure policy makers that they will not face growing problems in the housing market that caters for their needs. So far, despite active welfare and work place reform agendas, the Australian Government has not put in place particular measures to address the housing needs of this group, presumably in the belief that the private rental market will continue to meet the demand from this sector. That this cannot be assured into the future must be patently clear. If not, then another housing crisis for the low paid is on the cards. Turning to the implications of the research for labour market policy, the increasing separation of this group of low income renters, particularly those in employment, and the job rich inner city can be associated with growing concerns that the workforce of the city is being compromised (Yates, et al, 2005 forthcoming). As we have shown here, the low income rental submarket supplies labour to a wide range of industries and businesses, underlining the general importance of this submarket to the economy of these three cities. The numbers in this submarket have grown substantially over the 1991 to 2001 decade. Previous AHURI research has shown how important accessibility to employment opportunities is for unemployed tenants (Hulse and Randolph, 2005). Overall, the shift of the low cost rental stock away from the inner city has moved this low income group further from the job-rich city core labour markets. This research has shown that while many employed low income renters work locally to where they live, the other main workplace location remains the central employment districts of the main cities. The implication from this analysis is that the outward movement of private rental has imposed increased commuting costs on this sector of the inner city workforce. Either that, or it has effectively excluded these households from accessing jobs in the inner city. While there is plenty of evidence the jobs have moved out of their traditional inner city locations over the last thirty years (especially as a result of manufacturing decline and restructuring), it is also clear that the suburbanisation of employment has been largely limited to certain kinds of employment, in particular, those jobs concerned with servicing the growing suburban populations or in the downsized manufacturing and logistics industries. In the process, higher order and skilled ‘knowledge’ intensive employment has remained concentrated in inner city and other highly specialised employment concentrations. While few of the rental sub-group that has been the focus of this report would have access to these jobs, they are important in servicing these higher order employment clusters. It can be argued that the economic and social wellbeing of Australian cities depends on their active participation in the metropolitan workforce as much as it does on the ‘knowledge’ workers they support. Despite this, low income working households who rent from a private landlord are a neglected component of Australian housing policy. They receive relatively little by way of direct assistance in their housing costs. These households are expected to meet their housing needs on the open market, which, as we have shown here, is not delivering appropriate housing in areas they can effectively access good employment opportunities. However this group plays a crucial role in the metropolitan labour market, providing an essential component of the workforce in a wide range of industries, from manufacturing to services. The research reported here also indicates that some of the more distant fringes of the metropolitan areas, especially in coastal areas, not only have significant populations of low income households who rent, but have much lower connectivity to central area job 140 opportunities. In effect these groups, together with many of those now increasingly being housed in outer suburban locations, rely almost entirely on outer suburban labour markets for employment. In effect, then, many low paid working households are doubly excluded from housing and job opportunities in metropolitan areas. In relation to housing assistance, they are largely ineligible for public housing or CRA, while they gain none of the financial and taxation benefits of home ownership. Rents and affordability problems for many mean saving for home ownership will be difficult. For these households, long term rental may be the only feasible option. But the shifting geography of the low cost rental market into lower value middle and outer suburban areas of our cities suggests that low income working renters are also being increasingly spatially excluded from connectivity with job-rich central city labour markets. For those currently not working but who may wish to re-enter the workforce (especially with the encouragement of recent welfare reforms), the same barriers apply. The only remaining significant low cost housing stock in inner city areas is that which remains in public ownership. But with the increased targeting of allocations to households with highest support needs, the working poor is effectively excluded from this housing option close to job rich locations. Australian housing policy has therefore worked decisively to effectively exclude the working poor in the rental market from job opportunities in key sectors of the spatial economy. More detailed research with this group will be needed to understand the implication of the trends outlined in this report both in terms their longer term housing market position and their longer term employment prospects. The AHURI National Research Venture researching the affordability of lower income Australians due to report in late 2006 offers an opportunity to explore these issues in depth.

