Indigenous housing needs 
2009
A multi-measure needs model 

October 2009

Please note that there is the potential for minor revisions of data in this report.
Please check the online version at <www.aihw.gov.au> for any amendments.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is Australia’s national
health and welfare statistics and information agency. The Institute’s mission is
 better information and statistics for better health and wellbeing.

© Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without prior written permission from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be directed to the Head, Media and Communications Unit, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, GPO Box 570, Canberra ACT 2601.

A complete list of the Institute’s publications is available from the Institute’s website <www.aihw.gov.au>. 

ISBN 978 1 74024 952 2

Suggested citation 
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009. Indigenous housing needs 2009: a multi-measure needs model. Cat. no. HOU 214. Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
Board Chair
Hon. Peter Collins, AM, QC

Director 
Penny Allbon

Any enquiries about or comments on this publication should be directed to:
Housing Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
GPO Box 570
Canberra ACT 2601
Phone: (02) 6244 1000

Published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Printed by Blue Star Print Group 

Contents
Authorship and acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Symbols
Summary
The findings
1	Introduction
2	Profile of Indigenous Australians
2.1 	Demographic characteristics
2.1.1 Population estimates and age
2.1.2 Geographic location
2.2 	Population characteristics
2.2.1 Household characteristics
2.2.2 Tenure type
2.3 	Housing assistance
3	Homelessness
3.1 	Definition
3.2 	HMAC agreed measure
3.3 	Estimate
3.4 	Alternative methodologies
3.5 	Population comparisons
3.6 	Changes in Indigenous homelessness since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs 
report
4	Overcrowding
4.1 	Definition
4.2 	HMAC agreed measure
4.3 	Estimate
4.4 	Alternative methodologies
4.5 	Population comparisons
4.6 	Changes in Indigenous overcrowding since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs report
5	Affordability
5.1 	Definition
5.2 	HMAC agreed measure
5.3 	Estimate
5.4 	Alternative methodologies
5.5 	Population comparisons
5.6 	Changes in Indigenous affordability since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs 
report
6	Dwelling condition
6.1 	Definition
6.2 	HMAC agreed measure
6.3 	Estimate
6.4 	Alternative methodologies
6.5 	Population comparisons
6.6 	Changes in dwelling condition since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs report
7	Connection to essential services
7.1 	Definition
7.2 	HMAC agreed measure
7.3 	Estimate
7.4 	Alternative methodologies
7.5 	Population comparisons
7.6 	Changes in connection to services since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs 
report
8	Estimate of the current dwelling need gap
8.2 	Method
8.2.2 Results
9	Forward projections of need (emerging need)
9.1 	Method
9.2 	Results
10	Improving the measurement of Indigenous housing need: definitional and data development work to be undertaken
10.1 Currently measurable dimensions of Indigenous housing need
10.1.1 Homelessness
10.1.2 Overcrowding
10.1.3 Dwelling condition
10.1.4 Connection to essential services
10.2 Unmeasured dimensions of Indigenous housing need
10.2.1 Appropriateness
10.2.2 Security of tenure
10.3 Alignment of the multi-measure approach with emerging policy and program directions
Appendix 1: Data sources
ABS 2006 Census of Population and Housing
ABS 2006 Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS)
National Social Housing Survey (NSHS)
Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) administrative data
Indigenous Community Housing (ICH) data collection
Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) client collection
Australian Government Housing Data Set
Appendix 2: 	Additional tables
Appendix 3: 	Assessment of previous method for estimating the social housing dwelling need gap
A3.1 Strengths
A3.2 Limitations
A3.3 Comments on projection of need calculations
Appendix 4: Methodologies to assess Indigenous housing need
Glossary
References
List of tables
List of figures

Authorship and acknowledgments
The author of this report was Melinda Petrie. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Simon Arnold, Tessica Dall, Tracie Ennis, Jacinta Holcroft, David Wilson and the National Committee for Housing Information for their valuable advice and input.
This report received financial support from the Housing Ministers’ Advisory Committee through the National Committee for Housing Information work program.
Abbreviations
ABS	Australian Bureau of Statistics	
AIHW	Australian Institute of Health and Welfare	
ARIA	Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia	
ATSIS	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services	
BBF	Building a Better Future	
CHINS	Community Housing Infrastructure and Needs Survey	
CNOS	Canadian National Occupancy Standard	
CRA	Commonwealth Rent Assistance	
CSHA	Commonwealth State Housing Agreement	
FaHCSIA	Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs	
HHIMG	Housing and Homelessness Information Management Group	
HHPRWG	Housing and Homelessness Policy Research Working Group	
HMAC	Housing Ministers’ Advisory Committee	
HMC	Housing Ministers’ Conference	
ICH	Indigenous community housing	
ICHO	Indigenous community housing organisation	
NAHA	National Affordable Housing Agreement	
NRF	National Reporting Framework	
SAAP	Supported Accommodation Assistance Program	
SCIH	Standing Committee on Indigenous Housing	
SCRGSP	Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision	
SOMIH	State owned and managed Indigenous housing	

Symbols
..	not applicable	
n.a.	not available	
no.	number	
n.p.	not published	
$	Australian dollars	
‘000	thousands	

Summary
Indigenous housing needs 2009: a multi-measure needs model is the second report published on Indigenous housing needs. A multi-measure approach comprising five dimensions endorsed by the Housing Ministers’ Conference (HMC) is used to determine Indigenous housing need. The report presents the most recent data on the level of Indigenous housing need across the five dimensions of homelessness, overcrowding, affordability, dwelling condition and connection to essential services; estimates the current dwelling need gap; and provides projections of Indigenous housing need.
At 30 June 2006, the estimated resident Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population was 517,200, or 2.5% of the total Australian population. An estimated one-third (32%) of Indigenous Australians were living in capital cities and a further 43% in regional areas. The majority of Indigenous households are family households (81%), are larger than non-Indigenous households, and more than half (60%) were renting.
The findings
The level of Indigenous housing need was highest in the homelessness, overcrowding and affordability need dimensions.
•	9,248 Indigenous people were experiencing homelessness; 20,739 Indigenous households were overcrowded; 8,331 Indigenous income units were in financial housing stress.
•	Overcrowding rates are highest in the Northern Territory and affordability need is more prominent in Major city areas.
•	The Indigenous population is in higher need than the non-Indigenous population across homelessness and overcrowding.
•	The number of additional dwellings required to help those in most need across the three dimensions was estimated to be 9,795.
The number of dwellings required to meet Indigenous housing need will continue to increase because of demographic growth and changes in household formation.
•	It is estimated that in 2006 the dwelling need gap was 11,538 dwellings, considering extreme need only, or 19,429 if considering all need.
•	It is estimated that in addition to the established dwelling need gap, an estimated additional 529 dwellings were required in 2008 for those in most need, with a further 3,137 dwellings needed by 2018.
•	The majority of dwellings are required to reduce overcrowding.
Since the 2005 report, connection to essential services and levels of overcrowding have improved.
•	However, homelessness and affordability levels have remained the same and dwelling condition has deteriorated.

1	Introduction
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples do not have the same access to secure, affordable housing as other Australians. This can be the result of low incomes, discrimination or lack of suitable housing. In very remote areas, some Indigenous people live in poorly maintained, overcrowded housing without essential infrastructure such as safe drinking water supply or an effective sewerage system (AIHW 2005).
In May 2001 Housing Ministers endorsed a 10-year statement of new directions for Indigenous housing, Building a Better Future: Indigenous Housing to 2010 (BBF). A task recognised by the BBF was to identify and meet the housing needs of Indigenous Australians.
In 2002, the Housing Ministers’ Advisory Committee (HMAC) and the Housing Ministers’ Conference (HMC) endorsed a multi-measure approach to determine Indigenous housing need that comprised five dimensions that it viewed as vital to understanding and quantifying housing need for Indigenous Australians and ultimately informing resource allocation.
The five dimensions were: 
•	homelessness
•	overcrowding
•	affordability
•	dwelling condition
•	connection to essential services (power, water and sewerage).
Three additional dimensions of Indigenous housing need—security of tenure, appropriateness of housing and emerging needs—were also recommended to be part of the multi-measure needs model. However, as there was no agreement on how to measure these three dimensions, they were not endorsed as part of the multi-measure needs model at that stage.
In 2003, the then Standing Committee on Indigenous Housing (SCIH) made a commitment to HMAC and HMC to produce a comprehensive report on the use of these five dimensions to assess Indigenous housing needs. The report Indigenous housing needs 2005: a multi-measure needs model was published in 2005 (refer to Box 1 for more information).
This is the second report to HMAC on Indigenous housing need and builds on the 2005 report. It presents the most recent data in relation to the currently measurable five dimensions of Indigenous housing need (Chapters 3 to 7); provides an estimate of the current dwelling need gap (Chapter 8); provides projections of Indigenous housing need (Chapter 9); and identifies further work to be undertaken with regard to the definition and measurement of all eight dimensions (Chapter 10). It does not present data on the appropriateness and security of tenure dimensions as it is felt the focus of the discussion at this stage must be on the conceptual issues associated with developing agreed measures. Chapter 10 also makes recommendations to the Housing and Homelessness Information Management Group (HHIMG) and the Housing and Homeless Policy Research Working Group (HHPRWG) to further work in relation to defining and quantifying housing need for Indigenous Australians.

Box 1: Indigenous housing needs 2005: a multi-measure needs model
The former National Indigenous Housing Information Implementation Committee (NIHIIC) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) prepared the 2005 report. The report used a similar approach to those taken in two preliminary reports on housing needs completed in 2003 and 2004. In 2003, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Housing requested the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS) to estimate Indigenous housing needs for each Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission region, using a multi-measure method that incorporated the five endorsed dimensions. The ATSIS report, Multi Measure Modelling of Indigenous Housing Needs, included estimates of Indigenous homelessness, overcrowding and affordability based on the 2001 Census, and estimates of dwelling condition and connection to essential services based on the 2001 Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS).The ATSIS report considered each of the five dimensions separately, but did not assess housing needs by housing tenure.
In May 2004, the Chair of NIHIIC was seconded to develop a way of assessing housing needs by tenure type. This study identified five types of Indigenous housing markets based on predominant tenure type—mainly private housing, mainly community housing, mainly social housing, both private and social housing, and other tenures. This report, Multi-Measure Modelling of Indigenous Housing Needs, was completed in September 2004.
The measurement of the five endorsed dimensions for the 2005 report was based on administrative data and supplemented with survey data where appropriate. The chapter for each dimension included a definition, a statement of any associated conceptual issues, a summary of ways of estimating need, data sources and a description covering all available information. The data are presented at the national level and state and territory level, by remoteness area and tenure type, and comparisons between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous population are presented where possible. The report also included an assessment of the feasibility of incorporating the three unendorsed dimensions into the multi-measure model (AIHW 2005).

2	Profile of Indigenous Australians
2.1 Demographic characteristics
2.1.1 Population estimates and age
At 30 June 2006, the estimated resident Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia was 517,200, or 2.5% of the total Australian population. The Indigenous population has a younger age profile, with a median age of 21 years compared with 37 years for the 
non-Indigenous population (ABS & AIHW 2008).
2.1.2 Geographic location
The jurisdictions with the highest estimated resident Indigenous populations were New South Wales (152,885 or 30%) and Queensland (144,885 or 28%). Indigenous Australians represent less than 4% of the state population in all jurisdictions, with the exception of the Northern Territory where they represent 30% of the population (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Estimated resident Indigenous population, by state and territory and remoteness areas, 2006(a)
	Proportion by remoteness area (%)				
State/ territory 	

Major cities	

Inner regional	

Outer regional	

Remote	

Very remote	No. of Indigenous people	Indigenous people as proportion of total state/territory population (%)	Proportion of total Australian Indigenous population (%)	
NSW 	43.3	33.2	18.4	4.3	0.8	152,685	2.2	29.5	
Vic	49.6	34.9	15.4	0.1	..	33,517	0.7	6.5	
Qld	28.1	20.6	29.1	8.6	13.7	144,885	3.5	28.0	
WA	34.4	8.0	14.9	17.1	28.5	70,966	3.4	13.7	
SA	48.9	9.2	23.3	4.3	14.4	28,055	1.8	5.4	
Tas(b)	..	53.9	42.5	2.4	1.2	18,415	3.8	3.6	
ACT	99.9	0.1	..	..	..	4,282	1.3	0.8	
NT(b)	..	..	20.2	23.4	56.4	64,005	30.4	12.4	
Australia(c)	32.1	21.4	21.9	9.3	15.4	517,043	2.5	100.0	
(a)	ABS Experimental Estimated Resident Population, based on the 2006 Census of Population and Housing.
(b)	Hobart is classified as Inner regional. Darwin is classified as Outer regional.
(c)	Includes Other Territories, so components may not add to total.
Source: ABS 2008b.
At 30 June 2006, an estimated one-third of Indigenous Australians were living in Major cities (32%) and a further 43% in Inner and Outer regional areas. Although only 25% of Indigenous Australians were living in Remote or Very remote areas, they were more than ten times as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to be living in these regions (ABS & AIHW 2008) 
(Table 2.1).
2.2 Population characteristics
2.2.1 Household characteristics
In this report an Indigenous household is defined as a household in which there are one or more Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people usually resident. Households in which there are no identified Indigenous usual residents are referred to as ‘non-Indigenous households’. There were around 166,700 Indigenous households in 2006, representing 2% of all households in Australia (ABS & AIHW 2008).
At 30 June 2006, the majority of Indigenous households were family households (81%) compared with 68% for non-Indigenous households. The one-family Indigenous households included couples with dependents (28%), one-parent families with dependents (23%), and families without dependents (25%). Living arrangements varied with geographic remoteness. Among Indigenous households, multi-family households were most common in Very remote areas, where 20% were multi-family (that is with two or more families in the household) (ABS 2008c).
Indigenous households are larger than non-Indigenous households (average of 3.3 persons per household, compared with 2.5). One of the major factors contributing to this difference is the higher number of dependent children in Indigenous households—for all Indigenous family types, the average number of dependent children was 1.1, compared with 0.5 for non-Indigenous households. For Indigenous households, household size tended to rise with increasing remoteness, from an average of 3.1 persons per household in Major cities to 4.9 in Very remote areas (ABS 2008c).
2.2.2 Tenure type
In 2006, one-third (34%) of Indigenous households were living in dwellings that were either owned outright or owned or being purchased by a member of the household, half the rate of home ownership reported by non-Indigenous households (69%). More than half (60%) of Indigenous households were renting, compared with 27% for non-Indigenous households (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Households, by tenure type and Indigenous status, 2006 
(per cent)
	Indigenous	Non-Indigenous	
Home owner/purchaser	34.2	68.9	
Private and other renter(a)	31.3	23.0	
State or territory housing authority	20.0	3.9	
Indigenous and mainstream community housing	8.9	0.5	
Other tenure/not stated (b)	5.6	3.7	
Total	100.0	100.0	
Total number	166,659	6,977,437	
(a)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
(b)	Includes: ‘other tenure type’ and ‘tenure type not stated’. 
Source: ABS 2006.
The tenure type of Indigenous households varies by state and territory. In 2006, the Northern Territory had the lowest proportion of Indigenous home owner households (18%) and the highest proportion of households in Indigenous or mainstream community housing (41%). In contrast, Tasmania had the highest proportion of Indigenous home owner households (52%) and only 1% of Indigenous households in Indigenous or mainstream community housing (ABS & AIHW 2008). 
In 2006, tenure type varied by remoteness, reflecting the different housing options available to Indigenous people, as well as the generally lower socioeconomic status of households in more remote areas (ABS & AIHW 2008). Home ownership rates were highest among Indigenous households living in regional areas (37%) and lowest among those living in remote areas (16%). The proportion of Indigenous households living in social housing was highest in remote areas (57%) (Figure 1).
Figure 1.1: Proportion of Indigenous households by tenure type and remoteness area, 2006
Stacked vertical bar chart showing per cent on y-axis and remoteness area on x-axis.
(a)	Includes ‘other tenure type’ and ‘tenure type not stated’.
(b)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
Source: ABS 2006.

2.3 Housing assistance
A range of housing assistance was provided under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA), now replaced by the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA). This includes social housing (public rental housing, state owned and managed Indigenous housing (SOMIH), community housing, the Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP)) and assistance with private rental and home purchase. The percentage of new Indigenous recipients of mainstream CSHA housing assistance ranged from 2% for home purchase assistance to 16% for the public rental housing program in 2007–08 (Table 2.3). In all cases except home purchase assistance, Indigenous people are over-represented. It is also worth noting that these figures are likely to be an under-count because of issues associated with identifying Indigenous recipients.

Table 2.3: New recipients of assistance through the CSHA (number of new households and Indigenous proportion) 30 June 2008
	New Indigenous	New all	Indigenous (per cent)	
Public rental housing	3,909	24,966	15.7	
State owned and managed Indigenous housing	1,407	1,407	100.0	
Mainstream community housing	975	8,728	11.2	
Crisis Accommodation Program(a)	3,933	15,395	25.5	
Private rent assistance	7,735	112,435	6.9	
Home purchase assistance	59	3,863	1.5	
(a)	Includes data for Queensland and Western Australia only. 
Source: AIHW 2009a, b, c, e, f, g.
Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) is a non-taxable income support payment to eligible low-income individuals or families in the private rental market. In June 2008, there were 31,494 Indigenous recipients of CRA, representing 3.3% of all recipients (SCRGSP 2009).
The Crisis Accommodation Program provides capital funding for services funded under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), which is the major government response to people experiencing homelessness. In 2007–08, there were 21,300 Indigenous clients and 19,100 accompanying children who received support from SAAP. Indigenous clients constituted 18% of all clients aged 10 years and over supported by SAAP and 26% of all accompanying children assisted by SAAP (AIHW 2008a).
For more information on housing assistance please refer to Housing assistance in Australia (AIHW 2008b), Australia’s Welfare 2007 (AIHW 2007) and Australia’s Welfare 2009 
(AIHW 2009—in press).

3	Homelessness
3.1 Definition
Homeless people can be defined as those with no housing or residing in temporary or emergency accommodation. The concept of homelessness is, however, subjective and depends on prevailing community standards. The definition developed for Counting the homeless (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2003) defines people as homeless if their accommodation falls below the minimum community standard of a small rental flat with a bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom and some security of tenure.
The method to estimate the number of homeless people in Counting the homeless (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2003) used the community standard definition to define three levels of homelessness:
•	primary homelessness—includes all people with no conventional accommodation, such as people living on the streets, in parks, in derelict buildings and other improvised dwellings.
•	secondary homelessness—includes people who move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another. This includes people residing temporarily with other households because they have no accommodation of their own, as well as people accommodated in SAAP establishments.
•	tertiary homelessness—includes people who live in boarding houses on a medium-to-long-term basis, operationally defined as 13 weeks or longer. These people are regarded as homeless because their accommodation situation is below community standard (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2003).
3.2 HMAC agreed measure
The HMAC agreed measure is the number of Indigenous Australians who experience primary and secondary homelessness as defined above.
3.3 Estimate
Because of the difficulty identifying and counting those experiencing primary homelessness a methodology is used in Counting the homeless 2006 (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2003) to adjust the Census counts to provide a better estimate of the actual number of homeless persons. Census data are supplemented with data from the national SAAP collection and the National Census of Homeless School Students. These data are used to make technical adjustments to the raw Census figures. For further details, see Counting the Homeless 2006 (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008).
The Chamberlain and Mackenzie estimate for the number of Indigenous homeless people on Census night in 2006 is 9,248, representing almost 2% of the Indigenous population. The highest numbers of homeless Indigenous people were experiencing secondary homelessness (5,438) (Table 3.1). 
The number and proportion of Indigenous people experiencing homelessness varied by state and territory, with the largest number of homeless people identified in Queensland and New South Wales (2,148 and 1,961 respectively). The Australian Capital Territory and South Australia had the highest rates of homelessness as a proportion of their total Indigenous populations (3.7% and 3.2%) (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1: Number and proportion of homeless Indigenous persons, by category of homelessness and state and territory, 2006
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust(a)	
	Number	
Primary homelessness	275	58	528	450	166	25	3	1,004	2,509	
Secondary homelessness	1,480	642	1,164	851	611	171	130	389	5,438	
	SAAP 	accommodation	1,005	537	686	539	485	94	102	215	3,663	
	Friends and 	relatives	475	105	478	312	126	77	28	174	1,775	
Tertiary homelessness	206	77	456	195	81	11	16	259	1,301	
Total homeless	1,961	777	2,148	1,496	858	207	149	1,652	9,248	
Total Indigenous population	148,200	30,800	146,400	77,900	26,000	16,900	4,000	66,600	483,191	
	Proportion of the Indigenous population	
Primary homelessness	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.7	0.6	0.1	0.1	1.7	0.5	
Secondary homelessness	1.0	2.0	0.9	1.3	2.3	1.0	3.2	0.7	1.1	
	SAAP 	accommodation	0.7	1.7	0.5	0.8	1.8	0.5	2.5	0.4	0.8	
	Friends and 	relatives	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.7	0.3	0.4	
Tertiary homelessness	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.1	0.4	0.4	0.3	
Total homeless	1.3	2.5	1.6	2.3	3.2	1.2	3.7	2.9	1.9	
(a)	Excludes those persons with unknown Indigenous status.
Source: Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008, 2009a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h.
The estimates provided above present the level of homelessness which incorporates primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, which is broader in scope than the HMAC-agreed measure of primary and secondary homelessness only. Using the Chamberlain and Mackenzie figures for the 2006 Census, people in boarding houses (i.e. experiencing tertiary homelessness) made up 21% of the total homeless figure. This issue is discussed further in Chapter 10 of this report.
3.4 Alternative methodologies
Currently there is no alternative data source available to assess the level of homelessness in Australia. Alternative approaches are currently being explored in the context of reporting against the new National Affordable Housing Agreement.
3.5 Population comparisons
In 2006, Indigenous Australians experienced homelessness at a rate almost four times that of non-Indigenous Australians (1.9% and 0.5% respectively). The differences between the categories of homelessness were most prominent in primary homelessness, with Indigenous Australians experiencing primary homelessness at a rate five times that of non-Indigenous Australians (0.5% and 0.1%, respectively) (Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1).
Rates of homelessness varied across jurisdictions with Indigenous Australians experiencing homelessness at a rate almost ten times that of non-Indigenous Australians in the Australian Capital Territory, compared with the Northern Territory where the rates were not as disparate (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Proportion of homeless persons, by Indigenous status, category of homelessness and state and territory, 2006
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
	Proportion of Indigenous homeless people	
Primary homelessness	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.7	0.6	0.1	0.1	1.7	0.5	
Secondary homelessness	1.0	2.0	0.9	1.3	2.3	1.0	3.2	0.7	1.1	
	SAAP 	accommodation	0.7	1.7	0.5	0.8	1.8	0.5	2.5	0.4	0.8	
	Friends and 	relatives	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.7	0.3	0.4	
Tertiary homelessness	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.1	0.4	0.4	0.3	
Total homeless	1.3	2.5	1.6	2.3	3.2	1.2	3.7	2.9	1.9	
	Proportion of non-Indigenous homeless people	
Primary homelessness	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.1	
Secondary homelessness	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.3	1.6	0.3	
	SAAP 	accommodation	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	
	Friends and 	relatives	0.2	0.1	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.3	0.2	1.4	0.2	
Tertiary homelessness	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.3	0.1	
Total homeless	0.4	0.4	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.4	2.3	0.5	
Source: Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008, 2009a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, tables 4 and A2.1.
Figure 3.1: Proportions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in each category of homelessness, 2006
Stacked vertical bar chart showing per cent on y-axis and Indigenous status on x-axis.
(a)	Includes not stated Indigenous status.
Source: Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008.
3.6 Changes in Indigenous homelessness since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs report
Although the Counting the homeless estimate for the number of Indigenous homeless people on Census night in 2006 is higher than in 2001 (9,248 and 7,526 respectively), the proportion of the estimated resident Indigenous population represented has remained the same (2%). Likewise, the disparity between the number of homeless Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has not changed (AIHW 2005).
However, the proportions within the categories of homelessness have changed, with higher proportions in 2006 of secondary homelessness (i.e. people residing temporarily with other households because they have no accommodation of their own, as well as people accommodated in SAAP establishments) (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2: Proportion of Indigenous people in each category of homelessness, 2001 and 2006
Stacked vertical bar chart showing per cent on y-axis and Indigenous status on x-axis.
Source: Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2003, 2008.

