People Purpose Place

At People Purpose Place, we're solving the housing crisis one intentional household at a time. Discover some of our plans and examples in our PLACE discussion here.

Education

Lessons from the Community Development Conference in Port Douglas: Housing, Connection, and Collaboration

Leave a Comment

When Andrea and our team at PeoplePurposePlace learned the Community Development Conference was coming to Port Douglas in 2025, we knew we had to be there. I didn’t realise how much this conference would change my understanding of our work and the challenges we’re facing.

Darren at the Port Douglas Community Development Conference

A Remarkable Connection

Listening to Dr Alan Dale’s opening address and hearing from Community Development Queensland facilitators and core groups, something clicked. I’d been working alongside community development professionals for some time – sometimes unknowingly. Conversations with purpose-driven individuals exploring co-living and collaborative living solutions were part of a larger movement.

What struck me most was learning about the often-underappreciated role these groups play in keeping our communities functioning and connected. While community centres are the most visible face of this work, the impact goes deeper. Community development professionals support personal growth, social connections, and business development, tailoring their approaches to local communities – what they call “place-based responses.”

Change of Plans

After hearing the keynote speakers and learning more about community development work, I realised I needed to rethink my presentation entirely. The housing pressures across Australia aren’t just a housing issue—they’re fundamentally affecting the survival and wellbeing of local communities. This was larger than I’d initially understood.

I decided to focus on three areas where our work at PeoplePurposePlace intersects with community development:

1. Housing and Wellbeing

The housing crisis has grown beyond individual influence, and its impacts are enormous. Without addressing housing as a human right, supporting community well-being at the local level becomes incredibly difficult. We can’t separate where people live from how well they thrive.

2. The Challenge of Approaching Things Differently

There’s a significant gap between recognising we have a housing problem and actually being willing to change it. Change often means stepping outside our comfort zones, which is difficult within the limits of normal human experience and community expectations.

I wanted to share some approaches we’ve been experimenting with, while being honest that we’re constantly grappling with this. We’re still learning how to help communities move toward collaborative living as a housing solution and a remedy for our connection and wellbeing crisis.

3. What Modern Collaboration Looks Like

We’re no longer entirely dependent on others for survival, but at heart, we’re still small tribal animals. Human connection remains essential for our development and well-being. How do we create that in a modern setting, especially when most people want quick fixes?

This is the question we’re dealing with.

Finding Common Ground

The post-presentation conversations have been enlightening. While housing and community development come from different angles, we face similar challenges and work toward common goals. The lessons learned at PeoplePurposePlace—often through trial and error—resonate in community development. The workshops and processes we’re developing can be adapted in many ways.

I’ve connected with several aligned groups, and I’m excited about building these long-term relationships. There’s something powerful about discovering you’re not alone in tackling these challenges: that there’s a network of people thinking creatively about building stronger, more connected, and resilient communities.

Looking Forward

The Port Douglas conference reminded me that solving complex problems like housing and community wellbeing requires collaboration, innovation, and a willingness to challenge the norms. Most importantly, it requires understanding that housing, connection, and community aren’t separate issues—they’re all part of the same conversation about creating spaces where people can truly thrive.

If you’re interested in community development work in Queensland, check out Community Development Queensland. If you’re exploring collaborative living solutions or reimagining 21st-century community, let’s continue the discussion.

Can “co-living” solve the housing crisis?

1 Comment

Darren’s interview with ABC Radio June 4th 2025

Darren Finlay

View and listen here

“Remember when you were younger, sharing a house was just part of life. Whether you were leaving home, starting university, or beginning a new job, it was normal to move in with others – often complete strangers, and split the costs of living.”

“So why, 30, 40, or even 50 years later, does the idea of communal living feel so unfamiliar?”

Listen on ABC Far North Breakfast Show

Impacts on Housing

Leave a Comment

Understanding Bias and Heuristics

In a perfect world, every decision we make about housing would be rational, data-driven, and focused on long-term benefit. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and we aren’t perfect decision-makers. We are human. That means we rely on mental shortcuts, gut feelings, and social influences when navigating complex choices, especially in something as emotionally and financially loaded as housing.

