Renters & Housing Union

Wealth transfer, public housing, and the case for the social investment.

Dylan Kiernan – Research and Policy Officer, Renters And Housing Union

Published: 4 May 2026 – download the PDF version

This report highlights the scale of income transferred from renters to private landlords in
Australia and contrasts it with the social, economic and asset‑building value that could be
generated if those payments were directed into public and affordable housing instead (AIHW,
2024; Anglicare Australia, 2024). It draws on Australian and international evidence to show that
the current model extracts wealth from renters while under‑delivering security, affordability and
social benefit, and outlines what is possible when housing is treated as public infrastructure
rather than a private asset class (Byrne, 2020; Ryan‑Collins & Murray, 2023).

Key points

● Around 2.4 million Australian households were renting from private landlords in 2021,
representing about 26 per cent of all households and the majority of renters (AIHW,
2024).

● National median asking rents were around 644–650 dollars per week by 2025–26
(Phillips, 2025).

● On that basis, private renters are paying in the order of 80 billion dollars a year to private
landlords; this is an indicative advocacy estimate, as it combines 2021 tenure data with 2025–26 rent indicators and applies a single national median across a varied rent distribution (AIHW, 2024; Phillips, 2025).

● The private rental sector offers little security or affordability for low‑income renters, with only a tiny fraction of private listings affordable to people on income support or low wages and a structural shortage of low‑rent stock (Anglicare Australia, 2024; Reynolds et al., 2022).

● International and Australian evidence shows that investment in public and affordable housing generates substantial economic benefits, including job creation, local economic activity and increased disposable income for low‑income households (Akinsulire et al., 2024; Housing Australia, 2025).

● Public and affordable housing also delivers major social benefits, including improved
health and education outcomes, stronger community cohesion and reduced demand for
crisis and acute services (Wood et al., 2016; Akinsulire et al., 2024).

Scale of the transfer

Australia’s private rental system channels a very large and recurring flow of income from renters to private landlords. In 2021, about 2.4 million households were renting from private landlords, roughly 26 per cent of all households and 83 per cent of all renter households (AIHW, 2024). Using this household figure together with national median asking rents of about 644–650 dollars a week in 2025–26 produces an annual transfer to private landlords in the order of 80 billion dollars (Phillips, 2025). This calculation applies a single national median to all private‑renter households and uses 2021 tenure data with 2025–26 rent indicators, so it should be read as a conservative advocacy estimate rather than an official aggregate figure (AIHW, 2024; Phillips, 2025).

Even with those cautions, the scale is clear. Australia is already paying for housing on a massive scale, but a very large share of those payments is captured as private rent rather than converted into public housing, public infrastructure and public wealth (Anglicare Australia, 2024; Ryan‑Collins & Murray, 2023). Comparative research on generation rent in Europe shows that as private rental sectors expand under financialised housing systems, returns are increasingly concentrated in landlord and investor hands, while renters face high costs, weak rights and very limited pathways to secure housing or asset building (Byrne, 2020). This pattern closely mirrors Australia’s trajectory, where private renting is becoming a long‑term condition for many lower- and middle‑income households rather than a short transitional phase (Morris, 2023; Phillips, 2025).

In a system where public and community housing rents are set at no more than around 25
per cent of gross household income, most of this 80‑billion‑dollar flow could be captured as
public revenue while still lowering rent stress for low‑income renters (Anglicare Australia, 2024;
Akinsulire et al., 2024).

What private landlords deliver – and for whom

For low‑ and no‑income renters, the private rental sector delivers insecurity and rent stress rather than stable, affordable homes. Anglicare’s 2024 Rental Affordability Snapshot found that out of over 45,000 listings nationwide, only three properties were affordable for a single person on JobSeeker, none were affordable for a young person on Youth Allowance, and just 0.1–0.2 per cent were affordable for someone on the Disability Support Pension or Age Pension (Anglicare Australia, 2024). Over time, the Snapshot series shows a structural collapse in affordability for people on income support and for low‑wage workers.

AHURI’s long‑run analysis of Census data shows that while the private rental sector has grown strongly since the mid‑1990s, this growth has been concentrated at mid‑ to higher‑rent levels, with low‑rent dwellings shrinking to a very small share of the stock (Reynolds et al., 2022). The total number of very low‑income (Q1) renters has remained relatively constant, but they now occupy a smaller share of the sector because higher‑income households have moved into private renting, further squeezing out low‑income renters (Reynolds et al., 2022).