4	Overcrowding
4.1 Definition
Overcrowding can be defined as occurring when the dwelling size is too small for the size and composition of the household living in it. The Canadian National Occupancy Standard (CNOS) measures the bedroom requirements of a household based on the number, age, sex and relationships of household members. It specifies that:
•	there should be no more than two persons per bedroom
•	children less than 5 years of age of different sexes may reasonably share a bedroom
•	children less than 18 years of age and of the same sex may reasonably share a bedroom
•	single household members aged 18 years and over should have a separate bedroom
•	a lone person household may reasonably occupy a bed sitter.
Households that require one or more additional bedrooms to meet the standard are considered to be overcrowded.
4.2 HMAC agreed measure
The HMAC agreed measure is the number of Indigenous households that are assessed as experiencing ‘moderate overcrowding’ (i.e. households requiring one or more additional bedrooms) using the CNOS. 
Note that although this measure differs from the original agreed HMAC measure (which was based on the proxy occupancy standard), it is consistent with decisions regarding the measurement of overcrowding under the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA).
4.3 Estimate
In the 2006 Census there were 20,739 Indigenous households that were experiencing moderate overcrowding, representing 14% of Indigenous Australian households (Table 4.1).
Moderate overcrowding rates varied according to tenure, with the highest rates found among renters in community housing (40%) and lowest rates found among home owners/purchasers (7%). Rates also varied by jurisdiction with the largest number of moderate overcrowding among Indigenous households identified in Queensland (6,235) and the highest proportion in the Northern Territory (39%). In all jurisdictions the proportion of moderate overcrowding was greatest in community housing (Table 4.1).
Higher rates of overcrowding were found in Very remote areas with 41% of Indigenous households identified as needing one or more additional bedrooms (Table 4.2). 

Table 4.1: Number and proportion of moderately overcrowded Indigenous households, by tenure type and state and territory, 2006(a)
	NSW/
ACT	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	NT	Aust(b)	
	Number of overcrowded Indigenous households(c)	
Home owner/purchaser	1,325	317	1,080	366	193	186	218	3,685	
Private and other renter(d)	1,997	424	2,090	412	209	178	257	5,570	
Renter state/territory housing authority	1,353	323	1,510	894	389	133	365	4,969	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	478	50	1,252	811	223	8	2,746	5,568	
Other/not stated(e)	187	55	300	132	49	27	191	945	
Total	5,337	1,170	6,235	2,615	1,061	530	3,779	20,739	
	Total number of Indigenous households(f)	
Home owner/purchaser	20,085	5,287	13,758	5,069	3,181	3,904	1,879	53,170	
Private and other renter(d)	18,032	4,170	16,012	4,233	2,246	1,927	1,476	48,113	
Renter state/territory housing authority	11,829	2,633	7,032	4,361	2,689	1,245	1,470	31,261	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	2,666	322	3,797	1,947	606	69	4,513	13,946	
Other/not stated(e)	1,651	525	1,501	701	316	257	477	5,439	
Total	54,263	12,937	42,100	16,311	9,038	7,402	9,815	151,929	
	Proportion of overcrowded Indigenous households by tenure type(g)	
Home owner/purchaser	6.6	6.0	7.8	7.2	6.1	4.8	11.6	6.9	
Private and other renter(d)	11.1	10.2	13.1	9.7	9.3	9.2	17.4	10.5	
Renter state/territory housing authority	11.4	12.3	21.5	20.5	14.5	10.7	24.8	15.9	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	18.0	15.5	33.0	41.7	36.8	11.6	60.8	40.0	
Other/not stated(e)	11.3	10.5	20.0	18.8	15.5	10.5	40.0	17.4	
All tenures	9.8	9.0	14.8	16.0	11.7	7.2	38.5	13.7	
(a)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
(b)	Includes Other Territories.
(c)	Indigenous households are defined as households in which there was at least one Indigenous usual resident.
(d)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
(e)	Includes households being purchased under a rent/buy scheme, occupied rent-free, occupied under a life tenure scheme or other tenure not further defined.
(f)	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined.
(g)	Calculated by dividing the number of overcrowded Indigenous households by the total number of Indigenous households for each tenure type.
Note: Overcrowded households are defined as households in which one or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
Source: ABS 2006.

Table 4.2: Number and proportion of moderately overcrowded Indigenous households, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006(a)

State/territory and remoteness area	

No. Indigenous persons(b)	

No. Indigenous households(b)(c)	
No. overcrowded Indigenous households(c)	Proportion overcrowded Indigenous households (%)	
New South Wales	116,398	52,572	5,245	10.0	
	Major cities	50,756	24,969	2,308	9.2	
	Inner regional	38,695	16,954	1,660	9.8	
	Outer regional	21,215	8,613	979	11.4	
	Remote	4,886	1,761	249	14.1	
	Very remote	846	275	47	17.1	
Victoria	25,293	12,937	1,170	9.0	
	Major cities	12,508	6,776	595	8.8	
	Inner regional	8,930	4,418	404	9.1	
	Outer regional	3,819	1,719	174	10.1	
	Remote	36	25	0	0.0	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Queensland	106,141	42,100	6,235	14.8	
	Major cities	31,593	15,390	1,531	10.0	
	Inner regional	22,008	9,387	1,145	12.2	
	Outer regional	28,888	10,774	1,845	17.1	
	Remote	8,462	2,685	604	22.5	
	Very remote	15,190	3,863	1,102	28.5	
Western Australia	45,688	16,314	2,615	16.0	
	Major cities	16,298	6,969	706	10.1	
	Inner regional	3,807	1,604	125	7.8	
	Outer regional	6,718	2,509	319	12.7	
	Remote	6,854	2,361	448	19.0	
	Very remote	12,011	2,870	1,019	35.5	
South Australia	21,000	9,039	1,061	11.7	
	Major cities	10,492	5,046	469	9.3	
	Inner regional	1,926	907	79	8.7	
	Outer regional	4,823	2,033	247	12.2	
	Remote	847	346	38	11.0	
	Very remote	2,912	700	231	33.0	

 Tasmania	14,813	7,402	530	7.2	
	Major cities	..	..	..	..	
	Inner regional	7,927	4,044	302	7.5	
	Outer regional	6,388	3,108	205	6.6	
	Remote	359	174	18	10.3	
	Very remote	139	69	n.p.	4.4	
(continued)
Table 4.2 (continued): Number and proportion of moderately overcrowded Indigenous households, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006(a)

State/territory and remoteness area	

No. Indigenous persons(b)	

No. Indigenous households(b)(c)	
No. overcrowded Indigenous households(c)	Proportion overcrowded Indigenous households (%)	
Northern Territory	43,692	9,811	3,779	38.5	
	Major cities	..	..	..	..	
	Inner regional	..	..	..	..	
	Outer regional	7,876	3,159	508	16.1	
	Remote	9,526	2,432	816	33.6	
	Very remote	26,290	4,219	2,459	58.3	
Australian Capital Territory	3,343	1,696	92	5.4	
	Major cities	3,338	1,689	92	5.5	
	Inner regional	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	0.0	
	Outer regional	..	..	..	..	
	Remote	..	..	..	..	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Australia(d)	376,558	151,927	20,739	13.7	
	Major cities	124,985	60,835	5,705	9.4	
	Inner regional	83,474	37,375	3,724	10.0	
	Outer regional	79,727	31,918	4,271	13.4	
	Remote	30,970	9,794	2,178	22.2	
	Very remote	57,402	12,002	4,857	40.5	
(a)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
(b)	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined. 
(c)	Indigenous households are defined as households in which there was at least one Indigenous usual resident.
(d)	Includes Other Territories.
Note: Overcrowded households are defined as households in which one or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
Source: ABS 2006 Census customised tables (remoteness patterns).
4.4 Alternative methodologies
An alternative methodology to assess overcrowding is the measurement of ‘high overcrowding’, that is, those households that require two or more additional bedrooms to meet the CNOS. Using this methodology the data show that in 2006 there were 7,323 Indigenous households that were experiencing high overcrowding, representing 5% of Indigenous Australian households (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Number and proportion of high overcrowded Indigenous households, by tenure type and state and territory, 2006(a)
	NSW/
ACT	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	NT	Aust(b)	
	Number of high overcrowded Indigenous households(c)	
Home owner/purchaser	226	53	277	94	37	33	66	784	
Private and other renter(d)	370	83	508	104	42	22	73	1,201	
Renter state/territory housing authority	276	69	516	294	112	29	134	1,433	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	168	16	646	504	126	0	2,005	3,466	
Other/not stated(e)	53	18	149	64	15	9	126	439	
Total	1,093	239	2,096	1,060	332	93	2,404	7,323	
	Total number of Indigenous households(f)	
Home owner/purchaser	20,085	5,287	13,758	5,069	3,181	3,904	1,879	53,170	
Private and other renter(d)	18,032	4,170	16,012	4,233	2,246	1,927	1,476	48,113	
Renter state/territory housing authority	11,829	2,633	7,032	4,361	2,689	1,245	1,470	31,261	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	2,666	322	3,797	1,947	606	69	4,513	13,946	
Other/not stated(e)	1,651	525	1,501	701	316	257	477	5,439	
Total	54,263	12,937	42,100	16,311	9,038	7,402	9,815	151,929	
	Proportion of high overcrowded Indigenous households by tenure type(g)	
Home owner/purchaser	1.1	1.0	2.0	1.9	1.2	0.8	3.5	1.5	
Private and other renter(d)	2.1	2.0	3.2	2.5	1.9	1.1	4.9	2.5	
Renter state/territory housing authority	2.3	2.6	7.3	6.7	4.2	2.3	9.1	4.6	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	6.3	5.0	17.0	25.9	20.8	0.0	44.4	24.9	
Other/not stated(e)	3.2	3.4	9.9	9.1	4.7	3.5	26.4	8.1	
All tenures	2.0	1.8	5.0	6.5	3.7	1.3	24.5	4.8	
(a)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
(b)	Includes Other Territories.
(c)	Indigenous households are defined as households in which there was at least one Indigenous usual resident.
(d)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
(e)	Includes households being purchased under a rent/buy scheme, occupied rent-free, occupied under a life tenure scheme or other tenure not further defined.
(f)	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined.
(g)	Calculated by dividing the number of high overcrowded Indigenous households by the total number of Indigenous households for each tenure type.
Note: High overcrowded households are defined as households in which two or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
Source: ABS 2006.
High overcrowding rates varied according to tenure, with the highest rates found among renters in community housing (25%) and lowest rates found among home owners/purchasers (2%). Rates also varied by jurisdiction with both the largest number and proportion of ‘high overcrowding’ among Indigenous households identified in the Northern Territory (2,404 and 25% respectively). In all jurisdictions, with the exception of Tasmania, the proportion of high overcrowding was greatest in community housing. 
Higher rates of overcrowding were found in Very remote areas with 26% of Indigenous households identified as needing two or more additional bedrooms (Table 4.4).
The measurement of overcrowding is discussed further in Chapter 10.
Table 4.4: Number and proportion of high overcrowded Indigenous households, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006(a)

State/territory and remoteness area	

No. Indigenous persons(b)	

No. Indigenous households(b)(c)	No. of  high overcrowded Indigenous households(c)	Proportion high overcrowded Indigenous households (%)	
New South Wales	116,398	52,572	1,077	2.0	
	Major cities	50,756	24,969	421	1.7	
	Inner regional	38,695	16,954	372	2.2	
	Outer regional	21,215	8,613	202	2.3	
	Remote	4,886	1,761	77	4.4	
	Very remote	846	275	11	4.0	
Victoria	25,293	12,937	240	1.9	
	Major cities	12,508	6,776	117	1.7	
	Inner regional	8,930	4,418	85	1.9	
	Outer regional	3,819	1,719	40	2.3	
	Remote	36	25	0	0.0	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Queensland	106,141	42,100	2,094	5.0	
	Major cities	31,593	15,390	346	2.2	
	Inner regional	22,008	9,387	270	2.9	
	Outer regional	28,888	10,774	634	5.9	
	Remote	8,462	2,685	265	9.9	
	Very remote	15,190	3,863	580	15.0	
Western Australia	45,688	16,314	1,062	6.5	
	Major cities	16,298	6,969	191	2.7	
	Inner regional	3,807	1,604	31	1.9	
	Outer regional	6,718	2,509	81	3.2	
	Remote	6,854	2,361	163	6.9	
	Very remote	12,011	2,870	596	20.8	
(continued)

Table 4.4 (continued): Number and proportion of high overcrowded Indigenous households, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006(a)

State/territory and remoteness area	

No. Indigenous persons(b)	