At People Purpose Place, understanding how cognitive bias affects housing is key to addressing broader affordability, access, and innovation challenges. This article explores these biases, how they manifest in the housing system, and why awareness is the first step toward change.

What Are Biases and Heuristics?

Heuristics are mental shortcuts that help us make quick decisions without processing every detail. They’re efficient and often helpful, but they can also lead to biases, which are systematic errors in thinking.

These biases affect everyone, from homebuyers and renters to investors, developers, policymakers, and community groups. They can reinforce inequality, perpetuate poor planning, and lock in outdated housing norms when unexamined.

Common Biases in Housing Decisions

Let’s look at some common cognitive biases and how they distort decision-making in the housing space:

  1. Status Quo Bias: People tend to prefer things to stay the same. This shows up in resistance to alternative housing models, zoning changes, or innovative ownership structures—even when those changes could improve affordability and community wellbeing.
  2. Loss Aversion:  We feel the pain of losses more strongly than the pleasure of gains. Homeowners might oppose new development, fearing their property value will drop, even if the long-term gain is a more vibrant and inclusive neighborhood.
  3. Anchoring Bias:  First impressions or prices anchor our expectations. If a suburb was once “affordable,” people might still believe it is—even when market data shows otherwise. Conversely, if a property was listed at $800,000, a $750,000 price tag might feel like a bargain, regardless of its actual value.
  4. In-Group Bias / Herd Behavior:  People tend to follow the crowd, especially when uncertain. In housing, this can mean buying in a “hot” suburb just because everyone else is, driving up prices irrationally and creating boom-bust cycles.
  5. Overconfidence Bias:  Investors or buyers may believe they can “pick the next growth suburb” or renovate for an enormous profit, even without experience. This can lead to risky decisions and poor outcomes.
  6. Picture Superiority Effect:  Visually appealing listings—photos of sunny kitchens, staged living rooms—can disproportionately influence perception of value, regardless of structural or location flaws.
  7. Information Bias: We often believe that more information leads to better decisions. But in housing, this can create decision paralysis: too many listings, too much data, and too many opinions can lead to no action.
  8. Peak-End Rule:  People evaluate experiences based on the most intense point and the end. A smooth final inspection can override months of stress in the buying process, just as one bad experience with a rental can taint a whole suburb.

These examples show how cognitive bias affects housing choices, from buyers and renters to planners and investors.

The Bigger Picture: Biases at System Level

These biases don’t just influence individuals but also shape policies and markets. Beyond individuals, cognitive bias affects housing systems, influencing public policy, development decisions, and community resistance to change. For example:

  • Governments may underinvest in social housing due to status quo bias or fear of backlash from current homeowners.
  • Due to anchoring bias and perceived market expectations, developers might choose familiar housing types (like 4-bedroom suburban homes).
  • Public opposition to density often stems from loss aversion and in-group bias, even in communities that would benefit from more diverse housing options.

What Can We Do About It?

Understanding bias is not about blaming individuals. It’s about seeing clearly so we can make better choices—together.

1. Design for Bias

Policymakers and developers can design solutions that account for human psychology. This might include visualising benefits more clearly, telling stories that evoke empathy, or framing proposals in ways that highlight gains over losses.

2. Educate and Empower

Public awareness campaigns can help communities understand the impacts of housing bias, shifting the conversation from fear to possibility. Workshops, storytelling, and transparent planning processes are key.

3. Model Alternatives

Pilot projects like co-living, land trusts, or build-to-rent models help overcome the status quo by showing what’s possible. Real examples speak louder than hypotheticals.

4. Create Space for Reflection

Community decision-making benefits from structured dialogue. Slowing down to explore fears, motivations, and assumptions helps people move from reaction to reflection.