In this context, private landlords provide very little for low‑ and no‑income renters beyond precarious shelter and repeated exposure to rent stress and eviction risk. Comparative work on the financialisation of rental housing finds that expanding private rental sectors in countries such as Ireland, the UK and Spain have been characterised by landlords targeting higher‑income and more profitable segments, crowding low‑income renters into poorer‑quality, insecure stock with limited protections (Byrne, 2020). Australian evidence on landlord investment behaviour similarly indicates that many private investors see properties primarily as financial vehicles rather than as a means of delivering decent, affordable housing (Ryan‑Collins & Murray, 2023; Parkinson et al., 2024).

In other words, a growing share of the sector is organised around maximising returns from higher‑income renters, while low‑income households are pushed to the margins of what is meant to be a basic service.

How public and community housing use rent

In public and community housing, rent is not extracted as profit but recycled into operating, maintaining and expanding stock (Housing Australia, 2025; Wood et al., 2016). Because rents are typically set as a proportion of household income, rather than whatever the local market will bear, the system can both reduce rent stress and retain rental income as public revenue (Anglicare Australia, 2024).

Income‑based rent setting, usually around 25 per cent of gross household income, is significantly below prevailing private market rents for low‑income households, so tenants pay less while contributing to a stable funding base for the system (Anglicare Australia, 2024; Akinsulire et al., 2024). When that rent is combined with capital investment and low‑cost public finance, it can support the construction of new dwellings instead of servicing private investment portfolios (Housing Australia, 2025; Akinsulire et al., 2024).

Housing Australia’s recent programs illustrate this mechanism in practice. Concessional loans and guarantees under the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator and National Housing Infrastructure Facility lower borrowing costs for community housing providers and, when paired with predictable rent streams, enable providers to finance thousands of social and affordable dwellings that remain in public or non‑profit ownership (Housing Australia, 2025). This contrasts directly with the private rental sector, where rising rent predominantly fuels landlord income and capital gains rather than building shared housing assets and public balance‑sheet strength (Ryan‑Collins & Murray, 2023; Phillips, 2025).

Social and economic benefits

The strongest evidence on the social and economic impact of public and affordable
housing comes from outcome studies following people into stable homes. Australian research
linking public housing and health service data for formerly homeless people and those at risk of
homelessness found large reductions in emergency department use, hospital admissions, ICU
stays, psychiatric care and mental health service use after people entered public housing (Wood
et al., 2016). These changes were associated with significant health‑system savings per person,
especially for tenants supported under targeted homelessness programs.

International comparative work confirms that these kinds of impacts are not unique.
Reviews of affordable housing policies across multiple countries find that stable, affordable
housing improves mental and physical health by reducing stress and exposure to poor‑quality
dwellings, and is associated with lower rates of chronic disease and lower health‑care costs
(Akinsulire et al., 2024; Miller et al., 2018). Affordable housing also enhances educational
outcomes for children by reducing school moves and providing a home environment more
conducive to learning (Akinsulire et al., 2024; Harkness & Newman, 2005).

Economically, affordable and public housing investment is classic stimulus: it creates
jobs in construction, building materials, professional services and local supply chains, then
boosts demand as lower rents increase disposable income for low‑income households (Akinsulire
et al., 2024; Wood & Watson, 2018). Large‑scale housing programs generate direct employment
in construction and related industries, as well as indirect jobs through increased household
spending (Acolin, 2020; Rappaport & Haurin, 2021). By reducing rent burdens through
income‑linked rents, affordable housing policies increase disposable income for low‑income
households, which in turn supports local consumption and economic stability (Akinsulire et al.,
2024). Evidence from Australia and internationally suggests that these multipliers are significant
and persistent over time, especially in regions with high housing need (Phillips, 2025; Acolin,
2020).

Public and affordable housing also strengthen community cohesion and inclusion.
Mixed‑income and well‑integrated affordable housing can reduce socio‑economic segregation,
improve social networks and contribute to safer, more stable neighbourhoods (Akinsulire et al.,
2024; Galster, 2018). In countries with strong public housing systems, such as Singapore,
integrated public housing has underpinned social stability and broad‑based improvements in
wellbeing (Yip & Yuen, 2003; HDB, 2019).

Structural market failure

The scale of rent paid to private landlords must be understood alongside clear evidence
that the private market has not delivered affordable housing for low‑income households
(Anglicare Australia, 2024; Reynolds et al., 2022). AHURI’s analysis of affordable private rental
supply over multiple Census rounds shows a structural shortage of dwellings that are both
affordable and available to very low‑income renters, with the shortfall for the lowest‑income
quintile increasing over time despite growth in the overall private rental stock (Reynolds et al.,
2022).