No. Indigenous households(b)(c)	No. of  high overcrowded Indigenous households(c)	Proportion high overcrowded Indigenous households (%)	
South Australia	21,000	9,039	331	3.7	
	Major cities	10,492	5,046	108	2.1	
	Inner regional	1,926	907	10	1.1	
	Outer regional	4,823	2,033	71	3.5	
	Remote	847	346	8	2.3	
	Very remote	2,912	700	134	19.1	
Tasmania	14,813	7,402	95	1.3	
	Major cities	..	..	..	..	
	Inner regional	7,927	4,044	53	1.3	
	Outer regional	6,388	3,108	40	1.3	
	Remote	359	174	n.p.	1.7	
	Very remote	139	69	n.p.	4.3	
Northern Territory	43,692	9,811	2,405	24.5	
	Major cities	..	..	..	..	
	Inner regional	..	..	..	..	
	Outer regional	7,876	3,159	145	4.6	
	Remote	9,526	2,432	482	19.8	
	Very remote	26,290	4,219	1,775	42.1	
Australian Capital Territory	3,343	1,696	14	0.8	
	Major cities	3,338	1,689	14	0.8	
	Inner regional	n.p.	n.p.	0	0.0	
	Outer regional	..	..	..	..	
	Remote	..	..	..	..	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Australia(d)	376,558	151,927	7,325	4.8	
	Major cities	124,985	60,835	1,201	2.0	
	Inner regional	83,474	37,375	814	2.2	
	Outer regional	79,727	31,918	1,203	3.8	
	Remote	30,970	9,794	1,009	10.3	
	Very remote	57,402	12,002	3,097	25.8	
(a)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
(b)	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined. 
(c)	Indigenous households are defined as households in which there was at least one Indigenous usual resident.
(d)	Includes Other Territories.
Note: High overcrowded households are defined as households in which two or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
Source: ABS 2006 Census customised tables (remoteness patterns).
4.5 Population comparisons
In 2006, the proportion of Indigenous Australians experiencing moderate overcrowding according to the CNOS was five to one compared with non-Indigenous Australians 
(Figure 4.1). The difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous proportions of overcrowding was most prominent in Western Australia (16% and 2%). The proportion of overcrowded Indigenous households was higher in all jurisdictions and for all tenure types than the proportion of non-Indigenous households. The disparity was particularly evident in community housing (40% Indigenous compared with 4% non-Indigenous) (Table 4.5).
Table 4.5: Proportion of moderately overcrowded(a) households, by Indigenous status, tenure type and state and territory, 2006(b) 
	NSW/
ACT	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	NT	Aust(c)	
	Proportion of overcrowded Indigenous households by tenure type(d)	
Home owner/purchaser	6.6	6.0	7.8	7.2	6.1	4.8	11.6	6.9	
Private and other renter(e)	11.1	10.2	13.1	9.7	9.3	9.2	17.4	10.5	
Renter state/territory housing authority	11.4	12.3	21.5	20.5	14.5	10.7	24.8	15.9	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	18.0	15.5	33.0	41.7	36.8	11.6	60.8	40.0	
Other/not stated(f)	11.3	10.5	20.0	18.8	15.5	10.5	40.0	17.4	
Total	9.8	9.0	14.8	16.0	11.7	7.2	38.5	13.7	
	Proportion of overcrowded non-Indigenous households by tenure type(g)	
Home owner/purchaser	2.5	2.2	1.7	1.1	1.1	1.7	3.7	2.1	
Private and other renter(e)	7.4	5.7	4.5	2.9	4.1	4.1	4.7	5.6	
Renter state/territory housing authority	5.4	6.8	4.9	2.6	2.7	4.8	5.1	4.9	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	4.8	3.0	4.0	1.3	2.9	3.1	2.3	3.6	
Other/not stated(f)	3.9	4.0	3.3	2.1	2.2	2.4	5.6	3.6	
All tenures	3.9	3.1	2.6	1.6	2.2	2.3	4.2	3.0	
(a)	Includes high overcrowding.
(b)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
(c)	Includes Other Territories.
(d)	Indigenous households are defined as households in which there was at least one Indigenous usual resident.
(e)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
(f)	Includes households being purchased under a rent/buy scheme, occupied rent-free, occupied under a life tenure scheme or other tenure not further defined.
(g)	Includes not stated Indigenous status.
Notes
1.	Overcrowded households are defined as households in which one or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
2.	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined.
Source: ABS 2006, tables 4.1 and A2.2.
In 2006, the proportion of Indigenous Australians experiencing high overcrowding according to the CNOS was ten to one compared with non-Indigenous Australians (Figure 4.1). The difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous proportions of overcrowding was most prominent in the Northern Territory (25% and 1%). The proportion of overcrowded Indigenous households was higher in all jurisdictions and for all tenure types than the proportion of non-Indigenous households. The disparity was particularly evident in community housing (25% Indigenous compared with 1% non-Indigenous) (Table 4.6).
Table 4.6: Proportion of high overcrowded households, by Indigenous status, tenure type and state and territory, 2006(a) 
	NSW/
ACT	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	NT	Aust(b)	
	Proportion of high overcrowded Indigenous households by tenure type (c)	
Home owner/purchaser	1.1	1.0	2.0	1.9	1.2	0.8	3.5	1.5	
Private and other renter(d)	2.1	2.0	3.2	2.5	1.9	1.1	4.9	2.5	
Renter state/territory housing authority	2.3	2.6	7.3	6.7	4.2	2.3	9.1	4.6	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	6.3	5.0	17.0	25.9	20.8	0.0	44.4	24.9	
Other/not stated(e)	3.2	3.4	9.9	9.1	4.7	3.5	26.4	8.1	
Total	2.0	1.8	5.0	6.5	3.7	1.3	24.5	4.8	
	Proportion of high overcrowded non-Indigenous households by tenure type	
Home owner/purchaser	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.7	0.3	
Private and other renter(d)	1.3	1.0	0.6	0.4	0.7	0.5	0.8	1.0	
Renter state/territory housing authority	0.9	1.2	0.8	0.4	0.4	0.7	1.0	0.8	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	0.9	0.6	0.6	0.2	0.4	0.7	0.0	0.6	
Other/not stated(e)	0.7	1.0	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.5	1.3	0.9	
All tenures	0.7	0.5	0.4	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.8	0.5	
(a)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
(b)	Includes Other Territories.
(c)	Includes not stated Indigenous status.
(d)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
(e)	Includes households being purchased under a rent/buy scheme, occupied rent-free, occupied under a life tenure scheme or other tenure not further defined.
Notes
1.	High overcrowded households are defined as households in which two or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
2.	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined.
Source: ABS 2006, table 4.3 and A2.3.
Figure 4.1: Proportions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous households in each level of overcrowding, 2006
Vertical bar chart showing per cent on y-axis and Indigenous status on x-axis.
(a)	Includes high overcrowding.
(b)	Includes not stated Indigenous status.
Source: ABS 2006.
4.6 Changes in Indigenous overcrowding since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs report
Overall the proportion of overcrowded Indigenous households, for both high and moderate overcrowding, has decreased since the 2001 Census (14.7% to 13.7% for moderate overcrowding and 5.5% to 4.8% for high overcrowding) (Table 4.7).
Table 4.7: Number and proportion of overcrowded Indigenous households, by level, 2001 and 2006
	2001		2006	
	Number	Proportion		Number	Proportion	
Moderate overcrowding(a)	21,274	14.7		20,739	13.7	
High overcrowding(b)	7,918	5.5		7,323	4.8	
(a)	Households in which one or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
(b)	Households in which two or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
Sources: AIHW 2005, tables 7 and 9.
5	Affordability
5.1 Definition
‘Housing affordability’ refers to the capacity of households to meet housing costs while maintaining the ability to meet other basic costs of living. Affordable housing conveys the notion of reasonable housing costs in relation to income (AHURI 2004).
5.2 HMAC agreed measure
Housing affordability can be measured in terms of financial housing stress and the measure is low-income households who are paying more than 30% of their gross income in rent or mortgage payments.
Note that although this measure differs from the original agreed HMAC measure (households in the bottom 40% of household incomes who are paying more than 25% of their gross income in rent or mortgage payments), it is consistent with decisions regarding the measurement of affordability stress thresholds under the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA).
5.3 Estimate
The estimates presented in tables 5.1 and 5.2 are derived using data on Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA and show the impact of CRA on affordability. Some income units continue to be in financial housing stress even after receiving CRA. An income unit is defined as either a single person or a couple with or without dependants. Children over 16 years of age are not regarded as dependent unless they are full-time secondary students aged under 18 years and do not receive social security payments.
Receipt of CRA reduces the proportion of income units in financial housing stress from 57% (17,500 income units) to 27% (8,331 income units) and this effect applies across all states and territories and remoteness areas. In the states and territories, the highest proportion of income units in receipt of CRA still in financial housing stress was in the Australian Capital Territory (38%), followed by Queensland (29%) and Western Australia (28%) (Table 5.1, Table A2.4 and Figure 5.1).
The proportion of income units in affordability need ranged from 15% in Very remote areas to 35% in Major cities (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Proportion of Indigenous income units paying more than 30% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Major cities										
	With CRA	35.0	32.9	37.0	30.6	29.8	..	37.7	..	34.6	
	Without CRA	63.6	66.4	64.3	59.0	64.8	..	63.1	..	63.7	
Inner regional	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	With CRA	23.5	24.3	26.1	28.8	14.2	28.7	n.p.	..	24.7	
	Without CRA	53.7	57.0	56.4	59.0	53.0	61.6	n.p.	..	55.5	
Outer regional	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	With CRA	15.3	18.8	24.8	23.0	22.7	22.5	..	31.5	21.6	
	Without CRA	46.9	51.3	52.9	50.0	49.4	46.6	..	63.8	50.9	
Remote	 	 	 	 	 	 	..	 	 	
	With CRA	10.3	14.5	16.7	25.4	25.6	26.9	..	21.2	16.9	
	Without CRA	45.3	30.1	43.5	50.9	53.8	51.6	..	53.9	47.4	
Very remote	 	 	 	 	 	 	..	 	 	
	With CRA	7.1	..	9.1	19.9	34.2	n.p.	..	19.6	14.7	
	Without CRA	33.5	..	27.8	42.5	54.5	n.p.	..	55.0	37.9	
Total	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	With CRA	25.3	27.3	28.6	27.8	26.4	26.2	37.7	26.6	26.9	
	Without CRA	55.4	60.3	56.7	55.6	59.2	55.3	63.1	59.4	56.5	
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set; Table A2.4.
Singles had the highest proportion of income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% of their income in rent (57% or 4,776 income units), followed by sole parents with children (26% or 2,155 income units) (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2: Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Income unit type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Single, no children(a)	56.5	70.8	52.7	59.4	71.1	58.7	55.1	58.5	57.3	
Single, 1 or 2 children	24.1	15.5	21.9	20.4	15.9	16.0	24.5	19.1	21.5	
Single, 3 or more children	4.0	1.9	6.1	4.0	n.p.	2.4	n.p.	3.7	4.3	
Single with children income units	28.1	17.4	27.9	24.4	17.2	18.4	26.5	22.8	25.9	
Partnered, no children	6.0	5.0	6.7	5.1	5.6	11.3	n.p.	5.8	6.3	
Partnered, 1 or 2 children	6.7	5.8	9.2	8.2	4.4	8.9	n.p.	9.1	7.6	
Partnered, 3 or more children	2.7	0.9	3.5	2.8	1.7	2.7	n.p.	3.7	2.8	
Partnered with children income units(b)	9.4	6.8	12.7	11.1	6.1	11.6	n.p.	12.9	10.5	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)	The category ‘Single, no children’ includes single people in shared accommodation.
(b)	Partnered with children income units CRA recipients include couple income units who were identified as temporarily separated or separated because of illness, and exclude 719 income units with nil total income or missing rent.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set; Table A2.5.
Households residing in public rental housing and state owned and managed Indigenous housing (SOMIH) are not eligible for CRA (with the exception of SOMIH tenants in New South Wales). In 2007–08, 2% of public rental housing and SOMIH households were paying more than 30% of their income in rent. In the states and territories, the proportion of households paying more than 30% of their income in rent ranged between 7% in the Northern Territory and 1% in New South Wales. The proportion of households in financial housing stress ranged from 4% in Remote areas to 1% in Inner regional areas (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3: Number and proportion of Indigenous public rental housing and SOMIH households paying more than 30% of income on rent, by state and territory and remoteness areas, 30 June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
	Number of Indigenous public rental housing and SOMIH households paying >30% income on rent(a)	
Major cities	31	52	15	65	34	..	0	..	197	
Inner regional	38	30	17	10	n.p.	0	0	..	99	
Outer regional	19	22	52	33	9	0	..	59	194	
Remote	3	0	13	45	n.p.	0	..	54	119	
Very remote	n.p.	..	11	22	n.p.	0	..	10	46	
Total	(b)92	104	108	175	53	0	0	123	655	
	Total number of Indigenous public rental housing and SOMIH households(c)	
Major cities	4,879	852	1,701	2,656	1,795	..	260	..	12,143	
Inner regional	3,223	909	1,289	506	255	765	0	..	6,947	
Outer regional	1,593	615	2,552	1,209	838	308	..	1,045	8,160	
Remote	300	5	627	1,545	159	n.p.	..	697	3,337	
Very remote	46	..	554	1,007	153	n.p.	..	108	1,869	
Total	(d)10,041	2,381	6,723	6,923	3,200	1,078	260	1,850	32,456	
	Proportion of Indigenous public rental housing and SOMIH households paying >30% income on rent	
Major cities	0.6	6.1	0.9	2.4	1.9	..	0.0	..	1.6	
Inner regional	1.2	3.3	1.3	2.0	n.p.	0.0	0.0	..	1.4	
Outer regional	1.2	3.6	2.0	2.7	1.1	0.0	..	5.6	2.4	
Remote	1.0	n.p.	2.1	2.9	n.p.	0.0	..	7.7	3.6	
Very remote	n.p.	..	2.0	2.2	n.p.	0.0	..	9.3	2.5	
Total	0.9	4.4	1.6	2.5	1.7	0.0	0.0	6.6	2.0	
(a)	Includes all households, i.e. rebated and non-rebated, and reflects the proportion of income at 30 June 2008.
(b)	No rebated tenant pays more that 30% of income as rent—data quality error.
(c)	Total households for whom income details are known.
(d)	Indigenous households in public rental housing are under reported. Based on the 2006 Census it is estimated that there are 9,800 Indigenous households in public rental housing and 13,900 in both public rental housing and SOMIH.
Source: AIHW Analysis of National Housing Data Assistance Repository.
5.4 Alternative methodologies
For the purposes of estimating those in extreme financial housing stress the measure is the number of low-income households who are paying more than 50% of their gross income in rent or mortgage payments.
The estimates presented in tables 5.4 and 5.5 and Figure 5.1 are derived using data on Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA and show the impact of CRA on affordability. Receipt of CRA reduces the proportion of income units in extreme financial housing stress from 20% (6,216 income units) to 7% (2,038 income units) and this effect applies across all states and territories and remoteness areas. The proportion of income units in extreme financial housing stress was highest in Major cities (10%) (Table 5.4, Table A2.6).
In the states and territories, the highest proportion of income units in receipt of CRA still in extreme financial housing stress were in the Australian Capital Territory (13%), followed by Western Australia (8%) and Queensland (7%) (Table 5.4 and Figure 5.1).
Table 5.4: Proportion of Indigenous income units paying more than 50% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Major cities										
	With CRA	9.9	10.2	11.3	9.3	6.3	..	13.1	..	10.0	
	Without CRA	26.1	26.2	26.8	22.2	24.4	..	28.4	..	25.8	
Inner regional										
	With CRA	4.3	5.0	5.1	7.6	2.3	5.4	n.p.	..	4.7	
	Without CRA	16.8	19.5	18.4	21.2	9.3	29.9	n.p.	..	17.7	
Outer regional										
	With CRA	2.3	4.0	5.8	4.9	3.3	4.8	..	8.2	4.5	
	Without CRA	12.0	15.8	18.5	18.7	21.8	17.6	..	22.5	16.6	
Remote										
	With CRA	2.0	0.0	2.8	7.4	11.3	8.3	..	5.5	3.9	
	Without CRA	9.1	n.p.	14.0	19.5	22.8	26.8	..	14.3	13.5	
Very remote										
	With CRA	2.0	..	2.5	4.5	19.8	0.0	..	3.6	4.4	
	Without CRA	5.7	..	6.7	16.3	30.6	0.0	..	17.5	12.0	
Total										
	With CRA	5.8	7.2	7.3	7.8	5.8	5.2	13.1	6.7	6.6	
	Without CRA	18.8	21.9	20.8	20.8	22.2	19.1	28.5	19.1	20.1	
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set; Table A2.6.
Singles had the highest proportion of income units receiving CRA paying more than 50% of their income in rent (69% or 1,403 income units), followed by sole parents with children (14% or 294 income units) (Table 5.5 and Table A2.7).

Table 5.5: Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 50% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Income unit type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Single, no children(a)	68.8	81.5	63.9	74.3	83.1	65.5	47.1	67.2	68.9	
Single, 1 or 2 children	14.4	6.5	14.2	9.1	6.7	15.5	n.p.	14.8	12.9	
Single, 3 or more children	2.0	0.0	1.8	n.p.	0.0	0.0	0.0	n.p.	1.5	
Single with children income units	16.3	6.5	15.9	10.2	6.7	15.5	n.p.	18.0	14.4	
Partnered, no children	7.1	5.4	8.9	5.3	6.7	13.8	n.p.	n.p.	7.7	
Partnered, 1 or 2 children	6.0	5.4	8.9	7.5	n.p.	n.p.	0.0	9.8	7.0	
Partnered, 3 or more children	1.8	n.p.	2.3	n.p.	n.p.	0.0	n.p.	0.0	2.0	
Partnered with children income units	7.8	6.5	11.2	10.2	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	9.8	9.0	
Total(b)	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
(a)	The category ‘Single, no children’ includes single people in shared accommodation.
(b)	Partnered with children income units CRA recipients include couple income units who were identified as temporarily separated or separated because of illness, and exclude 719 income units with nil total income or missing rent.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set; Table A2.7.
Figure 5.1: Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by state and territory, June 2008
Vertical bar chart showing per cent on y-axis and states / territories on x-axis.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.
5.5 Population comparisons
Nationally, and across all states and territories, there were lower proportions of Indigenous income units receiving CRA and paying more than 30% and 50% of their income on rent compared with non-Indigenous income units in 2008 (Table 5.6 and Figure 5.2). The differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous income units receiving CRA was least evident in Tasmania.
Table 5.6: Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by Indigenous status and state and territory, June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
	Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying >30% of income on rent	
Indigenous	25.3	27.3	28.6	27.8	26.4	26.2	37.7	26.6	26.9	
Non-Indigenous	38.3	32.9	37.7	34.6	30.2	28.9	45.8	35.4	35.8	
	Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying >50% of income on rent	
Indigenous	5.8	7.2	7.3	7.8	5.8	5.2	13.1	6.7	6.6	
Non-Indigenous	11.0	8.8	10.6	9.3	7.0	5.6	17.3	9.3	9.9	
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set; tables A2.4, A2.6 and A2.8.

Figure 5.2: Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by Indigenous status and state and territory, June 2008
Vertical bar chart showing per cent on y-axis and Indigenous status on x-axis.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.

5.6 Changes in Indigenous affordability since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs report
Overall the proportion of income units in receipt of CRA who continue to be in affordability need has remained the same (Table 5.7). In some states and territories there have been some improvements in the proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA and paying more than 30% of their income in rent, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. However, in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania the proportions of those CRA recipients paying more than 30% and 50% of their income in rent have increased.
Table 5.7: Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by state and territory, June 2003 and June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
	Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying >30% of income on rent	
March 2004	31.9	34.5	25.5	26.3	32.1	20.4	48.4	33.1	29.1	
June 2008	25.3	27.3	28.6	27.8	26.4	26.2	37.7	26.6	26.9	
	Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying >50% of income on rent	
March 2004	8.4	8.2	5.4	6.1	6.7	2.9	16.1	7.9	6.8	
June 2008	5.8	7.2	7.3	7.8	5.8	5.2	13.1	6.7	6.6	
Source: AIHW 2005; Australian Government Housing Data Set.
6	Dwelling condition
6.1 Definition
Dwelling condition refers to the assessment of housing stock based on certain criteria. One approach is to collect information on the condition of dwellings according to the extent of repairs required. This approach was used in the 2006 ABS Community Housing Infrastructure and Needs Survey (CHINS) where the condition of permanent dwellings was categorised as follows:
•	minor or no repair: repairs of less than $20,000 in low-cost areas, less than $27,000 in medium-cost areas, and less than $33,000 in high-cost areas
•	major repair: repairs of $20,000 to less than $60,000 in low-cost areas, $27,000 to less than $80,000 in medium-cost areas, and $33,000 to less than $100,000 in high-cost areas
•	replacement: repairs of $60,000 or more in low-cost areas, $80,000 or more in medium-cost areas, and $100,000 or more in high-cost areas.
Costs for repairs or replacements are based on the concept of low-, medium- and high-cost areas according to relative building costs provided in Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook (Rawlinsons 1999).
6.2 HMAC agreed measure
The HMAC agreed measure is the number of dwellings that require major repair or replacement as defined above.
6.3 Estimate
In 2006, 31% of dwellings managed by Indigenous Community Housing Organisations (ICHOs) required major repair or replacement (Table 6.1). Western Australia had the highest proportion of dwellings requiring major repair or replacement (38%), followed by Queensland and the Northern Territory (32% and 31% respectively).
By remoteness area, Queensland had the highest proportion of dwellings requiring major repair or replacement in non-remote areas (35%). In Remote areas, South Australia had the highest proportion of dwellings requiring major repair or replacement (78%) followed by the Northern Territory (41%). In Very remote areas, Western Australia had the highest proportion of dwellings requiring major repair or replacement (40%).

Table 6.1: Number and proportion of permanent dwellings managed by ICHOs requiring major repairs or replacement, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006(a)

State/territory and remoteness area	

No. needing major repairs	

No. needing replacement	
No. requiring major repair or replacement	
Total no. dwellings managed	Proportion needing major repair or replacement (%)	
New South Wales/
Australian Capital Territory					
	Non-remote	696	109	805	3,407	23.6	
	Remote	52	3	55	191	28.8	
	Very remote	35	0	35	578	0.1	
	Total	783	112	895	4,176	21.4	
Victoria						
	Non-remote	116	21	137	469	29.2	
	Remote	0	0	0	0	0.0	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Total	116	21	137	469	29.2	
Queensland						
	Non-remote	733	105	838	2,396	35.0	
	Remote	216	75	291	878	33.1	
	Very remote	690	187	877	2,956	29.7	
	Total	1,639	367	2,006	6,230	32.2	
Western Australia						
	Non-remote	52	7	59	238	24.8	
	Remote	129	50	179	523	34.2	
	Very remote	786	292	1,078	2,701	40.0	
	Total	967	349	1,316	3,462	38.0	
South Australia						
	Non-remote	70	9	79	228	34.6	
	Remote	15	2	17	22	77.8	
	Very remote	124	43	167	685	24.4	
	Total	209	54	263	935	28.1	
Tasmania						
	Non-remote	28	0	28	84	33.3	
	Remote	0	0	0	0	0.0	
	Very remote	13	0	13	50	26.0	
	Total	41	0	41	134	30.6	
Northern Territory						
	Non-remote	23	22	45	184	24.5	
	Remote	222	117	339	827	41.0	
	Very remote	1,111	521	1,632	5,437	30.0	
	Total	1,356	660	2,016	6,448	31.3	
(continued)

Table 6.1 (continued): Number and proportion of permanent dwellings managed by ICHOs requiring major repairs or replacement, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006(a)

State/territory and remoteness area	

No. requiring major repairs	

No. requiring replacement	
No. requiring major repair or replacement	
Total no. dwellings managed	Proportion needing major repair or replacement (%)	
Australia						
	Non-remote	1,718	273	1,991	7,006	28.4	
	Remote	634	247	881	2,441	36.1	
	Very remote	2,759	1,043	3,802	12,407	30.6	
	Total	5,111	1,563	6,674	21,854	30.5	
(a)	Includes dwelling condition not stated.
Source: 2006 CHINS (ABS 2007).
6.4 Alternative methodologies
Currently there are no alternative approaches available to measure Indigenous dwelling condition. Although the current approach does provide a measure of dwelling condition, the measure is limited by the fact that it can only be updated every 5 years and only reports information about dwellings in discrete Indigenous communities. Chapter 10 explores the issues associated with improving dwelling condition measures and the data related to these.
6.5 Population comparisons
Data on dwellings requiring replacement are collected only for discrete Indigenous communities using the CHINS data, which relates to Indigenous populations only. This means that comparison with non-Indigenous populations is not possible. The previous version of this report included data from the 1999 Australian Housing Survey which showed that the need for repairs was greater for Indigenous than for non-Indigenous households (AIHW 2005). However the Australian Housing Survey has been discontinued, so in its March 2003 submission to HMAC, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Housing (SCIH) indicated that further work should be done to explore the possibility of alternative data sources for this measure. This included the ability of administrative data sets to provide this information annually. Chapter 10 discusses these issues further.
6.6 Changes in dwelling condition since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs report
The number of dwellings managed by ICHOs that required major repair or replacement has increased from 27% in 2001 to 31% in 2006. Western Australia remains the state with the highest proportion of dwellings requiring major repair or replacement and likewise remote areas continue to have the highest proportion of dwellings requiring major repair or replacement (AIHW 2005).
7	Connection to essential services
7.1 Definition
Connection to essential services refers to the existence of basic infrastructure that is considered essential to adequate housing, that is, enables the connection of dwellings to water, sewerage and power. 
7.2 HMAC agreed measure
The HMAC agreed measure is the number of dwellings where there is not the basic infrastructure to allow connection to water, sewerage or power.
7.3 Estimate
At 30 June 2008 there were 295 (2%) Indigenous community housing (ICH) dwellings not connected to an organised supply for water, 402 (2%) dwellings not connected to an organised supply of sewerage, and a further 338 (2%) dwellings not connected to an organised supply of electricity. Almost all of these dwellings were located in the Northern Territory (Table 7.1).
In 2006, of the communities that were connected to utilities, not all permanent dwellings within those communities were connected. In 19% of communities, not all permanent dwellings were connected to an organised supply of sewerage, in 14% not all permanent dwellings were connected to an organised water supply, and in 12% of communities not all permanent dwellings were connected to an organised electricity supply (Table 7.2).

Table 7.1: Number and proportion of ICH dwellings not connected to an organised system for water, sewerage or electricity, by state and territory, 30 June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	AG(a)	Total	
	Number of dwellings not connected	
Water	(b)0	0	0	(c)0	2	..	0	(d)292	(e)1	295	
Sewerage 	0	0	0	(c)0	5	..	0	(d)396	(e)1	402	
Electricity	(b)0	0	0	(c)0	4	..	0	(d)334	(e)0	338	
Total no. dwellings for which connection status is known	(f)4,461	348	4,092	2,200	557	..	23	6,405	(g)778	18,864	
	Per cent	
Water	0.0	0.0	(h)0.0	(c)0.0	0.4	..	0.0	4.6	0.1	1.6	
Sewerage 	0.0	0.0	(h)0.0	(c)0.0	0.9	..	0.0	6.2	0.1	2.1	
Electricity	0.0	0.0	(h)0.0	(c)0.0	0.7	..	0.0	5.2	0.0	1.8	
(a)	Includes Australian Government-funded ICH in Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania.
(b)	This is consistent with the Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS) 2006 data for New South Wales.
(c)	Data are not available for every dwelling in the state. No dwellings managed by funded ICHOs are known to be lacking connections.
(d)	Based on 2004–05 Indigenous Community Housing Surveys.
(e)	Vic: Data includes dwelling counts reported by 12 ICHOs that responded to the survey (representing approximately 60% of the total housing stock). Data for 10 non-responding ICHOs were sourced from jurisdiction’s own records. 
(f)	The number of permanent dwellings managed by actively and non-actively registered organisations reported is sourced from a Condition Assessment Survey of NSW Aboriginal community housing sector in 2007 which was subsequently updated.
(g)	278 dwellings in Victoria and 1,725 dwelling in Queensland with unknown dwelling status were assumed to be permanent.
(h)	Sourced from the Property Condition and Tenants Survey 2006–07.
Note: Data within jurisdictions may not be comparable to previous years due to a change in scope of the ICH collection in 2007-08 and variations in the ICHOs that respond to the survey/for which jurisdictions can provide data. Data may not be comparable across jurisdictions because of considerable variation in the way ICH operates in each jurisdiction. Further, organisation and household information may vary considerably because of the policy and program environment and the nature of the sector.
Source: AIHW 2009d.
In 2006, 1% of discrete Indigenous communities were not connected to an organised supply of water, 2% were not connected to an organised supply of sewerage and a further 3% were not connected to an organised supply of electricity (Table 7.3). 

