Accommodating Inequality: Gender and Housing 9781032433295, 9781032438016, 9781032438085, 9781003368922

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Original Title Page
Original Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Preface
1 Housing Women: An Historical Perspective
2 Women and Housing, or Feminist Housing Analysis?
3 Whose Great Australian Dream? Home Ownership and the Exclusion of Women
4 On the Margins: Women in the Private Rental Sector
5 Why Be a Wife? Housing After Divorce
6 Sexual Divisions in Old Age: A National Profile
7 On the Scrap Heap: Older Women, Housing Issues and Perspectives
8 Gender and Urban Theory
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS: INEQUALITY

Volume 9

ACCOMMODATING INEQUALITY

ACCOMMODATING INEQUALITY Gender and Housing

SOPHIE WATSON

First published in 1988 by Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd This edition first published in 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1988 Sophie Watson All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-43329-5 (Set) ISBN: 978-1-032-43801-6 (Volume 9) (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-43808-5 (Volume 9) (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-36892-2 (Volume 9) (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003368922 Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

ACCOMMODATING INEQUALITY Gender and Housing SOPHIE WATSON

Sydney ALLEN & UNWIN London Wellington Boston

© Sophie Watson 1988 This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No reproduction without permission. All rights reserved. First published in 1988 Allen & Unwin Australia Pty Ltd An Unwin Hyman company 8 Napier Street, North Sydney, NSW 2059 Australia Allen & Unwin New Zealand Limited 60 Cambridge Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand Unwin Hyman Limited 15-17 Broadwick Street, London Wl V IFF England Allen & Unwin Inc. 8 Winchester Place, Winchester Mass 01890 USA National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Watson, Sophie* Accommodating inequality. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 004 320229 2. 1. Women — Housing — Australia. 2. Single women — Housing — Australia. 3. Homeless women — Housing — Australia. 4. Aged women — Housing — Australia. 5. Housing policy — Australia. I. Title. 363.5'9 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 88-81537 Set in 10.5/12 Bembo by Indah Photosetting Centre Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia Produced by SRM Production Services Sdn Bhd, Malaysia

Contents

Tables vi Preface vii 1 Housing women: an historical perspective 1 2 Women and housing, or feminist housing analysis? 21 3 Whose great Australian dream? Home ownership and the exclusion of women 39 4 On the margins: women in the private rental sector 56 5 Why be a wife? Housing after divorce 74 6 Sexual divisions in old age: a national profile 102 7 On the scrap heap: older women, housing issues and perspectives 111 8 Gender and urban theory 138 Bibliography 147 Index 153

Tables

1.1 Labour force participation 1911-1981 8 2.1 Tenure by household type and sex and age of household head (%) 1981 34-5 3.1 Nature of occupancy by family type 1981 (%) 43 3.2 Individual incomes of heads of households by family type 1981 (%) 44 6.1 Marital status of household heads in 1981 103 6.2 Income sources of retired widowed males and females and mean amounts of income 104 6.3 Individual income of women over 60 by marital status (%) 105

vi

Preface

This book sets out to explore housing from a gender perspective. Too often theory, debate, and policy operate amidst a web of preconceived notions and assumptions from which women are largely absent. In recent years in Australia, women's housing issues have been firmly placed on the agenda. The more specific concerns of women's refuges, single parents, homeless single women etc. have become integrated in a wider recognition of women's housing needs. The first National Women's Housing Conference held in Adelaide in early 1985 represents an historic moment. Feminists came together to challenge old concepts, to identify the problems and to formulate strategy. Inroads into policy in some areas have begun to be made, although there is still a long way to go. At a theoretical or research level the subject has been less explored. The project of this collection of essays is to fill the gap. There are at least two focuses to the housing discourse in Australia and these in turn are embodied in policy. One is the concept of individual free choice. The other is the ideal of the male-dominated nuclear family. The first implies that housing is primarily a matter of private consumption: We all want to own our own 'homes', of course, that is natural, even an instinct, and also we can all do it, albeit perhaps with a little assistance... It is just a question of choosing what we want and going ahead and buying it. Indeed, minimal expenditure on other forms of housing, public housing, cooperatives and so on means that other alternatives are rarely an option. The second notion, the ideal of the male-dominated nuclear family, is equally pervasive. Home ownership in its current form helps both to create and to reproduce patriarchal familial relations. It does this on at least two levels: the level of discourse and the VII

Accommodating inequality

level of policy. Examples from parliamentary debates are numerous: A man's home is his castle. Every man aspires to own his own homef and the legislation at present before the Senate .. .proposes to give it to him. .. All Australiansy inherently and instinctively desire to be home owners

(Senate, 13 June 1956: 1501, 1503). What has this implied for women? The argument here is that women as gendered subjects have been powerless economically and in the face of direct and indirect discrimination to define their own housing needs, and in many cases to house themselves independently from a man. For many women the route to a roof over her head passes from dependence on 'man as father' to dependence on 'man as husband'. Housing in Australia then acts to both create and reproduce traditional family structures and the dependence of women. This book sets out to explore the ways in which this happens by using several different methodologies: an historical analysis of discourse and policy; interviews with women; interviews with those who control access — the well-known 'gatekeepers'; and analysis of policy documents, secondary sources and statistical material. The chapters cover a range of areas: the historical context, gender and urban theory, home ownership, the private rental sector, divorce and the lives of older women. Each essay stands on its own although common threads can be identified through them all. Although there are no specific policy recommendations within the text, the aim is to provide a clear and articulate framework within which feminist housing policy can be situated. More recently post-structuralist analysis has influenced my own thinking on urban questions. The emphasis here, however, was on providing the reader with material that would both enable urban theorists to broaden their analyses to include feminist perspectives, and guide activists and policy makers in the formulation of campaigns and policies. Two major absences in this book are ethnic and Aboriginal women—although an anti-racist perspective informs my argument. The research for this book was done in the first ll/2 years after my arrival in Australia. Given the need to learn an entirely new structure of government, of debates, of policies and of concerns in a limited amount of time, I made the decision to restrict my research to non-ethnic, non-Aboriginal women's housviii

Preface ing questions. This was because I did not feel competent in such a short time to analyse the very complex interrelationships between gender, class, race and ethnicity, and the structures of housing provision. I have thus limited myself to issues facing the sections of the community most easily accessible to me, given restricted resources. Nevertheless, dominant ideologies and issues of exclusion, marginalisation, poverty and low income, primary domestic responsibility, invisibility etc. confront almost all women. Many of the problems white women face in the housing market are faced by non-white women also. Where there are obvious differences, I have tried to emphasise them. In no western society can we assume that a white culture is every woman's culture, particularly in a multi-cultural society like Australia. Research on how urban questions intersect with sex, race and class is greatly needed. This book then does not cover all areas of housing that are of relevance to women. The questions of design and the production of dwellings lend themselves to further analysis, as do the housing needs of young women and the interrelationships between housing and labour markets from a gender perspective. I hope that this book will raise new questions, as well as extend or challenge old debates. It is not enough to tamper at the edges of the housing system as it is currently structured — what I hope is that this book will become part of a wider debate on how to reconceptualise, re-form and revolutionise the housing system to meet every household's needs, be they women or men, old or young, black or white, single, nuclear or extended households. This book was researched and mostly written during my time at the Urban Research Unit, Australian National University. Several of these essays were published in a different form elsewhere. Chapter 2 draws on an article published in Housing Studies Vol. 1, No. 1 and chapter 3 is an expanded version of an article published in Australian Quarterly Vol. 57, No. 1. The material on older women derives from research on a project with Lisa Coleman, looking at the lives of older women, which was published in an Australian Institute of Urban Studies publication: 'Women over Sixty'. I would like to thank several research assistants who were at the Urban Research Unit during my time there. Lisa Coleman was involved with the research for chapter 4 and the research on older women. Christine Helliwell undertook some of the interviews for chapter 3 and Ricki Dargavel helped

ix

Accommodating inequality

dig out some of the historical material and assisted with the statistics. My thanks also to Kerry Schott for her encouragement, Rosemary Pringle and Deena Shiff for their suggestions, to Rosemary for her warm support in the latter stages of the book, and to Kathleen Bradburn, Sharon Scarcella and Judy Stanic for their help in typing the manuscript. Various people in the State housing departments and non-government organisations contributed information, and 70 older women gave up their time to be interviewed. To all these people I am most grateful. Finally, Patrick Troy was the person who offered me the post-doctoral fellowship in the Urban Research Unit. He has, since my arrival in Australia, been a continued source of much support in every area of my work, for which I would like to thank him greatly.

X

1 Housing women An historical perspective

The present situation of women in relation to housing policy and provision has not arisen in a vacuum. It is embedded in a web of debate and policy which has evolved over many years, particularly during the post-war period. This chapter thus analyses the main historical developments in Australian housing, from a feminist perspective. Commonwealth and State intervention in housing in Australia dates most significantly from the appointment by the then Treasurer, Mr Chifley, of the Commonwealth Housing Commission (CHC) in 1943. The Commission was formed in a distinctive political environment and a brief outline of the housing situation in Australia pre-1943 provides an important context. Troy and Lloyd's (1981) paper on the Commonwealth Housing Commission report gives a useful historical overview. During the 19th century there was no statutory intervention in the housing market, a market characterised by the provision of dwellings for private ownership and private rental investment. Initiatives to ameliorate bad housing came primarily from philanthropic and charitable organisations, who set up hostels, housing associations and low-income housing projects. The poor were primarily consigned to low quality rental housing; there were increasing levels of home ownership for households who had access to housing finance. By the early 20th century, growing concern with public health and child mortality and the emergence of legislation for improved housing in Britain became forces for change. Municipal councils intervened to clear run-down dwellings and to construct flats. In 1910 legislation in Queensland was enacted for the provision of low-cost public housing to rent or buy. This was followed by South Australia in the same year, Western Australia and New South Wales in 1912, Victoria in

1

Accommodating inequality

1914, and Tasmania in 1919, with some variation between states in the specifics of the schemes. According to Troy and Lloyd (1981: 10), thousands of Australians on low to moderate incomes were assisted by state measures, but public housing policy during the first three decades of the century did little to alleviate the acute housing need in the lower income areas. Of great significance in the pre-war years was the creation of the South Australian Housing Trust, which was the first major rental housing scheme sponsored by an Australian Government. The Commonwealth Government remained largely absent from the housing area with two exceptions. The Commonwealth Housing Act of 1928 'empowered the Commonwealth Savings Bank to advance funds to approved housing authorities, including banks for the buying and building of houses, and the discharge of mortgages' (Troy and Lloyd, 1981: 11). Twenty million pounds were made available under the Act. The scheme was specifically directed at increasing the level of home ownership among middleincome earners — the needs of tenants were largely ignored. The second initiative of the Commonwealth Government was the 1919 War Service Homes Act which aimed to provide dwellings for home ownership for Australian soldiers or their widows and dependents. The other important development in public housing in the prewar, late depression, years noted by Troy and Lloyd (ibid, 17) was a focus on slum clearance and re-housing the population so displaced. The dominant discourse echoed notions central to the town planning movement in Britain. Bad housing and slums were seen to lead to immorality, disease, alcoholism and crime. This then, was the context within which the Commonwealth Housing Commission (CHC) was established. Commonwealth Housing Commission The report of the Commission was over 150 pages long, with even longer appendices. It included 95 major recommendations and covered a wide range of issues, from the Commonwealth's role in housing provision and national, regional and town planning to the problems of the supply of building labour, building construction and materials required. It is thus impossible to summarise here. What is important however, is to analyse the underlying 2

An historical perspective philosophy and framework, in particular the way in which the report produced and reproduced specific dominant social relations and discourses and set the context for post-war Australian housing policy and provision. The Commission's underlying philosophy was that 'a dwelling of good standard and equipment is not only the need but the right of every citizen — whether the dwelling is to be rented or purchased, no tenant or purchaser should be exploited by excessive profit' (CHC, 1981: 8; emphasis in report). The report thus addressed the need to overcome the housing shortage by recommending: the construction to standard of 700 000 dwelling units by 1955, the repairing or replacing of sub-standard dwellings, and the undertaking of slum clearance. Community facilities were recommended in new and built-up areas. The Commonwealth and state governments, local government authorities and private enterprise in cooperation with each other were all seen as having a role to play in the construction of dwellings. It was recommended that in the immediate post-war period the bulk of governmentfinanced housing should be for renting, with an increasing shift to the provision for home purchase through government-financed building and subsidised loans. Suggestions were also made concerning the need for national, state, regional and town planning legislation, and the control of land use through zoning and the declaration of housing development areas. Recommendations such as these form the substance of the report. Further scrutiny of the CHC report reveals the centrality of the family to housing policy; the assumed association between women, the domestic sphere and the home; the marginal treatment of single people, and the dominance of a specific ideology of home ownership. These are themes that recXir in housing debates, reports and discussions in the post-war period. Before analysing them further, the structure of the Commonwealth-state housing relations which evolved from the CHC need some clarification. One year after the CHC presented its report the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) legislation was introduced. This was to be the first of many such agreements between the Commonwealth and States in the 30 post-war years. Successive CSHAs have shifted the respective financial responsibilities and priorities for the provision of public rental housing, home purchase assistance, and other housing programmes, depending on the concerns and direction of the governments at

3

Accommodating inequality

the time. Agreements are stipulated to operate for a specific time period, usually 5 to 10 years, but have in many cases been replaced by alternative legislation when the political complexion of the Commonwealth Government has shifted. There have therefore been CSHAs in 1945, 1955, 1956, 1961, 1966, 1973, 1978, 1981 and 1984. The first CSHA enshrined in legislation one of the key recommendations of the CHC: the implementation of a rental housing programme for lower-income households to be funded by the Commonwealth and constructed and administered by the states. Priority for public housing was stated as follows: 1. Up to 50 per cent of the houses are to be allotted to exservicemen, the dependants of servicemen still serving, and members of the Merchant Navy. The other 50 per cent will be allocated as follows:2. Where the present habitation is condemned by local authorities, or otherwise regarded as insanitary, or dangerous, or where, for other reasons a court has issued an eviction order. 3. Where the present habitation is overcrowded, including family units inadequately housed in a boarding house. 4. Where the present habitation is not affording reasonable access to the place of employment, and results in a loss of efficiency to an essential worker, some consideration is to be given to essential workers living apart from the family because of inability to obtain a suitable dwelling near the place of employment. 5. Where the tenant is prepared to move from a dwelling which has accommodation in excess of needs. 6. Where suitable housing accommodation is not available at a rent within the means of the tenant. (CHC, 1945: 5388) We see here how notions of the family household and 'deserving' servicemen were central to allocation policies at an early stage. The 1955 CSHA shifted the orientation of CommonwealthState policy from rental to home ownership, by allowing tenants to buy their dwellings on favourable terms. The 1961 CSHA did not differ substantially from the previous agreement, and was extended in an amended form in 1966 to a) include ex-servicemen from Vietnam, Malaysia and other special areas; b) lift restrictions 4

An historical perspective

on the height of flat blocks; c) set special standards for service houses and d) provide loan funds to rural areas where no building cooperative societies existed. The renegotiation of the CSHA for the fourth time in 1973 reflected the more radical thinking of the newly elected Federal Labor government. The central objective of the agreement was to increase the stock of public rental dwellings and to limit the sale of public housing. Eligibility criteria were also extended. However, its intentions were largely thwarted by resistance from the states, who did not share similar political concerns. With the ascendancy to government of the Liberal Country Party, the CSHA was renegotiated in 1978, reflecting once again a fundamental shift in housing policy. Cheap rents for public tenants were replaced by market-related rents (with rental rebates for the lower-income tenants) and states were given greater autonomy. The 1981 Agreement reiterated the policy of moving towards full market rents, and aimed to restrict assistance to those in need. It was not until 1984 that the CSHA, renegotiated for the second time under a Labor government, reflects a commitment to more progressive housing policies. The principles behind this most recent agreement included a commitment to alleviate housing-related poverty; an expansion and improvement of public housing; an equitable distribution of assistance to households in different forms of housing tenure; a widening of eligibility criteria to include all sections of the community, with priority to be determined on the basis of need; reintroduction of cost rents, and an encouragement of new initiatives within the community and local-government housing sectors. This very brief overview of the CSHAs since the war has summarised some of the major policy shifts embodied in the agreements. Of more relevance here are the processes by which housing provision and policy have acted to produce and reproduce the traditional nuclear family, the dependence and domesticity of women, on the one hand, and excluded or marginalised nonfamily households and women on the other. Home ownership The promotion of home ownership has been central to federal and state Australian housing policy under both Liberal and Labor 5