141 REFERENCES

Beer, A. (1993) A Dream Won, A Crisis Born? Home Ownership and the Housing Market. In C. Paris (Ed.) Housing Australia, MacMillan, Melbourne, 147-172. Beer, A. (1999) Housing Investment and the Private Rental Sector in Australia, Urban Studies, 36, 2, 255-269. Beer, A. and Forster, C. (1996) Australian National Overview: Areas of Social and Economic Disadvantage in Australian Cities. Report to the Department of Housing and Regional Development for submission to the OECD Territorial Development Services, Paris. Berry, M. (2000) Investment in rental housing in Australia: Small landlords and institutional investors, Housing Studies, 15, 661-682. Berry, M. and Hall, J. (2001) Policy Options for Stimulating Private Sector Investment in Affordable Housing Across Australia: Stage 1, Outlining the Need for Action, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Bray, R. (2001) Social Indicators for Regional Australia, Policy Research Paper No. 8, Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra. Brotherhood of St Laurence (2003) Housing Stress: How have low income households fared during the housing boom, Changing Pressures, No. 12, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Fitzroy, Victoria. Bunker, R., Holloway, D. and Randolph, B. (2005) Building the Connection between Housing Needs and Metropolitan planning in Sydney, Australia, Housing Studies, 20, 5, 771-794. Burke, T., Pinkney, S. and Ewing, S. (2002) Commonwealth Rent Assistance and Young People’s Decision-Making, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Burke, T., Neske, C. and Ralston, L. (2005) Entering Rental Housing, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Dodson, J. (2003) Is there a Spatial Mismatch between Housing Affordability and Employment Opportunity in Melbourne, Paper presented at the State of Australian Cities Conference, Parramatta, 3rd-5th December. Fagan, B., Dowling, R. and Langdale, J. (2004) Suburbs in the Global City: Employment Profile of Greater Western Sydney, Macquarie University and Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, Blacktown. Forster, C. (2004) Australian Cities: Continuity and Change, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria. Gleeson, B. and Randolph, B. (2002) A New Vision for Western Sydney: Options for 21st century governance, Issues Paper No. 11, Urban Frontiers Program, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown. Gregory, R. and Hunter, B. (1995) The Macro-Economy and the Growth of Ghettos and Urban Poverty in Australia, Discussion paper No. 325, Centre for Economic Policy, Australian National University, Canberra. Hamnett C. and Randolph B. (1987) Cities, Profits and Housing: Flat Break-Up and the Decline of Private Renting in Central London, Century Hutchinson, London. Hayward, D. (1996) The Reluctant Landlords? A History of Public Housing in Australia, Urban Policy and Research, 14, 1, 5-35. Hulse, K. and Burke, T. (2000) Social Exclusion and the Private Rental Sector: The experiences of three market liberal countries, Paper presented at the European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) Conference, Gävle, Sweden, 26th-30th June. Hulse, K. and Randolph, B. (2005) Workforce Disincentive Effects of Housing Allowances and Public Housing for Low Income Households in Australia, European Journal of Housing Policy, 5, 2, 147-165. 142 Industry Commission (1993) Public Housing, Volume 1, Report No. 34, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Kendig, H. (1979) New Life for Old Suburbs, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Kendig, H. (1981) Buying and Renting, Australian Institute of Urban Studies (AIUS), Canberra. King, A. and Melhuish, T. (2003) The Regional Impact of Commonwealth Commonwealth Rent Assistance, Positioning Paper, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Marshall, N. et al. (2003) Welfare Outcomes of Migration of Low-Income Earners from Metropolitan to Non-Metropolitan Australia, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. McClure, P. (2000) Participation Support for a More Equitable Society, Final Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra. Mee, K. (2002) Prosperity and the Suburban Dream: Quality of life and affordability in western Sydney, Australian Geographical Studies, 33, 3, 337-351. National Housing Strategy (1991) The Affordability of Australian Housing, Issues Paper No. 2, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. National Shelter and ACOSS (2003) Commonwealth Rent Assistance: Does it deliver affordability? National Shelter and ACOSS, Sydney. O’Connor, K. and Healy, E. (2002) The Links Between Labour Markets and Housing Markets in Melbourne, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. O’Dwyer, L. (1999) Housing Inheritance and the Private Rental Sector in Australia, Housing Studies, 14, 6, 755-776. Paris, C. (1985) Private Renting, Public Issues, Australian Institute of Urban Studies (AIUS), Canberra. Paris, C. (1993) Housing Australia, MacMillan, Melbourne. Paris, C., Stimson, R. and Williams, P. (1985) From Public Housing to Welfare Housing, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 20, 105-117. Randolph, B. (2004) The changing Australian city: New patterns, new policies and new research needs, Urban Policy and Research, 22, 4. Randolph, B. and Holloway, D. (2002) The Anatomy of Housing Stress in Sydney, Urban Policy and Research, 20, 4, 329-355. Randolph, B. and Holloway, D. (2003) Subsiding Suburbs: Population Structure and Change in Greater Western Sydney, Urban Frontiers Program, University of Western Sydney and Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, Blacktown. Randolph, B. and Holloway, D. (2004) The Suburbanisation of Disadvantage in Sydney, Opolis, 1, 1, 49-65. Randolph, B. and Holloway, D. (2005) Social Disadvantage, Tenure and Location: An Analysis of Sydney and Melbourne, Urban Policy and Research, 23, 2, 173-202. Raskall, P. (2002) Equity Issues in the ‘New Prosperity’ of the 1990s: The Case of Sydney, Australian Geographer, 33, 3, 281-299. Reynolds, M. and Wulff, M. (2005) Suburban Socio-Spatial Polarisation and House Price Change in Melbourne: 1986-1996, Applied GIS, 1, 1. Rossiter, C. and Vipond, J. (1985) Housing costs and Incomes: Which tenure contains the most stress? Urban Policy and Research, 3, 4, 3-10.