Table 7.2: Number and proportion of discrete Indigenous communities where not all permanent dwellings are connected to an organised supply of water, sewerage and electricity, by state and territory, 2006
Utility not connected to all permanent dwellings	NSW/
ACT	
Vic/Tas	
Qld	
WA	
SA	
NT	
Aust	
	Number of communities	
Water	3	0	50	54	6	39	152	
Sewerage	3	0	52	72	11	62	200	
Electricity	1	0	45	37	7	31	121	
Total no. of communities with organised water supply	57	3	117	251	78	564	1,070	
Total no. of communities with organised sewerage system 	57	3	113	247	77	565	1,062	
Total no. of communities with organised electricity supply	57	3	112	247	77	551	1,047	
	Proportion of communities	
Water	5.3	0.0	42.7	21.5	7.7	6.9	14.2	
Sewerage	5.3	0.0	46.0	29.1	14.3	11.0	18.8	
Electricity	1.8	0.0	40.2	15.0	9.1	5.6	11.6	
Note: New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are grouped because of small numbers, as are Victoria and Tasmania.
Source: 2006 CHINS (ABS 2007).
Table 7.3: Number and proportion of discrete Indigenous communities not connected to an organised supply of water, sewerage and electricity, by state and territory, 2006

Not connected to organised supply	NSW/
ACT	
Vic/Tas	
Qld	
WA	
SA	
NT	
Total	
	Number communities not connected	
Water	0	0	0	1	1	7	9	
Sewerage	2	0	5	8	3	7	25	
Electricity	0	0	5	5	2	20	32	
Total number. of communities	57	3	124	271	91	641	1,187	
	Proportion communities not connected	
Water	0	0	0	0.4	1.1	1.1	0.8	
Sewerage	3.5	0	4.0	3.0	3.3	1.1	2.1	
Electricity	0	0	4.0	1.8	2.2	3.1	2.7	
Note: New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are grouped because of small numbers as are Victoria and Tasmania.
Source: 2006 CHINS (ABS 2007) tables 4.11 to 4.16.
7.4 Alternative methodologies
The methodology currently used identifies whether a dwelling (using the Indigenous Community Housing collection) or a community (using CHINS data) is connected to an organised supply of water, sewerage or power. Although this is the agreed HMAC measure, it does not assess the functionality of these services. Chapter 10 further explores this issue and identifies ways to improve on this dimension.
7.5 Population comparisons
Data on connection to essential services are only collected for discrete Indigenous communities (CHINS data) and ICH (administrative data), both of which relate to Indigenous populations only. This means that comparisons with non-Indigenous populations are not possible.
7.6 Changes in connection to services since the 2005 Indigenous housing needs report
The proportion of ICH dwellings not connected to an organised supply for water, sewerage or electricity has reduced in the 3 years since 30 June 2004, particularly in relation to connection to sewerage, with the proportion of dwellings not connected decreasing from 8% to 2% (Table 7.4).
Table 7.4: Proportion of ICH dwellings not connected to an organised system for water, sewerage or electricity, 30 June 2004 and 30 June 2008
	30 June 2004	30 June 2008	
Water	1.6	1.6	
Sewerage	7.7	2.1	
Electricity	1.8	1.8	
Source: AIHW 2005, 2009d.
8	Estimate of the current dwelling need gap
Chapters 3 to 7 provided estimates of Indigenous housing need in relation to the five dimensions of homelessness, overcrowding, affordability, dwelling condition, and connection to essential services. These estimates reflect unmet need for housing assistance and can be used as the basis for estimating the number of dwellings required to meet that need. Previous methodologies have focused on identifying the social housing dwelling need gap; however, in the context of the new agreements, new policy solutions to respond to Indigenous housing need will be considered, particularly given the agreements’ focus on:
•	improving the access of Indigenous Australians to mainstream housing
•	contributing to the achievement of ‘Closing the Gap’ housing targets
•	reducing overcrowding in remote Indigenous communities
•	increasing the supply of new houses and improving the condition of existing houses in remote Indigenous communities.
This chapter outlines the method used to estimate the current dwelling need gap across the four dimensions of homelessness, overcrowding, affordability and dwelling condition. It presents the estimates by two levels of need—‘extreme need’ and ‘all need’—state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size. The chapter, however, does not estimate the cost of meeting the current dwelling need gap. It is worth noting that the solution is not as simple as providing additional dwellings. Ongoing resources are also required for tenancy management, maintenance and supporting the sustainability of tenancies.
8.2 Method
The method adopted in this report to estimate the current dwelling need gap is based on the previous approach, but with modifications to overcome some of the identified limitations (refer to Appendix 3 for details). Note that the previous method included estimates of the cost of meeting the social housing dwelling need gap.
Data used to calculate the dwelling need gap are drawn from Chapters 3 to 6. The following table summarises the methodology applied to each dimension to estimate the current dwelling need gap (Table 8.1). Further details of the methodology used for each dimension can be found following the summary of results.

Table 8.1: Summary of method for estimating current dwelling need gap
Step	Homeless	Overcrowding	Unaffordability	Dwellings requiring replacement	
Data source	2006 Chamberlain and Mackenzie estimates (Table 3.1)	2006 Census (tables 4.1–4.4)	Australian Government Housing Data Set (tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5)	2006 CHINS (Table 6.1)	
Inclusions	Primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness	Renters
Data include households that require 1 or more and 2 or more extra bedrooms assessed using the CNOS.	Income units in receipt of CRA	Dwellings requiring replacement	
Exclusions	Marginal residents of caravan parks	Home owners, purchasers, dwellings in residential parks (i.e. caravan parks and marinas), dwellings rented from employers, dwellings being purchased under a rent/buy scheme, and dwellings being occupied under a life tenure scheme.	Income units not in receipt of CRA	All other dwellings	
Base unit of measure	Number of homeless Indigenous persons	Number of households requiring additional bedrooms	Number of income units in affordability need	Number of dwellings requiring replacement	
Convert person data to households (using Chamberlain and Mackenzie)	Yes, based on the assumption that the proportion of homeless Indigenous households is the same as the proportion of homeless Indigenous people (Table 8.8)	Not applicable	Income units were assumed to be equivalent to households	Not applicable	
Apportion household data across household types 	Yes (using Chamberlain and Mackenzie household profiles, Table 8.9), based on the assumption that distribution of Indigenous households is the same as for non-Indigenous households	Not applicable	Yes, using the income unit type variable.	Not applicable	
(continued)

Table 8.1 (continued): Summary of method for estimating current dwelling need gap
Step	Homeless	Overcrowding	Unaffordability	Dwellings requiring replacement	
Translate into number of dwellings needed	On the basis of household type:
		Singles: 3 singles assigned a 3 bedroom dwelling
		Couples: assigned 2 bedroom dwellings
		Families: assign appropriately sized dwellings according to the CNOS based on the expected distribution of family sizes and composition observed for Indigenous Australians in the 2006 Census (Table 8.11)	On the basis of:
		1 bedroom required: assume single and 3 singles assigned a 3 bedroom dwelling
		2 or more bedrooms required: assume families and assign appropriately sized dwellings according to the CNOS based on the expected distribution of family sizes and composition observed for Indigenous Australians in the 2006 Census (Table 8.11)	On the basis of household type:
		Singles: 3 singles assigned a 3 bedroom dwelling
		Couples: assigned 2 bedroom dwellings
		Families: assign appropriately sized dwellings according to the CNOS based on the expected distribution of family sizes and composition observed for Indigenous Australians in the 2006 Census (Table 8.11)	On the basis of the dwelling size distribution observed in CHINS
(Table 8.22)	

8.2.2 Results
The estimates are presented for two levels of need, ‘extreme need’ and ‘all need’. These concepts are defined for the purpose of this report as:
•	‘extreme need’: includes primary and secondary homelessness, households that require two or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 50% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement
•	‘all need’: includes primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, households that require one or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 30% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
Summary of results
The number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’ is estimated to be 11,358 
(Table 8.2). Fifty-four per cent of these dwellings are required to reduce overcrowding for households who are currently renting and a further 23% to reduce homelessness. It is estimated that largely three bedroom dwellings are required to meet ‘extreme need’.
Table 8.2: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’(a), by dwelling size, 2006
	Dwelling size	
Dimension	2 bedrooms	3 bedrooms	4 bedrooms	5 bedrooms	Total	
Extreme homelessness	886	1,608	98	1	2,593	
Extreme overcrowding(b) (c)	1,742	3,215	1,133	10	6,100	
Extreme unaffordability(d)	431	654	17	0	1,102	
Dwellings requiring replacement	270	975	282	36	1,563	
Total	3,329	6,452	1,530	47	11,358	
(a)	‘Extreme need’ includes primary and secondary homelessness, households that require two or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 50% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Includes renters only.
(d)	Based on estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
Source: AIHW estimates.
The number of dwellings required to meet ‘all need’ is estimated to be 19,429 (Table 8.3). Forty-nine percent of these dwellings are required to reduce overcrowding for households who are currently renting and a further 26% to cover unaffordability.

Table 8.3: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all need’(a), by dwelling size, 2006
	Number of bedrooms	
Dimension	2 bedrooms	3 bedrooms	4 bedrooms	5 bedrooms	Total	
All homelessness	1,122	2,038	124	1	3,285	
All overcrowding(b) (c)	1,742	6,551	1,133	10	9,436	
All unaffordability(d)	1,972	2,976	197	0	5,145	
Dwellings requiring replacement	270	975	282	36	1,563	
Total	5,106	12,540	1,736	47	19,429	
(a)	‘All need’ includes primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, households that require one or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 30% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Includes renters only.
(d)	Based on estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
Source: AIHW estimates.
The number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’ varies by jurisdiction with the largest number required in the Northern Territory (3,360) followed by Queensland (3,014) (Table 8.4). The number of dwellings required to reduce overcrowding is highest in the Northern Territory (2,212) and Queensland (1,670), whereas in New South Wales the number of dwellings required to reduce homelessness is highest (573).
Table 8.4: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’(a), by state and territory, 2006

State/territory	
Extreme
homelessness	
Extreme
overcrowding(a) (c)	
Extreme 
unaffordability(d)	Dwellings requiring replacement	

Total	
New South Wales	573	803	388	(e)112	1,876	
Victoria	228	168	77	21	494	
Queensland	552	1,670	425	367	3,014	
Western Australia	424	902	94	349	1,769	
South Australia	254	280	40	54	628	
Tasmania	64	51	33	0	148	
Australian Capital Territory	43	11	12	n.a.	66	
Northern Territory	454	2,212	34	660	3,360	
Total	2,593	6,100	1,102	1,563	11,358	
(a)	‘Extreme need’ includes primary and secondary homelessness, households that require two or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 50% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Includes renters only.
(d)	Based on estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
(e)	Includes the Australian Capital Territory.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Similarly the number of dwellings required to meet ‘all need’ varies by jurisdiction with the largest number required in Queensland (5,748) and New South Wales (4,545) (Table 8.5). The number of dwellings required to reduce overcrowding is highest in Queensland (2,731) and Northern Territory (2,598), whereas in New South Wales the number of dwellings required to reduce unaffordability is highest (1,950).
Table 8.5: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all need’(a), by state and territory, 2006

State/territory	
All
homelessness	
All
overcrowding(b) (c)	
All 
unaffordability(d)	Dwellings requiring replacement	

Total	
New South Wales	694	1,789	1,950	(e)112	4,545	
Victoria	276	378	336	21	1,011	
Queensland	766	2,731	1,884	367	5,748	
Western Australia	529	1,307	403	349	2,588	
South Australia	303	461	215	54	1,033	
Tasmania	73	141	178	0	392	
Australian Capital Territory	53	30	31	n.a.	114	
Northern Territory	586	2,598	147	660	3,991	
Total	3,285	9,436	5,145	1,563	19,429	
(a)	‘All need’ includes primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, households that require one or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 30% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Includes renters only.
(d)	Based on estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
(e)	Includes the Australian Capital Territory.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
The number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’ also varies by remoteness with the largest number being required in non-remote areas (4,012) (Table 8.6). The number of dwellings required to reduce overcrowding is high in both non-remote and Very remote areas (2,680 and 2,579 respectively), and for unaffordability the number is highest in non-remote areas (1,059).

Table 8.6: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’(a), by remoteness area, 2006

Remoteness area	
Extreme
homelessness	
Extreme
overcrowding(b)(c)	
Extreme unaffordability(d)	Dwellings requiring replacement	

Total	
Non-remote	n.a.	2,680	1,059	273	4,012	
Remote	n.a.	840	31	247	1,118	
Very remote	n.a.	2,579	12	1,043	3,634	
Total	2,593	6,100	1,102	1,563	11,358	
(a)	‘Extreme need’ includes primary and secondary homelessness, households that require two or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 50% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Estimates calculated by applying the proportion of renters of all tenure types to remoteness estimates for all tenure types.
(d)	Based on estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Similarly the number of dwellings required to meet ‘all need’ also varies by remoteness with the largest number being required in non-remote areas (10,550) (Table 8.7). The number of dwellings required to reduce overcrowding and unaffordability is highest in non-remote areas (5,334 and 4,943 respectively), whereas in Very remote areas the number of dwellings requiring replacement is highest.
Table 8.7: Estimated number of dwellings required to address ‘all need’(a), by remoteness area, 2006

Remoteness area	
All
homelessness	
All
overcrowding(a) (c)	
All 
unaffordability(d)	Dwellings requiring replacement	

Total	
Non-remote	n.a.	5,334	4,943	273	10,550	
Remote	n.a.	1,124	149	247	1,520	
Very remote	n.a.	2,977	53	1,043	4,073	
Total	3,285	9,436	5,145	1,563	19,429 	
(a)	‘All need’ includes primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, households that require one or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 30% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Includes renters only.
(d)	Based on estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Homelessness
The method for estimating the current dwelling need gap for homelessness is outlined below. A more refined method for converting households to dwellings is used compared with the previous approach (described in Appendix 3).
The estimates are based on the Census-adjusted counts presented in Chapter 3 (Table 3.1). The total number of households (rather than persons) that are homeless by jurisdiction was unavailable. Therefore, this estimate was calculated by assuming that the national proportional breakdown of homeless people by jurisdiction is the same as the national proportional breakdown of homeless households. For example, 26% of homeless people in Australia reside in New South Wales, therefore 26% of homeless households in Australia were assumed to reside in New South Wales.
Similarly, the number of Indigenous households that are homeless was unavailable and was calculated by considering the assumed total number of households that are homeless in each jurisdiction (refer above), and assuming that the proportion of homeless households that are Indigenous is the same as the proportion of homeless people who are Indigenous. For ‘all need’ at the national level, 8.90% of homeless people are Indigenous, therefore it was assumed that 8.90% of all homeless households (74,825) are Indigenous (Table 8.8), resulting in a total of 6,659 Indigenous households. Identifying the average size of a homeless Indigenous household would improve these estimates in future reports.
For ‘extreme need’ at the national level, 9.62% of Indigenous people are experiencing primary and secondary homelessness, therefore it was assumed that 9.62% of all households in the primary and secondary categories of homelessness (54,632) are Indigenous (Table 8.8), resulting in a total of 5,256 Indigenous households. 
This methodology was applied to the states and territory estimates. Refer to the Counting the homeless state and territory reports for details of the estimates used for the state and territory breakdowns (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2009a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h).
Table 8.8: Proportion and number of Indigenous homeless people, by category of homelessness
	
Indigenous %	No. Indigenous homeless persons(a)	Total homeless persons(a)	Total homeless households	
All need					
Primary	15.32	2,509	16,369	9,414	
Secondary	8.20	5,438	66,240	45,218	
Tertiary	6.02	1,301	21,579	20,193	
Total	8.90	9,248	104,188	74,825	
Extreme need					
Primary	15.32	2,509	16,369	9,414	
Secondary	8.20	5,438	66,240	45,218	
Total	9.62	7,947	82,609	54,632	
(a)	Excludes those persons with unknown Indigenous status.
Source: Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008.
The household type was required in order to assign appropriate sized dwellings. Indigenous homeless household type was also unavailable, so it was assumed that the distribution of household type in each jurisdiction was the same as for all households nationally.
The following distributions of household type (Table 8.9) were applied to Indigenous households (i.e. 6,659).
Table 8.9: Distribution of homeless household types
Household type	Homeless %(a)	
Single person	76	
Groups of singles	n.a.	
Couple only	14	
Family with children	10	
(a)	This distribution is based on all households (i.e. Indigenous and non-Indigenous).
Source: Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008.
Dwellings were then assigned according to household type (Table 8.10), with further consideration made for families as dwelling size depends on family size. Based on the distribution of Indigenous family size and composition observed in the 2006 Census (ABS 2006) the minimum dwelling size was determined according to the CNOS (Table 8.11).
Table 8.10: Dwelling size allocated by household type
Household type	Dwelling allocation	
Single person	3 singles assigned 3 bedroom dwelling	
Couple only	Assigned 2 bedroom dwellings	
Family with children	Refer to Table 8.11	

Table 8.11: Distribution of dwelling sizes for families
Number of bedrooms	2	3	4	5	Total	
% of families	28.6	52.7	18.6	0.2	100.0	
Source: ABS 2006; tables A2.9 and A2.10.
The estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all homelessness need’ is 3,285 and 2,593 for ‘extreme homelessness need’ (tables 8.12 and 8.13). The number of dwellings required is highest in Queensland and New South Wales.
Table 8.12: Estimated number of dwellings required to address ‘all homelessness need’(a), by state and territory and dwelling size
Dwelling size	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust(b)	
2 bedrooms	237	94	262	181	104	25	18	200	1,122	
3 bedrooms	430	171	475	328	188	45	33	363	2,038	
4 bedrooms	26	10	29	20	11	3	2	22	124	
5 bedrooms	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	
Total	694	276	766	529	303	73	53	586	3,285	
(a)	‘All need’ includes primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Table 8.13: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme homelessness need’(a), by state and territory and dwelling size
Dwelling size	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust(b)	
2 bedrooms	196	78	189	145	87	22	15	155	886	
3 bedrooms	355	142	342	263	157	40	27	282	1,608	
4 bedrooms	22	9	21	16	10	2	2	17	98	
5 bedrooms	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	
Total	573	228	552	424	254	64	43	454	2,593	
(a)	‘Extreme need’ includes primary and secondary homelessness.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Overcrowding
The method for estimating the current dwelling need gap for overcrowding is outlined below. The main differences from the previous approach (described in Appendix 3) are the inclusion of all renters (i.e. private, state/territory housing authority, Indigenous and mainstream community housing and other) and use of a more refined method for converting households to dwellings.
The estimates are based on the 2006 Census data presented in Chapter 4 (tables 4.1–4.4). The base unit of measure is the number of households requiring additional bedrooms. The conversion of the number of households into the number of dwellings required was done according to the number of additional bedrooms required (Table 8.14). Those needing one additional bedroom were assumed to be a single person with three singles allocated to a three bedroom dwelling. Those requiring two or more additional bedrooms were assumed to be families and were allocated to a range of dwelling sizes according to the distribution of Indigenous family size and composition observed in the 2006 Census (ABS 2006), and the CNOS (Table 8.11).
Table 8.14: Dwelling size allocated by additional bedrooms required
Extra bedrooms required	Dwelling allocation	
One bedroom	Assume single person and 3 singles assigned 3 bedroom dwelling	
Two or more bedrooms	Assume families and assigned dwellings as per Table 8.11	

The estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all overcrowding need’ (i.e. households that require one or more additional bedrooms) is 9,436, and for ‘extreme overcrowding need’ (i.e. households that require two or more additional bedrooms) 6,100 dwellings are required (tables 8.15 and 8.16).

Table 8.15: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all overcrowding need’(a), by state and territory and dwelling size(b)
Dwelling size	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust(b)	
2 bedrooms	229	48	477	258	80	15	3	632	1,742	
3 bedrooms	1,409	299	1,941	880	329	117	25	1,552	6,551	
4 bedrooms	149	31	310	168	52	9	2	411	1,133	
5 bedrooms	1	0	3	1	0	0	0	4	10	
Total	1,789	378	2,731	1,307	461	141	30	2,598	9,436	
(a)	‘All need’ households that require one or more extra bedrooms according to the CNOS.
(b)	Includes renters only.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Table 8.16: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme overcrowding need’(a), by state and territory and dwelling size(b)
Dwelling size	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust(b)	
2 bedrooms	229	48	477	258	80	15	3	632	1,742	
3 bedrooms	423	89	880	475	148	27	6	1,166	3,215	
4 bedrooms	149	31	310	168	52	9	2	411	1,133	
5 bedrooms	1	0	3	1	0	0	0	4	10	
Total	803	168	1,670	902	280	51	11	2,212	6,100	
(a)	‘Extreme need’ households that require two or more extra bedrooms according to the CNOS.
(b)	Includes renters only.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
For both ‘all overcrowding need’ and ‘extreme overcrowding need’ the numbers of dwellings required are highest in the Northern Territory and Queensland (tables 8.17 and 8.18). However, by remoteness, the number of dwellings required to meet ‘all overcrowding need’ is highest in non-remote areas (5,334), whereas for ‘extreme overcrowding need’ it is similar in both non-remote and Very remote areas (2,680 and 2,579 respectively).