Why It Matters

Biases shape how we build, buy, rent, invest, and plan. We risk reproducing inequality and stalling progress when we’re unaware of them. But when we work to understand our own thinking, we unlock new possibilities.

When we recognise how cognitive bias affects housing, we gain the power to design smarter, fairer solutions that put people at the centre.

At People Purpose Place, we believe housing can be more than shelter—it can be security, connection, and community. That starts by seeing not just the houses but the people, their purpose, and the patterns that shape them.

Return to Home

Conditions for Safe Group Housing

Leave a Comment

Intention

Creating a safe and effective group requires both deliberate attention and good intentions. In the work of People Purpose Place, we have found that fostering safety in a group setting is fundamental to achieving shared goals, enhancing collaboration, and strengthening community bonds. A well-functioning group is greater than the sum of its parts, offering practical benefits and emotional and social rewards such as camaraderie, purpose, and support. Safe group housing can all provide this.

We are Social Beings

Recognising that humans are inherently social beings is at the core of group safety. Historically, cooperation was essential for survival through shared watch duties for protection or collaborative efforts to secure food and shelter. While society has evolved beyond basic survival, collective effort remains crucial, particularly in addressing large-scale challenges like the housing crisis. Safe group housing is required to offer alternative housing to the current investor model only.

Shelter a basic Human Need

Shelter is a fundamental human need that often results from collaboration. Modern housing construction, for instance, relies on the coordinated efforts of numerous professionals, from tradespeople to financiers. However, much of this collaboration is currently driven by financial incentives. If money were removed from the equation, the structures that house people would not materialise simultaneously. As housing affordability becomes an increasing concern, communities must explore alternative ways to foster cooperation and create safe, functional living spaces.

The conditions for a safe group can take many forms—shared family responsibilities, faith-based communities, or collective efforts to support essential workers. The key to sustaining these groups lies in establishing clear agreements. Whether simple or complex, these agreements define the group’s purpose, outline expectations, and set measurable standards for success. By consciously creating and documenting these conditions, groups can foster trust, ensure safety, and maximise their collective potential.

The Power of Collective Effort

At People Purpose Place, we deliver housing solutions at the individual project scale, where this change must start.

People Purpose Place. Home

Supply and Demand Housing: A New Perspective on Solving the Crisis

Leave a Comment

When we discuss our current housing issues, people often find themselves in distinct camps of thought. Some argue that we need more supply (Australian Financial Review article here), while others insist that current housing is not meeting demand (Sydney University Everybody’s Home). But what if both statements are true? What if these perspectives are two sides of the same coin, revealing a deeper, interconnected issue in the supply demand housing dynamic?

More supply side argument here

Wow, my mind is blown!

supply demand housing

Imagine, for a moment, a world where we ask the very people who will build our future economy, parent our children, mentor our youth, protect our nation, and share their wisdom in their twilight years:

If we supply your housing needs, can you thrive with stress taken away?

Will you be content to double down and commit to the great Australian dream?

The answer is consistently evident. People understand what they want to contribute to society. Still, their current stressed circumstances—where over 30% of their household income is consumed by housing—make it impossible for them to be their best selves. They report that if they could have some certainty and security in their housing, they could get on with fulfilling their purpose.

Two significant concerns dominate the supply-demand housing conversation:

Tenure and Affordability

Tenure:

For about 4 million Australian households, renting in the private rental market is not a choice but a necessity. This market offers short-term, volatile, and insecure options for tenants. A twelve-month lease is hardly enough time before a significant price review or a complete change of purpose forces them out. Tenure insecurity is a constant source of stress for many, making it difficult to plan for the future or feel settled.

Affordability:

When large portions of household income are devoted to securing housing, there is little left for essential activities like preventive medicine, dental appointments, or even a car service. In the current market, rentals typically consume around 30% of household budgets, while mortgages can often take up to 50%. This strain leaves families with no room to breathe, let alone thrive.

But what if there were another way to secure and afford housing? A way that doesn’t conform to the traditional supply-demand housing model but instead embraces innovation and collaboration.