Anglicare’s Rental Affordability Snapshot corroborates this picture by demonstrating
that, year after year, almost no private rentals are affordable to people on income support and
only a shrinking minority are affordable to low‑wage workers (Anglicare Australia, 2024).
Despite three decades of relying on the private market, Commonwealth Rent Assistance and tax
concessions to landlords such as negative gearing and capital gains discounts, rental affordability
for low‑income households has deteriorated sharply, even as public housing investment has
fallen in real terms (Anglicare Australia, 2024; Troy, 2011).

Comparative work on the financialisation of housing finds that these outcomes are
characteristic of systems where housing is treated primarily as an investment asset and a source
of economic rent (Byrne, 2020; Ryan‑Collins & Murray, 2023). In such systems, landlords and
investors adapt to policy incentives and market conditions in ways that maximise returns, not
affordability, leaving low‑income renters reliant on increasingly thin segments of the market or
informal and overcrowded arrangements (Byrne, 2020; Reynolds et al., 2022).

These settings effectively channel public subsidies and private rent payments into
housing as an investment asset, rather than into secure, affordable homes (Ryan‑Collins &
Murray, 2023; Anglicare Australia, 2024).

What private rent could fund instead

The 80‑billion‑dollar advocacy estimate of annual rent paid to private landlords illustrates
what could be possible if even a fraction of this flow were captured within an expanded public
and affordable housing system (AIHW, 2024; Phillips, 2025). Under income‑based public
housing, rents capped at around 25 per cent of gross household income are typically lower than
market rents for low‑income households, so redirecting the current private rent flow would both
reduce rent burdens and provide a stable revenue base for public housing operations,
maintenance and new construction (Anglicare Australia, 2024; Akinsulire et al., 2024).

International evidence shows that well‑designed affordable housing policies generate
employment, stimulate economic activity, improve health and education outcomes and support
inclusive community development (Akinsulire et al., 2024). Redirecting a portion of the
resources currently extracted as private rent into public housing and non‑profit affordable
housing would:

● Add to the stock of publicly owned or community‑owned dwellings each year, rather than
simply servicing private investment portfolios (Housing Australia, 2025; Yip & Yuen,
2003).

● Reduce rent burdens for low‑income households, increasing disposable income and local
consumer spending (Akinsulire et al., 2024; Anglicare Australia, 2024).

● Lower pressure on crisis services, hospitals and justice systems by providing stable
housing for people who are currently cycling through homelessness and temporary
accommodation (Wood et al., 2016; Schoen, 2016).

● Improve long‑term health and education outcomes for children and adults, with flow‑on
benefits for productivity and social participation (Akinsulire et al., 2024; Harkness &
Newman, 2005).

The policy question is therefore not whether Australia can afford to fund housing, but
whether it can afford to keep directing such a large share of housing payments into private
landlord income and property wealth instead of into public housing, public assets and social
infrastructure (Anglicare Australia, 2024; Ryan‑Collins & Murray, 2023).

References

AHURI. (2024). Affordable private rental supply and demand: Short-term disruption (2016–2021) and
longer-term structural change (1996–2021) (Final Report No. 416).

AIHW. (2024). Home ownership and housing tenure. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Akinsulire, A. A., Idemudia, C., Okwandu, A. C., & Iwuanyanwu, O. (2024). Economic and social impact
of affordable housing policies: A comparative review. International Journal of Applied Research
in Social Sciences, 6(7), 1433-1448.

Anglicare Australia. (2024). Rental affordability snapshot national report 2024: Fifteenth edition.

Byrne, M. (2020). Generation rent and the financialization of housing: A comparative exploration of the
growth of the private rental sector in Ireland, the UK and Spain. Housing Studies, 35(4), 743-765.

Housing Australia. (2025). Annual report 2024–25.

Morris, A. (2023). Housing and inequality in Australia. The Economic and Labour Relations Review,
34(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1017/elr.2022.6

Phillips, B. (2025). Australian rental cost trends.

Ryan-Collins, J., & Murray, C. (2023). When homes earn more than jobs: The rentierization of the
Australian housing market. Housing Studies, 38(10), 1888–1917.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2021.2004091

Wood, L., Flatau, P., Zaretzky, K., Foster, S., Vallesi, S., & Miscenko, D. (2016). What are the health,
social and economic benefits of providing public housing and support to formerly homeless
people? (AHURI Final Report No. 265). Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.