The research sought to measure whether lower income households are able to access housing which is ‘affordable’ based on weekly rent of no more than 30 per cent of gross household income and ‘available’ referring to the extent to which affordable dwellings are in fact occupied by lower income households. The research method involved original empirical analysis using customised data from the 2011 Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), using an established methodology used in three previous AHURI studies. The situation for both the lowest income 20 per cent of households (Q1) and second lowest 20 per cent (Q2) deteriorated on three measures of shortage between 2006 and 2011. Very-low-income (Q1) households faced a shortage of 187 000 affordable dwellings nationally in 2011, up from 138 000 in 2006. However, when occupation of affordable dwellings by higher income households was taken into account, there was a shortage of 271 000 affordable and available rental dwellings for Q1 households (up from 211 000 in 2006). The consequences of these shortages are severe. Across Australia, four in five Q1 private renter households did not live in affordable housing in 2011, much the same as in 2006. Low-income (Q2) households, in contrast, had an apparent surplus of affordable dwellings of 521 000 nationally in 2011 (a slight decrease compared with 2006). However, when occupation by higher and some lower income households was taken into account, there was a shortage of 122 000 affordable and available dwellings nationwide in 2011 (up from 87 000 in 2006). Shortages of affordable and available rental stock for both Q1 and Q2 households are worse in metropolitan than non-metropolitan regions, with especially large shortages in Sydney and Melbourne. Shortages of affordable and available rental housing also increased markedly in larger regional centres in states that were affected by the resources boom. A more comprehensive approach to policy settings for investment in, and management of, rental housing is necessary to address a worsening situation which, if left unchecked, could lead to greater housing instability and homelessness with consequent economic and social costs for individuals/households and governments.

Gentrification raises concerns about segregation, social mix and sustainability issues for Australian cities. This report examines the process and its impact. The report looks at three main questions: How much gentrification has actually taken place over the last decade and how much household displacement has occurred as a result of the loss of affordable housing in these newly pressured locations? What are the social and economic costs to communities and to low-income households in these neighbourhoods, either as they are displaced to other neighbourhoods in the housing system, or as they remain in place, but with higher housing costs as rents rise? What are some of the policy implications of gentrification to State housing and Federal government agencies as these are implicated in the forced migration of low income households as affordable housing and marginalisation of low income renters has occurred? Image: Mickie Quick / flickr

In this article we investigate the associations between the payment and receipt of child support and housing circumstances of both resident and non-resident parents. We do so by analysing data from Wave 4 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. The final analytic sample comprised 1,043 separated parents (637 resident parents, 406 non-resident parents). Our findings indicate that for resident parents the receipt of child support payments above $75 per week was significantly associated with better housing circumstances. By contrast, the payment of child support was not significantly related to housing outcomes for non-resident parents. Overall, our results suggest that resident parents in receipt of child support, particularly above the median amount, live with their children in better housing circumstances than resident parents receiving little or no child support. While this finding makes intuitive sense - money matters - the way in which child support appears to be differentially related to the housing circumstances of resident and non-resident parents warrants further investigation.

This study aims to bring the role of population mobility into contemporary academic understandings of socio-spatial polarisation. The term, ‘socio-spatial polarisation’ refers broadly to the growing gap between rich and poor households in both socio-economic position (‘socio’) and geographic location (‘spatial’). While an extensive literature exists concerning the ways in which housing and labour markets affect urban socio-spatial patterns, limited attention has been given to the fundamental role of household mobility in creating these spatial patterns. A substantial influx or out-movement of particular groups of households (e.g. high or low income; young students or retirees) from various parts of a city, for example, can potentially re-shape the socio-spatial structure. During recent decades, the socio-spatial divisions that characterise Australia’s major cities have become more pronounced. In other words, not only has the income gap between rich and poor households widened, but this gap has played out spatially in differentiating the urban communities that house the rich and poor. Socio-spatial polarisation has become a recognised feature in Australia’s major cities. For households, location within the city has become a crucial determinant of overall welfare, including outcomes associated with health, education, employment, real income, social well-being social capital and personal security (for an overview, see Maher 1999). These socio-spatial divides, therefore, are a matter of public concern. House prices and rent levels play a pivotal role in shaping the socio-economic landscape of the metropolitan area by determining where people can live based on their economic resources. This study focuses on socio-spatial polarisation in Melbourne, the capital city of Victoria and Australia’s second largest city. Melbourne’s population of 3.9 million accounts for 73 per cent of the State of Victoria's population. A low-density sprawled metropolitan region, Melbourne covers 7694 square kilometres and runs approximately 116 kilometres north to south and 122 kilometres east to west. The analysis disaggregates Melbourne into sixteen ABS-defined Statistical Subdivisions (SSDs) and discusses them in terms of four broad housing market areas.