Accommodating inequality

governments and has constituted a salient feature of Australian society for many years. The production and consumption of home ownership have been subsidised at massive levels at the cost, as Kemeny (1981) argues, of developing a viable or adequate public-rental housing sector in Australia. For the construction industry, the financial institutions, the speculative builders, the property developers, the exchange professionals, and even for individual households, home ownership has represented a major source of investment and profit. For the households who could afford to buy it also represented a place to live. However, for many individuals and households who have been ineligible for financial assistance or whose income or employment position militated against home purchase, its promotion as the majority tenure has had different implications. First, what is the discourse on home ownership in Australia? Confidence in one's existence, emotional security and happiness have been consistently associated with this tenure. Parliamentary debate on the 1978 Housing Assistance Bill provides a typical illustration: We . . . believe that society does benefit by having a strong community based on a sense and a purpose of belonging; that there is a confidence in existence through owning one's own home rather than being treated merely as a tenant. Strong, sturdy Australian citizenship has its base in contented families which treat their houses as their homes (Hansard, House of Representatives, vol. 109: 2664). It is interesting to note the house-home dichotomy expressed here. The notion of home is consistently associated with ownership and the related attributes of comfort, warmth and security, while the 'house' is the mere physical dwelling — the structure. To rent a 'house' rather than a 'home' is a more common expression. A related theme in discussions of home ownership is that of the control and privacy the tenure is assumed to confer: 'I regard home ownership. .. and a home we can call our own and with which we can do what we like, as a fundamental social need' (ibid 2674) and 'If a family owns a house the members of the family virtually have some independence, some little castle, as it were' (ibid 2664). One of the most striking features of the debates on home ownership by both Liberal Party and Labor Party politicians in

6

An historical perspective

the past 30 years, is the dominance of a family discourse. Pride in the family and pride in home ownership are presented as related notions; the one enhancing the other. It is the patriarchal family form which is idealised and promoted: man as the protector, the benefactor, the provider; such images are abundant. Debate on the first Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in 1945 provides a classic illustration: 'The safety of this country, like the safety of all other countries, depends on private home ownership which gives a man a stake in the country, a place of his own in which to keep his wife and rear a family, and a place for his family to live when he dies' (Hansard, House of Representatives, Vol. 185: 6355) and: 'A man whose home is his own has the satisfaction of knowing that every tree that he plants in the garden, every cupboard that he installs, every improvement that he makes, is his own. That is the attitude of almost every man worthy of his family.' (Hansard, Senate, Vol 185: 6455). The notion of private ownership and a 'stake in the country' are similarly prevalent in the debates, as is the assumption that it is men who fix and control the dwelling. Woman, in contrast, is constructed as dependent, as 'housewife', as 'homemaker', and again these images are more consistently associated with the home ownership sector. Houses that are owned are perceived as providing the possibility for women to be creative, to blossom, the domestic ideal is enhanced. As other writers have argued (Allport 1981; Davison 1978), this theme is linked with suburbanism and suburbanisation, particularly in the post-war period when the reconstruction of 'normal family life' and 'women's primary domestic role', disrupted during the war years, were seen as central. The Commonwealth Housing Commission interim report specifically addressed the drudgery of housework and recommended improvements in the conditions of housewives through the transformation of kitchens into efficient work areas and the electrification of dwellings (Allport, 1981: 67). This theme was once more taken up at the Women's Housing Seminar held in Sydney in 1961 by the Sydney Building Information Centre. In contrast to the first National Women's Housing Conference in Adelaide, held over two decades later, this was not a feminist conference. Of the nine speakers only one was a woman. The prime function of the Seminar was seen as: 'to present practical information which was capable of personal adaptation by those planning a new home, those renovating one or 7

Accommodating inequality

those wishing to make their present home more functional and efficient in operation;' (SBIC 1961). Thus men lectured to women on how to manage their homes to make them, amongst other things, a 'haven of contentment/ a 'mecca of harmonious activity', 'a home of productivity and progress'. If a woman succeeded in these tasks, she was informed that she could be proud of her job (Pacey, BIG, 1961: 71). It is not only at the level of discourse that home ownership has produced and reproduced dominant patriarchal relations; the structure of home ownership has also acted to exclude many women or to reinforce their dependence on male partners. There are two issues here. One has been women's lower incomes and lesser labour force participation during the post-war period, the other has been the policies and practices of the lending institutions. Table 1 shows women's labour force participation in Australia from 1911 to 1981. Table 1.1 Labour force participation 1911-1981 (percentage of all men and women aged 15 and over at work and not at work) Men At work Unemployed

1911 1921 1933 1947 1951 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981

92 87 71 86 87 82 83 79 78 75

3 4 15 1 — 2 1 1 3 4

Women Not in At work Unemployed Not in workforce workforce

5 9 14 13 13 16 16 20 19 22

_ 23 22 25 26 28 34 36 40 41

__ 3 — — 1 1 1 2 3

_ 77 75 75 74 71 65 63 57 55

Source: ABS Censuses (Manning, 1985: 80.)

In addition to social pressures on women to remain out of the paid labour force, married women were barred from many areas of employment—notably in education before the war—and the public service. For most of the period, where women were in paid employment they received little more than half the male wage (Spearritt, 1978: 157). A major obstacle to equal pay in Australia was the decision made early this century by Justice 8

An historical perspective

Higgins in the Industrial Court, that the female basic wage would be 54 per cent of the male rate. The male wage, it was argued, should provide for a wife and children. Protests by women against this discrimination were made from the outset. Women argued that the needs of women workers did not differ from those of single men, to which came the reply that single men had to pay for their lodging or for someone to look after them, and also had to save for money to marry. Protests that the same conditions should apply to women were ignored, (Street, 1966: 206). The debate persisted in fits and starts until the early 1970s. In 1927 the Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances submitted that the basic male wage should be reduced to the level of the female basic wage. Newspaper articles and letters in the 1930s and 40s reflect continuing concern. In 1937 Judge Detheridge of the Arbitration Court was reported to think that equal pay was desirable and should be brought about by fixing a common wage at a level consistent with economic capacity to pay, which he thought might mean a lowering of the male wage. (Sun, Melbourne, 19.5.1937). The Chairman of the Women's Employment Board, Judge Foster, took the opposite line: that 'the proper thing to do was not to reduce the female rate, but to push it up to the male level and push the male rate higher (Sun, Melbourne, 7.9.42). The demand for equal pay was central to the Australian Women's Charter Movement. In 1949 deputations to Prime Minister Chifley, to the Minister for Labour, and to the Commonwealth Public Service Board (CPS) demanded equal pay for both sexes, equal promotion rights, abolition of the marriage bar and the appointment of a woman to the CPS board. It took over two decades for some of these demands to be met. An Arbitration Court ruling on equal pay in 1972 led to a notable, although still inadequate, improvement in women's wages. Between 1973-4 and 1978-9 women's disposable earnings rose from 72 per cent of men's to 80 per cent (Manning 1985: 96). In summary then, throughout the century women's income and employment position alone would have made home purchase an unlikely prospect. Single women's wages were lower than single men's, while the low labour force participation of married women forced them into dependence on husbands for their housing. Joint payment of mortgages was rare. The structure of home purchase assistance and financial insti-

9

Accommodating inequality

tutions' practice have also played an important part in reinforcing the concept of the nuclear family and the dependence of women. In the Commonwealth Housing Commission report in 1944 there is a recommendation for the provision of 'marriage loans' to help families set up a first home. Similarly the 1964 Home Savings Grant Act specifies subsidies for home purchase for married couples under 36 years of age. This was widened in 1966 to include widow(er)s under 36 with dependent children and further amended in 1970 to admit divorced people of the same age with dependants. This growing liberalisation of public policy, and the shift from an overriding orientation towards the nuclear family household, reflected in these amendments is embodied yet further in the Homes Savings Grant of 1976 which replaced the earlier Acts. In the 1976 Act the age limit was removed and single people and individuals in de facto marriages became eligible for assistance. Similar historical trends can be seen in state home purchase assistance programmes, although there is a wide variation between states with a more notable family orientation in the more conservative states. In Queensland, for example, in 1978, eligibility for home purchase assistance under the Housing Assistance Act was for families only and in South Australia, for parent/s with dependent children and couples aged under 30 years without dependants. (Department of Housing and Construction, Annual Report 1979-80). Discrimination towards women needing home loan finance has taken various forms in the post-war years. The Defence Services Homes Scheme was set up in 1918 to provide long-term low interest finance for housing for Australian soldiers and female dependants (widows or widowed mothers). The scheme aimed primarily to provide for servicemen who had served for Australia overseas in the two world wars, Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam. In a Senate debate on the 1956 Housing Agreement Bill, Senator Annabelle Rankin complained that ex-servicewomen were not able to get a war service home unless they had a dependant (Senate, 14 June 1956: 1535). She emphasised the injustice of limited definition of 'having dependants': 'Many women who served in the forces are no longer young, and because they are unmarried, they have no dependants in the normal sense. They might have had to care for an aged parent, who has now died'. Another problem, which persists to the present day (see chapter

10

An historical perspective

4), and was identified by Senator Melzer in 1980, is that women very often were unable to get loans because of their gender, or were unable to borrow money without a male guarantor (Senate, 21 August 1980 p. 256). Yet more blatant suggestions of discrimination were reported to the NSW Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Sid Einfeld, in 1981. Investigations were made into finance companies who apparently favoured granting home loans when a woman was prepared to be sterilised, or when she produced a letter from a doctor confirming her sterilisation (Daily Mirror, 13.8.1981: 5). Tom Uren has consistently played an important role in putting the discrimination issue on the agenda in the House of Representatives. In 1970 he criticised the tendency of financial institutions to refuse to consider the joint incomes of couples where the woman is young, the assumption being that pregnancy is imminent (House of Representatives, 20 Oct 1970: 24-70). He persists in 1971 (House of Representatives, Oct 7: 2041), with the following speech: My contribution . . . deals with the discrimination to which our society subjects single women of various categories in obtaining finance for housing. I refer to women who are divorced or separated with or without children. Also I refer to women who may not want to marry and who may want to retain their freedom and independence. He also criticised the pro-family orientation of housing finance, which acts to exclude women who are not married: Women are discriminated against in various ways, both direct and indirect. This occurs firstly, because society encourages marriage in the 'typical' family. Secondly, they are discriminated against because of a persuasive and difficult to pin down conviction that women, irrespective of their economic positions, are poor financial risks. Finally, what has happened to women who have divorced while living in the home ownership sector? Just as home ownership has tended to be linked with marriage and happy family life, so too its lack has been related to divorce. Discussions in the Senate (13 June, 1956: 481) on the Housing Agreement Bill offer a clear illustration: 'A truly great nation can only be built on a strong and secure family life, home-ownership and good living

11

Accommodating inequality

conditions. We have seen too many broken marriages, delinquent children and cases of neurosis largely brought about through lack of housing'! Six years later at the debate on the subsequent Housing Agreement Bill (House of Representatives, 16 May, 1961: 1945) the home is referred to as the 'cementing substance' that keeps the family unit together. In 1967 the GovernorGeneral's speech to the House of Representatives (1 March) reflects a similar concern about the 8000 marriages that ended in divorce in 1966. He attributes 50 per cent to a 'bad home environment' and argues that the Government should devise a scheme to assist every newly married couple into home ownership. Under the Married Women's Property Acts in the late 19th century the property that a woman owned at her marriage would remain hers on marital breakdown (Scutt, 1983: 235-6). If she had no property, the legislation allowed her no part of the matrimonial property. Women campaigned for changes to the Matrimonial Causes Act, which enshrined the notion of fault into divorce proceedings. From the early 1920s Jessie Street, on behalf of the United Associations of Women, emphasised the importance of 'women retaining their domicile when married' and the Women's Co-Ordinating Council of the United Australia Party wanted a wife to 'have the right to establish her own domicile for the purpose of divorce' (Department of Attorney General and Justice, 1924-1936). The 1959 Matrimonial Causes Act retained the basic 'fault' concept of divorce and gave little recognition to the worth, in real terms, of a woman's traditional domestic contribution. It did however bring in five years' separation as a grounds for divorce, which paved the way for 'no fault' divorce. It was not until feminist agitation in the early 1970s that changes in relation to matrimonial property were legislated (see chapter 6). The 1975 Family Law Act for the first time acknowledged a woman's domestic contribution to the household as allowing her some claim to the property. In spite of such long-overdue advances, divorced women today remain at a disadvantage in their access to home ownership. The public sector As stated earlier, the Commonwealth Housing Commission acted as the spur for the construction and conversion of rental housing. 12

An historical perspective

Rental housing, with notable exceptions such as in South Australia, or during the Whitlam government, has largely been perceived as welfare housing, marginal to everyone's 'real' goal and 'dream' of home ownership. Nevertheless, in the post-war period the declaration of a serious public housing shortage was reiterated by politicians and housing organisations alike, albeit with wide discrepancies in estimations of the extent of the shortage. Housing Commission waiting lists offer one indicator: in Victoria for example, in 1956, there were 11 000 applicants on the waiting-list; by 1961 the figure had increased to 17 500 applicants. The proportion of female-headed households was unfortunately not recorded. The overall picture however, is one where single parents made up an increasing proportion of applicants for public housing over the post-war years. Thus in New South Wales by 1979-80, single parents constituted 8531 of the 25 331 applications received. With the exception of South Australia and the Federal Territories, single non-pensioner adults were excluded from public rental housing. This policy has recently been changed in some states, for example Victoria and New South Wales, as a result of the sex discrimination legislation and housing activists' campaigns. This exclusion was of specific relevance to women in the post-war period because of their generally lower incomes and marginal access to the home ownership sector. Thus, public housing policy similarly acted to both produce and reproduce the nuclear family household. Housing provision for non-traditional households Of all the non-nuclear family households it is 'young married couples' who are the most favourably, treated. This of course reflects their assumed imminent 'nuclear family' status. The fact that they are married gives them a position of privilege in housing terms way above any other two people living together. Throughout the post-war period there are endless references made in parliamentary debates on housing to the 'plight' of young married couples at the mercy of the housing market. Senator Little's speech (Senate, 13 May 1973: 2181) is typical: I have been gravely concerned for many years in trying to assist young people who in the early stages of marriage . . . are forced to live with in-laws . . . The great tragedy arises 13

Accommodating inequality

from the attempts made to blend the personalities of all the people living in the one dwelling. The situation arises because these young couples through the disadvantageous start to their married life are not in a position to obtain accommodation anywhere else. Behind the concern lies another agenda. Reiterated in the debates (e.g. Senate 5 May 1966: 820) is the problem of the falling birth rate, which is also attributed to the lack of 'decent' accommodation available to young couples. While many young couples had two incomes, which improved their capacity to buy, single households were not so fprtunate. Since World War II, single housing needs have been treated as marginal in most states. Until recently (1985 in NSW, for example) they were ineligible for public housing except in South Australia and the Federal Territories, where public housing was offered as an employment incentive. Similarly, home ownership assistance policies have frequently excluded single people. The dominant discourse has centred on the housing needs of the family. Over the years the odd senator or parliamentary member had expressed concern, and raised the 'hopelessness' of the single persons' position and the injustice of their exclusion from eligibility for housing grants (e.g. the Senate debate on the Homes Savings Grant 1976). Often single homeless men have been further marginalised through the common perception of them as 'undeserving', fit only for 'skid row', while single homeless women are barely mentioned. Where single people have been housed, there tends to have been an assumption that their need for space is limited. Thus, single people, including the single aged, have been allocated bedsitters; their need for social relations, or their need to engage in a range of activities being overlooked or ignored. Single aged people have been housed by State housing departments almost since their inception, but the waiting-times for a tenancy to be allocated have been absurdly long, due to the low expenditure on public housing. A 1972 House of Representatives debate (3 March: 798) reflects this concern: 'Elderly people who are seeking accommodation in a Housing Commission home have over a 5year wait. I think that it is getting on towards a 4-year wait for married people... Most of them [in receipt of age pensions] are widows'. 14