The Power of Small Groups:

A Solution for All

At People Purpose Place, we believe in the power of small groups to achieve great housing outcomes that work for all stakeholders. We have demonstrated this through our Ginn Road project, where working together has led to affordable and secure housing solutions.

Our approach flips the traditional supply/demand housing model on its head. Instead of individuals struggling to meet their needs alone, we bring people together to create housing that suits everyone:-

  • shift workers
  • emergency services personnel
  • young professionals
  • those needing accessible living options
  • care built-in

We act as an introduction agency that connects the supply and demand sides, accommodating all stakeholders’ needs. As a not-for-profit organization, People Purpose Place has minimal costs to cover, and our guidance typically saves money compared to business as usual.

Benefits Beyond Cost Savings

  1. When talking about cost savings, we’re not just referring to fewer sales commissions or luxury cars on the road.
  2. We’re talking about development that uses best practices rather than business as usual.
  3. Instead of offering standard fixtures and fittings, why not include a firepit and BBQ smoker if that’s what you’re passionate about?
  4. And if you don’t have a butler, why spend extra on a Butler’s Pantry?
  5. Finally, you can choose a tenure that suits you. If you’re looking for a five or 10-year commitment, we can accommodate that.

This flexibility is crucial in creating a housing model that works for everyone.

Ready to Start Your Journey?

Solving the housing crisis one HOME at a time

If you’re ready to embark on a journey toward affordable, secure housing, reliable, predictable, low-cost guideposts are available. Using this framework, you can clearly see that you’re on the right track toward a great home where you can thrive.

Let’s move beyond the traditional supply-demand housing debate and create a future where everyone has the security and affordability they need to live their best lives. Join us at People Purpose Place, where we’re turning this vision into reality.

Return to People Purpose Place home.

Where is the Leadership on Housing?

1 Comment

leadership housing
Sir Donald Bradnam
leadership housing
Sir Edmund Barton
leadership housing
Caroline Chisolm
leadership housing
Alfred Deakin
leadership housing
Edith Cowan
leadership housing
John Flynn
leadership housing
Sir Edward “Weary” Dunlop The Australian War Museum
Eddie Mabo
leadership housing
Fred Hollows
leadership housing
Via Goldstein
Sir John Monash The Australian War Museum
Sir Douglas Mawson
Sir Douglas Nicholls

Over the past 3 weeks, I’ve had conversations with individuals who you might expect to be leaders in the ongoing housing debate. Among them were a local Queensland Mayor elected on a platform advocating for change. Then, a Federal Member of Parliament and a popular YouTuber from Punters Politics. Here’s how those discussions unfolded:

The Regional Town Mayor

This first-term Mayor eagerly took our call, recognising that their community desperately needs housing solutions. The local economy is stunted, and it cannot expand or diversify due to the lack of available housing for the workforce. Despite this, and after a decade of attempting to engage with this local government, it seems that even new leadership is still mired in the old council priorities of roads, rates, and rubbish. Meaningful change remains elusive despite every local ratepayer’s outcry over the “cost of living” and the “housing crisis.”

It seems that there is leadership in housing intent. However, intent is not enough to cut through the administration and red tape and effect change.

The Federal Parliament’s Role

With a $10 billion budget making headlines, one would assume that leadership and decisive action would be forthcoming from the Federal Parliament. Yet, in a brief in-person conversation, a Federal Member of Parliament candidly admitted that they are focused on what can be realistically achieved within the current political cycle rather than on ambitious, long-term goals. Their current term ends in 2025, and while they acknowledged the necessity of addressing the housing crisis, they expressed doubt about their ability to support any grand vision before then.

These ambitious people seem to want leadership, not that housing is even on their radar. In such privileged positions and insulated from the common experience, it probably is no surprise that these few do not understand what “housing stress” means.

“We will offer what can be achieved, not what might be a great aspirational goal.  We need to work with our system and within the political cycle, so I am not sure I can help with your grand vision.  No matter how wonderful and necessary this vision is.  Our current term runs out in 2025.”