143 Saunders, P. (2003) Examining Recent Changes in Income Distribution in Australia, Discussion Paper no. 130, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Seelig, T. (2001) Structures of Private Rental Housing Provision in Australia and Their Consequences for Housing Policy, Paper presented to the Housing Studies Association Autumn Conference, Cardiff, Wales, September. Siminski, P. and Saunders, P. (2003) Low-Income Before and After Housing Costs, Comparing Australia’s Regions, Paper presented at the Australian Social Policy Conference. Stilwell, F. (1989) Structural Change and Spatial Equity in Sydney, Urban Policy and Research, 7, 1, 3-14. Travers, P. and Richardson, S. (1993) Living Decently: Material Well-Being in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Wilson, K. (1989) Accommodation Costs and Living Arrangements of Private Renters: Is there an equitable solution? Department of Social Security, Canberra. Winter, I. And Stone, W. (1998) Social Polarisation and Housing Careers: Exploring the interrelationship of labour and housing markets in Australia, Working Paper No. 13, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Wood, G. (2001) Promoting the Supply of Low Income Rental Housing, Urban Policy and Research, 19, 4, 425-440. Wood, G. and Watson, R. (1999) Private Rental Investors’ Costs: Why who you are matters, in J. Yates and M. Wulff (Eds.) Australia’s Housing Choices, University of Queensland Press, 73-86. Wulff, M. (1997) Understanding the Private Rental Market: A New Approach. In C. Maher et al, Australia’s Private Rental Market: Processes and Policies, Working Paper No. 9, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne, 57-67. Wulff, M. and Maher, C. (1998) Long Term Renters in the Housing Market, Housing Studies, 13, 83-98. Wulff, M., Yates, J. and Burke, T. (2001) Low Rent Housing in Australia 1986 to 1996: How has it changed, who does it work for and who does it fail? Project No. 213, Australian Housing Research Fund, Canberra. Wulff, M and Yates, J. (2005) ‘Supply and Demand in the low rent private market’ Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 50, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Yates, J. (1987) Housing Finance and Deregulation: Predictions and Outcomes, Australian Economic Review, 1, 3, 3-15. Yates, J. (1996) Towards a Reassessment of the Private Rental Market, Housing Studies, 11, 1, 35-50. Yates, J. (2000) Is Australia’s Home-Ownership Rate Really Stable? An Examination of Change Between 1975 and 1994, Urban Studies, 37, 2, 319-342. Yates, J. (2002a) A Spatial Analysis of Trends in Housing Markets and Changing Patterns of Household Structure and Income, Positioning Paper, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Yates, J. (2002b) Housing Implications of Social, Spatial and Structural Change, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Yates, J. (2003) A Distributional Analysis of the Impact of Indirect Housing Assistance, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Yates, J., Randolph, B. and Holloway, D (2005 forthcoming) Housing Affordability, Occupation and Location in Australian Cities and Regions, Final Report, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.

144 Yates, J. and Wulff, M. (2000) W(h)ither Low Cost Private Rental Housing? Urban Policy and Research, 18, 1, 45-64. Yates, J., Wulff, M. and Reynolds, M. (2003) Changes in the Supply of and Need for Low Rent Dwellings in the Private Rental Market, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.