An historical perspective

Single people also faced exclusion from access to home loan assistance schemes. This was an issue disputed in the Senate and the House of Representatives for many years. In the Senate in 1964 (p. 1431) Senator Cavanagh queried why the benefit provided in the Home Savings Grants bill was not extended to single people. The response: that there was 'no constitutional authority to pay it to a single person, to an engaged couple or to two single persons. It is payable only to a married couple'. When single people have been defined as eligible for grants, they have had to have considerably lower incomes than couple applicants. In the post-war period single people on low-to-middle income have thus had to rely primarily on a shrinking and increasingly expensive private rental market. Boarding houses and common lodging houses represented the major option for single households. In recent years the number of boarding houses has drastically declined as the processes of gentrification in inner city areas, strata titling, planning controls and building and fire regulations have taken their toll. In the Sydney suburb of Waverley alone, 110 boarding houses were closed between 1974 and 1983, representing a 47 per cent decrease. The distinction between boarding houses and common lodging houses is blurred, the latter term usually implying more 'down market' establishments for the homeless. These were significant in the early part of the century and some were run by charitable bodies. The poor standards of many of these institutions was considered a serious public health issue, although little was ever done to alleviate the situation. In the Melbourne Sun (17 June 1956) we read: 'Thirty apartment house inmates sharing one copper and one trough. . . Boarding houses so over-crowded that people share beds "one after the other".' In part, the failure to address the problem reflected a perception of single people as 'deserving' little more, as transitory, as insignificant, as marginal. Both boarding houses and common lodging houses have tended to be male dominated, and many excluded women either directly or indirectly, simply because the environment was hostile. In 1876 there were no known common lodging houses for women in Australia, according to a NSW Legislative Assembly select committee report (Vol 6: 845-869). Many women arriving as migrants from England went into domestic service as a solution to the lack of accommodation available and the shortage of wellpaid employment. 15

Accommodating inequality

Given the profound lack of interest that white governments, bureaucrats and activists have traditionally shown towards the needs of Aborigines in Australia, it is not surprising that there are barely any references made to the housing problems of Aboriginal women in parliamentary debates throughout this century. From my own standpoint I do not feel qualified to comment on the complexity and diversity of Aboriginal womens' housing needs through this period. Little has been written on the subject. What is clear however from more recent work is that many of the white attempts to provide housing for the Aboriginal people have been unsuccessful impositions of white people's notions of how black people should live. What is needed are policies and possibilities which allow Aboriginal people, and Aboriginal women, to define the kind of housing that suits their needs. Until recently this has rarely been done (see Loveday and Lea, 1985). In the private sector Aboriginal people have faced tremendous constraints in obtaining loans. Discrimination, combined with their lack of access to regular employment and income, has kept them excluded. To a lesser extent migrants have faced similar problems. From the diversity of their own cultures, they have had to slot into the accommodation that Australia offered them. For many, in the early days after arrival this meant living in hostels, which for women involved severe pressure as they tried to carry out domestic responsibilities in an alien and difficult environment with few resources. Re-housing into the public sector was one option. Apart from the problem of long waiting times, this meant adjusting to living in dwellings that were unsuited to their needs. Many migrants lived in extended families, for example, whose needs were not met by the standard public housing forms. The other option was the private sector, where they too faced discrimination from landlords and lending institutions. Feminist and activist resistance I have already referred to women's campaigns around the Married Women's Property Act and campaigns for better pay and employment. Feminists were also actively engaged in the debates on child endowment or family allowances in 1928 (Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances 1928: 6-8). 16

An historical perspective

An interesting point raised here was that single men should be paid the same as married men, on the basis that they were preparing for marriage! Irene Maud Longman from the National Council of Women argued for equal pay for men and women, an end to the notion that a man's wage should support his wife and children, and instead, a weekly endowment for every mother and her child to be paid through the taxation system. Debates on women's economic status did not however, address the question of women's housing needs. It was not until the resurgence of a feminist movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s that women's housing needs were put firmly on the agenda. Initially the emphasis was on providing refuge for women who were victims of domestic violence. Campaigns were launched by women in different parts of the country to obtain funding from both Commonwealth and state governments. In the early stages the Whitlam government was crucial in its support. In 1978 the Federal Government allocated $211 800 to women's refuges (The Australian 20.6.75). This enabled the establishment of refuges in most states. More traditional organisations were also influenced by the new feminist discourse, and began to open their first shelters solely for women. In 1977 the Salvation Army opened its first women's emergency lodge at Fullerton (The Advertiser, 6A.,77). Over the subsequent decade the number of refuges have grown in most states and discussions and policies relating to women's needs have extended. Refuges have been established for teenage girls, for women with drug and alcohol problems, for women ex-prisoners, for women coming out of mental hospitals and for specific racial and ethnic groups. Mostly these were established from the grass-roots and by women in the bureaucracy who had identified a gap in the provision. In 1985 the first National Women's Housing Conference, attended by over 2000 women, was organised, to be followed by another in Sydney in 1987. Women's housing issues are now firmly on the agenda and policies and programmes to address women's housing needs are now taken seriously in at least three states (New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria). The history of the refuge movement is being documented elsewhere (McFerren, 1989), and many reports of the great range of feminist housing provision and refuges (e.g. Australian Housing Research Council 1980) can be found in State Housing Department and Council for Social Services libraries. There are 17

Accommodating inequality

only three aspects of the evolution of feminist housing provision that I want to mention here. The first is that funding has represented a continuous problem, both in terms of its inadequacy and in terms of determining the appropriate department or level of government to fund specific programmes or projects. This in itself has been the subject of lengthy debate and has frequently constrained the ability of groups to provide a service. Frequently refuges have survived on the basis of women's voluntary or lowpaid labour. Second, there has never been anything close to an adequate level of housing provision for women, with the result that some groups of women have absolutely nowhere to go. Of necessity, women with children have tended to receive more favourable treatment, while single homeless women—with or without other problems — have fared badly. The resources simply have not been there. Third, the ideological basis of feminist housing provision has been central to the process. Refuges etc. are run so that women are encouraged to live independently and determine their own lives with the support of other women and workers, often in a communal or semi-communal environment. This is a far cry from the charitable institutions for the homeless established in the latter part of the 19th century. Finally, women have been centrally involved in housing issues of another kind, that is, resident action movements, tenants' movements and squatting groups. These movements are too diverse to summarise here; Nittim's (1980) article is a useful source of information on this topic. What is important is that women have been active in the defence of their environment, housing and cities, although their contribution is often overlooked as the male trade unionist or spokesman takes the floor. In the mid-1970s, at least one woman, Juanita Neilson, is known to have given her life to defend a residents' area in Sydney against destruction by the property development industry. Spatial arrangements Throughout the century a rather striking strand of spatial determinism pervades debates on housing. It expresses itself in two ways. First, there is the notion that the single detached dwelling provides the basis for 'proper' family life. The House of Representatives' debate on the Housing Agreement Bill, 16 May, 1961 18

An historical perspective

offers an illustration: 'Mr. Mclvor: Flat life is not the kind of home life that the average Australian wants. He demands a home in which he can raise his family in the truly Australian manner.' The detached home is thus seen to represent a fundamental Australian need, a preference, even an instinct, which will of itself provide the framework for successful living. In stark contrast, flats are perceived to cause depravity and to be the worst possible environment for a child: 'In four-storey walk-ups or multi-storey apartments children are denied a normal home environment: They have no backyards to which they can bring their mates. . . These conditions induce adult laziness and juvenile delinquency' (House of Representatives, 13 May 1966: 1881). Single people, on the other hand, are assumed to be able to make do with bedsitters or hostel-type accommodation. Their lack of gardens is not an issue. The indirect effect of the obsession with 'a home of one's own' has been extreme: prolific suburbanisation and urban sprawl, particularly in the post-war period. The impact of this form of development on women's lives has been significant, as Allport (1983) and others have argued. A lack of community facilities and services, poor public transport, and separation from the centres of employment have all contributed to women's marginal relation to well-paid employment, and isolation in the home. The development of detached single dwellings may have provided a haven and retreat for men from the hurly-burly of the inner-city world of work, but for women in many instances they may only have provided a prison. The interior design of dwellings has suffered because of the same assumptions. Women are said to be unable to share a common kitchen without 'bickering or flaring up into a flood of invective' which destroys family unity (Senate, 28 June 1951: 603). Single people, in contrast, are perceived as suited to sharing all but the most private facilities. Design and the organisation of space are clearly crucial to peoples' lives. The feminist challenge to traditional spatial discourses in Australia has however only recently gained ground. A similar discourse on the relation between notions of home and housework and women's domestic role can also be found in the debates. 'House' consistently refers to the label for a 'physical dwelling'; 'home' connotes 'family', 'warmth', 'security', 'nation', 'peace' etc. Particularly in the post-war period, the domestic ideal 19

Accommodating inequality

of woman's true and fulfilled role is vaunted. Feminists have challenged this notion forcefully for some years. Conclusion Several themes have emerged in this historical exploration. First, the structure of housing provision during this century has acted to both create and reinforce women's dependent status and to bolster the traditional patriarchal family form. The discourse on housing, government housing policies, and the practices of financial institutions have all contributed to this. Women who are on their own, with or without children, have been treated as marginal, while ethnic and Aboriginal women have almost entirely been ignored. At the same time women's needs within families have not been met. Their houses have been rarely designed by them, their control over their housing has been limited, and many have been forced to live in houses which are far from shops, facilities, childcare and work. It is only since the early 1970s that this picture has begun to change.

20

2 Women and housing, or feminist housing analysis? There is a slowly dawning recognition that analysis of gender is crucial to our understanding of a whole range of economic, social and urban issues at both a theoretical and policy level. However, there is a danger that women may become appended as a separate category (half the world in fact), who have different needs from 'everyone else'. This leads to the 'women and' approach, rather than any systematic feminist analysis, redefinition or reconstruction of the issue or object at hand. In the case of housing there clearly are some 'women and housing' issues, and often the recognition of these represents the first, and crucial, step in the debate. The next step, however, is to analyse the processes within a housing system, be it local, regional, state, or national, which serve to produce and reproduce patriarchal relations to the detriment of women. Since I consider it important to locate women's oppression within an analysis of capitalist, as well as patriarchal, relations, the interrelationship between patriarchy and capitalism and its articulation within the structure of housing provision will represent the framework for this chapter. The two focuses will be the British and Australian housing systems, in the recognition that the social relations of housing provision and ideologies of tenure vary fundamentally between countries. The primary tenet of my argument is that housing policy and provision in Britain and Australia assumes, and is structured around, the patriarchal family form. This structuring acts to create and reinforce women's dependent economic status and domestic role. Intricately related to this dominance of the family model is the marginalisation in the housing system of households which do not fit this traditional model. Many of these households, I argue, are headed by women. Further, this process of marginalisation of women in housing terms reinforces women's inferior

21

Accommodating inequality

status, both within the labour market and within society more generally. The second organising principle of any feminist analysis of housing must be that of the mutuality of the productive and reproductive spheres. A dominant paradigm within much urban analysis is to construct a private-public/home-work dichotomy which tends to be loosely used as a synonym for the reproduction/ production dichotomy. However, the notion of the home as a private sphere, as a haven away from the hurly-burly and hostile world of work, a shelter for the family, and the site of reproductive activities has been criticised widely in the feminist literature (e.g. Davidoff et al, 1976; Barrett and Mclntosh, 1983). In feminist theory the house for women represents the place of work, often a place of violence and oppression. Within some feminist analysis (in what has become known as the domestic labour debate), domestic labour is posited as productive (Gardiner, 1975). Leaving the complexities of the discussion aside, the point here is that the dichotomies between public and private and productive and reproductive are by no means clear. Nevertheless, the state, architects, planners, and the institutions of house production and home loan finance have produced and maintained this separation between the two spheres. Some feminist urban analysis has likewise fallen into the trap of oversimplifying the dichotomy, and thereby reinforcing the separation of home and work and the public and the private. This study would argue that what is needed is an analysis of the interconnections between home, work and community. The conceptual dichotomies of production and reproduction have material expression in the spatial organisation of urban life. The common separation of housing from centres of industry and employment within cities serves to reinforce women's exclusion from the productive sphere. While women continue to be primarily responsible for children, while childcare services are minimal, public transport is inadequate etc. the dominant built form of western capitalist cities will continue to marginalise women in the labour market. Conversely, women's inferior position within the labour market will be intricately connected with their marginalised housing position, in any society where housing is primarily a commodity and a source of gain. The extent to which the gender relations of domestic life and their spatial form derive from, or determine, labour market 22

Women and housing

relations is hard to define. The two create and mirror each other in ever more complex reflections, yet the image is always one of the unequal power of women. Production and design The first most obvious way housing acts to produce and reproduce the family form rests in the initial production process, the important issue here being design. In Australia the majority (78 per cent) of dwellings are separate houses (ABS, 1981, Table 66), often set in an individual 1A acre block. There are several implications here. The individual and isolated nature of dwellings acts to reinforce the interdependence of family relationships and the privatised nature of family life. Women's dependence during periods of motherhood, child rearing and non-participation in the paid labour force, is created and exacerbated by the lack of a community of neighbours and often, in the case of women without cars, by physical separation from local services. Research evidence suggests that such isolation can lead to symptoms of depression, even anguish, in housewives who experience these conditions. Further the potential for domestic violence to erupt is not inhibited by the presence of neighbours within earshot. It can also be argued that the generous space standards employed in the construction of separate dwellings increases the time required for domestic labour and the level of consumption activities which are usually the primary responsibility of women in the household (Vanek, 1978). For traditional families with two parents the necessary labour to maintain the dwelling and garden may be feasible; for the single parent or elderly home owner (often women) the difficulties may be great. From the viewpoint of capital, detached houses represent an outlet for capital, first in constructing them, then in furnishing them with the trappings of our society: washing machines, freezers, dishwashers and the like. The very way rooms are constructed and conceptualised reinforces a specific set of social relations. The standard interior of the cheaper models provided by Australia's largest developer provide a useful illustration. These designs comprise three bedrooms, one bathroom, 'family room', kitchen and sometimes a lounge/dining 23

Accommodating inequality

room. The arrangement of the shared areas assumes and delimits the lifestyle and social relationships of the inhabitants. The labelling of the family room speaks for itself; the kitchen is juxtaposed, often in an open plan fashion: according to builders interviewed in Canberra the rationale for this is to enable the person in the kitchen—usually assumed to be the mother—to keep an eye on the children while cooking the meal. Kitchens are often too cramped to allow work to be shared. Bedrooms are small, and designed primarily for sleeping, which militates against individuals entertaining or carrying out many activities in their own rooms. The assumption would appear to be that family members will want to spend the majority of their time together. As in British designs of both public and private housing couples rarely are considered to need a room for each partner. The 'master' bedroom for the two of them is considered adequate. Privacy is minimal. It is clear that the majority of such houses do not lend themselves to satisfying the housing needs of collective households, other non-nuclear family households, or nuclear families whose individual activities or needs cannot be accommodated within an open plan design. It is also interesting to note that notions as to what constitutes adequate space for a household shift not necessarily according to household size but according to household type. Thus, for example, single-parent families in Britain are allocated one bedroom flats, on the assumption that they should share with their children, whereas the same assumption does not operate in relation to twoparent families (DHSS, 1974). In Australia old people, frequently women, are allocated bedsitters with no room to entertain or to have friends or relations to stay (Watson and Coleman, 1985a). There are many such examples of notions of housing need, ranging in relation to household type, with the traditional white nuclear family invariably at the privileged end of the continuum, and often female-headed households at the other. Although the sexual division of labour is embodied in the design of housing, this does not imply that housing suits women's needs in their domestic role as housewife and mother. Women, particularly black women, rarely have a say in the design process and represent a small minority of architects and planners. Yet it is women who bear the brunt of high-rise flats, estates with no safe play areas for children, noise, vandalism and inadequate access to local services and transport. Cramped kitchens, thin walls, dark 24