Insights from a YouTuber Influencer

In the age of declining traditional media, influencers like those behind the YouTube channel “Punters Politics” have stepped in to fill the void.

Yes, these people want leadership, and housing is a key topic. One should ask if they have the necessary experience, resources, and capacity to lead the discussion.

One of their videos, “Why Australia WON’T Fix the Housing Crisis,” presents some compelling arguments. The video discusses how a small percentage of the population—about 1%—holds the power to make key decisions affecting housing. This elite group has crafted a system that benefits them, while the rest of us are left with limited influence over significant areas like defence, major infrastructure projects, and, of course, housing.

Let us Dive into this argument a bit further

The Singapore Comparison

Singapore is often cited as a success story in housing, but it’s not an easily transferable model for Australia. Singapore’s approach involves building thousands of units at a time—something we neither have the capacity nor the need to replicate. Additionally, Singaporean homes are usually small flats of less than 100 square meters, occupied by multi-generational families. This contrasts sharply with the Australian average household size of 2.5 people and our preference for larger homes.

Even if you could convince Australians to accept: –

  • smaller flats
  • living with multiple generations
  • no backyard

Such a shift would be nearly impossible because of one key element.

FINANCE:  With no precedence of a new housing type, there are no successful valuations. Therefore, there is no financial approval to purchase a different housing solution.

A Historical Perspective on Housing

Historically, Australia has taken steps toward widespread homeownership. Particularly under Prime Minister Robert Menzies, who promoted the “Australian Dream” of homeownership. The Prime Minister was enamoured with all Australians becoming “little capitalists” to pursue home ownership. This led to homeownership rates reaching a high of 70%. However, those efforts have waned, leaving us far from where we once were.

1970s HOUSING: Was far different to what we expect today

  • Kids in shared bedrooms
  • A carport at best
  • One bathroom
  • The “outhouse” had only just been removed
  • No power outlet is required in the bedroom

Who’s Really in Control?

Australia has around 10 million households, but less than 1%—about 100,000 households—hold the real power. This group includes elected officials, corporate leaders, and influential institutions like universities and churches.

To put this in perspective, it is not the income but the power to influence our system.

If you want to understand how our household income is working, you should review our blog. Understanding Housing Stress in Australia.

Elected Officials:

There are 227 seats in the Federal Parliament, 620 in the state and territory parliaments (excluding our island territories), and 5,670 local council positions (see the data here). This represents only some 6,500 households.

Corporations:

The top 500 Australian corporations likely contribute another 2500 influential households (using 5 influencers in each of these corporations). By the time you add in their key decision makers: –

  • Chairperson
  • Chief Financial Officer
  • Chief Executive Officer
  • Chief People & Stakeholder Engagement Officer
  • Shadowy consultant (KPMG perhaps)

These companies are governed by a few powerful individuals who shape policies and strategies.

Institutions:

Schools, universities, and churches also play significant roles in decision-making, often implementing changes without broad public input.

What Can We Do?

As elections approach, it’s crucial to consider how we can mobilize a critical mass to bring about change. In my local area, the state seat of Jordan has 46,135 enrolled voters. To secure a decisive win in the upcoming October 2024 election, a candidate would need the support of just over 23,000 voters. Offering secure, stable housing options could be a compelling reason for residents to rally behind a candidate who truly represents their needs.

In this seat of Jordan, we’re dealing with significant issues:

  • 700 people are experiencing homelessness.
  • 1,800 households are affected by domestic violence.
  • 50% of households are experiencing housing stress.

These figures should be more than enough to drive meaningful change. If you’re a local leader looking to engage with the electorate in Jordan, Queensland, we’re here to help you craft a message that resonates with voters. We desperately need leadership in housing in every electorate. Let’s focus on solutions that benefit everyone, not just the 1% who are satisfied with the current system.

Return to People Purpose Place home

What is the Housing Australia Future Fund

Leave a Comment

Investment Returns and Alternatives

What the HAAF?