145 APPENDIX 1: NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF PRLIHS BY LGA

Sydney Number of Low Income Private Total Households % LGA Renters Canterbury 6,575 43,455 15.1% Wyong 6,155 49,320 12.5% Fairfield 5,927 53,341 11.1% Blacktown 5,728 79,764 7.2% Gosford 5,557 57,924 9.6% South Sydney 4,941 36,973 13.4% Penrith 4,804 55,363 8.7% Parramatta 4,783 48,604 9.8% Randwick 4,600 44,500 10.3% Marrickville 4,249 27,940 15.2% Liverpool 4,202 46,807 9.0% Sutherland Shire 3,773 71,470 5.3% Bankstown 3,562 53,397 6.7% Campbelltown 3,377 45,195 7.5% Ryde 3,146 35,308 8.9% Rockdale 3,131 31,303 10.0% Holroyd 3,030 29,344 10.3% Warringah 2,850 46,710 6.1% Waverley 2,725 23,762 11.5% Auburn 2,438 16,386 14.9% Leichhardt 2,384 25,835 9.2% Hornsby 2,267 48,314 4.7% Blue Mountains 2,229 26,837 8.3% Hurstville 2,163 25,052 8.6% Ashfield 2,158 14,436 14.9% North Sydney 2,120 25,760 8.2% Hawkesbury 1,573 19,890 7.9% Woollahra 1,558 20,128 7.7% Sydney 1,457 10,014 14.5% Kogarah 1,448 17,447 8.3% Willoughby 1,343 21,616 6.2% Burwood 1,303 9,931 13.1% Botany Bay 1,281 12,465 10.3% Baulkham Hills 1,116 43,007 2.6% Manly 959 14,153 6.8% Strathfield 951 9,035 10.5% Pittwater 941 18,590 5.1% Camden 761 13,985 5.4% Wollondilly 739 11,796 6.3% Mosman 703 10,629 6.6% Ku-ring-gai 680 32,832 2.1% Lane Cove 662 11,442 5.8%

146 Number of Low Income Private Total Households % LGA Renters Drummoyne 616 13,072 4.7% Concord 450 9,126 4.9% Hunter's Hill 130 4,098 3.2% Total 117,545 1,366,356 8.6% Note: excludes not stated and not applicable. Melbourne Number of Low Income Private Total Households % LGA Renters Darebin 5,800 47,496 12.2% Moreland 5,583 50,511 11.1% Greater Dandenong 5,167 41,912 12.3% Port Phillip 5,066 35,660 14.2% Glen Eira 4,894 46,826 10.5% Kingston 4,122 48,872 8.4% Stonnington 3,913 36,529 10.7% Frankston 3,716 40,884 9.1% Boroondara 3,695 55,124 6.7% Mornington Peninsula 3,623 47,138 7.7% Brimbank 3,600 50,819 7.1% Monash 3,242 55,273 5.9% Melbourne 3,138 19,964 15.7% Casey 3,128 56,087 5.6% Whitehorse 3,111 53,199 5.8% Maribyrnong 2,922 22,486 13.0% Moonee Valley 2,787 40,197 6.9% Yarra 2,751 27,730 9.9% Yarra Ranges 2,687 46,487 5.8% Maroondah 2,471 35,300 7.0% Hobsons Bay 2,227 29,416 7.6% Knox 2,148 47,271 4.5% Whittlesea 2,148 34,905 6.2% Banyule 2,130 41,274 5.2% Hume 2,102 39,854 5.3% Wyndham 1,710 27,055 6.3% Bayside 1,415 31,911 4.4% Manningham 1,330 36,252 3.7% Cardinia 947 15,162 6.2% Melton 899 16,405 5.5% Nillumbik 510 18,145 2.8% Total 92,982 1,196,144 7.8%

Note: excludes not stated and not applicable.