Women and housing

and dangerous alleyways and stairways and other consequences of low-cost or ill-thought out construction make domestic labour and childcare more difficult and time-consuming. In England cuts in public expenditure on housing can only mean that what are already low housing standards will further deteriorate. The construction of houses in Australia has its corollary in the broader field of urban design. The obsession with the detached dream home on the suburban block has spawned a dismal sprawl of uniform suburban dwellings stretching ever further distances from the city centres. There are several implications. Low-income families, often single parents, have little choice but to buy into these urban wastelands where prices are lower. Far from accessible work, community services, childcare centres, public transport, social opportunities and other amenities, the suburban home becomes the woman's prison. Secondly, the suburban 'dream' is a reality only a few can achieve, unaffordable to many. Yet the myth is perpetuated of the ideal. Medium and high density housing options, a range of housing choices and designs which can respond to the increasing diversity of households, old and young, single and in groups, married and divorced, remain marginal and resisted. State government strategies to shift entrenched attitudes and patterns through urban consolidation initiatives, and state environmental planning policies to encourage dual occupancy and group homes, continue to be assiduously subverted and resisted by local governments. A new vision is needed to design an urban fabric suited to the multiplicity of demographic and social changes, and the diversity of women's housing needs. Such a vision has to take on board the multicultural and multiracial nature of Australian society and give women from Aboriginal and ethnic communities the opportunity to define their own housing needs and concerns. The dominant ideology of the detached suburban home being the only 'proper' form of housing has to be challenged. Tenure At the outset we need to recognise first that housing exists not just as an item of consumption or to meet a basic human need for shelter; housing also represents a commodity and a means by which capital is circulated and profits are made. Second, housing 25

Accommodating inequality

provision at any one time embodies particular historically determined social relations and is the product of policies, ideologies and the profit motive of earlier years, as well as of the present. The processes in the housing system through which women's dependent economic status is reinforced and through which women become marginalised or excluded vary across tenure. Further, there are obviously substantial differences between the Australian and British housing markets and within these countries in the form that the centrality of the traditional family structure takes; here the emphasis will be on the similarities. First, owner-occcupation. In Australia this form of tenure currently exceeds that of any Western capitalist society. Approximately 70 per cent of all households live in this sector. Large sums of money are invested in the property market and profits are recouped by a range of financial institutions, construction companies and intermediaries in the property market. As a result the public housing sector has never represented a viable housing alternative and in many states is no more than a residual sector providing welfare housing. In Britain, as in Australia, a large part of public expenditure in housing has gone into subsidising households in owner-occupation but, although over half of all households in Britain are owners or mortgagors, the public sector still accounts for approximately 30 per cent of the housing stock. The discourse on owner-occupation is a curious one. Becoming an owner-occupier is perceived as conferring all sorts of benefits on the individual. Further the individual home owner is seen as having achieved a tangible goal: Is owner occupancy a good thing? To those who achieve it, it brings secure private space, both indoor and outdoor, and a physical environment which can be changed to suit the owner's needs and tastes and which can facilitate childrearing and home-based activities. Home ownership is generally a sound investment and provides a means for families to accumulate real wealth. (Ministry of Housing Victoria, 1980: 15) Yet, there is no reason why privately rented dwellings cannot provide inside and outdoor private space or a place for homebased activities, or that public tenants do not have secure private space. Indeed the same dwelling can change tenure during the duration of its life. Thus a house which has been lived in by an 26

Women and housing

individual outright owner may subsequently be rented. The dwelling has not changed, but the attributes associated with the accommodation have. The owner knew she could stay in the dwelling as long as she wanted, could paint or renovate the house, keep a dog, add on a bathroom, etc. The tenant on the other hand may only have a tenancy for one year, is not allowed to make changes to the dwelling, and the tenancy agreements forbids pets. Because private rented accommodation in Australia usually conforms to this stereotype, it is predominantly conceived as a short-term option which provides little opportunity for selfexpression. Differences lie in the dominant ideology and in the structure of provisions associated with a particular tenure. The 'fact' that there is minimal statutory intervention or regulation to protect tenants' rights in Australia is not a predetermined given. Private rented accommodation could well be a secure long-term option, if the rules governing its provision were different. In West Berlin, private rented accommodation is indeed the major long-term form of housing for the inhabitants, who consider this form of accommodation entirely satisfactory. Thus the features of a specific tenure in a country are not inherent. They have evolved as a result of various social, political and economic circumstances at specific points in time. The 'fact' that home ownership is the most favoured form of tenure in Australia derives from the negative attributes associated with the two other major forms of tenure. The relation between these tenure forms could be changed if there was a political will to improve the quality of public housing. This might involve curtailing the current privileged treatment of home ownership and would represent a shift towards tenure neutrality. Home ownership as the ideal form of housing for the patriarchal nuclear family has been a pervasive notion for many years in England and Australia. The conservatives' claim that home ownership 'satisfies a deep and natural desire on the part of the householder to have independent control of the house that shelters him and his family' (my emphasis) (Department of Environment, UK, 1971) is by now well-known. Further, a particular form of the family is assumed and promoted within the literature on owner-occupation, with specific roles assigned to men and women acting to create and reproduce the sexual division of labour. Where possible it is a good idea for both husband and wife to 27

Accommodating inequality

talk with the agent and to view properties together, because each will see the house from a different viewpoint... A husband may look critically at the garage facilities, workshop and storage space, while his wife may look to the practicability of the kitchen and entertaining areas. (Commonwealth Banking Corporation, 1983: 3). Moreover, women's domestic role is idealised and enhanced. A woman's pride in caring for her own place and the possibility of self-expression in the interior furnishings and furniture are common images associated with owning your own home. Such images do not pertain to private or public rental sectors. Game and Pringle (1979: 9) quote the Patterson Report (1972) as an interesting illustration. If there is one thing almost all women hate, it's cleaning a rented house. Pleasure in doing housework is strongly lated to personal affections for her possessions. There is satisfaction in caring for one's own home. Most women are proud of their homes; it is a reflection of themselves and their own personality. Caring for it is caring for themselves and their family. Interviews with homeless women in London in part substantiated this view (Watson, 1986), many of the women commenting on the importance of having control over the domestic interior, and the effect that the lack of a home can have on women's selfesteem. In a society where the sexual division of labour marginalises women in the labour market, it is no surprise that women seek control and satisfaction in the one area of life to which they are relegated. Home ownership does not simply act to reproduce patriarchal family relations at an ideological level. The structure of provision of this form of tenure acts to systematically marginalise women, and to further reinforce the nuclear family household and women's economic dependence on a male partner. Financial and lending institutions, including State-run house purchase agencies, assess mortgage applicants on ability to repay. Not surprisingly such institutions are reluctant to lend to borrowers who may default, since this causes extra work and loss of profit, even though the actual money recouped on a mortgage foreclosure will replace the capital loaned. The sexual division of labour is crucial here: 28

Women and housing

women's labour market position acts to exclude them from access to finance. Currently women's wages are approximately two-thirds of men's in both Britain and Australia; many women work parttime and the majority of female workers are concentrated in service and manufacturing sectors where there is little chance of promotion or improved economic status. On an income level alone many women are therefore denied access to loans; where the loans are based on an escalating repayment system over time, as is the case in some Australian state-financed concessional loans schemes (for example the Premier Low Start Home Loan in NSW), on the assumption that the borrower's capacity to repay will improve over time, women are further excluded. In sectors where career possibilities exist, the majority of women are concentrated at the bottom of the hierarchy and do not tend to markedly improve their relative employment status over time. This is particularly the case for migrant and black women ^ose employment patterns are characterised by high levels of unemployment and low-paid, non-unionised and casual employment. In many parts of Britain and Australia, house prices are prohibitively high for the majority of single income households; twoincome earning couples may frequently be the only households to whom home ownership is a viable alternative. By locking women into dependence on men for access to a massively publicly subsidised commodity, a commodity which confers status and power in society as a whole, and by subsidising a form of housing which is based on the accumulation of profits, the State perpetuates, the patriarchal and capitalist structure of western society. It is not simply for economic reasons that women are excluded from home ownership. Loans are administered through a set of intermediaries at banks, building societies and financial institutions. Since the passing of Sex Discrimination Acts in both countries, the central offices of these institutions tend to be wary of pursuing policies that discriminate against women. However, a study of female applicants for loan finance in Australia (see next chapter) revealed that many forms of direct and indirect discrimination operate towards women applying for loans on their own. For example, women interviewed complained of the chauvinistic and patronising attitudes, even harassment, by the staff of financial institutions. Likewise women applying for loans with male partners reported that their income was not taken into 29

Accommodating inequality

account; assumptions were made about their future employment prospects, the likelihood of future pregnancy and childbearing in their lives, and their automatic withdrawal from the labour force during motherhood. Likewise the Equal Opportunities Commission in Britain (EOC, 1978) found discrimination towards women who applied as joint applicants for loans. Evidence of racial discrimination by lending institutions has also been documented in both countries (Smith 1977). I have argued that home ownership reinforces the traditional nuclear family structure at an ideological and economic level. In Australia, State policies and financial institution practices also structure home ownership as a family tenure. New South Wales eligibility criteria for loans prior to the changes in 1986 provide an interesting illustration. Those eligible for State loans for home purchase were: 1. Couples with or without dependent children under 18; 2. Sole parents with at least one dependent child under 18; or 3. Engaged couples whose marriage will take place prior to purchase of the home. It is indicative of the force of the pro-family and the promarriage ideology that until recently the only single individuals eligible for finance were those with dependent children, whereas couples, indeed engaged couples, without dependent children were automatically eligible. It would appear that heterosexuality is the cornerstone of such a housing policy. Single individuals, friends, related adults and homosexuals were consequently marginalised. Because women's incomes are lower than men's on average, lack of access to favourable interest rates as a single person is liable to cause women particular hardship. Policies which disqualify divorced households from financial assistance if they have received a home loan as a married couple, provide a further example of how home loan schemes act to consolidate nuclear family structures (see Chapter 3). Analysis of the 1981 Australian Census household data confirms this picture (see Table 3.1). As many as 75 per cent of maleheaded nuclear family households with dependent children owned or were purchasing their dwelling in 1981, compared with 46 per cent of female single parents with dependent children. Likewise, the numerical as opposed to percentage data on male and female single households shows that the actual number of single male 30

Women and housing

heads of household who were buying dwellings in 1981 was far greater than the number of female purchasers (see Chapter 3). Across the entire age range of heads of single parent families, the figures suggest that men with dependent children have greater ease of access to home ownership than women, as would be expected from the arguments raised earlier. With rising house prices, continuing discrepancies between men's and women's incomes and increased marital breakdown, such gaps are likely to widen. If the number of rooms and dwelling density are taken as measures of housing standards, traditional nuclear families once again appear to be more favourably housed: a higher proportion of traditional nuclear families who are owners/purchasers live in separate dwellings than do single women with dependent children. A similar picture emerges on a comparison of house size: 25 per cent of nuclear family households live in a dwelling with five or fewer rooms, compared with 37 per cent of female single parent families (ABS 1981 Census household file). Given this process of marginalisation of many female-headed households from the major form of housing tenure, where do households headed by women live? The first point of interest is that more female-headed households than traditional nuclear families or male-headed households live in major urban areas. For example, 78 per cent of single women compared with 70 per cent of single men and 68 per cent of female single parent families and 63 per cent of nuclear families lived in major urban areas in 1981. This discrepancy can be explained by the lack of low-cost housing in rural areas, the lack of provision of childcare, transport and other necessary services in rural areas enabling women to participate in the labour force, and by the concentration of traditional female occupations in urban areas. The public sector Women constitute the vast majority of single parents; because of their lower economic status, the public sector is of particular significance to women. In the context of massive cuts in public expenditure on housing in Britain since the Thatcher government has been in power, homeless single parents make up an increasing proportion of the few households allocated council tenancies. 31

Accommodating inequality

Housing departments in both countries also face an increasing number of single parent applications as a result of both the growing number of marriages ending in divorce or separation, and also the growing number of young women having children on their own. Once in this sector, single-parent families confront an ongoing process of marginalisation in many forms. In Britain, single-parent families accepted as homeless under the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act are frequently given only one offer of accommodation, which is often in a poor state of repair, on a run-down estate or in a high-rise block. Public housing offered to single parents in both countries is often poorly located in terms of access to services and centres of employment. Frequently tenants lack control over their accommodation, lack privacy in the case of high density dwellings, face paternalistic management practices and are unable to transfer to alternative areas for employment with any ease. Because there is a concentration of single parents in the public sector, it is sometimes assumed that women have greater access to public housing than men. However, it is clear that it is women in their role as mothers who are granted accommodation; the welfare state is oriented towards providing accommodation for children, and hence to their guardians. Single women without dependents, like single men, have been largely excluded from public housing. The argument here however, is that this exclusion of single people has more ramifications for women, because of their lower economic status. In Britain during the 1970s there were some initiatives in the public sector to house single people. In part, these were a response to growing pressure on local authorities through squatting campaigns and voluntary housing organisations; partly they provided a way of utilising stock that was considered unsatisfactory for families. Thus property that was hard to let to families or that had fallen into disrepair was allocated to short life housing groups, reflecting the notion that single people did not deserve decent public housing, and should be content with such offers, and also that they should fend for themselves. Where innovative schemes were established, there remained a tendency to conceive of the projects as meeting * special needs' outside of the mainstream provision for families. The dominant ideology, despite demographic indicators to the contrary, was that single people were transitory, young and mobile. More recently, such schemes as 32

Women and housing

did exist have been severely curtailed. The only exception to this has been the quasi-autonomous housing associations and cooperatives which occupy a position outside of the mainstream public housing sector, and which sit better with a conservative self-help ideology than does the public housing sector. In Australia too, most states have traditionally not housed single people below pensioner age except in areas where accommodation has been provided for federal or state bureaucrats, or where it has been necessary to encourage labour force movement to the area (e.g. in South Australia). Dominant family ideology has been central to public housing policy both in terms of allocation and design. More recently in a response to community pressure and to the introduction of the Sex Discrimination legislation, some states have initiated housing programmes for single people, either in the form of standard tenancy allocations or quasi-autonomous housing organisations such as co-ownership or rental co-operatives. However, there likewise remains a tendency to conceive of such programmes as catering for 'special needs' outside of the central allocation process, as opposed to fully integrating single people's housing needs within the standard system of need assessment and allocation. Lack of policy to distribute housing resources representatively across household groups inevitably acts to reproduce and reinforce dominant social relations. In housing policy terms in Australia, as in Britain, the presence of dependent children in a household ensures priority treatment. The private rental sector Table 2.1 illustrates the heavy reliance of all non-nuclear family households, particularly single women under 40, on the private rental sector. The same is true in Britain. On the one hand this can be explained by the necessity for a substantial deposit, a relatively high income and reasonable employment prospects for access to home loan finance in the private market—and in the case of State assisted schemes, by the preference given to specific household forms. In the case of a public sector tenancy, on the other hand, the centrality of children to gaining access to such housing, and long waiting lists that often exclude single parent families at the time of their greatest housing need, mean that this 33

*

6 12 40 67 9 11 29 57 27

Female head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years +

Single parent family Male head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years + Total

6

15 35 56 28

17 44 39 13 28

32 57 42 -

32 58 46 21 39

29 59 32 6

10 10 42 65

Female head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years +

Head & spouse + dependants (nuclear family) Male head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years + Total

37 53 34 11

5 10 47 69

Purchaser

Head & Spouse Male head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years +

Owner

50 31 19 16 29

38 15 7 —

12 7 9 25 4 6 6 5 5

34 13 7 5 15

47 20 11 10

7 3 6 2

14 7 5 9 9

43 26 8 5

Private rental

5 3 4 4

Public tenant & other government authority

Table 2.1 Tenure by household type and sex and age of household head (%) 1981

19 5 2 11 9

5 3 1 —

5 2 4 5 4

1 3 7

5 3 4 5

Other

$

7 10 31 59 27 6 7 39 60 28

Single Head Male head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years + Total

Female head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years + Total 7 29 22 5 15

10 27 21 7 16

11 33 32 14 22

4 3 10 8 6

4 3 4 5 4

28 21 18 14 20

76 53 21 12 40

68 53 28 12 40

50 29 15 12 27

3 3 5 7 5

6 3 8 10 7

4 3 5 10 6

N.B. 1. Where figures do not add up to 100%, discrepancy is explained by no information obtained for respondent. 2. These figures are derived from the 1981 ABS Census 1% household file. 3. Aggregate figures as opposed to percentages reveal twice as many single male purchasers to female purchasers in the under 40 age groups.