The Australian government introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) to address housing affordability and supply issues. This long-term initiative is designed to finance the construction of new affordable housing and support various housing projects, aiming to improve housing outcomes for Australians, particularly those in need. Let’s delve into the HAFF’s investment returns and compare them with two alternative investment strategies to see which approach might yield better results for public housing funds. See more on the HAAF here.

Investment Mandate and Expected Performance

The Housing Australia Future Fund Investment Mandate Direction 2023, issued on 1 November 2023, requires the Future Fund Board to target a long-term benchmark return of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 2.0% to 3.0% per annum, net of investment fees. With the CPI currently running at an annual rate of 3.6% (as of July 2024), the HAFF should aim for a performance band of 5.6% to 6.6%.

These are rather modest goals for a $10 billion investment!

housing funds
ABC News: Matt Roberts

Current Economic Environment

1. Investment Strategy

The HAFF’s returns depend on its investment strategy, which likely includes a diversified mix of assets such as government bonds, equities, and other investments to balance risk and return.

2. Management

The effectiveness of the fund’s management team in navigating market conditions is crucial for achieving the fund’s objectives.

3. Market Conditions

Broader economic conditions and market performance significantly impact the returns of the fund’s investments.

4. Goals vs. Returns

While the HAFF’s primary focus is on addressing the housing supply, its financial performance must also be considered to ensure the effective use of public housing funds.

Early Performance and Evaluation

According to the Department of Finance, the HAFF’s early investment returns were a nominal 1.9% for the quarter ending 31 March 2024. This equates to an annualised return of 7.6%, which falls within the targeted range but raises questions about the adequacy of these returns for public housing funds.

Option 1:

Investing in Australian Property Trusts

An alternative strategy could involve investing the HAFF in Australian property trusts. The Residential Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) industry in Australia is dominated by companies like GPT Group (GPT), Stockland (SGP), and Mirvac (MGR), which own and manage residential properties across the country.

The reported performance of these companies typically shows higher returns than the HAFF’s early performance. For example:

GPT Group (GPT): Historically stable with periodic high returns.

Stockland (SGP): Consistently delivers solid returns with moderate volatility.

Mirvac (MGR): Known for strong performance and resilience in market downturns.

While these REITs have demonstrated the ability to outperform the HAFF’s returns, they also come with higher volatility, which might not be acceptable for public housing funds. The recent “unprecedented” times have shown significant fluctuations in real estate markets, suggesting that such investments might expose public housing funds to undue risk.

Option 2:

Direct Investment in Residential Property

Another viable alternative is direct investment in residential property. With $10 billion, the government could purchase 10,000 homes at an average cost of $1 million each. This approach leverages the dual returns of rental income and capital gains, which have historically increased at higher rates than these early HAFF results.

Direct investment in residential property can provide steady rental income and capitalise on property value appreciation. Given the current market trends, this strategy could reasonably be expected to outperform the HAFF’s early returns of 7.6%. However, managing a large portfolio of residential properties involves significant administrative efforts and potential property management and maintenance challenges.

Before conclusions can be drawn, we need to step back and ask a key question:

“To increase public housing supply, this mechanism aims to take public funds and maximize their impact.”

Does this current strategy achieve this aim?

Is investing in producing income and then using that ongoing income to make a difference the best return on funds in this strategy?

In Summary big goals is this the right plan?

The Housing Australia Future Fund is a promising initiative to address the housing crisis, but its early returns have sparked debate on its financial performance. Comparing the HAFF with alternative investment strategies, such as Australian property trusts and direct residential property investments, reveals that while these alternatives might offer higher returns, they also come with increased volatility and management challenges.

Ultimately, the best approach depends on balancing the need for stable, reliable returns with the primary goal of increasing housing supply and affordability. A diversified strategy that combines elements of these options might offer a robust solution, ensuring the effective use of public housing funds while addressing Australia’s pressing housing needs.