147 Adelaide Number of Low Income Statistical Local Area Total Households % Private Renters West Torrens - East 1,645 6,520 15.7% West Torrens - West 1,196 6,925 10.1% Holdfast Bay - North 1,105 5,009 13.0% Port Adel. Enfield - East 1,040 6,692 9.4% Playford - Elizabeth 964 4,392 9.5% Charles Sturt - North-East 915 5,939 9.0% Charles Sturt - Coastal 905 7,969 7.3% Port Adel. Enfield - Port 892 4,983 8.6% Marion - North 877 6,173 7.7% Norw. P'ham St Ptrs - West 873 5,255 11.5% Port Adel. Enfield - Coast 831 6,942 7.4% Salisbury - Central 830 6,085 8.6% Campbelltown - West 826 4,595 10.3% Port Adel. Enfield - Inner 800 4,137 9.7% Charles Sturt - Inner East 797 5,035 9.3% Unley - West 794 4,896 11.6% Prospect 787 5,381 10.2% Marion - Central 778 7,868 5.7% Onkaparinga - South Coast 766 5,435 9.0% Norw. P'ham St Ptrs - East 763 4,089 11.0% Charles Sturt - Inner West 750 5,535 7.8% Mitcham - West 744 5,719 8.4% Tea Tree Gully - South 709 8,404 5.8% Adelaide 703 3,767 12.6% Unley - East 667 5,330 8.8% Onkaparinga - Morphett 647 5,928 7.2% Salisbury - South-East 633 8,469 5.1% Onkaparinga - North Coast 631 3,736 8.8% Campbelltown - East 620 6,846 6.4% Onkaparinga - Woodcroft 612 9,334 5.1% Burnside - South-West 580 5,415 7.1% Gawler 572 4,224 8.4% Salisbury - Inner North 555 5,722 6.8% Burnside - North-East 532 5,503 6.4% Salisbury - North-East 531 5,630 6.6% Playford - West Central 504 2,194 11.2% Holdfast Bay - South 452 3,473 7.6% Mitcham - Hills 431 6,202 5.1% Tea Tree Gully - Central 403 7,207 4.3% Mitcham - North-East 375 3,974 6.3% Playford - East Central 323 4,746 5.2% Onkaparinga - Hackham 312 3,200 6.3% Onkaparinga - Reservoir 270 6,631 3.3% Tea Tree Gully - North 254 7,028 2.9% Marion - South 241 5,435 3.6% Onkaparinga - Hills 205 2,798 5.3%

148 Number of Low Income Statistical Local Area Total Households % Private Renters Adelaide Hills - Central 183 3,491 4.1% Tea Tree Gully - Hills 160 3,375 3.7% Adelaide Hills - Ranges 158 2,849 4.6% Walkerville 150 1,718 5.5% Playford - West 136 1,818 5.1% Salisbury Bal 105 1,283 6.1% Playford - Hills 12 737 1.4% Unincorp. Western 0 3 0.0% Total 32,544 420,045 7.7% Note: excludes not stated and not applicable.

149

APPENDIX 2: THE NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF ‘VERY LOW’ COST AND ‘LOW’ COST PRIVATE RENTAL STOCK FOR POSTCODES IN SYDNEY, MELBOURNE AND ADELAIDE IN 2001

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160 161 APPENDIX 3: OCCUPATION BY INDUSTRY FOR SELECTED CASE STUDY AREAS, 2001 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Canterbury in 2001

Industry Electricity, Accommodation, Agriculture, Cultural and Finance Government Health and Occupation Communication Gas and Cafes and Forestry and Construction Recreational Education and Administration Community Services Water Restaurants Fishing Service Insurance and Defence Services Supply Advanced Clerical and Service 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 3 Workers Associate 46 3 3 7 8 4 0 10 7 19 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 44 0 32 0 5 4 0 7 10 10 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and 61 0 10 6 10 22 0 37 21 94 Service Workers Intermediate Production and 11 0 12 14 0 3 0 0 6 4 Transport Workers Labourers and 45 0 0 36 10 3 0 0 7 18 Related Workers Managers and 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 Administrators Professionals 0 0 0 7 15 49 0 10 5 51 Tradespersons and 28 3 3 106 0 3 0 0 3 10 Related Workers Inadequately 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not stated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 238 6 60 187 48 88 0 72 63 215

162 Industry Personal and Property and Transport Other/Not Occupation Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Mining Other Business and Stated/Not Total Trade Trade Services Services Storage Applicable Advanced Clerical 5 0 0 20 5 3 3 0 54 and Service Workers Associate 8 0 12 24 52 4 5 3 215 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 15 0 20 86 148 15 9 11 416 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 29 0 13 40 46 23 49 3 464 Workers Intermediate Production and 154 0 5 13 41 225 68 18 574 Transport Workers Labourers and 124 0 13 85 36 15 28 28 448 Related Workers Managers and 21 0 0 0 4 3 22 0 61 Administrators Professionals 21 0 18 47 8 5 4 6 246 Tradespersons and 137 0 17 7 63 3 19 19 421 Related Workers Inadequately 9 0 0 3 0 0 3 5 23 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,572 3,572 Not stated 8 0 3 3 3 0 3 42 65 Total 531 0 101 328 406 296 213 3,707 6,559