25

3 11 29 57

Female head — under 25 years 25-39 years 40-59 years 60 years + Total

Accommodating inequality

sector is often not an option for many low-income single parents. The notion that the private rented sector can and should meet the needs of non-nuclear family households is a prevalent one. The assumption is that for many it represents a temporary stage on the route to home ownership, marriage and traditional family life. The statistics indicate otherwise. Many of the lowest income non-family households are trapped for years in insecure, lowstandard, but expensive, privately rented accommodation. Unlike the public sector where rents are relatively low, or the private sector where the mortgage repayments decrease over time, private tenants can be paying high proportions of their income in rent indefinitely. Chris Paris' (1984: 25) analysis of New South Wales private tenants revealed that the percentage of income paid in rent was greater for the poorer tenants. With a low vacancy rate in the major cities of Britain and Australia and an increasing demand for housing by a range of low-income households, in accordance with demographic trends indicating a growing number of nonnuclear family households, the situation is not likely to improve in the near future. A study of the private rental market in three Australian cities revealed that even within this sector, nuclear families are better housed than households headed by women (see chapter 5). For example, taking again the structure of dwellings as an indicator of the relative standard of the accommodation, female private tenants emerge as having a lower housing status, even where the household has no dependants. Further, estate agents and landlords expressed an overwhelming preference for nuclear family households or working couples without children, while being reluctant to grant tenancies to single parent families, groups or young people. Single women and housing I argued earlier that despite the fact that increasing numbers of households are single-person households, the majority of whom are women in the 45 years and over age group, there remains a tendency to conceive of single people's housing needs as special. If shared households are included in the statistics and all the concealed single households living with relatives, or friends, or living in accommodation tied to their employment through lack of available housing alternatives, our estimate of the potential

36

Women and housing

number of single households would be much higher. If low cost housing provision were made available, this hidden need would be expressed in demand. The suggestion that women's need for housing tends to become concealed is borne out by a study of homelessness in London (Austerberry et al, 1984: 42). The study estimated the proportion of female to male-headed concealed homeless households was 6:1. Such concealed hardship is a product of the overall lower economic status of women. Women who have devoted many years of marriage to their domestic role, who lack training or substantial employment experience and who have been dependent on a husband/cohabitee for the payment of their housing costs for 20 or so years, are particularly constrained in their access to housing as individuals in middle to old age. Single women who want to leave the parental home or married women whose dependants have left home, who want to separate or divorce and house themselves independently have few options. Inability to enter the labour market, or at best the possibility of low paid employment, militates against access. Women in such a position, with little low cost public housing available, have no alternative but to stay in a relationship unwillingly, repartner, stay with friends or relatives, take up low-paid service sector employment — such as catering — where accommodation is provided. The problem of the unemployment or under-employment of women suffers a similar fate. The fact that it is hidden or underrecorded means that little is done to address the problem. There is little political mileage for governments in doing so. Moreover, the dominant discourse on homelessness, focusing as it does on the family in the cramped caravan or the male vagrant on the park benches, serves to obscure women's housing needs even from themselves. Their disinclination to label themselves as homeless prevents them from making legitimate demands for the housing they need (Watson 1986: 106). The ideology of the 'special' nature of non-family housing need has several implications for the nature of housing provided. First, as mentioned above, in most states in Australia where single households can register with the public housing authority, they tend to be registered on separate lists and channelled into special schemes for the single such as shared housing schemes, cooperatives, boarding houses and hostels. Similar forms of special 37

Accommodating inequality

housing provision are deemed suitable for single people in Britain. Although such initiatives are clearly positive they embody specific social relations and certain notions about single people's housing needs which set them apart from the concept of general housing needs. It is clear from the preceding analysis that female households are marginalised in the Australian and British housing systems, and that that marginalisation derives from the centrality of the nuclear family to housing policy and provision. The sexual division of labour is crucial in that women's independent access to housing is restricted through their inferior economic status and their primary domestic role. The only route to home ownership for many women is through financial dependence on a man. The statistics on the home ownership rates of women in old age in Australia illustrate this well: only 69 per cent of never married women over 60 compared with 78 per cent of married pensioner women are home owners. Through these processes dominant patriarchal relations are both created and reproduced. Moreover, as in welfare policies, the state, through its housing policies which are oriented towards the patriarchal nuclear family and furthering home ownership as the majority tenure, acts to reinforce the patriarchal capitalist system. While women continue to take primary domestic responsibility within the home and occupy a weak position within the labour market they will inevitably occupy a weak position in the housing market also. Clearly what is needed are positive policies to redress the balance.

38

3 Whose great Australian dream? Home ownership and the exclusion of women 'It is the ambition of most Australians to own their own homes. Indeed it is a national characteristic. And one that has led to home ownership being more often achieved here than in most other parts of the world.' These are the opening words to a pamphlet produced by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation 'Getting Your Own Home in New South Wales'. In four short sentences, the dominant ideology of home ownership is encapsulated as the most desirable form of tenure and a feature of personal success, particularly as part of the Australian dream. Currently 69% of Australian households own or are purchasing their dwelling. How can the dominance of this tenure form be explained? How does home ownership act to produce and reproduce patriarchal relations? Who are these home owners? Are some sections of the population more likely to own or purchase their accommodation than others? And in particular are men more likely to be owners or purchasers than women? In order to answer questions such as these this chapter explores first, some of the reasons for the dominance of home ownership in Australia and the implications of home ownership for women. Second, it analyses the demographic, economic and social profile of home owning or purchasing households. Third, it examines the structure of mortgage finance and the institutional practices and policies of both public and private lending institutions and considers the extent to which these may act as constraints in women's access to home purchase. Fourth, it looks at the experiences of women who have had problems obtaining home loan finance. There are various levels of explanation for the dominance of home ownership in the Australian housing system. One level concerns the direct intervention of Federal governments. In the early part of this century, in the majority of western 39

Accommodating inequality

capitalist countries, the private rental sector represented the major source of housing provision. Gradually, however, there was a shift of investment from the construction and renting of dwellings to more profitable forms of investment, notably investment in new industrial sectors. However, as Kemeny (1983) argued in The Great Australian Nightmare there is nothing 'natural' about the transformation of the tenure system in Australia in the post-war period from a situation where approximately half of households were owner-occupiers in 1947 to the current situation where over two-thirds of households fall into this category. The increase was the result of direct interventionist Federal measures aimed at expanding the home ownership market. Subsidies which could have been directed at constructing a substantial low-cost public sector were directed instead at pushing more and more households into home purchase through the provision of loans at favourable interest rates to selected households — predominantly the low (but not too low) to middle-income nuclear family household. Inevitably, since to the private institutions concerned, housing represents a commodity and a means to accumulate profit, there is a limit to how far home ownership can be pushed down the income scale. There comes a point when a household's income excludes it from entry into this privileged highly subsidised form of accommodation. My contention is that women, whose participation in the wage-earning labour force and whose wages have been lower than men's throughout this century are liable to be excluded from this tenure—at the very least, on income and employment grounds. The promotion of home ownership as the most favoured tenure has not been universal across western capitalist countries. Mass home ownership is not the inevitable corollary of developed capitalism. Instead, in Scandinavian countries and to a lesser extent in Britain and some other European countries, the response to housing demand and crisis has been to expand State investment in housing through the provision of public (or social) rental housing. The second level of explanation for the dominance of home ownership in Australia lies in the attributes that are associated with this tenure form. Home ownership is perceived not only to denote a measure of personal success, it is also seen to provide privacy, security, control, flexibility, choice, mobility and freedom: 'The privacy and security of owner-occupation are major 40

Home ownership and the exclusion of women

attractions... an owner-occupant can frequently adapt or add to% his (my emphasis) house in ways which suit his purposes but which are very difficult if not impossible for a landlord and tenant to negotiate' (Neutze, 1977: 153). Two points need to be made however. First, the structure of a specific form of tenure and the social relations of its provision are not fixed but vary across time and space. Stamp duties on house purchase are required in Australia but not in England, for example. This clearly impedes ease of mobility between dwellings for low income households and alters the nature of home purchase, in terms of the supposed ease of mobility in this sector, between the two countries. There is also no inherent reason why public tenants should have less flexibility in redesigning their dwellings than do home owners. However, current statutory provisions in the public sector restrict tenants from say, knocking down walls in their dwellings, while home owners, subject to building regulations, have the option. Tenurial attributes such as these are clearly not static or immutable but change according to a whole range of economic, social and institutional constraints. The second point to be made about the perceived attributes of home ownership is that the meaning of a particular tenure varies between household members, and more specifically between the sexes. Within nuclear family home-owning households, men more often own the property, pay the mortgage, control the finance, etc. Similarly, changes in male employment precipitate residential moves more frequently than changes in women's employment within the household (Forrest and Murie, 1986). Further, in cases where private space within the privately owned dwelling is assigned to specific household members, it is more commonly allocated to men, with their workshops, garages, or studies, or to children with their rumpus rooms. Moreover, what security does a woman have who is experiencing domestic violence in her own home? Thus the attributes commonly associated with home ownership once 'unpacked' can often be shown to be male defined. An important issue for feminists is the relation between home ownership and the production and reproduction of the sexual division of labour. First, there is a pervasive ideology of home ownership as the ideal form of housing for the patriarchal nuclear family. Related to this is the importance of domestic work, again women's work, which is associated with caring for the home that 41

Accommodating inequality

is owned as opposed to rented. Second, the process of suburbanisation of home ownership has been central to the construction of the home-work dichotomy and the reinforcement of a gendered spatial inequality in access to labour markets, urban services and resources. Third, the structure of home ownership provision (where access to income and a secure labour market position is central to access to loan finance) acts to further reinforce the nuclear family household and women's economic dependence on a male partner. These are three crucial ways in which home ownership acts to produce and reproduce dominant patriarchal relations. A profile of home ownership If we analyse the nature of occupancy of households according to the structure of the household, and further disaggregate these statistics according to the sex of the head of the household, some interesting trends, which are likely to have continued and grown over time, are revealed (see Table 3.1). Male heads of households are much more likely to own or to be purchasing their dwelling than female heads of households. In couple-headed households the Census definition of household head can be arbitrary. This designation was self-selected in the last census. Nevertheless, the fact that more men than women in couples are categorised as home owners, particularly in the older age groups, would indicate higher sole outright ownership amongst this group. What is particularly interesting is the substantially greater number of male single parents and men on their own who are purchasers, in comparison to their female counterparts. Likewise more male single parents own their property outright. The only instance in which women do outnumber men as home owners is when they are single, a figure attributable to the high percentage of women alone in this tenure who are widowed and have become sole owners through the death of a partner. If owners are disaggregated by age we find that 54 per cent of single men under 40 are owners/purchasers compared with 49 per cent of single women. Moreover, if aggregate figures of male and female purchasers are compared the discrepancies are far greater: there were approximately 61 000 single men under 40 who were purchasers compared with 33 500 single women in 1981. 42

Home ownership and the exclusion of women Table 3.1 Nature of occupancy by family type 1981a (%) Head and Head and Head only spouse and dependents dependents Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Head and spouse

Owner Purchaser Public rented Private rented

48 28

37 31

23 52

17 50

23 38

16 30

27 17

43b 12

4

4

6

8

6

20

4

8

12

19

12

17

27

27

38

26

a

Note: These figures are derived from the 1 per cent household file of the 1981 Census. b Majority are pensioners.

The dominance of traditional male headed nuclear families in this tenure can be accounted for in two ways. First, we need to recognise that housing is a commodity which is expensive to buy. Acquisition of a property requires either a large deposit or the ability to prove good future employment prospects to a lending institution in order to obtain a home loan. The sexual division of labour is crucial in this context. In this society, women confront a sex-segmented labour market where traditionally female occupations are concentrated in low-paid often poorly unionised sectors, where there is little chance of promotion and sometimes minimal job security. Women from aboriginal or migrant communities tend to be concentrated in the lowest paid jobs with the poorest conditions. Thus female average weekly total earnings were $299.00 in May, 1987, which was 65 per cent of male average total weekly earnings. (ABS, 1987 (a)) On income grounds alone, therefore, single women would represent a greater risk than single men to lending institutions. Economic factors explain in part the predominance of nuclear family households in home ownership. As Table 3.2 illustrates, men in these households have higher incomes than men who head other households and significantly higher incomes than all female heads of households. Further, 44.1 per cent of married women are employed (ABS, 1984) with obvious implications for the size of aggregated family income where both spouses are in the labour force and are seeking to purchase a dwelling. The second level of explanation for the dominance of maleheaded nuclear families in home ownership lies in the structure of 43

Accommodating inequality Table 3.2 Individual incomes of heads of households by family type, 1981 (%)

Head and Head and Head only spouse and dependents dependents Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Head and spouse

Under $1 000 $1 0006000 $ 600010000 $1000015000 $1500022000 $22 00026000 $26000 +

2

17

1

27

2

8

3

3

30

33

6

21

18

48

27

57

14

15

16

16

12

22

16

15

29

18

36

11

29

15

29

16

16

10

26

5

20

4

15

6

3 4

1 -

6 7

1 1

5 7

1 1

3 3

1 1

Note: These figures are derived from the 1 per cent household file of the 1981 Census.

mortgage finance, in the eligibility criteria for State-subsidised concessional interest rates and in institutional policies and practices. Financial institutions The major share of housing finance in Australia is provided by the savings banks, of which the Commonwealth Savings Bank is the largest lender. The other major sources of finance are the permanent building societies, the terminating building societies, finance companies, Defence Service Homes and credit unions. First priority for savings bank housing finance is reserved for established customers, that is, customers who have held an account for at least 12 months prior to the time of application. Whilst banks usually require more than the 10 per cent deposit needed for building society loans, the rates of interest payable are lower. The size of loan granted will depend on the applicant's banking history, ability to repay, and the availability of funds at the time. As a rule 25 to 30 per cent of income is considered a viable level for mortgage repayments, and ability to repay is 44