 Table 8.17: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all overcrowding need’(a), by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size(b)
	Dwelling size	
State/territory and remoteness area	
2 bedrooms	
3 bedrooms	
4 bedrooms	
5 bedrooms	
Total	
New South Wales						
	Non-remote	212	1,326	138	1	1,677	
	Remote	16	71	11	0	98	
	Very remote	2	13	2	0	17	
	Total	229	1,409	149	1	1,789	
Victoria						
	Non-remote	48	299	31	0	379	
	Remote	0	0	0	0	0	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Total	48	299	31	0	378	
Queensland						
	Non-remote	285	1,366	185	2	1,838	
	Remote	60	198	39	0	298	
	Very remote	132	376	86	1	595	
	Total	477	1,941	310	3	2,731	
Western Australia						
	Non-remote	73	361	48	0	482	
	Remote	40	148	26	0	213	
	Very remote	145	374	94	1	613	
	Total	258	880	168	1	1,307	
South Australia						
	Non-remote	46	236	30	0	312	
	Remote	2	12	1	0	15	
	Very remote	32	82	21	0	135	
	Total	80	329	52	0	461	
Tasmania						
	Non-remote	14	112	9	0	136	
	Remote	0	5	0	0	6	
	Very remote	0	2	0	0	3	
	Total	15	117	9	0	141	
Australian Capital Territory						
	Non-remote	3	25	2	0	30	
	Remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Total	3	25	2	0	30	
(continued)

Table 8.17 (continued): Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all overcrowding need’(a), by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size(b)
	Dwelling size	
State/territory and remoteness area	
2 bedrooms	
3 bedrooms	
4 bedrooms	
5 bedrooms	
Total	
Northern Territory						
	Non-remote	38	177	25	0	240	
	Remote	127	329	82	1	538	
	Very remote	466	1,048	303	3	1,820	
	Total	632	1,552	411	4	2,598	
Australia						
	Non-remote	765	4,067	498	4	5,334	
	Remote	240	727	156	1	1,124	
	Very remote	736	1,757	479	4	2,977	
	Total	1,742	6,551	1,133	10	9,436	
(a)	‘All need’ households that require one or more extra bedrooms according to the CNOS.
(b)	Includes renters only.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Table 8.18: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme overcrowding need’(a), by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size(b)
	Dwelling size	
State/territory and remoteness area	
2 bedrooms	
3 bedrooms	
4 bedrooms	
5 bedrooms	
Total	
New South Wales						
	Non-remote	212	391	138	1	742	
	Remote	16	30	11	0	57	
	Very remote	2	4	2	0	8	
	Total	229	423	149	1	803	
Victoria						
	Non-remote	48	89	31	0	169	
	Remote	0	0	0	0	0	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Total	48	89	31	0	168	
Queensland						
	Non-remote	285	525	185	2	997	
	Remote	60	111	39	0	211	
	Very remote	132	244	86	1	463	
	Total	477	880	310	3	1,670	
(continued)

Table 8.18 (continued): Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme overcrowding need’(a), by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size(b)
	Dwelling size	
State/territory and remoteness area	
2 bedrooms	
3 bedrooms	
4 bedrooms	
5 bedrooms	
Total	
Western Australia						
	Non-remote	73	136	48	0	257	
	Remote	40	73	26	0	138	
	Very remote	145	267	94	1	506	
	Total	258	475	168	1	902	
South Australia						
	Non-remote	46	84	30	0	160	
	Remote	2	4	1	0	7	
	Very remote	32	60	21	0	113	
	Total	80	148	52	0	280	
Tasmania						
	Non-remote	14	26	9	0	50	
	Remote	0	1	0	0	2	
	Very remote	0	1	0	0	2	
	Total	15	27	9	0	51	
Australian Capital Territory						
	Non-remote	3	6	2	0	11	
	Remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Total	3	6	2	0	11	

Northern Territory						
	Non-remote	38	70	25	0	133	
	Remote	127	234	82	1	443	
	Very remote	466	861	303	3	1,633	
	Total	632	1,166	411	4	2,212	
Australia						
	Non-remote	765	1,413	498	4	2,680	
	Remote	240	443	156	1	840	
	Very remote	736	1,359	479	4	2,579	
	Total	1,742	3,215	1,133	10	6,100	
(a)	‘Extreme need’ households that require two or more extra bedrooms according to the CNOS.
(b)	Includes renters only.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Unaffordability
The method for estimating the current dwelling need gap for unaffordability is outlined below. The main differences from the previous approach (described in Appendix 3) are the inclusion of estimates across all remoteness areas and the use of a more refined method for converting income units to dwellings. Note also that the definition of affordability need used in this report differs from the previous approach.
The estimates are based on the Australian Government Housing Data Set data presented in Chapter 5 (tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5). The base unit of measure is the number of income units in affordability need and income units were assumed to be equivalent to households. To assign appropriate dwellings, the income unit type variable in the Australian Government Housing Data Set was used and grouped according to the number of children. Dwellings were allocated according to income unit type, with a range of dwelling sizes assigned to families according to the CNOS (Table 8.19).
Table 8.19: Dwelling size allocated by income unit type variable
Income unit type	Dwelling allocation	
Singles	3 singles assigned 3 bedroom dwelling	
Couple only and couple/single parent families with 1 child	Assigned 2 bedroom dwellings	
Couple/single parent families with 2 or 3 children	Assigned 3 bedroom dwellings	
Couple/single parent families with 4 or more children	Assigned 4 bedroom dwellings	
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.
The estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all unaffordability need’ is 5,145 and for ‘extreme unaffordability need’ 1,102 dwellings are required (tables 8.20 and 8.21). For both ‘all unaffordability need’ and ‘extreme unaffordability need’ the number of dwellings required is highest in New South Wales and Queensland and the highest proportion of dwellings is required in non-remote areas (96%).

Table 8.20: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all unaffordability need’, 
by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
	Dwelling size		
State/territory and remoteness area	2 bedrooms	3 bedrooms	4 bedrooms	Total	
New South Wales					
Major cities	382	586	41	1,009	
Inner regional	283	392	18	694	
Outer regional	86	127	4	217	
Remote	10	17	1	27	
Very remote	1	2	0	4	
Total	762	1,123	65	1,950	
Victoria					
Major cities	68	125	2	195	
Inner regional	34	71	0	105	
Outer regional	9	26	1	36	
Remote	0	0	0	0	
Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Total	111	222	3	336	
Queensland					
Major cities	328	506	47	881	
Inner regional	190	252	15	457	
Outer regional	187	277	23	486	
Remote	14	29	2	46	
Very remote	6	6	2	14	
Total	725	1,070	89	1,884	
Western Australia					
Major cities	91	140	10	242	
Inner regional	20	36	2	58	
Outer regional	17	40	1	58	
Remote	13	15	1	29	
Very remote	8	9	0	16	
Total	149	240	14	403	
South Australia					
Major cities	60	86	4	150	
Inner regional	5	9	0	14	
Outer regional	8	27	2	37	
Remote	4	1	1	6	
Very remote	2	6	0	8	
Total	79	129	7	215	
(continued)

Table 8.20 (continued): Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all unaffordability need’, by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
	Dwelling size		
State/territory and remoteness area	2 bedrooms	3 bedrooms	4 bedrooms	Total	
Tasmania					
Major cities	..	..	..	..	
Inner regional	53	60	5	118	
Outer regional	28	28	0	56	
Remote	1	3	0	4	
Very remote	1	0	0	1	
Total	83	90	5	178	
Australian Capital Territory					
Major cities	12	17	2	31	
Inner regional	..	..	..	..	
Outer regional	..	..	..	..	
Remote	..	..	..	..	
Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Total	12	17	2	31	
Northern Territory					
Major cities	0	0	0	0	
Inner regional	0	0	0	0	
Outer regional	35	55	10	100	
Remote	12	23	2	37	
Very remote	4	6	0	10	
Total	51	84	12	147	
Australia					
Major cities	940	1,461	106	2,507	
Inner regional	586	820	40	1,446	
Outer regional	370	579	41	990	
Remote	55	87	7	149	
Very remote	22	29	2	53	
Total	1,972	2,976	197	5,145	
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.

Table 8.21: Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme unaffordability need’, by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
	Dwelling size		
State/territory and remoteness area	2 bedrooms	3 bedrooms	4 bedrooms	Total	
New South Wales					
Major cities	90	153	5	248	
Inner regional	39	60	3	102	
Outer regional	15	17	0	32	
Remote	3	3	0	5	
Very remote	0	1	0	1	
Total	147	233	8	388	
Victoria					
Major cities	17	34	0	51	
Inner regional	5	15	0	20	
Outer regional	0	6	0	6	
Remote	0	0	0	0	
Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Total	22	55	0	77	
Queensland					
Major cities	85	136	7	228	
Inner regional	41	37	1	79	
Outer regional	51	55	0	106	
Remote	4	3	0	8	
Very remote	1	2	0	3	
Total	182	235	8	425	
Western Australia					
Major cities	26	37	0	63	
Inner regional	2	8	0	11	
Outer regional	2	9	0	11	
Remote	4	4	0	7	
Very remote	0	2	0	2	
Total	34	60	0	94	
South Australia					
Major cities	11	16	0	27	
Inner regional	1	1	0	2	
Outer regional	0	5	0	5	
Remote	1	1	0	2	
Very remote	0	4	0	4	
Total	13	27	0	40	
(continued)

Table 8.21 (continued): Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme unaffordability need’, by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
	Dwelling size		
State/territory and remoteness area	2 bedrooms	3 bedrooms	4 bedrooms	Total	
Tasmania					
Major cities	..	..	..	..	
Inner regional	7	13	0	20	
Outer regional	6	6	0	11	
Remote	1	1	0	2	
Very remote	0	0	0	0	
Total	14	19	0	33	
Australian Capital Territory					
Major cities	5	7	0	12	
Inner regional	..	..	..	..	
Outer regional	..	..	..	..	
Remote	..	..	..	..	
Very remote	..	..	..	..	
Total	5	7	0	12	
Northern Territory					
Major cities	0	0	0	0	
Inner regional	0	0	0	0	
Outer regional	12	12	1	25	
Remote	1	5	0	6	
Very remote	1	1	0	2	
Total	14	19	1	34	
Australia					
Major cities	233	384	12	629	
Inner regional	96	134	4	234	
Outer regional	85	110	1	196	
Remote	14	17	0	31	
Very remote	3	9	0	12	
Total	431	654	17	1,102	
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Dwellings requiring replacement
The method for estimating current dwelling need gap for dwellings requiring replacement is outlined below. The main difference from the previous approach (described in Appendix 3) is an alternative approach to the allocation of dwelling size.
Estimates of the dwelling need gap for dwellings requiring replacement are based on 2006 CHINS data. The number of dwellings requiring replacement was converted to actual dwellings based on the observed distribution of dwelling sizes in CHINS (Table 8.22). This assumes that dwellings are replaced with same-sized dwellings and minimises overlap with measures to reduce overcrowding.
Table 8.22: Distribution of dwellings size observed in CHINS
Number of bedrooms	2	3	4	5	Total	
% of dwellings in non-remote areas	14.8	56.7	24.2	4.3	100.0	
% of dwellings in remote areas	20.6	61.3	16.1	2.0	100.0	
% of dwellings in very remote areas	17.1	64.1	16.8	2.0	100.0	
Notes
1.	Distributions are based on all permanent dwellings managed by ICHOs.
2.	One bedroom dwellings were reconfigured as 3 bedroom dwellings to maintain consistency with the other dimensions.
3.	Dwellings with 5 plus bedrooms were treated as 5 bedrooms dwellings. 
Source: 2006 CHINS (ABS 2007) Table 2.8.
The estimated number of dwellings required to address dwellings requiring replacement is 1,563 (Table 8.23). Of these, 42% are in the Northern Territory, with 79% of these located in Very remote areas. Of the 349 dwellings requiring replacement in Western Australia, 84% are located in Very remote areas.
Table 8.23: Estimated number of dwellings requiring replacement, by state and territory and remoteness area
	Dwelling size		
State/territory and remoteness area	
2 bedrooms	
3 bedrooms	
4 bedrooms	
5 bedrooms	
Total	
New South Wales/
Australian Capital Territory						
	Non-remote	16	62	26	5	109	
	Remote	1	2	0	0	3	
	Very remote	0	0	0	0	0	
	Total	17	64	27	5	112	
Victoria						
	Non-remote	3	12	5	1	21	
	Remote	0	0	0	0	0	
	Very remote	..	..	..	..	..	
	Total	3	12	5	1	21	
Queensland						
	Non-remote	16	59	25	4	105	
	Remote	15	46	12	1	75	
	Very remote	32	120	32	4	187	
	Total	63	225	69	9	367	
(continued)
Table 8.23 (continued): Estimated number of dwellings requiring replacement, by state and territory and remoteness area
	Dwelling size		
State/territory and remoteness area	
2 bedrooms	
3 bedrooms	
4 bedrooms	
5 bedrooms	
Total	
Western Australia						
	Non-remote	1	4	2	0	7	
	Remote	10	31	8	1	50	
	Very remote	50	187	49	6	292	
	Total	61	222	59	7	349	
South Australia						
	Non-remote	1	5	2	0	9	
	Remote	0	1	0	0	2	
	Very remote	7	28	7	1	43	
	Total	9	34	10	1	54	
Tasmania						
	Non-remote	0	0	0	0	0	
	Remote	0	0	0	0	0	
	Very remote	0	0	0	0	0	
	Total	0	0	0	0	0	
Northern Territory						
	Non-remote	3	12	5	1	22	
	Remote	24	72	19	2	117	
	Very remote	89	334	88	10	521	
	Total	116	418	112	13	660	
Australia						
	Non-remote	40	155	66	12	273	
	Remote	51	151	40	5	247	
	Very remote	178	669	176	20	1,043	
	Total	270	975	282	36	1,563	
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
9	Forward projections of need (emerging need)
Emerging need relates to estimated population size and growth, geographic distribution, rural urban migration and household formation characteristics with respect to the five dimensions of need measured.
For the three dimensions of homelessness, overcrowding and affordability, the rate of growth in the number of households based on the growth in the total population is central to the assessment of future housing needs. For the remaining two dimensions, dwelling condition and connection to essential services, it is important to assess the life cycle of existing housing stock (AIHW 2005). The projections are based on certain assumptions about future levels of fertility, mortality, internal migration and overseas migration. The projections do not account for any externalities that may affect the figures, such as changes in household formation, those at risk of homelessness, housing supply and demand or new policy or program initiatives.
9.1 Method
Only population projections from 2001–2009 based on the 2001 Census counts are available (Table 9.1). From these, the method to project emerging need in this report is summarised below:
•	The projections were adjusted for 2006 Census counts and linearly extrapolated to estimate the Indigenous population into the future (tables 9.2 and 9.3)
•	As the population projections were available only on a person basis, not on household, conversion was made, first by determining the average number of Indigenous persons per Indigenous household based on 2006 Census counts (Table 9.4), then by estimating the number of Indigenous households based on the estimates of the Indigenous population by assuming the average number of Indigenous persons per Indigenous household remains constant (Table 9.5).
•	The relative Indigenous population (households) was determined and this factor was then applied to the dwelling need gap estimates for each dimension to project the additional dwelling need gap to 2018 (Table 9.6). This assumes that the proportion of need for each dimension remains constant.
The results presented in Section 9.2 may differ from other reported estimates and the following factors should be taken into account in their interpretation:
•	The dwelling need gap estimates for homelessness (Chapter 8) used as the basis for the projections have been adjusted for undercounting using the Counting the homeless estimates (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008, 2009a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h). Because of the unavailability of specific breakdowns for these estimates, i.e. number of homeless Indigenous households and their household type, a number of assumptions were applied. The number of dwellings was then assigned on the basis of households type (a mix of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms), with further consideration made for families based on the distribution of Indigenous family size and composition observed in the 2006 Census (ABS 2006) and according to the CNOS (refer to Chapter 8 for further details).
•	The dwelling need gap estimates for overcrowding (Chapter 8) used as the basis for the projections include all renters and have not been adjusted for net under-count in the 2006 Census. The conversion of households to the number of dwellings required was done according to the number of additional bedrooms required, with further consideration made for families based on the distribution of Indigenous family size and composition observed in the 2006 Census (ABS 2006) and according to the CNOS (refer to Chapter 8 for further details).
•	Data are presented for two levels of need, ‘extreme need’ and ‘all need’. These concepts are defined for the purpose of this report as:
–	‘extreme need’: includes primary and secondary homelessness, households that require two or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 50% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement
–	‘all need’: includes primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, households that require one or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 30% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
Table 9.1: Experimental Indigenous projections (based on the 2001 Census), 2001–2009 (persons)
Year	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia(a)	
2001	134,888	27,846	125,910	65,931	25,544	17,384	3,909	56,875	458,520	
2002	137,061	28,435	128,606	67,162	26,046	17,614	4,008	57,758	466,925	
2003	139,280	29,050	131,302	68,403	26,551	17,848	4,107	58,634	475,412	
2004	141,533	29,683	134,013	69,665	27,060	18,087	4,204	59,508	483,992	
2005	143,824	30,329	136,754	70,945	27,578	18,333	4,300	60,373	492,677	
2006	146,159	30,988	139,527	72,243	28,105	18,586	4,396	61,232	501,479	
2007	148,542	31,660	142,333	73,563	28,641	18,846	4,490	62,085	510,405	
2008	150,971	32,345	145,174	74,903	29,185	19,115	4,586	62,932	519,459	
2009	153,454	33,045	148,055	76,264	29,736	19,387	4,680	63,775	528,645	
(a)	Includes Other Territories.
Source: ABS.

Table 9.2: Indigenous projections (adjusted for 2006 Census counts), 2001–2009 (persons)
Year	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia(a)	
2001	134,888	27,846	125,910	65,931	25,544	17,384	3,909	56,875	458,520	
2002	138,366	28,941	129,678	66,907	26,036	17,580	3,985	58,313	470,038	
2003	141,890	30,062	133,445	67,892	26,531	17,780	4,061	59,743	481,638	
2004	145,449	31,200	137,228	68,899	27,030	17,984	4,136	61,172	493,330	
2005	149,045	32,352	141,040	69,923	27,538	18,196	4,209	62,591	505,128	
2006	152,685	33,517	144,885	70,966	28,055	18,415	4,282	64,005	517,043	
2007	156,373	34,695	148,763	72,031	28,581	18,641	4,353	65,413	529,082	
2008	160,107	35,886	152,675	73,115	29,115	18,876	4,426	66,814	541,249	
2009	163,896	37,091	156,628	74,221	29,656	19,113	4,498	68,212	553,547	
(a)	Includes Other Territories.
Source: ABS 2008b, AIHW estimates.
Table 9.3: Population projections Indigenous population 2008–2018 (persons)
Year	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia(a)	
2008	160,062	35,869	152,647	73,094	29,106	18,867	4,427	66,822	541,125	
2013	178,183	41,652	171,827	78,271	31,673	19,946	4,794	73,907	600,487	
2018	196,304	47,435	191,006	83,448	34,241	21,026	5,162	80,993	659,849	
(a)	Includes Other Territories.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Table 9.4: Indigenous persons per Indigenous household(a)
Number	2006 Census counts	
Number of Indigenous people	517,043	
Number of Indigenous households	166,669	
Average number of Indigenous people per household	3.10	
(a)	Experimental estimated resident population data.
Source: ABS.
Table 9.5: Population projections Indigenous population 2008–2018 (households)
Year	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia(a)	
2008	51,596	11,562	49,206	23,562	9,382	6,082	1,427	21,540	174,432	
2013	57,437	13,427	55,388	25,231	10,210	6,430	1,545	23,824	193,567	
2018	63,279	15,291	61,571	26,900	11,037	6,778	1,664	26,108	212,703	
(a)	Includes Other Territories.
Source: AIHW estimates.
Table 9.6: Relative Indigenous population (households), base year 2006
Year	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia(a)	
2008	1.05	1.07	1.05	1.03	1.04	1.02	1.03	1.04	1.05	
2013	1.17	1.24	1.19	1.10	1.13	1.08	1.12	1.15	1.16	
2018	1.29	1.42	1.32	1.18	1.22	1.14	1.21	1.27	1.28	
(a)	Includes Other Territories.
Source: AIHW estimates.
9.2 Results
The following projections estimate the number of dwellings required for each dimension in 2008, 2013 and 2018 in addition to the existing dwelling need gap (i.e. those estimates provided in Chapter 8). To meet ‘extreme need’, an additional 478 dwellings would be required in 2008 and a further 3,074 dwellings by 2018 (Table 9.7). The majority of additional dwellings are required to reduce overcrowding.

Table 9.7: Projected number of additional dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’(a), by state and territory, 2008, 2013, 2018
Year	NSW/ACT	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Homelessness										
2008	28	16	30	13	10	2	20	1	121	
2013	96	55	103	44	33	5	70	5	418	
2018	164	95	176	75	56	9	120	9	716	
Overcrowding(b)(c)										
2008	39	12	89	27	10	1	97	0	284	
2013	134	41	311	93	36	4	342	1	984	
2018	229	70	532	159	62	7	587	2	1,685	
Unaffordability(d)										
2008	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	
2013	44	12	53	7	4	2	4	1	121	
2018	88	25	107	13	7	4	7	2	242	
Dwellings requiring replacement								
2008	5	1	20	10	2	0	29		73	
2013	19	5	68	36	7	0	102		252	
2018	32	9	117	61	12	0	175		432	
Total										
2008	72	29	139	50	22	3	146	2	478	
2013	292	114	535	179	79	11	518	7	1,776	
2018	513	198	931	308	137	20	890	13	3,074	
(a)	‘Extreme need’ includes primary and secondary homelessness, households that require two or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 50% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Includes renters only.
(d)	Based on 2008 estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.
To meet ‘all need’ an additional 665 dwellings would be required in 2008 and a further 5,074 dwellings by 2018 (Table 9.8). The majority of additional dwellings are required to reduce overcrowding and unaffordability.

Table 9.8: Projected number of additional dwellings required to meet ‘all need’(a), by state and territory, 2008, 2013, 2018
Year	NSW/ACT	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Homelessness										
2008	34	19	41	16	11	2	26	2	153	
2013	116	67	142	54	39	6	91	6	530	
2018	198	115	244	93	67	10	156	11	907	
Overcrowding(b)(c)										
2008	86	27	146	39	17	3	114	1	440	
2013	299	92	508	135	59	12	402	4	1,523	
2018	511	157	869	230	102	20	690	6	2,606	
Unaffordability(d)										
2008	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	
2013	221	54	237	29	19	10	16	3	564	
2018	442	108	473	57	38	20	31	5	1,129	
Dwellings requiring replacement								
2008	5	1	20	10	2	0	n.a.	29	73	
2013	19	5	68	36	7	0	n.a.	102	252	
2018	32	9	117	61	12	0	n.a.	175	432	
Total										
2008	125	47	207	66	31	5	169	3	665	
2013	654	218	955	253	124	28	610	13	2,870	
2018	1,183	389	1,703	441	218	51	1,051	22	5,074	
(a)	‘All need’ includes primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness, households that require one or more extra bedrooms, low-income households paying more than 30% of household income in rent and all dwellings requiring replacement.
(b)	CNOS used to assess overcrowding.
(c)	Includes renters only.
(d)	Based on 2008 estimates of Indigenous income units in receipt of CRA.
Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
Source: AIHW estimates.