163 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Wyong in 2001

Industry Electricity, Accommodation, Agriculture, Cultural and Finance Government Health and Occupation Communication Gas and Cafes and Forestry Construction Recreational Education and Administration Community Services Water Restaurants and Fishing Service Insurance and Defence Services Supply Advanced Clerical and Service 3 3 0 6 3 3 0 3 3 7 Workers Associate 23 3 0 8 10 5 3 10 3 36 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and 21 0 11 5 10 3 0 3 11 8 Service Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and 117 0 6 6 16 36 0 23 18 145 Service Workers Intermediate Production and 5 4 5 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transport Workers Labourers and 38 14 3 39 9 3 3 0 9 23 Related Workers Managers and 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 Administrators Professionals 6 0 0 3 11 29 0 3 3 48 Tradespersons and Related 13 3 0 100 5 4 3 0 3 5 Workers Inadequately 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not stated 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 229 30 25 193 67 83 9 42 50 275

164 Industry Personal and Property and Transport Other/Not Occupation Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Mining Other Business and Stated/Not Total Trade Trade Services Services Storage Applicable Advanced Clerical 4 0 3 21 5 4 5 0 73 and Service Workers Associate 3 0 10 24 55 6 4 6 209 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 5 0 9 33 173 4 11 7 314 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 27 0 14 29 35 9 32 4 517 Workers Intermediate Production and 75 0 6 12 60 51 39 6 283 Transport Workers Labourers and 95 0 18 69 35 4 18 8 388 Related Workers Managers and 15 0 3 6 4 3 5 3 51 Administrators Professionals 14 0 9 24 4 3 4 0 161 Tradespersons and 74 0 28 8 57 0 13 3 319 Related Workers Inadequately 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,819 3,819 Not stated 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 25 31 Total 316 0 100 229 428 84 134 3,881 6,175

165 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Darebin in 2001

Industry Electricity, Accommodation, Agriculture, Cultural and Finance Government Health and Occupation Communication Gas and Cafes and Forestry Construction Recreational Education and Administration Community Services Water Restaurants and Fishing Service Insurance and Defence Services Supply Advanced Clerical 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 10 3 4 and Service Workers Associate 41 0 0 0 13 7 0 12 8 33 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 18 0 15 0 12 0 0 5 9 11 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 81 0 18 7 28 37 0 49 17 175 Workers Intermediate Production and 4 0 5 8 3 0 0 0 3 8 Transport Workers Labourers and 47 4 0 23 4 0 0 0 4 14 Related Workers Managers and 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 Administrators Professionals 4 3 5 4 32 129 0 3 10 111 Tradespersons and 23 0 3 51 3 6 0 0 0 6 Related Workers Inadequately 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not stated 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 227 7 46 102 98 179 0 82 60 365

166 Industry Personal and Property and Transport Other/Not Occupation Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Mining Other Business and Stated/Not Total Trade Trade Services Services Storage Applicable Advanced Clerical 3 0 3 18 6 0 3 0 59 and Service Workers Associate 8 0 10 26 56 5 7 3 229 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 7 0 19 31 183 8 16 0 334 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 40 0 18 58 38 18 34 7 625 Workers Intermediate Production and 144 0 6 9 43 106 47 3 389 Transport Workers Labourers and 107 0 7 71 27 0 15 13 336 Related Workers Managers and 17 0 0 0 9 0 4 0 36 Administrators Professionals 19 0 11 52 13 3 6 7 412 Tradespersons and 110 0 20 11 31 0 14 3 281 Related Workers Inadequately 3 0 4 3 3 0 3 3 34 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,013 3,013 Not stated 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 25 34 Total 461 0 98 282 409 140 149 3,077 5,782

167 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in Moreland in 2001

Industry Electricity, Accommodation, Agriculture, Cultural and Finance Government Health and Occupation Communication Gas and Cafes and Forestry and Construction Recreational Education and Administration Community Services Water Restaurants Fishing Service Insurance and Defence Services Supply Advanced Clerical 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 3 4 and Service Workers Associate 49 3 4 4 17 11 3 11 9 38 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 36 0 17 0 13 3 0 4 11 8 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 120 0 21 6 33 35 3 47 27 121 Workers Intermediate Production and 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 5 0 Transport Workers Labourers and 38 3 0 14 4 3 0 0 3 22 Related Workers Managers and 3 0 0 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 Administrators Professionals 0 3 0 3 40 122 0 4 13 94 Tradespersons and 26 0 5 48 8 3 0 0 3 3 Related Workers Inadequately 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not stated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 275 9 55 87 121 180 6 76 78 290