Home ownership and the exclusion of women

assessed accordingly. On financial criteria women are at a disadvantage in gaining access to bank finance. The Australian Financial System inquiry revealed that women are less likely to have cheque accounts than men (44 per cent of women over 25 years compared with 35 per cent of men over 25 have no cheque account) (Australian Financial System Inquiry 1982, Tables 66 and 82). They are also less likely to have fixed term deposits than men (85 per cent of women and 81 per cent of men have no fixed term deposit), (ibid. Tables 68 and 84). Second, women's ability to repay is liable to be more constrained than men's due to their generally lower income (particularly female single parents on supporting parents benefit) and employment status. Not surprisingly, therefore, statistics collected by the Commonwealth Bank head office show a smaller number of female than male applicants. For example, in the March to June quarter 1984 there were 137 single female applicants compared with 195 single male applicants in the Sydney metropolitan area, and in rural New South Wales for the same quarter there were 20 single women compared to 69 single men applying for loans. The other major issue of relevance to women is the treatment they receive as joint applicants with a male partner. Do banks consider the full amount of a woman's income when she applies jointly with a male partner; do banks treat her income as secondary even if it is the higher income of the two; and do banks make sexist assumptions about the inevitability of motherhood for a woman and her consequent withdrawal from the labour force? Some of these questions will be considered from the applicants' standpoint in the final section of this chapter. The Commonwealth Bank's written policy is: 'Where the applicant's spouse is also employed the second income may be taken into account, provided that he/she is able to continue working for, say, up to five years' (Commonwealth Banking Corporation 1983, p. 17). The problem lies in the discretionary nature of the decision-making process, and the fact that the initial decision lies with a local branch manager who may hold a whole range of patriarchal assumptions and prejudices. Even where the central office maintains non-discriminatory policies, with no explicit equal opportunity or anti-discrimination training for branch staff, discrimination may be difficult to monitor or eradicate. The following quote from an interview with a bank manager (male) gives some indication of this discretionary process: 'If a young 45

Accommodating inequality

newly married couple are relying heavily on both incomes, we'd have to look very closely at the situation. We'd want to be reasonably satisfied the woman wasn't going to get pregnant tomorrow. We don't ask them—it's more a question of the interviewer getting a feel for what they're like. You can tell if a woman's really career minded.' Permanent building societies have a reputation for being less traditional than the savings banks and less discriminatory toward non-nuclear family households, particularly single women. However, because building societies raise their funds from the general public in the form of share capital or investment, in order to attract those funds they offer high rates of deposit interest and thus tend to lend funds at a higher rate of interest. A higher income is therefore usually necessary to service a building society loan than the income required to service a bank loan, with once again specific implications for women. On the issue of joint applicants, building society practice varies widely. However, the majority of building societies calculate the loan amount of joint applicants on the basis of taking 50 per cent of the lower income—usually the female partner's — added to 100 per cent of the 'major' income (to quote a manager from St. George). As far as the patriarchal assumption of women as primarily domestic labourers and mothers is concerned, the variation in attitude is great. One building society manager interviewed said: 'It's over to them, it's their responsibility. .. It's up to them to determine the level of repayments. If a change in circumstance occurs .. . we're not going to pay for the pill for the next 20 years!' Another society asked women for a statutory declaration that they would not have any children within a specific time period! Terminating building societies receive their funds from the government, insurance companies or banks, and are controlled by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. These societies provide home loans to buyers in the lower income groups. Their rates are among the lowest available but funds are limited. When the loans in a society are fully paid that society winds up. It is difficult to obtain statistics disaggregated by sex of applicants to these societies, although they are clearly more suitable for women, whose incomes are generally lower. One statutory officer employed in the area, however, argued that unemployed or marginally employed female single parents are excluded from the social or 46

Home ownership and the exclusion of women

employment networks from which many of these societies have sprung. Finance companies are the most expensive form of housing finance, due to a combination of higher interest rates and shorter repayment terms. Consequently, they are beyond the reach of most women. Similarly, Defence Service Home Loans — the cheapest form of housing finance—being only available to exservicemen or women inevitably have a higher take-up rate by men. The structure of traditional lending arrangements also acts as an important form of constraint in women's access to housing finance. Nippard and Zika's (1985) paper presented to the first National Women and Housing Conference in Adelaide explored these constraints in some detail, the main arguments of which will be summarised here. First, the authors argue that: traditional lending arrangements involve high real levels of repayment in the early years of a loan. This artificially raises the income level necessary to service a loan. In a situation where women in employment continue to earn considerably less than men, this constitutes a serious barrier. Second, they argue that the practice of using current income as a guide to ability to repay a home loan within 20 to 30 years, which derives from conservative attitudes to risk and an excess of demand over supply of finance, is not rational: 'For many people, particularly single mothers, current income is an inadequate guide to future income and ability to repay a home loan, because their low income state is often "temporary" relative to a 30 year home loan'. Using data from the Department of Social Security they show that the average duration of benefits payments to supporting parents and class 'A' widows in 1979-80 was approximately 3 years. This argument has been influential in shifting the Victorian Ministry of Housing policies on low-income home purchase. In response to such an analysis the Ministry has moved from the traditional credit foncier loans, where repayments are constant for the term of the loan, to capital-indexed loans. This scheme is discussed in detail in chapter 6, where I argue that this structure of mortgage lending arrangements is particularly useful for women who gain an equity share on marital breakdown. 47

Accommodating inequality Statutory home purchase schemes There is considerable variation between states in the policies they pursue to encourage or 'help' households into home ownership. I have thus selected particular statutory policies to illustrate issues of relevance to my argument, some of which are specific to one state and some of which are general. The information was collected in 1985. First, eligibility criteria for concessional rates for home loans in most states favour couples over single people. In New South Wales, for example, qualification for State-subsidised concessional rates for housing loans available from the Cooperative Housing Societies from March 1984 to March 1986 entailed being: 1. A couple with or without dependent children under 18; 2. A sole parent with at least one dependent child under 18; or 3. An engaged couple whose marriage will take place prior to final purchase of the home. It is interesting that pro-marriage/pro-family ideology, despite feminist challenge for over a decade, has remained so dominant as to warrant—until very recently—preferential treatment for these households in a state's policy for home loans. Further, the fact that the mere existence of a sexual (assumed to be heterosexual) relationship favours an individual who is part of a couple over a 'single' person who does not form part of a couple not only reinforces the marginalisation of non-traditional household forms, but is also discriminatory. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Commissioner for Housing Loans likewise gives preferential treatment to households with dependants. Single people seeking a loan are placed on a 'B' list for a year before being transferred to the 'A' list, where households with dependants are immediately registered. This is the list from which households are selected for interview and subsequent financial assistance. Such an orientation towards households with dependants ostensibly affects single men and single women in an equivalent fashion. However, on account of women's lower economic status I would argue that overall single men have greater access to alternative finance than women, whose low wages may necessitate obtaining a home loan at concessional interest rates. Women without dependants entering 48

Home ownership and the exclusion of women

the labour and housing markets in their 40s and 50s after marital* breakdown with little training and a chequered employment history, are liable to be particularly disadvantaged. Another form of loan arrangement that acts to exclude many newly formed single households, with and without dependants, are schemes by which individuals are ineligible for more than one statutory loan. The Federal First Home Owners Scheme and the Northern Territory policy on home loans are cases in point. In the latter example, where a couple have been granted a concessional loan and the relationship breaks down, neither of the two new households formed is eligible for statutory finance. The fact that new economic units have been formed is irrelevant. In the Northern Territory, where divorce and separation rates are high, where house prices are rocketing due to an acute housing shortage and the private rental sector is unable to meet the growing demand for accommodation, even individuals with large amounts of equity have little alternative but to live in caravans due to inability to repurchase a dwelling. Again, this has particular implications for women who, where children are involved, are granted custody in the vast majority of cases. As single parents their access to the labour market is extremely restricted (only 42 per cent of female single parents are in the labour force [ABS, 1987] (b)) and even where women are employed they are liable to be earning less than male counterparts who have remained in the labour market throughout the marriage. Thus, concessional rates or initial lump sum payments to enable entry into the property market, as are provided under the First Home Owners Scheme, are particularly crucial to women. The mechanism for excluding single people from access to a concessional loan within the First Home Owners Scheme is a hidden one. The upper income limit for access to the grant is set so low for single households ($11 500 p.a. in 1987 for the full grant) as to make the inclusion of single households within the scheme almost absurd. The likelihood of a single person on such a low income being able to take on and sustain ongoing mortgage repayments under traditional lending arrangements, particularly in a climate of fast-rising house prices such as in Sydney, is small. Only single households with a large equity share could be realistically assisted.

49

Accommodating inequality Sex discrimination Issues such as the exclusion of single people from concessionary loans schemes and the assumptions concerning a woman's ability to repay a loan should she have a child would appear to be discriminatory practices. This leads us to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and its relevance to the question of access to finance for home purchase. The pertinent section of the Act is Object 3(b): to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against persons on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. Marital status is defined as being 'single; married; married but living separately and apart from one's spouse; divorced; widowed; or the de facto spouse of another person'. Under the legislation, 'services' include banking, insurance, loans, finance and credit. Thus financial institutions which treat married or cohabiting applicants more favourably than single applicants, for example by offering special borrowing rates, are contravening the Act (Human Rights Commission, 1984). Likewise lending institutions which ask married or cohabiting women who are childless and employed what their future childbearing intentions are and which use future childbearing intentions as a basis for refusal, are also acting in a discriminatory fashion. Such discrimination may, however, be difficult to prove. Women's traditional exclusion from the public sphere, a lack of knowledge of their own rights, their lack of confidence generally, in conjunction with the problem of proof and the resistance they are likely to encounter when a protest is lodged, all militate against women lodging complaints to the relevant authority. Taking a case under the Sex Discrimination Act requires time and commitment, and as yet no cases have been fought by women who have been refused access to finance for home purchase. However, the Federal Act has only been in existence for two years: it will be interesting to see how many such cases are successful in future years. I was interested in investigating the nature of processes and practices that women themselves experienced as discriminatory 50

Home ownership and the exclusion of women

and in exploring the possibility that women were being excluded from home ownership by the patriarchal assumptions and prejudices of loan 'gatekeepers' — the management and staff of financial institutions. An advertisement was therefore placed in a local newspaper as follows: Researcher at the Urban Research Unit, Australian National University, wants to talk to women who have had problems in obtaining housing loans. This includes single women, divorced or separated women, women in couples whose income or employment position has not been fully acknowledged and women in shared households. The information is needed for a project on women's housing problems . . . . Despite the fact that the telephone number published in the newspaper was initially incorrect, and the onus was on the women to make contact, the response was considerable, substantiating my original assumption that women were liable to have problems obtaining finance. Many of the women responded with vehemence and anger, pleased to have the opportunity to discuss their experiences. One written response was as follows: Nobody ever answers on this number. If you want to hear my story (married, main breadwinner, childfree, banks were downright abusive to me and spouse, got loan from Housing Commission and Mum in 1981, moral: women have no right to housing except through a man or wealthy family) you can ring me. Approximately 20 women were interviewed, two-thirds of whom were on their own, either separated or divorced, with dependent children, and the rest of whom were married or single. Unfortunately no women from ethnic or Aboriginal backgrounds replied to the advertisement, and resources were not available to seek out these women. Such a response also reflects the predominantly white society of Canberra. Research in the area (e.g. Smith 1977) suggests that had non-white women replied to the advertisement we might have seen how racial and sexual discrimination intersect. Each case differed significantly from the next, although some common themes emerged. Although specific banks and a particular Housing Commission were referred to by the interviewees

51

Accommodating inequality

in this study, I do not consider these institutions to be atypical. Discrimination towards women may not always be intended, but it appears nevertheless to be endemic to many institutions and bureaucracies in this society. Although the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is a welcome instrument in combating these prejudices, until fundamental patriarchal structures — the sexual division of labour and women's assumed domestic role—no longer have the impact that they do today, such discrimination is likely to continue. Access to finance — some women9s experiences The majority of women interviewed were in their middle to late 30s, three were in their 40s, and one was 25. With the exception of three single parents who were in receipt of supporting parents benefit, all the women were employed. The majority of these women worked in the traditionally female clerical or secretarial sectors; three of the women were in professional employment. A range of apparently discriminatory processes and practices was revealed in the interviews. One of the most common complaints was that women felt they had been subjected to patronising, chauvinistic, and paternalistic comments and attitudes at various points during the application process: Clare sought refinancing of a loan over a longer time period than initially agreed due to pressing financial difficulties. Beforehand she had prepared a detailed dossier of her expenses, her assets, her salary, etc.: I wanted to come across as a financially competent person — which I am! But in response the Bank Manager was incredibly patronising: He kept saying things like 'Well look Clare . . . You just don't understand the problems banks have'. He had no idea of how to deal with me as a client... It was as if he was dealing with his daughter and teaching her about finance or something. Not surprisingly, women spoke with fury about their encounters: Mary was called over-emotional when she expressed anger at the treatment she had received at the bank! It was the first time in my life I'd ever experienced it — it made me so wild! . . . I wanted to kill him — I wanted to

52

Home ownership and the exclusion of women

jump on his desk and punch him because of the attitude he took to me. I knew damn well if there'd been a male there he never would have treated me like that . . . He was terribly cocky . . . He never would have had that smug look on his face if there'd been a guy there . . . . A common statement made by many of the women interviewed was that they considered that a male applicant in a similar situation would have been treated differently. This disparity in treatment appears to operate on various levels. For instance, some women who had been refused loans reported knowing men with equivalent incomes and employment prospects who had received more favourable treatment. A single female psychologist of 31 on an income of $400 a week reported difficulty in obtaining finance from both a bank and a building society. She felt that: Had I presented as a male I would have got a loan, with no trouble .. . because I presented such a really good case in terms of credit. And I knew men at the time who were getting similar kinds of loans, and who weren't in nearly such a good position as I was to repay them. Married/de facto women applying as joint applicants who were the primary breadwinners of the couple reported an inability on the part of the staff of financial institutions to accept a marital relationship which did not conform to the norm of the man as primary wage earner and the woman as the financially dependent wife, for whom having children was inevitable. As Fiona explained: I'd be telling him about my income and employment prospects and he'd interrupt me and ask my bloke what he did. His attitude felt like he thought.there was something wrong with a man who let his wife run the show. We were both pretty disgusted. They asked me if I was going to have kids and I said that I didn't think it had anything to do with it. He said that it would affect my ability to repay, but I replied that I'd only do it when it was financially possible. They didn't credit you with any sense. I was infuriated by the whole experience. I felt really violated by it and took all my money out of the bank. Such assumptions of traditional familial structures were further 53

Accommodating inequality

reinforced by Fiona's estate agents who likewise had assumptions about how society operated: 'showing me the rooms and saying "here's a nice room for the kiddies". I'm not even sure I want children'. According to two women who took the more active role during the application process, the institutions approached addressed questions and written correspondence either solely or primarily to the men involved. Another complaint by women as joint applicants was the refusal of institutions to take the woman's full income into account, again reflecting assumptions of men as primary breadwinners and women as potential mothers and housewives: Kate — an economist — applied for a loan; her salary of $26 000 p.a. was $700 p.a. more than her husband (a computer programmer) earned. The loan sought was $36 000, the $32 000 deposit for the house being provided by Kate from the sale of a previous house of which she had sole tenure. At the bank both Kate and her husband filled out the forms, but Kate was told that her income would not be considered in the application: He didn't give a reason, he just said that the bank didn't consider married women's incomes. I argued with him furiously. I said I was a professional woman, and I intended to keep on working . . . He didn't ask whether I wanted to have children . . . It was just that I was a married woman. Several issues were raised by women who applied for loans on their own. One woman had applied for a loan to a bank with whom she had saved for over 10 years with a former husband. She was refused a loan on the grounds that she had no record as a saver: 'They seemed to feel that our years of saving with the bank was his record rather than mine.' Single mothers on low incomes or supporting parents' benefits describe being treated like 'bludgers' when attempting to obtain a concessional loan. Further, women applying on their own for loans may even be asked to provide male guarantors — a practice which reinforces women's structural dependence on men as husbands, fathers and friends. Finally, women's traditional exclusion from the world of finance has implications for their knowledge of the financial system and for the treatment they receive from it. The lack of explanation of procedures, financial advice and written policy on the part of both statutory and financial organisations confused many of the 54

Home ownership and the exclusion of women

women. Their powerlessness in the situation, their gender and; often, their previous inexperience in dealing with financial matters militated against their making complaints or finding it easy to stand up to hostile and dismissive officials. Some of the women commented that policies appeared to be entirely discretionary, providing an easy avenue for discrimination and prejudice. As one woman who was refused a loan on the grounds of not fulfilling the formal housing loan criteria explained: I know lots of other people who haven't fulfilled those criteria and have still got loans . . . Rules are just a cover — a convenient excuse when they want to say no ... they can give a loan if they want, which is fair enough I suppose, except that if you're a woman you're normally on the wrong end of it. The Home Loans managers of the head offices of banks and building societies who were interviewed claimed to be aware of the issue and were adamant that discrimination did not exist in their institutions. Training for Branch Managers however, rarely covers sex discrimination issues, and little is done to counteract prejudicial and conservative attitudes at the local level. It is likely that racial discrimination, which is also illegal, operates at this level also. Conclusion A complex set of structural interrelationships determines the nature of households in a specific tenure. In this paper I have analysed some of the mechanisms by which home ownership has become the dominant tenure in Australia and have briefly explored its impact on creating and recreating sexual divisions within society. I argued that various government policies and financial institutions' practices have acted to exclude certain households from access to home ownership. Even if these policies and practices were challenged and changed so that all households were treated equally, that would not be enough. For as long as the sexual division of labour is a central feature of this society, some female headed households will inevitably be excluded from what is the most promoted, subsidised and dominant form of housing in Australia.