10	Improving the measurement of Indigenous housing need: definitional and data development work to be undertaken
This chapter discusses the issues associated with the measurement of Indigenous housing need and makes recommendations for further data development work for four of the currently measurable dimensions and the three unmeasured ones. Further data development work will need to be considered and initiated by the Housing and Homelessness Policy Research Working Group (HHPRWG), formerly the PRWG, and the Housing and Homelessness Information Management Group (HHIMG), formerly the National Committee for Housing Information (NCHI).
The chapter then raises issues for consideration regarding the ongoing ‘fit’ of the multi-measure model with emerging policy and program directions, particularly in the context of the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA).
10.1 Currently measurable dimensions of Indigenous housing need
10.1.1 Homelessness
The following data development work is planned or under way in relation to homelessness:
•	development of a new national homelessness data collection which is to become operational on 1 July 2011 and will include a new client-based National Homelessness Minimum Data Set
•	exploration of new sources for counting the homeless for inter-censal years—one option being pursued is the use of ‘homelessness’ and ‘at risk of homelessness’ flags in the Australian Government Housing Data Set
•	review of the methodology of the Counting the homeless reports which will include a review of the three-tier homelessness categorisation and definition of homelessness.
Recommendation:
•	HHPRWG/HHIMG review the measurement of this dimension in light of the data development work currently being undertaken under the NAHA, the National Partnership Agreement on remote Indigenous housing and the National Partnership Agreement on homelessness.
10.1.2 Overcrowding
It is important to note that, as part of the development of performance indicators under the NAHA and the National Partnership Agreement on remote Indigenous housing, the measurement of this dimension may need to be revised once these reporting arrangements are in place.
Culturally-specific measurement of Indigenous overcrowding
The current definition for the measurement of overcrowding attempts to allow for cultural differences, that is, the definition of a bedroom can include outdoor spaces. As for homelessness, the questions surrounding the cultural relevance of ‘usual resident’ also affects the estimates obtained for overcrowding.
Further work may need to be done in relation to the cultural suitability of existing measures of overcrowding. Data on how overcrowding manifests itself in specific areas, ascertaining why people live together, determining whether sharing is voluntary or involuntary and ascertaining the type and extent of compromises made by occupants to meet housing requirements (e.g. accepting high occupant density as a means of containing cost) could be obtained via surveys of Indigenous people to elicit their views and practice with respect to housing utilisation and preferences (Statistics New Zealand 2005).
Recent research by Birdsall-Jones and Corunna (2008) and Birdsall-Jones and Shaw (2008) identified three kinds of overcrowding: overcrowding that arises out of culturally legitimated activities, or mobility; overcrowding that arises out of the system of kinship obligation (socially legitimated overcrowding); and overcrowding that arises out of activities that are neither culturally nor socially legitimated (dysfunctional itinerancy).
Options for including questions in the National Social Housing Survey, particularly in relation to cultural preferences and conventions (e.g. perceived overcrowding, need for extra bedrooms for visitors) could provide information for more culturally appropriate measures of overcrowding.
Methodological issues
Further analysis of the CNOS applied to housing data (i.e. public housing and SOMIH data) has demonstrated that this measure provides better quality data on measures of overcrowding. The CNOS is also used by the ABS when analysing Census data.
Although the ABS Census is a good source of information on overcrowding across all tenure types by jurisdiction, it is only available every five years. Administrative data collections provide more robust and regular source of information on overcrowding but only for those living in social housing (public housing, community housing, SOMIH and ICH). Data on overcrowding are currently collected for public and SOMIH annually, but overcrowding is much less of an issue for this sector. Currently only a few jurisdictions can provide the level of detail required to measure overcrowding for the ICH sector, but under the new agreements it will largely move across to SOMIH, so it is expected that the data quality for overcrowding will improve as a result of this. Information on overcrowding in privately rented accommodation can currently be obtained only from the Census and special surveys.
Recommendations:
•	The HHIMG consider the issues raised in this report in the development of new indicators for Indigenous overcrowding.
•	The HHIMG explore alternative data sources to measure overcrowding in private rented accommodation.
10.1.3 Dwelling condition
The key measurement issue associated with dwelling condition is the identification of the best data source. Currently CHINS is used, but there are alternative approaches that could be considered.
It is important to note that, as part of the development of performance indicators under the NAHA and the National Partnership Agreement on remote Indigenous housing, the measurement of this dimension may need to be revised once these reporting arrangements are in place.
CHINS
One of the main limitations of the current data source (i.e. CHINS) is that its scope is ICH which is largely concentrated in remote areas (57% of all permanent dwellings are located in Very remote areas and 11% in Remote areas). Based on the Indigenous population distribution, the majority of Indigenous people live in non-remote areas, which means that the data reported for this dimension does not include the dwelling condition for the greater proportion of Indigenous people.
In addition, note that a degree of estimation was involved in the assessment of dwelling condition as no dwelling inspections were undertaken for the CHINS (ABS 2007). The implications of this are that the CHINS data depend on the judgements of a number of individuals, with different levels of expertise and vested interests across eight jurisdictions and for which there is no national standard that can be applied.
The assessment of permanent dwelling condition in CHINS was categorised according to the extent of repairs required and regions defined as low, medium or high cost areas based on relative building costs provided in Rawlinsons Australian construction handbook (Rawlinsons 1999). Use of these out-of-date costs means that the assessment of dwelling condition is underestimated in CHINS. Furthermore the costs of replacing houses differ by jurisdiction and location, and are not standardised by house type, location or jurisdiction.
Administrative data
In 2008, the AIHW in consultation with jurisdictions undertook a trial dwelling condition collection. Mapping of components of the tools used by jurisdictions to assess dwelling condition to the Construction cost guide (Rawlinsons 2008) was undertaken and jurisdictions provided their dwelling condition data to enable the calculation of the CSIRO Dwelling Condition Index and ‘cost to fix’ analyses. The results of these analyses were presented to the HHIMG in August 2009 and will be considered in the context of further performance indicator data development work under the NAHA.
A number of jurisdictions have indicated that their tools for assessing dwelling condition are used across all housing assistance programs and that regular inspection of dwellings is undertaken. The relevance of the use of this data for additional housing assistance programs, such as SOMIH, should be examined. In addition, the use of existing alternative data sources should be further explored to enable the assessment of dwelling condition across all tenure types.
Other data sources
Another approach is to ask households to report on the condition of the dwelling in which they live. This approach is used in the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS), where households were asked whether their dwelling had structural problems, and in the National Social Housing Survey (NSHS) for public housing, SOMIH and community housing tenants where tenants are asked whether they are satisfied with the condition of their home and with items inside the home.
Assessment of dwelling condition is an important area for data development. Nationally consistent definitions on dwelling conditions to assess costs associated with dwelling repair and/or replacement need to be developed for all forms of social housing. This would capture dwelling conditions for the social housing programs. In addition, better alignment between the national definitions relating to dwelling condition (under development) and information currently collected on structural problems of dwellings through the NATSISS should be sought in order to collect comparable data across all housing tenures. This is important because NATSISS data show that the condition of dwellings is also a significant problem for private renters (AIHW 2005).
Recommendations: 
•	HHIMG agree the best data source for measuring dwelling condition.
•	If subsequent CHINS include the assessment of dwelling condition, ensure the most recent version of Rawlinsons is used so that realistic costs are applied to the assessment.
•	HHIMG continue work on a national dwelling condition measure that is applicable to all housing assistance programs.
•	Development of nationally consistent definitions of dwelling conditions to assess costs associated with dwelling repair and/or replacement for all housing assistance programs is undertaken by the HHIMG.
•	HHIMG ensure that the development of national definitions relating to dwelling condition align with information collected through other sources, such as the NATSISS.
10.1.4 Connection to essential services
The current measure refers to the existence of basic infrastructure that is considered essential to adequate housing, that is, enables the connection of dwellings to water, sewerage and power. This measure, however, provides no information regarding the quality and functionality of the essential services which is an important component to consider.
CHINS
The data in CHINS relate only to dwellings in discrete Indigenous communities and data are collected separately for each of the three services. This means that it is not possible to combine these data to determine the number of dwellings not connected to more than one service. 
In addition, although ‘not connected’ is defined in CHINS as permanent dwellings in discrete Indigenous communities not connected to any organised supply, the quality of the organised services can vary considerably and is particularly an issue in relation to sewerage. For example, the types of sewerage systems regarded as an ‘organised supply’ are town system, community waterborne system, septic tanks, and pit and pan toilets.
Administrative data
Although this dimension applies mainly to remote Indigenous communities, the former Steering Committee on Indigenous Housing (SCIH) previously indicated that further work should be done to explore the possibility of broadening this measure across all tenure types.
The move towards the collection of unit record level dwelling data in the ICH data collection will improve data quality for this dimension, and in particular will allow for the identification of the proportion of dwellings not connected to more than one service and analysis by remoteness areas.
Other data sources
The NATSISS asks households a number of questions about the household facilities and their functionality. The questions do not cover water, sewerage and electricity but some of the questions are relevant to this measure. These are whether the household has:
	a working bath or shower
	a working toilet
	a working stove/oven/other cooking facility.
Recommendations: 
•	In the context of reporting requirements for the NAHA and the Indigenous National Partnership Agreement, HHPRWG/HHIMG consider whether the current measure should be reviewed.
Depending on the outcome of the above recommendation:
•	HHIMG determine the best data source for measuring connection to essential services.
•	If subsequent CHINS include the assessment of connection to essential services, the definition of ‘not connected’ and questions relating to the assessment of the functionality of services is reviewed.
•	HHIMG examine the feasibility of including this dimension in all housing assistance unit record level administrative data sets.
•	HHIMG consider options for obtaining information on the functionality of essential services for social housing dwellings.
10.2 Unmeasured dimensions of Indigenous housing need
There are currently no HMAC-agreed definitions or measures for the two dimensions of appropriateness of housing and security of tenure, but a range of research and data could relate to these dimensions. As these are outcomes that are specifically included in the NAHA and associated National Partnership Agreements, the HHIMG will be developing performance indicators to measure these.
10.2.1 Appropriateness
Appropriateness can be considered in a number of ways. It can be defined as the suitability of a residential dwelling to permit a reasonable quality of life and adequate access to employment and education, health and community services, public amenities and social supports. Alternatively, appropriateness can be considered in terms of the following properties: is of sufficient size so that a family is not living in overcrowded conditions; is in reasonable repair; provides the basic amenities considered essential by the community; has security of tenure; and is in a location suited to the family (Karmel 1998).
Appropriate housing must also take into account the diversity of Indigenous communities, their living environments, and cultural and housing needs. Indigenous communities also contain households with special housing needs above and beyond those of the general Indigenous population. Fordham et al. (1998) cite young single homeless people, those who require in-home care, those with disability, those who are mentally ill and the frail elderly. The Special Needs indicator for the 2003 CSHA also reflects those who have special housing needs: the very young, the very old and those with disability. 
Work done in New Zealand on housing suitability identifies it as that which allows households to access housing which is appropriate to their current needs, housing which is sufficiently flexible to cater for future requirements and long-term goals, preferred tenure and dwelling type, local opportunity (such as employment and education), and local infrastructure and public amenities (Statistics New Zealand 2005).
Appropriate housing therefore is not just a function of how a dwelling relates to its household occupant, but must also take into account broader community and social factors. But from the point of view of the definition and measurement of appropriateness for the multi-measure model, it may be that a much narrower scope is required.
A number of administrative, Census and survey data sources are currently available that could inform an appropriateness measure. Depending on the measures ultimately agreed, it may be that these will need to be modified or supplemented with additional data sources to report this dimension. The first step, however, is to agree on what this dimension is aiming to measure, and which components of the concept of appropriateness are the most important to capture in the context of Indigenous housing need and the multi-measure needs model. 
10.2.2 Security of tenure
Security of tenure can also be considered in a number of ways. It can refer to the degree to which occupants have the right to continue tenure in that dwelling and essentially incorporates two components—the length of leases and whether tenant movements are voluntary or not. Although the length of stay in a dwelling does not directly measure security of tenure, continuity of tenure can reflect a tenant’s level of security. This dimension is related to the ‘appropriateness’ dimension and also overlaps with the homelessness dimension.
Statistics New Zealand (2005) defines security of tenure in the following way: ‘Security of tenure offers dwelling occupants the confidence that their tenure is guaranteed for a specified period of time to which they have agreed’, and further notes that although tenure is subject to preference and aspiration, the concept of tenure security is defined in terms of wellbeing and independence as opposed to preference and aspiration. Statistics New Zealand has developed a model of tenure security based on tenure type. Under this model, owning a home without a mortgage is considered to be the most secure form of tenure, and chronic homelessness the least secure (Table 10.1).
Table 10.1: Statistics New Zealand model of tenure security
1. Dwelling owned without a mortgage	
2. Dwelling owned with a mortgage	
3. Dwelling provided rent-free	
4. Dwelling rented (state)	
5. Dwelling rented (private)	
6. Transitionally and episodically homeless	
7. Chronically homeless	

According to this measure, people living in social housing may not be regarded as being in need as they have relatively secure tenure. That would leave the bottom three tenure types as being in need in relation to security of tenure—private renters and the two groups of homeless (AIHW 2003).
The objective of the NAHA is ‘…that all Australians have access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing that contributes to social and economic participation’. It has not yet been decided how sustainability will be measured under the new agreement, but it is likely to encompass security of tenure. It would, therefore, be appropriate for any further development of the security of tenure dimension to consider the NAHA concept of sustainable housing.
A number of administrative, Census and survey data sources are currently available that could inform this dimension. Depending on the measures ultimately agreed, it may be that these will need to be modified or supplemented with additional data sources to report this dimension. The first step, however, is to agree on what this dimension is aiming to measure, and which components of the concept of security of tenure are the most important to capture in the context of Indigenous housing need and the multi-measure needs model. 
Recommendation:
•	Drawing on current work around development of performance indicators for appropriateness and security of tenure, HHPRWG/HHIMG:
–	clearly articulate the purpose of their inclusion to ensure the most relevant approach is identified and overlap with the other dimensions is minimised
–	develop and agree on definitions and associated measures.
10.3 Alignment of the multi-measure approach with emerging policy and program directions
The multi-measure approach to measuring Indigenous housing need was developed under the Building a Better Future (BBF) strategy. It was put in place to understand and quantify housing need for Indigenous Australians, and to assist in resource allocation.
More recently, the Australian Government and state and territory governments have agreed to implement a new set of federal financial arrangements, including new mechanisms for funding Indigenous housing. Under this approach, they have negotiated a number of agreements, of which the NAHA and associated National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing and the National Indigenous Reform Agreement (the ‘Closing the Gap’ strategy) are central to achieving Indigenous housing outcomes.
Box 2 shows that the fundamental objectives of the BBF in terms of the availability, quality and appropriateness of Indigenous housing will remain key policy objectives. Under the new arrangements, additional focus will be placed on factors such as the responsiveness of the broader housing market, ensuring houses are well managed, and a range of social inclusion outcomes. 
The new agreements include national performance indicators, designed to measure progress towards key objectives. Table 10.2 provides a list of the indicators grouped into one of three categories of need, each of which broadly indicates the type of policy and program response required: 
•	No usual residence—those who are homeless are those with the most urgent and extreme form of housing need. Reduction of homelessness requires the provision of affordable housing and/or associated social support.
•	Usual residence does not meet accepted dwelling condition standards—those who are living in a dwelling that is in poor condition or is not connected to services are in a situation that potentially threatens their safety and wellbeing. Improving these measures requires the restoration of dwellings to agreed standards and/or replacement with new dwellings.
•	Usual residence is inappropriate—those who are living in overcrowded or unaffordable housing may also be exposed to health and safety risks in addition to not having sufficient funds to meet after-housing costs. These people will often require a multi-faceted response to meet their housing need, comprising additional affordable dwellings, financial assistance or other forms of support.
Indicators that do not directly relate to estimating housing need are listed in Box 3.
Table 10.2 shows considerable overlap between the current multi-measure measures and the draft performance indicators. This has a number of implications for future versions of this report:
•	Regardless of whether the BBF strategy continues beyond 2010, the multi-measure approach will remain relevant to the current Indigenous housing policy direction.
•	Where appropriate, it would be desirable to align the performance measures for the multi-measure report with those included in the various new agreements.
It may be appropriate to include additional measures (such as ‘supply and demand’ and ‘households at risk of homelessness’) in future versions of this report. However, this additional information should not necessarily be used to determine the dwelling gap.

Box 2: Comparison of BBF vision with the objectives of the new Agreements 
Building a Better Future: Indigenous housing to 2010 vision 
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout Australia will have: 
	access to affordable and appropriate housing which contributes to their health and wellbeing
	access to housing which is safe, well designed and appropriately maintained.
National Affordable Housing Agreement outcome
	Indigenous people have the same housing opportunities (in relation to homelessness services, housing rental, housing purchase and access to housing through an efficient and responsive housing market) as other Australians.
	Indigenous people have improved housing amenity and reduced overcrowding, particularly in remote areas and discrete communities.
National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing objectives
This National Partnership Agreement will establish a 10-year remote Indigenous housing strategy aimed at:
	significantly reducing severe overcrowding in remote Indigenous communities
	increasing the supply of new houses and improving the condition of existing houses in remote Indigenous communities
	ensuring that rental houses are well maintained and managed in remote Indigenous communities.
Closing the gap in Indigenous life outcomes
	Indigenous children’s living environments are healthy.
	Indigenous families live in appropriate housing with access to all basic utilities.
Recommendation:
•	HHPRWG/HHIMG consider the issues raised above and identify any work that should be done, or changes that should be made to the next report of Indigenous housing needs: a multi-measure needs model.

Table 10.2: Comparison of current multi-measure dimensions with new national performance indicators
	Current multi-measure dimensions	NAHA	National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing(a)	Closing the Gap strategy – ‘healthy homes’ stream	
No usual residence	Number of homeless	Proportion of Australians who are homeless
Proportion of people experiencing repeat periods of homeless
Ratio of supply and demand (fits across all three categories)	Incidence of homeless	Access to housing (including home ownership, rental and social housing)
	
Usual residence does not meet accepted dwelling condition standards	Number of dwellings requiring major redevelopment or replacement
Number of dwellings without connection to basic services	Proportion of households living in houses of an acceptable standard	Number of communities connected to essential services
Number of permanent dwellings with working connections to a full range of housing related infrastructure	Proportion of dwellings not connected to essential services that meet appropriate regulatory standards
	
Usual residence is inappropriate	Number of overcrowded households
Number of households in unaffordable housing	Number of people at risk of homelessness
Proportion of low-income households in rental stress
Proportion of Indigenous households living in overcrowded conditions	Number and percentage of overcrowded dwellings	Proportion of Indigenous people living in overcrowded houses
Rates of disease associated with poor environmental health (including water and food borne diseases, trachoma, tuberculosis and rheumatic heart disease)	
(a)	Note that not all performance indicators are represented in this table.

Box 3: Additional proposed indicators not directly related to understanding housing need
NAHA
	Proportion of homes sold or built that are affordable by low- and moderate-income households
	Proportion of Australian households owning or purchasing a home
	Proportion of Indigenous households owning or purchasing a home
National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing
	Number of new dwellings constructed
	Number of households covered by tenancy management arrangements overseen by state or territory governments
	Number of dwellings inspected through a standard property inspection regime
	Average time taken to complete identified repairs and maintenance
	Number of dwelling repairs and maintenance works completed as programmed using property condition data
	Number of communities covered by normalised service level standards and delivery arrangements for essential and municipal services
	Number of family-style dwellings and single accommodation/beds provided for flexible employment-related accommodation
	Number of Indigenous people from remote communities housed in employment-related accommodation in regional areas
	Number of local housing-related jobs created for Indigenous people

Appendix 1: Data sources
Table A1.1 summarises the data sources by housing tenure for the five endorsed dimensions of need and indicates the frequency of each data collection.
Table A1.1: Sources of data for each dimension of need, by housing tenure types
Dimension 	Home owner/ purchasers	Private renters	Renter state/territory housing authority	Renter Indigenous, mainstream community housing	Frequency 	
1. Homelessness	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	Census 5-yearly
SAAP annual	
2. Overcrowding 	Census	Census	Census	Census	Census 5-yearly	
3. Affordability	n.a.	Australian Government Housing Data Set	Public rental housing/SOMIH admin	n.a.	Housing data set annual
Admin. annual	
4. Dwelling condition	n.a. 	n.a.	n.a.	CHINS	CHINS 5-yearly	
5. Connection to essential services 	n.a. 	n.a. 	n.a.	CHINS
NRF admin.	CHINS 5-yearly
Admin. annual	
ABS 2006 Census of Population and Housing
The Census collects data from all persons on selected characteristics of Australia’s population and housing arrangements. Data are collected for all tenure types—home owners/purchasers, private renters and social housing. Because they include all persons and households, data can be used at the small geographic area and for small population groups, for example Indigenous people.
ABS 2006 Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS)
The 2006 CHINS is the third to have been conducted by the ABS on behalf of, and with full funding from, the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). Information collected in the 2006 survey included details of:
•	the current housing stock, dwelling management practices and selected income and expenditure arrangements of Indigenous organisations that provide housing to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
•	housing and related infrastructure, such as water, electricity, sewerage, as well as other facilities such as transport, education and health services, available in discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
National Social Housing Survey (NSHS)
The NSHS collects valuable information about the nature of the social housing sector through surveys of public housing, community housing and SOMIH tenants. It examines tenant perspectives and provides information in the following major areas:
•	overall satisfaction 
•	strategic service parameters 
•	satisfaction with specific items in the home 
•	tenant needs including how public and community housing has helped tenants 
•	tenant characteristics, such as Indigenous status, household composition, labour force participation, tenant participation.  
The NSHS of public housing tenants has been conducted since 1996. The NSHS of community housing tenants began with a pilot survey in 1998 and continued in 2001 and 2002. The NSHS is conducted for public and community housing in alternate years, but in 2005 and 2007 both ran concurrently. The first NSHS of SOMIH tenants was conducted in 2005 and 2007.
Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) administrative data
Housing assistance is provided under the 2003 CSHA in six program areas: public rental housing, SOMIH, mainstream community housing, Crisis Accommodation Program, private rent assistance and home purchase assistance. Data are available for all six program areas at varying levels and include details relating to people, households and dwellings.
Indigenous Community Housing (ICH) data collection
The ICH data collection collects information relating to both state and territory-funded and Australian Government-funded ICH. The scope of the ICH data collection includes those households and dwellings specifically aimed at Indigenous people that are managed by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander not-for-profit organisations.
Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) client collection
The SAAP provides a range of services to people who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless. The client collection is the main reporting component and is an ongoing census reported annually including information about all clients receiving support under SAAP.
Data are recorded by service providers during, or immediately following, contact with clients and are then forwarded to the National Data Collection Agency (NDCA) after clients’ support periods have ended or, for ongoing clients, at the end of the reporting period 
(31 December and 30 June).
Australian Government Housing Data Set
The Australian Government Housing Data Set (HDS) is a confidential unit record file that provides point-in-time data for income units in receipt of Centrelink payments. The data are reported annually as a snapshot for a fortnight in June. The data set includes protected information collected under social security and family assistance law about the type of housing, amount of weekly income, payment type and other characteristics of income units at that time. 
The data set is drawn from a more extensive data set used to monitor the Rent Assistance program. The source data set, which has evolved over time, combines information from numerous Centrelink files to create records at an income unit level, rather than a person or household level.