168 Industry Personal and Property and Transport Other/Not Occupation Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Mining Other Business and Stated/Not Total Trade Trade Services Services Storage Applicable Advanced Clerical 3 0 3 27 5 0 5 0 66 and Service Workers Associate 15 0 12 25 65 7 12 6 291 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 12 0 12 62 163 11 8 0 360 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 20 0 18 75 40 31 47 12 656 Workers Intermediate Production and 93 0 7 8 32 82 34 3 278 Transport Workers Labourers and 101 0 7 61 23 3 17 11 310 Related Workers Managers and 13 0 0 6 7 3 7 0 51 Administrators Professionals 20 3 8 80 9 4 3 6 412 Tradespersons and 93 0 23 5 38 3 6 3 267 Related Workers Inadequately 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,842 2,842 Not stated 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 21 Total 378 3 90 349 382 144 139 2,900 5,562

169 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in West Torrens – East in 2001

Industry Electricity, Accommodation, Agriculture, Cultural and Finance Government Health and Occupation Communication Gas and Cafes and Forestry and Construction Recreational Education and Administration Community Services Water Restaurants Fishing Service Insurance and Defence Services Supply Advanced Clerical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 and Service Workers Associate 13 0 0 0 5 4 0 3 3 10 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 8 0 6 3 8 0 0 0 0 3 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Workers Intermediate Production and 52 0 0 3 3 12 0 8 7 40 Transport Workers Labourers and 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Related Workers Managers and 17 3 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrators Professionals 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tradespersons and 0 0 0 0 8 22 0 0 0 16 Related Workers Inadequately 5 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 3 3 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not stated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 95 3 12 24 24 41 0 15 16 75

170 Industry Personal and Property and Transport Other/Not Occupation Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Mining Other Business and Stated/Not Total Trade Trade Services Services Storage Applicable Advanced Clerical 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 14 and Service Workers Associate 4 0 3 3 14 0 0 0 62 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 3 0 5 6 70 6 4 0 122 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Workers Intermediate Production and 6 0 3 17 15 5 13 3 187 Transport Workers Labourers and 24 0 3 4 8 15 12 0 75 Related Workers Managers and 27 0 3 26 12 3 4 0 103 Administrators Professionals 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 12 Tradespersons and 5 0 3 19 3 0 3 0 79 Related Workers Inadequately 25 0 7 0 8 0 4 3 68 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 937 937 Not stated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Total 104 0 27 81 136 29 40 946 1,668

171 Occupation and industry for PRLIWHs in West Torrens – West in 2001

Industry Electricity, Accommodation, Agriculture, Cultural and Finance Government Health and Occupation Communication Gas and Cafes and Forestry and Construction Recreational Education and Administration Community Services Water Restaurants Fishing Service Insurance and Defence Services Supply Advanced Clerical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and Service Workers Associate 9 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 9 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 8 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Workers Intermediate Production and 22 0 5 0 3 13 0 8 6 38 Transport Workers Labourers and 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 Related Workers Managers and 10 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 Administrators Professionals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Tradespersons and 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 3 11 Related Workers Inadequately 5 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not stated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 57 3 11 18 12 20 0 14 15 68

172 Industry Personal and Property and Transport Other/Not Occupation Retail Wholesale Manufacturing Mining Other Business and Stated/Not Total Trade Trade Services Services Storage Applicable Advanced Clerical 0 0 0 8 3 3 0 0 14 and Service Workers Associate 3 0 3 8 10 0 0 0 57 Professionals Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service 0 0 5 7 43 3 4 3 82 Workers Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Workers Intermediate Production and 3 0 3 8 13 0 5 0 127 Transport Workers Labourers and 22 0 3 0 13 17 8 3 81 Related Workers Managers and 29 0 6 11 6 0 3 0 75 Administrators Professionals 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 9 Tradespersons and 3 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 32 Related Workers Inadequately 30 0 3 0 15 0 6 0 68 described Not applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 651 651 Not stated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Total 90 0 23 50 103 26 26 663 1,199

173

APPENDIX 4: THE ORIGIN OF PRLIWHS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN THE AREAS WHICH EMPLOY A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PRLIWHS, 2001