55

4 On the margins Women in the private rental sector

Housing policy in Australia, as in many other Western countries, has largely failed to address the changing social and demographic nature of society. With the exception of innovative policies in some states, for example, the non-discriminatory eligibility criteria in South Australia and the recently established singles policy in New South Wales, the majority of housing policies and forms of provision in Australia assume and privilege a traditional nuclear family household. This is despite the fact that only 29 per cent of all households in 1981 consisted of a head and spouse with dependent children. The decline in numerical significance of the nuclear family can be accounted for in several ways. First, the number of marriages ending in divorce or separation has risen without an equivalent increase in remarriage rates. In 1971 separated and divorced persons made up 2 per cent of the total population, and by 1981 this number had more than doubled to 5 per cent. Single-parent families have increased from 182 500 families in 1974 to 306 400 families in 1982 (ABS, 1982), constituting 5 per cent of all households with an overwhelming majority (86 per cent) headed by women. In a society where women still take the major responsibility for domestic labour and childcare this high proportion of female single parents is no surprise. At the same time, the proportion of divorced or separated men (ABS, 1982) living alone has increased. Second, with growing longevity the number of people over 60 has risen substantially in the post-war period. Many of these people are widowed and single, with a female-tomale ratio in this category of 5:1 in 1981. Third, recent trends suggest that with a liberalisation of social attitudes there is a growing tendency for young people to leave home and establish households on their own, with others or as de facto couples. In 56

Women in the private rental sector

most western societies marriage is occurring at a later average age. The overall picture then is one of a society where a range of different household formations is the norm, many of which are headed by women. In 1981, 23 per cent of households consisted of single people living alone and a further 22 per cent consisted of couples living together with no children. Thus, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people form part of a traditional nuclear family household at some stage of their lives, it is also the case that a large proportion of people will spend as many years outside this household formation as they do within it. Clearly then what is needed within the housing system is a high level of flexibility to acommodate the changing housing needs of households throughout the life-cycle. It makes as little sense for an older woman to continue living in a four bedroom house that she cannot afford to heat, with a large garden that she cannot maintain, as it does for a single-parent family with 2 children to be living in a 2 bedroom flat with no garden because no affordable alternative exists. So how are the housing needs of non-traditional family households met in Australia? There is obviously no one simple answer. However some general observations can be made which provide the necessary context for this chapter. As discussed earlier, home ownership constitutes the majority form of tenure in Australia: 69 per cent of households lived in this sector in 1981. Private and public rental housing account for the other 31 per cent, 26 per cent of households living in the private sector and 5 per cent in the public sector (ABS, 1981b). Access to home ownership is determined by income and employment status, and thus excludes many oneincome households with low or no incomes, households with no savings, or older households with poor, employment prospects. As I have argued, households headed by women predominate in this group, because of their lower economic status and primary responsibility for childcare. Access to the public sector is determined by allocation procedures at state level, where priority is given to low-income households with dependent children. Single households are either entirely excluded or barely catered for. Single-parent families on the other hand are in a position to gain a tenancy in this sector, but the level of priority accorded to them determines the length of time between their application and the granting of a tenancy. If they are a low priority case, this waiting 57

Accommodating inequality

period may be some years. As the waiting lists for public housing grow in each state—154 419 households were on the waiting lists of the state housing authorities at 30 June 1986 (Department of Housing and Construction, 1987: 4) — fewer and fewer households who cannot prove priority need, gain access to accommodation. Because access to both the owner-occupied and public rental sectors is restricted for many people, the private rental sector plays a crucial role in providing accommodation for a range of households (see Table 2.1). Such households include those where there are no children, or where the income of the household is low, or where groups of people have chosen to live together as a household, or where a newly forming household (for example, a recently separated/divorced individual with or without dependants) is in need of housing. Because the private rental sector offers some degree of flexibility in terms of relative ease of access it represents the most significant form of housing for the nonnuclear family household, many of whom comprise women. The serious problem which is emerging, however* is that the growing number of non-family households in need of housing has coincided with an ever-decreasing and hence increasingly expensive and inaccessible, private rental sector. Characteristics of the private rental sector A diverse range of individuals and institutions are involved in the provision of private rental dwellings. Paris (1984: 15-18), using an institutional form of analysis, suggests the following classification of residential landlords: temporary landlords, individual investors, corporate investors, owner-managers, employer landlords, other institutional landlords and informal landlords. Temporary landlords are people who, for personal and temporary reasons, choose to let their property rather than sell it or leaving it empty. Individual investors are differentiated by Paris between investors with a strictly commercial motivation, and those who hold property as a 'safe bet'. Corporate investors have been central in the construction of new purpose-built rental accommodation, while owner-managers operate within the older existing housing stock. Employer landlords provide accommodation for employees, often as an incentive to move to an area. In the 'other 58

Women in the private rental sector

institutional landlords' category, Paris (1984: 17) includes church and charitable organisations who own residential property, while informal landlords comprise a diverse group of owners who sublet a room, share their dwelling with others to reduce mortgage repayments, etc. It would be interesting to analyse the distribution of femaleheaded households between the various categories of private rental accommodation, however these statistics are not available. Given women's generally lower incomes we could hypothesise a concentration of female-headed households at the cheaper and less profit-oriented end of the market, for example, in dwellings rented by temporary and informal landlords. Accommodation is provided with employment in various traditionally female occupations— domestic service, nursing, hotel work, etc. Although some households become private tenants through choice because it suits their need for a limited financial commitment to housing or ease of mobility, for others the private rental sector represents a lack of alternative options. The current structure of private rental provision in Australia is characterised on the negative side by a very low vacancy rate, high establishment costs and rental payments in capital cities particularly, insecurity of tenure and often, by low standards in the 'down-market' rental sector. On the positive side, rental provision is characterised by ease of mobility and, within limits, locational choice and the absence of repair and maintenance costs. Households renting temporarily, households with high incomes who can eventually buy, or households with a high level of mobility, are neither necessarily trapped nor disadvantaged within this form of housing provision. However, lower-income households who might 'choose' public housing on account of its associated low costs, generally better levels of maintenance,-greater security etc., but are excluded on the basis of eligibility criteria, the long waiting period and so on, are forced into renting privately through lack of alternatives. Such households include younger single people, single-parent families, divorced households and pensioners, many of whom are women. Moreover, poor tenants pay a much higher proportion of their income in rent than higher income tenants (Paris, 1984; 11). In 1984, 52 per cent of the households renting in the private rental sector had incomes below average weekly earnings, and 6670 of these low-income households were paying more than 20 per cent of their income in rent, with the propor59

Accommodating inequality

tion increasing to 85 per cent of single-parent families (Department of Housing and Construction, 1987: 5). Thus, the 'meaning' of private rental housing varies between households on a class, gender and age basis. A national profile of private rental tenants Analysis of the 1981 Census households sample file supports my hypothesis that the private rental sector, as the most accessible and flexible form of tenure, represents an important source of accommodation for non-nuclear family households. The 1986 1 per cent household file was unavailable, however given the direction of demographic and social change, these patterns and divisions are likely to have sharpened through the decade. In 1981, 26 per cent of female single parents and 32 per cent of individuals living alone lived in private rental accommodation, compared with 14 per cent of nuclear families. In marked contrast, 77 per cent of nuclear families owned or were purchasing their dwellings. If we investigate the social and economic characteristics of private rental tenants and the material characteristics of the dwellings they live in, yet further interesting differences emerge. In the private rental sector, male heads of couple households, both with and without dependants, are more likely to be in the labour force than both single men with and without dependants and female heads of households, who are the least likely to be employed in all age groups. The fact that more female tenants without dependants are not employed, particularly in the older age groups, lends support to the theory that women's primary domestic role marginalises them in the labour market, even when as individuals they no longer have responsibility for dependants. Female private tenants are thus significantly poorer than male private tenants, particularly female tenants under 60 years with dependants: in 1981, 35 per cent of female private tenants had a household income under $6000, compared with 3 per cent of couples with dependants and 11 per cent of male single parents (ABS, 1981b). If the structure of a dwelling is taken as an indicator of the relative standard of the accommodation, female private tenants once again emerge as having a lower housing status, even where the household has no dependants. For example, 44 per cent of 60

Women in the private rental sector

couples, compared with 32 per cent of single men, and 26 per cent of women alone live in a separate house. Single women on the other hand are more likely to be accommodated in some form of medium-density housing. Since gardens are less frequently associated with this form of housing, the evidence suggests that the most needy category of households (female single parents) are least likely to have a garden for their children to play in. There is also a locational disparity: a much higher proportion of women tenants live in major urban areas (as defined in the Census) whereas more male private tenants are to be found in rural areas. This evidence reflects the patterns of female labour force participation, where women's employment is concentrated in the service, clerical and retail sectors which tend to be located in urban areas. Finally, if the total number of rooms in a dwelling is taken as another indicator of dwelling standard, female private tenants both with and without dependants emerge as being the relatively poorer group. One-fifth of couples, 18 per cent of single men and only 13 per cent of single women have six or more rooms in their privately rented dwellings. The private rental sectors of Canberra, Queanbeyan and Sydney The lack of adequate housing policy and provision in Australia for non-nuclear family households and female-headed households, in particular, led me to look more closely at the private rental sector, to consider the extent to which this sector is meeting the housing needs of these households. Given the overall dearth of information on trends in the private rental sector (Paris, 1983), a detailed study was undertaken in three areas, Canberra, Sydney and Queanbeyan, to monitor the constraints on access to private rental housing for different forms of household. Census data, a real estate agent survey, statistics on community tenancy and rent relief schemes, a review of tenancy law in New South Wales and the ACT, and interviews with relevant statutory and voluntary bodies and households seeking accommodation through welfare rights agencies, were all employed as a means of building up a picture of what exactly is going on. An area profile

Given the diversity of areas that comprise the city, Sydney as a 61

Accommodating inequality

whole cannot be compared with Canberra and Queanbeyan. However some parallels can be drawn between Sydney at a regional level and the other two cities. Census data (ABS, 1981a) reveal some similarities between Canberra and the western and south-western regions of Sydney. First, the proportion of public rental housing is comparatively high, 7 to 16 per cent of households in these Sydney regions and 12 per cent of households in Canberra being public tenants. Home ownership in these areas, as in Australia generally, is the most prevalent form of tenure (between 62 and 72 per cent in the Sydney regions and 66 per cent in Canberra), with a majority of low density housing. The private rental sector in these areas is relatively small, comprising approximately 15 per cent of all households, with a similarly high proportion (60 per cent) of low density housing. The relative significance of private rental accommodation varies across the city centre: 20-25 per cent of households are private tenants in the inner districts of Sydney, rising to approximately 40 per cent in central Sydney. Not surprisingly the majority of private-rental housing is medium to high density (60-65 per cent) in the inner city areas, while only half this proportion of home owners occupy high density housing. The picture for Queanbeyan is more consistent with the inner city area of Sydney: 35 per cent of households were living in the private rental sector in 1981, with an even higher proportion (72 per cent) of the rental accommodation being medium-high density. I referred earlier to the general relationship between household type and tenure. What then are the specifics of the Canberra, Sydney and Queanbeyan situations? In line with national trends, where there is a high level of home ownership and low density housing, the nuclear family household predominates. In each of the three regions there is also a slightly higher percentage (6-8 per cent) of single-parent families than the national average, which can be accounted for by the greater size of the public sector, a significant source of housing for these households. If we look more specifically at Sydney on an area basis further patterns are revealed. The absolute number of single parents increases towards the inner city district. In these areas where the extent of public housing is small (ranging from 1 to 5 per cent) and the level of private rental accommodation is high, the number of single-parent families is consistently great. For example there are approximately 11 000 single parents in North Sydney and 2500 62

Women in the private rental sector

units of public housing. This evidence suggests that the majority of these households rely on private rental accommodation. Given that the cost of this accommodation tends to be high and that many single parents are not in the labour force and on low incomes, we can assume that many of these households face financial hardship. The variation between areas according to the prevalence of single households is stark. Moreover this variation coincides with the differences in the regions in terms of the tenure and density of housing. Thus single households in the south-western Sydney region represent the smallest proportion of all households when compared to the other three areas. In particular, young single people are rare, indicating that the location, the predominance of traditional family housing stock, and the small amount of private rental accommodation militate against youth remaining in the area. Two-thirds of the single households over 45 years are women, many of whom are widowed home owners. In contrast, in the younger age group, in south-west Sydney, as in the other three areas, single men outnumber single women. This discrepancy can be explained in several ways: the earlier marriage age for women, restricted access to rental accommodation by women on account of their lower incomes, and family discouragement and stigma militating against women leaving home and living independently. As would be expected there is a much higher proportion of single households nearer the city centre; for example, they constitute approximately one-third of all households in inner western Sydney. Other notable differences between the areas are a relatively higher proportion of younger to older single households in Canberra and Queanbeyan, when compared with the regions in the Sydney conurbation, and a higher proportion of single households in Queanbeyan when compared to Canberra. These discrepancies can be explained in terms of the structure of the private rental markets in these cities. Access to private rental accommodation

Ease of access to the private rental sector is determined by a range of factors and constraints. These include the structure of the private rental market in a specific area, including the physical nature of the stock, vacancy rate, the type of landlord, the role of 63

Accommodating inequality

estate agents and tenancy law on the one hand, and the economic and social position of the applicant household on the other. These factors vary considerably at a spatial level. There is good reason to believe that this sector is not adequately meeting a range of housing needs. There was a low vacancy rate in the three cities at the time of study (April 1984): 0.4 per cent in Canberra, and 2 per cent in Sydney, compared to the recommended Real Estate Institute of Australia rate of 3-4 per cent. There was also a high rate of enquiries (20-100 enquiries per week for all estate agents surveyed) and a low turnover of new tenancies (0-14 per week). An objective of the real estate survey was thus to assess the nature of households gaining access to this form of accommodation. First, several characteristics of each city are of some relevance. Canberra's private rental sector is unique in that it is not primarily investors' property, as is the case in most other Australian cities. Instead a significant proportion of the available accommodation is released onto the private rental market by absent home owners whose employment has taken them elsewhere (temporary landlords). These landlords often leave their own furnishings in the property and are thus more particular about the tenants secured. It is not unusual for instructions to managing agents to specify 'no children, no pets, no groups' for fear of damage. Despite the view expressed by many of the estate agents interviewed that groups — usually implying more than one income—are reliable rent payers and tenants, the conception of this non-conforming form of household as irresponsible and unreliable remains a dominant one. Another characteristic of the Canberra rental market is the relatively low proportion of flats to houses; this forces market rents up, leaving the low-income household only a limited access to cheaper accommodation. In April 1984 'No houses priced at less than $110 per week were vacant' (REIA, 1984). The private rental sector in Canberra thus tends to be very 'up-market' with high rents predominating, although rent levels do vary by locality. Single-parent families are thus disadvantaged. Queanbeyan, Canberra's neighbouring country town in New South Wales, appears to play an important role in meeting some of Canberra's unmet housing need. Queanbeyan has a higher percentage of flats and units than Canberra, particularly in the private rental sector: the survey of real estate agents revealed that 64