Appendix 2: Additional tables
Table A2.1: Number of homeless non-Indigenous people by category of homelessness and state and territory, 2006
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust(a)	
Primary homelessness	3,434	2,146	4,637	1,942	682	360	75	584	13,860	
Secondary homelessness	14,385	13,208	14,910	8,438	5,032 	1,680	1,035	2,114	60,802	
	SAAP 	accommodation	3,937	5,899	2,442	798	1,524	514	419	196	15,726	
	Friends and 	relatives	10,448	7,309	12,468	7,640	3,508	1,166	619	1,918	45,076	
Tertiary homelessness	7,416	4,380	4,982	1,457	1,282	241	92	428	20,278	
Total homeless	25,235	19,734	24,529	11,837	6,996	2,281	1,202	3,126	94,940	
Total non-Indigenous population	6,393,149	4,894,366	3,756,195	1,888,456	1,484,862	457,975	319,029	133,291	19,327,323	
(a)	Excludes those persons with unknown Indigenous status.
Source: ABS 2008a; Chamberlain & Mackenzie 2008, 2009a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h.

Table A2.2: Number and proportion of non-Indigenous households that were experiencing ‘moderate overcrowding’ by tenure type and state and territory, 2006(a)
	NSW/
ACT	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	NT	Aust(b)	
	Number of overcrowded non-Indigenous households	
Home owner/purchaser	38,421	27,020	14,313	5,154	2,184	1,961	851	93,776	
Private and other renter(c)	38,164	19,377	14,489	3,957	3,877	1,157	613	81,639	
Renter state/territory housing authority	5,326	3297	1,861	588	940	403	138	12,564	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	537	195	212	35	152	29	8	1,169	
Other/not stated(d)	85,434	2,051	1,337	487	438	138	121	7,567	
Total	167,882	51,940	32,212	10,221	7,591	3,688	1,731	196,715	
	Total number of non-Indigenous households(e)	
Home owner/purchaser	1,529,408	1,206,125	853,092	454,523	192,976	118,261	23,075	4,568,418	
Private and other renter(c)	518,761	337,192	324,290	136,715	93,675	28,454	13,044	1,452,287	
Renter state/territory housing authority	99,086	48,321	37,919	22,364	35,254	8,475	2,702	254,262	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	11,186	6,478	5,327	2,682	5,314	945	342	32,273	
Other/not stated(d)	2,166,425	51,671	40,884	23,057	20,096	5,655	2,170	212,707	
Total	4,324,866	1,649,787	1,261,512	639,341	347,315	161,790	41,333	6,519,947	
	Proportion of overcrowded non-Indigenous households by tenure type(f)	
Home owner/purchaser	2.5	2.2	1.7	1.1	1.1	1.7	3.7	2.1	
Private and other renter(c)	7.4	5.7	4.5	2.9	4.1	4.1	4.7	5.6	
Renter state/territory housing authority	5.4	6.8	4.9	2.6	2.7	4.8	5.1	4.9	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	4.8	3.0	4.0	1.3	2.9	3.1	2.3	3.6	
Other/not stated(d)	3.9	4.0	3.3	2.1	2.2	2.4	5.6	3.6	
All tenures	3.9	3.1	2.6	1.6	2.2	2.3	4.2	3.0	
(a)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
 (b)	Includes Other Territories.
(c)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
(d)	Includes households being purchased under a rent/buy scheme, occupied rent-free, occupied under a life tenure scheme or other tenure not further defined.
(e)	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined.
(f)	Calculated by dividing the number of overcrowded Indigenous households by the total number of Indigenous households for each tenure type.
Note: Households in which one or more additional bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
Source: ABS 2006.
Table A2.3: Number and proportion of ‘high overcrowded’ non-Indigenous households, by tenure type and state and territory, 2006(a) 
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust(b)	
	Number of overcrowded non-Indigenous households(c)	
Home owner/purchaser	5,783	4,078	2,331	741	293	263	
100	167	14,255	
Private and other renter(d)	6,734	3,397	2,097	606	632	147	
82	104	13,799	
Renter state/territory housing authority	834	562	294	81	137	60	

53	26	2,049	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	101	38	34	5	23	7	

0	0	208	
Other/not stated(e)	14,596	541	310	119	102	29	8	28	1,856	
Total overcrowded(f)	28,048	8,616	5,066	1,552	1,187	506	
243	325	32,167	
	Total number of non-Indigenous households(e)(f)	
Home owner/purchaser	1,454,160	1,206,125	853,092	454,523	192,976	118,261	
75,248	23,075	4,568,418	
Private and other renter(c)	496,630	337,192	324,290	136,715	93,675	28,454	
22,131	13,044	1,452,287	
Renter state/territory housing authority	90,866	48,321	37,919	22,364	35,254	8,475	

8,220	2,702	254,262	
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	10,815	6,478	5,327	2,682	5,314	945	

371	342	32,273	
Other/not stated(d)	2,164,335	51,671	40,884	23,057	20,096	5,655	2,090	2,170	212,707	
Total	4,216,806	1,649,787	1,261,512	639,341	347,315	161,790	108,060	41,333	6,519,947	
	Proportion of overcrowded non-Indigenous households by tenure type(g)	
Home owner/purchaser	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.7	0.3		
Private and other renter(d)	1.3	1.0	0.6	0.4	0.7	0.5	0.8	1.0		
Renter state/territory housing authority	0.9	1.2	0.8	0.4	0.4	0.7	1.0	0.8		
Renter Indigenous/ mainstream community housing	0.9	0.6	0.6	0.2	0.4	0.7	0.0	0.6		
Other/not stated(e)	0.7	1.0	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.5	1.3	0.9		
All tenures	0.7	0.5	0.4	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.8	0.5		
(a)	Cells in this table may been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.
(b)	Includes Other Territories.
(c)	Includes not stated Indigenous status.
(d)	Includes dwellings being rented from a real estate agent and from persons not in same household and the category ‘landlord not stated’.
(e)	Includes households being purchased under a rent/buy scheme, occupied rent-free, occupied under a life tenure scheme or other tenure not further defined.
(f)	Excludes those households for which overcrowding could not be determined.
(g)	Calculated by dividing the number of overcrowded Indigenous households by the total number of Indigenous households for each tenure type.
Note: Households in which two or more bedrooms were needed based on the CNOS.
Source: ABS 2006.
Table A2.4: Number of Indigenous income units paying more than 30% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Major cities										
	With CRA	1,579	354	1,315	388	272	0	49	0	3,958	
	Without CRA	2,870	714	2,289	748	591	0	82	0	7,294	
Inner regional										
	With CRA	1,096	208	679	93	26	187	0	0	2,290	
	Without CRA	2,504	487	1,467	191	97	402	0	0	5,148	
Outer regional										
	With CRA	392	75	798	108	82	98	0	154	1,707	
	Without CRA	1,199	204	1,698	234	179	203	0	313	4,030	
Remote										
	With CRA	54	0	87	50	9	6	0	67	273	
	Without CRA	236	1	226	101	19	12	0	169	764	
Very remote										
	With CRA	8	0	24	28	19	n.p.	0	56	101	
	Without CRA	39	0	74	60	30	n.p.	0	126	260	
Total										
	With CRA	3,129	637	2904	668	408	293	49	241	8,331	
	Without CRA	6,847	1,406	5,755	1,334	916	618	82	538	17,500	
Total number receiving CRA	12,365	2,330	10,157	2,399	1,548	1,117	130	906	30,960	
Note: Data may not add to Australian totals due to missing state variable.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.

Table A2.5: Number of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Income unit type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Single, no children(a)	1,768	451	1,530	397	290	172	27	141	4,776	
Single, 1 or 2 children	754	99	635	136	65	47	12	46	1,794	
Single, 3 or more children	124	12	176	27	n.p.	7	n.p.	9	361	
Single with children income units	878	111	811	163	70	54	13	55	2,155	
Partnered, no children	189	32	195	34	23	33	n.p.	14	525	
Partnered, 1 or 2 children	210	37	267	55	18	26	n.p.	22	636	
Partnered, 3 or more children	84	6	101	19	7	8	n.p.	9	237	
Partnered with children income units(b)	294	43	368	74	25	34	n.p.	31	873	
Total	3,129	637	2,904	668	408	293	49	241	8,329	
(a)	The category ‘Single, no children’ includes single people in shared accommodation.
(b) 	Partnered with children income units CRA recipients include couple income units who were identified as temporarily separated or separated because of illness, and exclude 719 income units with nil total income or missing rent.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.
Table A2.6: Number of Indigenous income units paying more than 50% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Major cities										
	With CRA	447	110	400	118	58	0	17	0	1,150	
	Without CRA	1,176	281	952	281	223	0	37	0	2,950	
Inner regional										
	With CRA	199	43	132	25	4	35	0	0	438	
	Without CRA	785	167	479	69	17	130	0	0	1,646	
Outer regional										
	With CRA	59	16	187	23	12	21	0	40	357	
	Without CRA	307	63	595	87	79	77	0	110	1,319	
Remote										
	With CRA	11	0	14	15	4	2	0	17	63	
	Without CRA	47	0	73	39	8	6	0	45	218	
Very remote										
	With CRA	2	0	7	6	11	0	0	4	30	
	Without CRA	7	0	18	23	17	0	0	18	82	
Total										
	With CRA	717	168	740	187	89	58	17	61	2,038	
	Without CRA	2,322	511	2,116	499	344	213	37	173	6,216	
Total number receiving CRA	12,365	2,330	10,157	2,399	1,548	1,117	130	906	30,960	
Note: Data may not add to Australian totals due to missing state variable.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.
Table A2.7: Number of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 50% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Income unit type	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Single, no children(a)	493	137	473	139	74	38	8	41	1,403	
Single, 1 or 2 children	103	11	105	17	6	9	n.p.	9	263	
Single, 3 or more children	14	0	13	n.p.	0	0	0	n.p.	31	
Single with children income units	117	11	118	19	6	9	n.p.	11	294	
Partnered, no children	51	9	66	10	6	8	n.p.	n.p.	157	
Partnered, 1 or 2 children	43	9	66	14	n.p.	n.p.	0	6	143	
Partnered, 3 or more children	13	n.p.	17	n.p.	n.p.	0	n.p.	0	40	
Partnered with children income units	56	11	83	19	n.p.	n.p.	n.p.	6	183	
Total(b)	717	168	740	187	89	58	17	61	2,037	
(a)	The category ‘Single, no children’ includes single people in shared accommodation.
(b) 	Partnered with children income units CRA recipients include couple income units who were identified as temporarily separated or separated because of illness, and exclude 719 income units with nil total income or missing rent.
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.
Table A2.8: Number of non-Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by state and territory, June 2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Number paying > 30% of income on rent	118,004	67,041	79,907	24,716	20,186	6,673	3,271	1,367	321,207	
Number paying > 50% income on rent	34,019	17,850	22,436	6,657	4,646	1,301	1,236	359	88,525	
Total number receiving CRA	308,185	203,512	212,150	71,463	66,881	23,110	7,137	3,856	896,400	
Source: Australian Government Housing Data Set.
Table A2.9: Distribution of Indigenous family type and size
Household type	Number of persons usually resident		
	2	3	4	5	6+	Total	
Couple family with children	..	13,773	17,986	11,592	10,433	53,784	
One parent family	13,543	14,638	9,245	4,679	3,769	45,874	
Other family	2,129	903	272	105	66	3,475	
Total	15,672	29,314	27,503	16,376	14,268	103,133	
Source: ABS 2006.

Table A2.10: Bedrooms allocated according to family size
Household type	Number of bedrooms		
	2	3	4	5	Total	
No. of families	29,445	54,364	19,153	171	103,133	
% of families	28.6%	52.7%	18.6%	0.2%	100.0%	
Source: ABS 2006.

Appendix 3: Assessment of previous method for estimating the social housing dwelling need gap
In October 2005, in response to a request from the Standing Committee on Indigenous Housing (SCIH), an estimate of the social housing dwelling need gap was prepared to support a national submission on the Indigenous housing reform agenda and investment strategy for consideration by Housing Ministers. The National Committee for Housing Information (NCHI) subsequently requested that this report include an estimate of the current dwelling need gap and that the method used previously be assessed and modified as appropriate.
The social housing dwelling need gap is defined as the difference between the total Indigenous need for social housing (based on factors such as homelessness, overcrowding, housing affordability stress and dwelling condition) and the current social housing supply (both mainstream and Indigenous-specific housing programs).
The methodology states that additional social housing is needed for:
•	Indigenous households who are homeless
•	Indigenous households who are living in insecure tenures (such as boarding houses)
•	reducing overcrowding that exists currently within social housing and in private rental dwellings occupied by Indigenous households
•	Indigenous households facing extreme unaffordability
•	Indigenous community housing dwellings which need replacement because of poor dwelling condition.
A critique of the previous method is provided below. In making this assessment a number of alternative Indigenous housing need methodologies have also been considered (refer to Appendix 4 for details).
A3.1 Strengths
•	Incorporates five dimensions of housing need (homelessness and insecure housing, overcrowding, dwellings needing replacement, unaffordability, and emerging need resulting from population growth).
•	Calculates total and unmet need.
•	Provides a breakdown of need by remoteness (remote versus non-remote/urban).
•	Costs the unmet need.
•	Calculates the social housing response for each jurisdiction for mainstream public and community housing, SOMIH and ICH.
•	Bases costs for fixing overcrowding on adding additional bedrooms rather than assuming it is appropriate to split households up.
A3.2 Limitations
•	Restricted to estimating and costing only the social housing dwelling need gap.
•	Estimates of dwellings requiring replacement include only ICH managed dwellings.
•	Estimates for the affordability dimension are based only on CRA recipients in urban areas and do not include households paying more than 30% or 50% of their income in rent when not receiving CRA.
•	Trends to date cannot necessarily be attributed to an increase in the number of Indigenous households in social housing; they could also be the result of improved Indigenous identification over the years.
•	Costings are based on new constructions only and do not include land costs or consideration of state and territory variations.
•	Only covers costing for a one-off outlay to meet outstanding need.
A3.3 Comments on projection of need calculations
•	Uses ABS experimental estimates of the future Indigenous population and estimates the numbers in urban and remote areas, based on the 2001 population breakdown.
•	Attempts to predict social housing response to this need in order to estimate the portion of the need gap unlikely to be met by current programs.

Appendix 4: Methodologies to assess Indigenous housing need
Methodology	Social housing dwelling need gap report prepared for SCIH	New South Wales social housing dwelling need gap model	Estimating Indigenous housing need for public funding allocation: a multi-measure approach (Neutze et al. 2000)	The emerging housing needs of Indigenous South Australians (Roberts et al. 2005)	
Components used to estimate need	•	Homelessness and insecure housing
•	Overcrowding
•	Dwellings requiring replacement
•	Unaffordability	•	Homelessness and insecure housing
•	Overcrowding
•	Dwellings requiring replacement
•	Extreme unaffordability
•	Population growth	•	Homelessness
•	Overcrowding
•	Affordability	•	Homelessness
•	Overcrowding
•	Affordability
•	Dwelling condition
•	Appropriateness
•	Tenure	
•	Estimating the need	•	Homelessness and insecure housing
•	Included primary, secondary, tertiary
•	50% boarding house residents
•	SAAP clients—100% in remote areas and those not exiting to public housing or private rental in urban areas
•	Number of individuals converted to singles, couples and families (using Chamberlain and Mackenzie methodology)
•	3 singles allocated 3 bedroom house, couples 2 bedroom house and families 3 bedroom house
•	50% marginal caravan park residents (i.e. people on Centrelink benefits with no other accommodation) included in insecure housing because of caravan park closures etc.
•	Overcrowding
•	Only social housing data used
•	Census 2001 data
•	CNOS (i.e. no more than 2 people per bedroom)
•	Dwellings requiring replacement
•	CHINS 2001 data
•	25% dwellings  2 bedroom, 75%  3 bedroom in discrete Indigenous housing organisations (based on CHINS data)
•	20% dwellings  2 bedroom, 80%  3 bedroom houses in urban Indigenous housing organisations (based on CHINS data)
•	Unaffordability
•	Urban only
•	Number private renters paying 50% or more of income on rent (after CRA)
•	Estimated using Centrelink data (2001–04)
•	Source—Report on Government Services
•	Assumed smaller households experience more severe affordability problems than larger households so assigned 2 bedroom dwellings	•	Homelessness
•	Included primary, secondary, tertiary
•	2006 Census data (special data request) 
•	SAAP 2005–06 data collection.
•	For people counted in improvised dwellings, persons with no usual address (couch surfers) and boarding houses:
•	All persons counted in ‘improvised dwellings’ and ‘couch surfers’ are assumed to be in need of social housing.
•	50% of those counted in ‘boarding houses’ are assumed to be in need of social housing assistance.
•	The data is at person level and is translated into ‘households’ as follows:
•	For boarding houses all persons are accounted as single person households.
•	For persons counted in ‘improvised dwellings’ and ‘couch surfers’; for the age group 25–54, 50% are counted as couple only households and 50% are counted as family households; all other age groups are assumed to be single person households.
•	For SAAP clients; in remote locations all Indigenous SAAP clients are assumed to be in need of social housing; in urban locations, only SAAP clients who are not exiting to private rental, social housing or home ownership are assumed to be in need of social housing. To estimate the number of Indigenous SAAP clients, the percentage of Indigenous SAAP clients overall is applied to the family type and regional profiles. ‘Orana/Far West’ Region is considered as ‘remote’ for SAAP analysis. All remaining regions are deemed to be ‘urban’.
•	For the homeless population, the dwelling allocation is made as follows:
•	Singles—3 bedroom dwellings for 3 singles.
•	Couple—2 bedroom dwellings
•	Family—3 bedroom dwellings
•	As boarding house residents are all deemed single person households, all ‘unmet need’ estimates for boarding house people are for 3 bedroom dwellings using the above methodology.
•	The allocation methodology of dwellings to households follows the methodology developed for the Counting the Homeless 2001 report. 
•	Insecure housing
•	Marginal residents of caravan parks are considered to be living in insecure housing (that is, not having security of tenure). The Counting the Homeless 2001 report defines marginal residents of caravan parks as people who rent the caravan that they live in, have no other accommodation and no-one living in the caravan has full-time employment.
•	FaHCSIA, Australian Government Housing Data Sets
•	For caravan parks residents: 50% of caravan park residents are assumed to be in need of social housing assistance, based on caravan park closures and the lack of security of tenure.
•	The number of households living in caravan parks is taken as the number of income units who are receiving Centrelink benefits and paying caravan park site fees.
•	The dwelling allocation (from family type to size of dwelling) is applied as for the homeless population.
•	Overcrowding
•	Census 2006 (special data request)
•	Assessed using the CNOS
•	A household is considered to be overcrowded if it requires 1 or more additional bedrooms to comply with the CNOS.
•	For private rental, only severe overcrowding is counted, that is, where 2 or more additional bedrooms are required to comply with the CNOS.
•	Extreme unaffordability
•	Defined as the payment of 50% or more of income on rent, after CRA is deducted from the rent
•	FaHCSIA, Australian Government Housing Data Sets
•	All households experiencing extreme unaffordability are assumed to require social housing.
•	Because smaller households are likely to experience more severe affordability problems than larger households, all households experiencing extreme unaffordability have been assumed to require a 2 bedroom dwelling.
•	Dwellings requiring replacement
•	The definition used is from CHINS 2006. A dwelling is considered to need replacement if it requires repairs of $60,000 or more in low-cost areas, $80,000 or more in medium-cost areas or $100,000 or more in high-cost areas. Low-, medium- and high-cost areas were defined according to ATSIC Region, based on relative building costs in Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook, 1999.
•	Data source: NSW Aboriginal Housing Office (AHO) Condition Assessment Survey, 2007
•	The AHO Condition Assessment Survey conducted during 2006 and 2007 found that 77 dwellings were in need of replacement over the 5 years 2007 to 2011. It was assumed that the replacement of the 77 dwellings would be spread evenly across the 5 years.
•	The 77 dwellings requiring replacement were spread across the urban and remote regions in the same proportion as the distribution of ICHO dwellings, that is, approximately 80% to 20%. In order to enable estimation of the cost of replacement, the sizes of the 77 dwellings requiring replacement were assumed to be distributed as follows: in remote areas, all ICH dwellings requiring replacement were assumed to be 3 or more bedrooms, because of the larger family sizes in remote locations; in urban areas, 90% of ICH dwellings requiring replacement were assumed to be 3 or more bedrooms. 	•	Homelessness
•	1996 Census data
•	Included primary and secondary homelessness (people living in improvised dwellings and people living in hostels for the homeless, night shelters, and refuges)
•	Data represented as number of bedrooms needed to provide homeless Indigenous people with adequate housing.
•	Overcrowding
•	1996 Census data
•	Compared numbers of people in private non-improvised dwellings with numbers of bedrooms according to the following occupancy standard: 1 bedroom for each couple and for each single, non-dependent adult, with dependent children sharing bedrooms at a maximum of 2 per bedroom.
•	Given the occupancy standard, lone person households cannot be overcrowded.
•	Number of overcrowded households reported and bedrooms needed to eliminate overcrowding.
•	Affordability
•	1996 Census data
•	Income left for housing after other basic needs had been met in accordance with the Henderson Poverty Line
•	Estimate includes only the affordability of a dwelling that is adequate for each household.
•	Data represented as $ per year per Indigenous household
•	Combining measures of need
•	Expressing all measures of need in terms of the cost of overcoming the need provided the only way to make them comparable.
•	Annualised the capital cost of providing additional space to remove homelessness and overcrowding 	•	Quantitative data from 2001 Census 
•	Qualitative data from consultation with relevant groups
	