Sydney Destination – Destination – Parramatta Sydney LGA LGA Auburn 100 65 Bankstown 108 41 Baulkham Hill 23 60 Blacktown 105 263 Blue Mountains 29 18 Botany Bay 66 3 Burwood 103 18 Camden 5 4 Campbelltown 94 44 Canterbury 359 50 Concord 35 7 Drummoyne 71 11 Fairfield 77 97 Gosford 71 11 Hawkesbury 15 26 Holroyd 101 274 Hornsby 100 31 Hunter's Hill 7 0 Hurstville 174 12 Kogarah 99 14 Ku-ring-gai 33 3 Lane Cove 84 4 Leichhardt 388 18 Liverpool 67 68 Manly 84 3 Marrickville 496 29 Mosman 85 0 North Sydney 301 12 Parramatta 207 730 Penrith 77 165 Pittwater 17 0 Randwick 412 18 Rockdale 237 7 Ryde 210 79 South Sydney 846 28

174

Destination – Destination – Parramatta Sydney LGA LGA Strathfield 60 18 Sutherland Shire 201 11 Sydney 391 5 Warringah 99 4 Waverley 272 10 Willoughby 112 7 Wollondilly 5 4 Woollahra 229 3 Wyong 26 10 Total 6,908 2,315

175

Melbourne Destination – Destination – Melbourne LGA Port Phillip LGA Banyule 139 16 Bayside 77 55 Boroondara 386 95 Brimbank 208 36 Cardinia 5 4 Casey 31 18 Darebin 545 92 Frankston 53 13 Glen Eira 446 203 Greater Dandenong 88 21 Hobsons Bay 228 45 Hume 96 16 Kingston 165 62 Knox 41 15 Manningham 74 9 Maribyrnong 309 81 Maroondah 62 13 Melbourne 757 85 Melton 38 4 Monash 144 46 Moonee Valley 448 59 Moreland 777 108 Mornington Peninsula 12 6 Nillumbik 19 5 Port Phillip 743 882 Stonnington 620 185 Whitehorse 187 36 Whittlesea 70 8 Wyndham 100 23 Yarra 551 80 Yarra Ranges 33 7 Total 7,452 2,328

176

Adelaide Destination – Adelaide Destination – West SLA Torrens (East) Adelaide 209 12 Adelaide Hills - Central 8 3 Adelaide Hills - Ranges 12 4 Burnside - North-East 73 5 Burnside - South-West 79 3 Campbelltown - East 59 9 Campbelltown - West 87 17 Charles Sturt - Coastal 84 32 Charles Sturt - Inner East 57 33 Charles Sturt - Inner West 42 14 Charles Sturt - North-East 60 18 Gawler 18 3 Holdfast Bay - North 94 29 Holdfast Bay - South 30 10 Marion - Central 38 22 Marion - North 53 24 Marion - South 10 6 Mitcham - Hills 24 6 Mitcham - North-East 38 6 Mitcham - West 57 13 Norw. P'ham St Ptrs - East 103 10 Norw. P'ham St Ptrs - West 164 7 Onkaparinga - Hackham 3 0 Onkaparinga - Hills 0 0 Onkaparinga - Morphett 19 5 Onkaparinga - North Coast 13 6 Onkaparinga - Reservoir 15 4 Onkaparinga - South Coast 9 6 Onkaparinga - Woodcroft 25 12 Playford - East Central 7 3 Playford - Elizabeth 12 3 Playford - Hills 0 0 Playford - West 0 0 Playford - West Central 5 3 Port Adel. Enfield - Coast 45 14 Port Adel. Enfield - East 82 14 Port Adel. Enfield - Inner 48 21 Port Adel. Enfield - Port 36 13 Prospect 115 15 Salisbury - Central 19 3

177

Destination – Adelaide Destination – West SLA Torrens (East) Salisbury - Inner North 14 4 Salisbury - North-East 23 8 Salisbury - South-East 21 8 Salisbury Bal 0 0 Tea Tree Gully - Central 17 3 Tea Tree Gully - Hills 5 4 Tea Tree Gully - North 10 4 Tea Tree Gully - South 53 7 Unincorp. Western - - Unley - East 114 17 Unley - West 113 27 Walkerville 26 3 West Torrens - East 175 111 West Torrens - West 103 57 Total 2,526 661

178

AHURI Research Centres

Queensland Research Centre

RMIT-NATSEM Research Centre

Southern Research Centre

Swinburne-Monash Research Centre

Sydney Research Centre

UNSW-UWS Research Centre

Western Australia Research Centre

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Level 1 114 Flinders Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000 Phone +61 3 9660 2300 Fax +61 3 9663 5488 Email [email protected] Web www.ahuri.edu.au

179