Return to People Purpose Place HOME

Understanding Housing Stress in Australia: An In-Depth Look

1 Comment

What is Housing Stress?

Housing stress is a critical issue in Australia, defined as households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, including rent or mortgage payments. This is especially relevant for those whose life circumstances make it impossible to avoid participating in the established housing marketplace. For instance, owning multiple luxury properties and facing dilemmas about leisure activities does not constitute housing stress.

The portion of the low income population spending more than 30% on housing otherwise refereed to as “rental stress”.

Who is Affected?

The most recent data focuses on the bottom two quintiles of the Australian population when considering disposable household income. Interestingly, even the middle quintile is not exempt from housing stress, illustrating the widespread nature of this issue across various income levels.

Of the 10 million Australian households if we rank them by disposable household income

The top 20% Australian households (Quintile) by income have an annual average disposable income of $280000

These people probably have choices about their housing outcomes.

Frequency of Data Collection

Housing stress data is measured biennially, providing insights into trends and changes over time.

Housing Stress by Housing Type

Households in stress

Of the 10 million Australian households if we rank them by disposable household income

The lowest 20% Australian households (Quintile) by income have an annual average disposable income of $24000

It is fair to assume these households are experiencing housing stress.

This equates to 2 million Australian households

The private rental marketplace emerges as the most stressful environment. The latest statistics highlight the substantial portion of low-income households experiencing rental stress:

1. Prevalence of Housing Stress

Approximately 52.5% of low-income households renting in the private sector spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs, indicating significant rental stress.

Among Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) recipients, 70.6% experience rental stress without CRA, and 42.9% still face rental stress even with this assistance.

2. Income Measurement Methods

Housing stress can be measured using gross income (before tax) or equivalised disposable income (after tax, adjusted for household size and composition). The 30:40 indicator is commonly used to identify housing stress in households within the bottom 40% of the income distribution.

3. Impact on Low-Income Households

The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) provides detailed insights, noting that using gross income helps identify households in stress if they pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Equivalised disposable income takes household size and needs into account for a more nuanced assessment.

4. Government Reports and Surveys

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conducts the Survey of Income and Housing (SIH) every two years, collecting data on rental stress and broader housing costs. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey also contributes valuable data on housing affordability, monitoring economic and social welfare trends.

Housing Types by Income Quintiles

Lower Quintiles (1st and 2nd)

Housing Type:

Renters and those in more affordable housing options, including public housing and rental accommodations from private landlords.

Housing Costs:

Lower housing costs compared to higher quintiles but significant financial pressure relative to their income.

Middle Quintile (3rd)

Housing Type:

A mix of renters and homeowners. Homeowners typically have mortgages and live in smaller detached houses, townhouses, or units.

Housing Costs:

Moderate costs, balancing affordability and quality. Less likely to experience extreme housing stress but still face challenges.

Higher Quintiles (4th and 5th)

Housing Type:

Predominantly homeowners, many of whom own their homes outright or have significant property equity. Housing types include larger detached houses, high-end apartments, and properties in more desirable locations.

Housing Costs:

Higher costs but a lower proportion of income spent on housing, making it more affordable. These households also often own investment properties and secondary residences.

Income and Housing Data

Income Distribution:

The highest quintile earns significantly more than the lower quintiles, with the top 20% of households earning over $280,000 annually on average, while the bottom quintile earns just over $24,000 (McCrindle).

Housing Affordability:

In 2019-20, average housing costs vary by state, with the highest costs in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and the lowest in Tasmania (Australian Bureau of Statistics).

These insights highlight the ongoing challenge of housing affordability in Australia, particularly for lower-income households. For further detailed information, you can refer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other comprehensive reports on the subject (Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2019-20 financial year) (Household Income and Wealth, Australian methodology 2019-20).

For a deeper dive into the topic, explore resources from the [Australian Bureau of Statistics](https://www.abs.gov.au) and [AHURI](https://www.ahuri.edu.au).

Return to People Purpose Place home