This bulletin is based on research by Dr Michelle Gabriel and Ms Phillipa Watson of the AHURI Southern Research Centre, Professor Gavin Wood of the AHURI RMIT Research Centre, Dr Rachel Ong of the AHURI Western Australia Research Centre, and Associate Professor Maryann Wulff of the AHURI Swinburne-Monash Research Centre. The research examined the opportunities for, and barriers to, improving the environmental sustainability (in terms of energy and water consumption) of Australia’s private rental housing stock. The environmental sustainability of Australia’s private rental housing stock

This article focuses on the core and inner suburbs of Melbourne, Australia and argues that, through decisions about migration and residential mobility, people living in particular household forms are the new agents of gentrification. Specifically we ask: Is the mobility of people in particular household types dominating the social and demographic changes in the 'new-build' inner core and the 'revitalised' inner suburbs? How does household type compare with household income in the in-and out-migration streams from two gentrifying areas? Do recent (2001-2006) migration patterns differ between these two gentrifying inner areas and, if so, in what way? This analysis draws on a customised migration matrix from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census to analyse the characteristics of in-movers and out-movers from Melbourne's core and inner suburbs. The results show that the new-build inner core gained disproportionately in two groups-young adults living alone or sharing, and young childless couples. In contrast the inner suburbs experienced net losses among most household groups apart from young singles living in non-family arrangements. Relative to the population base, international migrants were more likely to locate in the new-build inner core than in the inner suburbs. The article concludes that contemporary gentrification processes require an understanding of new household forms and their migration behaviour.

This paper focuses on the residential mobility of middle-aged persons, not yet retired, an understudied cohort in mobility research. From the 1950s to the 1980s, mobility studies pointed to mid-life as a settled stage in terms of family, work and housing. Recent demographic and social changes, however, have led to these years being typified by a wide gamut of living arrangements that have complicated decisions about, and patterns of, residential mobility. Using the life-course perspective, this paper suggests that the transition to 'empty nester' status will heighten mobility among this group of middle-aged persons relative to their counterparts in other living arrangements. The analysis uses a customised migration matrix from the Australian 2006 Census and identifies segments of 45-64 year olds most likely to have changed address since the previous census in 2001. CHAID statistical method partitioned the 45-64 year old population in Melbourne, Australia, into eight statistically significant segments based on life-course factors and mobility levels. Younger (45-54 years) mid-life empty-nesters changed residence at 1.4 times the mobility rate of all mid-life persons. For couples in this age group, empty nest status conferred a 13 percentage point 'mobility premium' compared with couples that still had children at home. The results contribute to a better understanding of housing consumption among mid-life households and broader debates on access to affordable housing and processes of urban growth. Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The receipt of more than $75 per week in child support assisted resident parents living apart to secure better quality housing for themselves and their children. For non-resident parents living apart, the payment of child support appeared to have no measurable effect upon the standard of their housing. The ongoing obligation to pay child support was nevertheless identified by non-resident parents living apart as an additional financial stress that shaped their housing circumstances, such as preventing the purchase of a new home.

Since the mid-1990s, the Australian immigration programme has undergone a ,paradigm' shift to encourage skilled migrants to settle in regional Australia. The success of this programme is dependent on not just attracting increasing numbers of settlers but more importantly on retaining them in the long run in regional Australia. In this paper, we argue the importance of social connectedness for long-term stay in a particular place and empirically examine the determinants of social connectedness in regional Australia. We use the data from a national survey of 500 randomly selected principal applicants who migrated under the regional sponsored migration scheme. We derived a composite measure of social connectedness from responses to five questions about regular participation in various community activities. Logistic regression models were employed to examine the factors that contribute to social connectedness. Of all the covariates included in the model, five were critical for strong social connectedness. The families with young children, those who have lived in Australia longer, those living in small towns and those who were born in the USA/Canada, South Africa and Zimbabwe showed much stronger social connectedness than others. Another interesting finding was that those who found the assistance they received from their employer sponsor upon arrival helpful were also more likely to have strong social connectedness. The paper concludes with the policy implications and future research directions on this very important social issue.

Comparing the Chinese migration experiences in two culturally different places, Melbourne and Prato, can shed light on the processes of social integration. This research is background to a larger study comparing the social, demographic, housing and residential outcomes for the Chinese populations in Melbourne with the situation in Prato, Italy.