•	Projecting the need	•	Estimated using low series Indigenous population projections
•	Estimated the number of Indigenous households in urban and rural areas based on the average household sizes in these areas in 2001
•	Used 2001 percentages of Indigenous households who were purchasing their own home and 2001 percentages of private and other renters to estimate the number of households who could be expected to meet their own housing needs in the private housing market	•	Assumed that the increased Indigenous population will require social housing at approximately the same rate as in 2006 (33% of all Indigenous households in urban and 54% of Indigenous households in remote areas).
•	Data source: NSW Aboriginal Housing Office (2008), Indicative NSW Aboriginal Population Projections: 2006 to 2021, prepared by Dr Noor Khalidi 
•	Projected Indigenous households by Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) to 2011 were derived using the Indigenous population projections to 2011 by ARIA from the above report, and the average number of Aboriginal people living in Aboriginal households by ARIA as at the 2006 Census.
•	Base population: The ABS produced Experimental Estimates of Resident Australian Indigenous Population at 30 June 2006 and this formed the base data for projections at the NSW level. 
•	Fertility level and pattern: Two approaches considered in determining Indigenous fertility level and age pattern in NSW: data on registered births to Indigenous women by age for years 2004, 2005 and 2006 were used to provide estimates of the level and pattern of Indigenous fertility (direct estimation method or Period Fertility); estimates of the level and pattern of Indigenous fertility in NSW were obtained by applying an indirect method of fertility estimation using census data on number of women by age groups by number of children ever born (CEB). 
•	Mortality level and pattern: The levels and age–sex patterns of mortality were taken from the ABS estimated Indicative Indigenous Life Table for 1996–2001. 
•	Migration level and pattern: Change of identification was not considered a factor in these projections because the 2001 and 2006 Census returns did not register any significant evidence of population influx because of change of identification. 
•	Indigenous births to non-Indigenous mothers: The observed fertility level and pattern of the non-Indigenous mothers differ from those of the Indigenous mothers and it was decided not to combine the two fertility levels and patterns to avoid incorrect low estimates of fertility rates for Indigenous mothers. 
•	Inter-state migration: The population projection factored in that annually an average of 1,198 Indigenous people from NSW migrate to other states and only 812 migrate to NSW from other jurisdictions. NSW has a net Indigenous migration of –355 persons.
•	Estimates for the years 2007 to 2011 were assumed to be the same as for 2006, with population growth pressures considered separately.
•	The projected increase in social housing supply is derived for:
•	planned increases in stock for Indigenous specific housing (SOMIH and ICH stock)
•	projected increases in the number of Indigenous households occupying mainstream public and community housing.
•	The following methodology derives these estimates separately for urban and remote locations, defined according to ARIA as follows:
•	Urban is defined by ‘major cities’, ‘inner regional’ and ‘outer regional’ ARIA categories.
•	Remote is defined by ‘remote’ and ‘very remote’ ARIA categories.
•	For future years (2007 to 2011) it is estimated that 800 households (in urban locations only) will be in extreme unaffordability.
•	Methodology
•	The projected supply of ICH dwellings and SOMIH dwellings was estimated based on NSW Aboriginal Housing Office data on stock numbers as at 30 June 2006 and 2007 and annual estimate to 2011.
•	The projected number of Indigenous households assisted through public housing at 30 June 2008 and annually to 2011 was estimated with the assumption of a continuation of the trend between 2005 and 2007. In remote locations it is assumed that all dwellings are 3 bedrooms whereas in urban locations it is assumed that assistance will be in the ratio 30% 2 bedrooms and 70% 3 bedrooms.
•	The projected number of Indigenous households assisted through community housing at 30 June 2008 and annually to 2011 is based on the number at 30 June 2007 and incorporates projected growth in community housing dwellings. It is assumed that all additional dwellings are in urban locations and are assumed to be 3 bedroom dwellings.
•	Assumptions
•	Data for 2010–11 assumes a continuation of funding on the same basis as for 2008–09, noting that the CSHA concluded in June 2008. It also assumes the maintenance of the existing distribution for Indigenous-specific funding. 
•	Costing increases are assumed to be consistent with continuation of recent CPI increases.
•	Limitations
•	Indigenous identifiers are poor for mainstream community housing.	•	Not included
	•	Patterns of population movement and migration were examined to provide the estimate of unmet housing needs and to inform projection of future housing needs.
•	Consultation with communities gained information on the nature and extent of current patterns of population mobility, migration and the factors that motivate people to shift and stay.
•	Housing projections provided with a very strong caveat as to their worth and usefulness.
•	Use of headship rate
	
•	Costing the need	•	Households expected to purchase, rent privately or to live in employer housing, rent-free etc. excluded
•	Average number of people/dwellings in remote areas 5.1, so all additional remote dwellings assumed to be 3 bedrooms
•	Average number of people in urban areas 2.8, so 50% additional dwellings assumed to be 2 bedroom and 50% 3 bedroom
•	Used estimation of need and SCIH-endorsed construction costs of $200,000 and $240,000 for 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings in remote areas and $250,000 and $300,000 for urban areas. Cost of additional bedrooms $50,000 per bedroom.	•	For remote locations it is assumed that all additional dwellings required are 3+ bedrooms, given the large household sizes in remote locations.
•	Aboriginal households in public housing occupy dwellings in the ratio 30% 2 bedrooms or less and 70% 3+ bedrooms, and Aboriginal households in Aboriginal-specific dwellings occupy in the ratio 10% 2 bedrooms and 90% 3+ bedrooms. For urban locations, an average of these two distributions is used and the model assumes that additional dwellings are required in the ratio of 20% 2 bedrooms and 80% 3+ bedrooms.
•	Methodology:
•	NSW average construction costs are generally higher than acquisition costs because they include cost of land, project management fee and other costs including those related to Aboriginal apprenticeship in building construction. Most of AHO housing program dwellings are now by acquisition. NSW average acquisition costs are as follows:
•	Remote: 2 bedroom $150k, 3 bedroom $200k and 4 bedroom $340k (compared with construction costs of 370k, 460k and 480k respectively)
•	Urban: 2 bedroom 300k, 3 bedroom 350k and 4 bedroom: 430K (compared with construction costs of 550k, 610k and 630k respectively)
•	The approximate proportions of 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 4 bedrooms or more are 10%, 60% and 30% respectively. 
•	The average cost of construction for 3+ bedrooms in remote locations is taken as 60% of the 3 bedroom cost and 40% of the 4 bedroom cost. In urban locations it is taken as 75% of the 3 bedroom cost and 25% of the 4 bedroom cost.
•	The cost of adding an additional bedroom to relieve overcrowding was calculated as the cost differential between a 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling. The cost of adding an extra 2 bedrooms was calculated as twice the cost differential between a 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling. If an overcrowded household required 3 or more extra bedrooms, then the cost of a 3 bedroom dwelling was used. 	•	Homelessness
•	Capital cost of 3 and 4 bedroom houses, to be either purchased or constructed, and supplied to groups of homeless people in accordance with the following occupancy standard: 1 bedroom for each couple and for each single, non-dependent adult, with dependent children sharing bedrooms at a maximum of 2 per bedroom
•	Overcrowding
•	Capital cost of moving a household from its current dwelling to one that is large enough for it
•	Used Australian Valuation Office data on the cost of houses of different size in different parts of Australia.
•	Calculate additional estimated capital cost of an adequate dwelling compared with the household’s current dwelling.
•	Affordability
•	Some households have no income left for housing after other basic needs have been met, so their ‘housing affordability deficit’ equals the total cost of renting an adequate house in their location for their size of household. Others, however, can afford to pay part of the cost of their housing, which leaves an affordability deficit equating to only part of the cost of renting an adequate house. 
	•	Not included	
•	Results	•	Remote = overcrowding major contributor, followed by projected need due to population growth = $1.2 billion in 2009
•	Urban = projected need due to population growth major contributor, followed by overcrowding in social housing = $1.8 billion in 2009	•	The unmet social housing dwelling need gap in NSW, after incorporating the social housing response, is projected to be 4,830 dwellings by 2011.	•	Homelessness: 5,799 additional bedrooms needed to house family-households, 5,087 in rural areas; 1,218 additional bedrooms needed to house single adult Indigenous people, more evenly spread across urban and rural areas
•	Overcrowding: 14,858 or 17.8% of Indigenous family and group households overcrowded, 3,385 (23%) in major urban areas. 28,580 additional bedrooms needed to satisfy occupancy standard, 13,452 additional bedrooms needed in rural areas

•	Affordability: far greater urban need, $69.13m affordability deficit in all areas, $26.03m in major urban and $32.72m in other urban areas
•	Overcrowding and affordability presented by tenure type (number and costs)
•	Cumulative need: $161.74m per annum, evenly spread across urban and rural areas. If costs are converted to dollars per Indigenous household or person, differences between rural and urban areas become more marked, state and territory less so (rural: $2,954/household; major urban: $1,154/household).	•	Consultation process in communities revealed a significant under-count of Indigenous people in the Census.	
•	Additional information		•	Limitations
•	Accurate measure of number of Indigenous people who are homeless is difficult. The estimates are based on the premise that ABS and SAAP data provide reasonably reliable indication of Indigenous homelessness.
•	Centrelink data counts in ‘income units’ rather than households, and there can be more than one income unit in a household.
•	The estimate of the number of overcrowded households is conservative, as only severe overcrowding is counted for private renting households, and overcrowded home owners have not been counted.
•	Condition Assessment Survey only covered approximately 90% of the stock in the ICH sector. 	•	Limitations
•	Inability to estimate the extent and national distribution of need for poor condition, absence of services, cultural inappropriateness and insecurity of tenure.
•	Standards used are drawn from the non-Indigenous world. 
•	Allocating funding purely on the basis of need may, over time, penalise those geographic areas, or programs, which are making the best efforts to overcome needs.
•	Other comments
•	Likely that Indigenous housing need will continue at same level for many years.
•	As supply of housing has increased, lessening overcrowding, the annual affordability deficit of those occupying that increased supply of housing has gone up. Policy paradox: program success in reducing one measure of need may in fact increase another measure of need
•	Housing supply is not simply a capital supply backlog.	•	Data quality: definitional, e.g. standard mechanisms used to define households and families, are derived from the experience of non-Indigenous Australian society and in some contexts, e.g. remote, are clearly not effective in capturing the dynamics of the living arrangements. Other issues relate to type of data collected, the questions asked and the process used in collecting it.
•	Setting of affordability at 25% of income does not take into account non-housing costs, especially when family size is larger.
•	A scale that equivalises annual household income and adjusts it in respect of household composition offers a more equitable and real basis on which to determine affordability.
•	Number of issues that affect the Indigenous Census data and its quality: in remote areas it includes logistical difficulties of ensuring all Indigenous residents are included, suspicion and distrust of the process, literacy levels and proficiency in English, different cultural meanings in respect of concepts of household, family, visitor and tenancy, longer time span of the collection process which could miss people who are mobile and the practice of interviewing which could bias responses. In urban areas some of the same issues were apparent. In addition, leaving forms at homes to be picked up at a later date affected the Census where families decided not to complete it.
•	Census data take no account of the more expensive cost of living in rural and remote locations or the additional costs to households through meeting their cultural obligations
•	Using a multi-measure approach in principle provides a more sophisticated means of understanding housing need and its dimensions. However, not all dimensions readily lend themselves to quantification and the definitions and indicators used can have a significant impact on the outcomes that are derived from their use. 
•	The multi-measure model also requires a means of weighting each dimension and aggregating them into a composite index.	

Glossary
Australian Standard Geographical Classification	ABS classification of geographical locations. Consists of six remoteness areas defined as:
•	Major cities of Australia: Census Collection Districts (CDs) with an average Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) index value of 0 to 0.2
•	Inner regional Australia: CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 0.2 and less than or equal to 2.4
•	Outer regional Australia: CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 2.4 and less than or equal to 5.92
•	Remote Australia: CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 5.92 and less than or equal to 10.53
•	Very remote Australia: CDs with an average ARIA index value greater than 10.53
•	Migratory: composed of off-shore, shipping and migratory CDs.	
Discrete Indigenous community	A geographic location, bounded by physical or legal boundaries, and inhabited or intended to be inhabited by predominantly Indigenous people, with housing or infrastructure that is either owned or managed on a community basis.	
Estimated resident Indigenous population	Figures which are based on the Census count and adjusted for instances in which Indigenous status is unknown and for net under-count. These adjustments are necessary because of the volatility of counts of the Indigenous population between censuses.	
Indigenous household	A household in which there are one or more Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people usually resident.	
Proportion of income spent on rent with and without CRA	A point-in-time indicator, measuring the proportion of income units spending more than 30% and 50% of their income on rent, both with and without CRA. The proportion of income spent on rent is calculated as follows:
•	with CRA: rent (minus CRA) divided by total income from all sources, excluding CRA
•	without CRA: rent divided by total income from all sources, excluding CRA.	
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2006. Census of population and housing. 2006. ABS cat. no. 2068.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2007. Housing and infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, Australia, 2006. ABS cat. no. 4710.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2008a. Australian social trends 2008. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2008b. Experimental estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, June 2006. ABS cat. no. 3238.0.55.001. Canberra: ABS.
ABS 2008c. Population characteristics Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006. ABS cat. no. 4713.0. Canberra: ABS.
ABS & AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2008. The health and welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2008. ABS cat. no. 4704.0. AIHW cat. no. IHW 21. Canberra: ABS & AIHW.
AHURI (Australian Housing Urban Research Institute) 2004. Measuring housing affordability. AHURI: Melbourne.
AIHW 2003. Australia’s welfare 2003. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2005. Indigenous housing needs 2005: a multi-measure needs model. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2007. Australia’s welfare 2007. Cat. no. AUS 93. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2008a. Homeless people in SAAP: SAAP National Data Collection annual report 2006–07 Australia. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2008b. Housing assistance in Australia 2008. Cat. no. HOU 173. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009a. Community housing 2007–08: Commonwealth State Housing Agreement national data report. Housing assistance data development series. Cat. no. HOU 188. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009b. Crisis Accommodation Program 2007-08: Commonwealth State Housing Agreement national data report. Housing assistance data development series. Cat. no. HOU 202. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009c. Home purchase assistance 2007–08: Commonwealth State Housing Agreement national data report. Housing assistance data development series. Cat. no. HOU 201. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009d. Indigenous housing indicators 2007–08. Indigenous housing series. 
Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009e. Private rent assistance 2007–08: Commonwealth State Housing Agreement national data report. Housing assistance data development series. Cat. no. HOU 200. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009f. Public rental housing 2007–08: Commonwealth State Housing Agreement national data report. Housing assistance data development series. Cat. no. HOU 187. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009g. State owned and managed Indigenous housing 2007–08: Commonwealth State Housing Agreement national data report. Housing assistance data development series. 
Cat. no. HOU 189. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW 2009—in press. Australia’s welfare 2009. Cat. no. AUS 117. Canberra: AIHW.
Birdsall-Jones C & Corunnam V 2008. The housing careers of Indigenous urban households. Perth: AHURI.
Birdsall-Jones C & Shaw W 2008. Indigenous homelessness: place, house and home. Perth: AHURI.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2003. Australian Census analytic program. Counting the homeless 2001. Canberra: ABS.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2008. Australian Census analytic program. Counting the homeless 2006. ABS cat. no. 2050.0. Canberra: ABS.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009a. Counting the homeless 2006. Australian Capital Territory. Canberra: AIHW.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009b. Counting the homeless 2006. New South Wales. Canberra: AIHW.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009c. Counting the homeless 2006. Northern Territory. Canberra: AIHW.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009d. Counting the homeless 2006. Queensland. Canberra: AIHW.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009e. Counting the homeless 2006. South Australia. Canberra: AIHW.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009f. Counting the homeless 2006. Tasmania. Canberra: AIHW.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009g. Counting the homeless 2006. Victoria. Canberra: AIHW.
Chamberlain C & Mackenzie D 2009h. Counting the homeless 2006. Western Australia. Canberra: AIHW.
Fordham R, Finlay S, Gardner J, Macmillan A, Muldoon C, Taylor G et al. 1998. Housing need and the need for housing. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Karmel R 1998. Housing assistance: reports on measurement and data issues. Canberra: AIHW.
Neutze M, Sanders W & Jones R 2000. Estimating Indigenous housing need for public funding allocation: a multi-measure approach. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research.
Rawlinsons 1999. Australian construction handbook. Perth: Rawlhouse Publishing.
Rawlinsons 2008. Construction cost guide 2008. Perth: Rawlhouse Publishing.
Roberts D, Fuller D, Bradley H, Hugo G, Coffee N & Gollan S 2005. The emerging housing needs of Indigenous South Australians final report. Adelaide: AHURI.
SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2009. Report on government services 2009. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Statistics New Zealand 2005. Housing Statistics Strategy. Statistics New Zealand. Viewed 28 July 2008, <http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/housing+statistics
+programme.htm>.

List of tables
Table 2.1: 	Estimated resident Indigenous population, by state and territory and remoteness areas, 2006
Table 2.2: 	Households, by tenure type and Indigenous status, 2006 (per cent)
Table 2.3: 	New recipients of assistance through the CSHA (number of new households and Indigenous proportion) 30 June 2008
Table 3.1: 	Number and proportion of homeless Indigenous persons, by category of homelessness and state and territory, 2006
Table 3.2: 	Proportion of homeless persons, by Indigenous status, category of homelessness and state and territory, 2006
Table 4.1: 	Number and proportion of moderately overcrowded Indigenous households, by tenure type and state and territory, 2006
Table 4.2: 	Number and proportion of moderately overcrowded Indigenous households, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006
Table 4.3: 	Number and proportion of high overcrowded Indigenous households, 
by tenure type and state and territory, 2006
Table 4.4: 	Number and proportion of high overcrowded Indigenous households, 
by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006
Table 4.5: 	Proportion of moderately overcrowded households, by Indigenous status, tenure type and state and territory, 2006
Table 4.6: 	Proportion of high overcrowded households, by Indigenous status, tenure type and state and territory, 2006
Table 4.7: 	Number and proportion of overcrowded Indigenous households, 
by level, 2001 and 2006
Table 5.1: 	Proportion of Indigenous income units paying more than 30% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
Table 5.2: 	Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Table 5.3: 	Number and proportion of Indigenous public rental housing and SOMIH households paying more than 30% of income on rent, by state and territory and remoteness areas, 30 June 2008
Table 5.4: 	Proportion of Indigenous income units paying more than 50% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
Table 5.5: 	Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 50% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Table 5.6: 	Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by Indigenous status and state and territory, June 2008
Table 5.7: 	Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by state and territory, June 2003 and June 2008
Table 6.1: 	Number and proportion of permanent dwellings managed by ICHOs requiring major repairs or replacement, by state and territory and remoteness area, 2006
Table 7.1: 	Number and proportion of ICH dwellings not connected to an organised system for water, sewerage or electricity, by state and territory, 30 June 2008
Table 7.2: 	Number and proportion of discrete Indigenous communities where not all permanent dwellings are connected to an organised supply of water, sewerage and electricity, by state and territory, 2006
Table 7.3: 	Number and proportion of discrete Indigenous communities not connected to an organised supply of water, sewerage and electricity, 
by state and territory, 2006
Table 7.4: 	Proportion of ICH dwellings not connected to an organised system for water, sewerage or electricity, 30 June 2004 and 30 June 2008
Table 8.1: 	Summary of method for estimating current dwelling need gap
Table 8.2: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’, 
by dwelling size, 2006
Table 8.3: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all need’, by dwelling size, 2006
Table 8.4: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’, by state and territory, 2006
Table 8.5: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all need’, by state and territory, 2006
Table 8.6: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’, 
by remoteness area, 2006
Table 8.7: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to address ‘all need’, 
by remoteness area, 2006
Table 8.8: 	Proportion and number of Indigenous homeless people, by category of homelessness
Table 8.9: 	Distribution of homeless household types
Table 8.10: 	Dwelling size allocated by household type
Table 8.11: 	Distribution of dwelling sizes for families
Table 8.12: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to address ‘all homelessness need’, by state and territory and dwelling size
Table 8.13: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme homelessness need’, by state and territory and dwelling size
Table 8.14: 	Dwelling size allocated by additional bedrooms required
Table 8.15: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all overcrowding need’, by state and territory and dwelling size
Table 8.16: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme overcrowding need’, by state and territory and dwelling size
Table 8.17: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all overcrowding need’, by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
Table 8.18: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme overcrowding need’, by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
Table 8.19: 	Dwelling size allocated by income unit type variable
Table 8.20: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘all unaffordability need’, by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
Table 8.21: 	Estimated number of dwellings required to meet ‘extreme unaffordability need’, by state and territory, remoteness area and dwelling size
Table 8.22: 	Distribution of dwellings size observed in CHINS
Table 8.23: 	Estimated number of dwellings requiring replacement, by state and territory and remoteness area
Table 9.1: 	Experimental Indigenous projections (based on the 2001 Census), 
2001–2009 (persons)
Table 9.2: 	Indigenous projections (adjusted for 2006 Census counts), 2001–2009 (persons)
Table 9.3: 	Population projections Indigenous population 2008–2018 (persons)
Table 9.4: 	Indigenous persons per Indigenous household
Table 9.5: 	Population projections Indigenous population 2008–2018 (households)
Table 9.6: 	Relative Indigenous population (households), base year 2006
Table 9.7: 	Projected number of additional dwellings required to meet ‘extreme need’, by state and territory, 2008, 2013, 2018
Table 9.8: 	Projected number of additional dwellings required to meet ‘all need’, 
by state and territory, 2008, 2013, 2018
Table 10.1: 	Statistics New Zealand model of tenure security
Table 10.2: 	Comparison of current multi-measure dimensions with new national performance indicators
Table A1.1: 	Sources of data for each dimension of need, by housing tenure types
Table A2.1: 	Number of homeless non-Indigenous people by category of homelessness and state and territory, 2006
Table A2.2: 	Number and proportion of non-Indigenous households that were experiencing ‘moderate overcrowding’ by tenure type and state and territory, 2006
Table A2.3: 	Number and proportion of ‘high overcrowded’ non-Indigenous households, by tenure type and state and territory, 2006
Table A2.4: 	Number of Indigenous income units paying more than 30% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
Table A2.5: 	Number of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Table A2.6: 	Number of Indigenous income units paying more than 50% of income on rent, with and without CRA, by state and territory and remoteness areas, June 2008
Table A2.7: 	Number of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 50% of income on rent, by state and territory and income unit type, June 2008
Table A2.8: 	Number of non-Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by state and territory, June 2008
Table A2.9: 	Distribution of Indigenous family type and size
Table A2.10: 	Bedrooms allocated according to family size
List of figures
Figure 1.1: 	Proportion of Indigenous households by tenure type and remoteness area, 2006
Figure 3.1: 	Proportions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in each category of homelessness, 2006
Figure 3.2: 	Proportion of Indigenous people in each category of homelessness, 2001 and 2006
Figure 4.1: 	Proportions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous households in each level of overcrowding, 2006
Figure 5.1: 	Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by state and territory, June 2008
Figure 5.2: 	Proportion of income units receiving CRA paying more than 30% and 50% of income on rent, by Indigenous status and state and territory, June 2008