Women in the private rental sector

flats/units made up 84-96 per cent of managing agents' stock. Rent levels are considerably lower than in Canberra, with 2 bedroom units starting at $52 and $75 for unfurnished accommodation, and an overall average price of $70, in 1984. For some years Queanbeyan has been reputed to command lower rentals than Canberra and has thus traditionally housed many of Canberra's working class and poorer households. More recently increasing numbers of single-parent families and of young people have moved to Queanbeyan, particularly those leaving the parental home. Queanbeyan's Department of Youth and Community Services estimated that between one-quarter and onethird of rent relief allocated to low-income tenants in the private rental sector was allocated to Canberra youth. There are also far more furnished dwellings in Queanbeyan (one half on average) than Canberra (one quarter on average), which are liable to attract low-income, transient, or non-nuclear family households, given the high costs entailed in furnishing accommodation. Overall the quality of furniture is poor in contrast to Canberra's furnished rentals, and furnished accommodation in Queanbeyan tends to cater for short-term tenants. One real estate agent interviewed said he preferred to manage unfurnished dwellings because 'people with their own furniture tend to be better tenants and to stay longer'. It is rather more difficult to evaluate the private rental sector in Sydney, as there is a substantial variation across areas. However, some generalisations can be made on the basis of 1981 regional Census and Real Estate Institute data (ABS, 1981a; REIA, 1984). Although Sydney has high rent levels in comparison with other state capitals in Australia, there is a relatively large stock of lower priced rental housing which accommodates low income households. In Sydney the proportion of furnished to unfurnished dwellings also differs across regions. The inner-city areas have a higher percentage of furnished dwellings, coinciding with a higher proportion of flats and units to houses. Not surprisingly the outer suburbs provide a greater source of unfurnished houses to rent. The real estate agent survey also revealed some discrepancies in relation to condition of rented premises. Responses indicated that in medium-high density areas, where there are more flats/units and furnished dwellings, the condition of rental accommodation varies widely. It was suggested, in contrast, -that the conditions of premises in low density areas tended to be good, with a pre65

Accommodating inequality

dominance of unfurnished dwellings. This was particularly the case in Canberra where many real estate agents will not accept a dwelling for management unless it is up to standard. The condition of privately rented dwellings is also related to the age of the structure: poorer quality accommodation predominates in areas with older stock, especially where the rental property represents long-term investment rather than a short-term let. This brief overview of the private rental sector in the three cities suggests wide disparities between areas. The dominant trend appears to be that a high proportion of flats, units and furnished dwellings implies a higher renting population of single households, single-parent families and groups, rather than the traditional nuclear family. Such accommodation also appears to coincide with a preponderance of low income and unemployed households. The outer western suburbs of Sydney are an exception to this in that there is a high proportion of unfurnished houses and of unemployed households. Lack of employment opportunities, childcare facilities, and high transport costs, coinciding with high rates of marital breakdown, explain in part a high incidence of unemployed single-parent families in this area. Given the low vacancy rate and often high rents in the private rental sector, which households are gaining access to this sector at the present time? As a general rule, access to accommodation is constrained by a number of factors apart from rental costs and availability of housing. Transport is a key issue here. Households who have no means of private transport may be unable to accept rental accommodation offered because the dwelling is too far away from employment centres and services. In Canberra for example, real estate agents are spread throughout the suburban shopping centres and public transport only operates to a limited degree outside of working hours. The majority of real estate agents do not advertise many of their properties, relying on a drop-in system to allocate accommodation. Applicants for housing who do not have a car are effectively disadvantaged. One group of three young women and a child who were interviewed were so desperate after a threemonth search for accommodation in Canberra that they had no option but to catch taxis to view prospective accommodation, a prohibitive expense on their minimal budgets. Another important issue concerns the attitudes and preferences of landlords and-estate agents. As mentioned earlier, there appears 66

Women in the private rental sector

to be an overwhelming landlord preference for nuclear family households or working couples without children, particularly in Canberra; and although, not surprisingly, no estate agents made any comment, it is likely that white people are favoured over ethnic or Aboriginal applicants. A stigma is attached to group households, particularly groups of younger people, which is not necessarily related to their ability to pay. The three women referred to above resorted to living in a boarding-house in order to stay together. Their combined weekly housing costs there exceeded $150—a sum greater than the average rent for a house in Canberra. In their case discrimination on the basis of household composition, and possibly sex, appeared to be operating. At the extreme end of the spectrum, very young people who are both homeless and unemployed have absolutely no chance of finding secure rental accommodation. Not surprisingly landlords do not favour this group. Frequently, the only option for such groups is to move from crowded refuge to crowded refuge in the few areas like Kings Cross where such provision exists. The fact that non-family households meet with discrimination in Canberra has important repercussions on the Queanbeyan private rental market. The data suggests that many such households, particularly young households, are displaced from one city to the other in search of accommodation. The majority of applicants seeking housing in the private rental sector in Queanbeyan are in the younger age group: 50-70 per cent are under 25, and 20-30 per cent are under 20, including a number who are too young to sign a lease. Within this group single people and single mothers predominate. One real estate agent stated that of approximately 50 single mothers seeking accommodation each week only five were likely to be successful. Another said that one in five of the tenants on his books was receiving rent relief, of whom a large proportion were single mothers. One quarter of his tenants were unemployed. Moreover, even in Queanbeyan, and in Sydney, agents and landlords favour 'mature' families and 'mature' single households, and references are usually required. Although turnover is slightly higher in Queanbeyan than in Canberra, with from 2 to 14 new tenancies available weekly in each real estate agency, the evidence suggested that the number of applicants was not declining, and that fewer households comprising youth, groups or single mothers were being accepted. 67

Accommodating inequality The dichotomy between Sydney's outer and inner regions is similar to the one that obtains between Canberra and Queanbeyan: nuclear families predominate amongst applicants in the outer areas and Canberra; non-nuclear family households predominate in the inner city and Queanbeyan. Overall, real estate agents in Sydney expressed less prejudice against groups than in the other two cities. Interestingly the three estate agents who were antipathetic to groups were in the outer western and south-western suburbs — areas which on most other counts resemble Canberra's rental sector. Overall there appeared to be a more relaxed attitude towards non-traditional households in Sydney. In the inner city there was a high proportion of single mothers seeking rental accommodation — 60 per cent of all applicants at one office — with again a high proportion of unsuccessful applicants. One significant problem mentioned in relation to low-income households was that more and more applicants applying and obtaining housing with rent relief are running into arrears. Stigma remains attached to households who are receiving this financial assistance and real estate agents are becoming increasingly reluctant to house them. Children Despite tenancy legislation to combat discrimination towards applicants with children, such discrimination remains prevalent in the private rental sector, particularly where there is only one parent. First, real estate agents' application forms almost always include a question concerning children. In Canberra this is a breach of the ACT Landlord and Tenants Ordinance 1949 section 38(4). Until recently the Real Estate Institute of the ACT, which supplies the majority of forms to the real estate agents, despite the legislation continued to include a question concerning children. Secondly, owners often instruct agents to favour applicants without children. In Canberra half of the real estate agents interviewed indicated some discrimination towards tenants with children: 'Some owners are reticent about taking tenants with children aged between 2 to 7 years.' 'Children wreck the place.' 'Working couples are the most popular—single parents the least.' 68

Women in the private rental sector

Landlords of flat/unit properties are particularly reluctant to let to tenants with children, the justification being that this form of accommodation is not suitable for children. There is clearly some truth to this argument. The problem, however, is that due to the higher cost of houses, and greater competition from higher income households for such accommodation, a flat may be the only affordable solution for a single mother. Such discrimination was evident in Sydney and in Queanbeyan. One agent said: 'Single women make the best tenants, the cleanest, so long as there are no kids. .. Some owners won't have kids, Lebanese, unemployed, or pets': indicating an intricate web of prejudice. The real estate agent survey revealed yet further forms of discrimination towards low-income and unemployed households. Some agents evaluated the various prospective tenants' ability to pay the rent by assessing rent as a percentage of income. If it exceeded 20-25 per cent the applicant would not be considered for the tenancy, despite the fact that lending institutions consider far greater proportions of mortgagors' incomes as repayments for a loan. Clearly with rising rents in the private rental sector, an individual receiving benefits or a pension is increasingly unable to find accommodation at an affordable price. Youth and Community Services statistics indicate that those on benefits pay an average of 55 per cent of income in rent. Since the majority of these lowincome households are women, it is clear that female-headed households suffer various forms of indirect discrimination in the private rental sector. Direct discrimination towards women on the basis of gender is difficult to prove. However, one couple interviewed provided an interesting example of apparent discrimination. The man and woman independently visited a specific estate agent within one hour. The man was given the address of an exclusive reasonably priced flat and the woman was offered nothing, despite the fact that both the man and woman had the same credentials and gave the same explanation about company transfer. The real estate agent appeared to take the man's credentials more seriously. Tenancy law Various aspects of tenancy law have implications for the nature of households housed in the private rental sector. The first important

69

Accommodating inequality

point is that many people and, as other studies have concluded, particularly women (Austerberry & Watson 1983), are unaware of their rights as tenants. This lack of knowledge can lead to unnecessary loss of accommodation, discrimination at the point of access or ongoing problems as a tenant. One such issue is discrimination towards households with children, particularly single mothers. Although legislation exists in most states (with Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland as notable exceptions) to prevent discrimination towards these households, escape clauses also exist whereby landlords can evade these provisions. A Minister's speech on New South Wales legislation offers an example: 'there will need to be a few exceptions such as conditions unsuitable for children, and in specific, exception for premises in close proximity to the landlord's principal residence' (Paciullo 1984). Even where legislation does not contain escape clauses, as in the ACT, evasion still occurs. The current short length of leases (indicating a tight rental market) in New South Wales is also relevant, particularly where low-income households are concerned, since rent can be raised when the lease expires. In the ACT, in contrast, rent can only be increased at 12-monthly intervals during one tenancy. Another important issue affecting low-income households' access to private rental accommodation is the charging of fees. Legislation in New South Wales, again unlike the ACT ordinances, in 1984 allowed a leasing or 'submission fee' (maximum $25) to be charged as well as stamp duty (35 cents per $100 of the rent payable over the term of the lease plus 50 cents per copy of the lease), and $10 for the lease to be registered where the premise had been under rental control (built before 1954 with no previous registered lease). The protection of bond money can also present a problem for tenants particularly in states where no Rental Bond Board exists to protect tenants' interests. The impression was gained from several interviews that increasing demands are placed on tenants to carry out repairs and maintenance on their accommodation. This has clear implications for households headed by women, who are liable to be poorer and lack training in manual skills such as carpentry and plumbing, which are of use in a domestic context. In Queanbeyan and some areas of Sydney for example, additional sheets of tenants responsibilities are attached to those outlined in the lease, shifting the onus of repairs from the landlord to the tenant. 70

Women in the private rental sector

Finally it is important to note that our survey revealed that in mixed sex households it was more common for men to sign the contract. This is important because all other persons living with the tenant are licencees with virtually no rights. For example, licences can be issued with a notice to quit and be evicted without the required 7-28 days notice to tenants. This is particularly significant when households split up. On marital breakdown where a husband is the sole tenant and leaves, the wife and children no longer have a legal right to remain. In such cases further difficulties often ensue from the wife's inability to pay the rent on little or no income. Some real estate agents are compassionate in such cases, allowing the woman to be in arrears while she finds employment or relocating her to cheaper accommodation, while others are not. As one said: 'We are not social workers'. Solutions It is clear that the private rental sector is beset with problems: demand exceeds supply; rents are high; conditions are often poor; security is minimal. Are there any solutions? Tenancy Law reform is .obviously one avenue. Tenants could be better protected and have greater security of tenure for example. Tenants' rights in Australia are notoriously minimal. Arguments mounted against improving the position of tenants imply that the protection of tenants acts as a disincentive to rental investment. An analysis of the relationship between protective legislation for tenants and the levels of investment in the private rental sector, or more simply the quantity of private rental accommodation, in England suggests no such direct causal relationship. Levels of investment in the sector are much more strongly related to the current level of return available on capital invested in competing sectors of the economy, be it shares, financial institutions, overseas investment or whatever. The same argument could be mounted in relation to negative gearing, although the impact of negative gearing — particularly on small landlords — may be somewhat more significant. Negative gearing is a mechanism introduced as an incentive to encourage investment in the private rental sector. It operates as a tax subsidy that enables landlords to offset costs incurred on rental 71

Accommodating inequality

property, for example loan repayments, against other forms of income. Its abolition in 1985 by the Treasurer of the Hawke government, Mr Keating, was blamed for the crisis in the private rental market in some cities, with the result that it was reintroduced, in 1987. No extensive research of the relationship between negative gearing and the size of the private rental sector has been done. Moreover, the same argument applies: if greater profits are to be made elsewhere, capital will follow. On a different tack, in New South Wales an innovative scheme was initiated in 1982-3 to provide a positive alternative to private rented housing: this was the Community Tenancy Scheme (CTS). CTS was developed with funds allocated to the states by the Commonwealth government under the Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme. Funding under the MRRS was allocated to states on a dollar-for-dollar basis to provide short-term housing assistance to both rent and mortgage payers who were experiencing genuine financial difficulty in meeting their rent and mortgage commitments. The NSW State Government and Housing Commission of the time were however hesitant to use the MRRS funds on rental assistance, in the recognition that the funds available were likely to be totally inadequate to meet existing demands (as the other states were soon to discover), and that rental subsidy schemes had a tendency to have an inflationary effect on private rents. The CTS was thus perceived as a mechanism for using the funds to their fullest potential. CTS's objectives were to provide secure affordable housing to low-income single people and family units; to manage housing stock at the local level through community-based organisations or local government; to lease or purchase housing stock which has traditionally been available to low income groups but which is now declining, such as boarding-houses; to increase the supply of housing stock through construction, upgrading of substandard dwellings or conversion of commercial/industrial buildings to residential use; and to establish community housing organisations with the potential to operate long-term housing programmes (Housing Commission of NSW, 1985: 4). The advantage for a private or other landlord in leasing their property to the scheme is that rental income is ensured without the problems of managing the properties and collecting rents. The scheme thus works to everyone's benefit. Between 1982 and 1985 $15 million has been allocated to the programme. 72

Women in the private rental sector

An analysis of CTS tenants was carried out in mid-1984. Fiftyfour per cent of adults were women; half of all households were single, 29 per cent were single parents, 14 per cent were couples with children, four per cent couples and two per cent other households. Overall gross average income was $112.18 per week. Four-fifths of the tenants were of Anglo-Saxon background; Aboriginals constituted the largest proportion (7 per cent) of those with a non-Anglo-Saxon background. The major reasons given by tenants for leaving their previous housing were: that it was only emergency housing (23 per cent); domestic conflict (18 per cent); too high rents (17 per cent); overcrowding (14 per cent); and eviction (12 per cent). (HC NSW, 1985: 49-50). The Community Tenancy Scheme illustrates the potential for constructing positive alternatives to privately rented accommodation. CTS tenants are protected from the high rents, insecurity of tenure, poor standards and lack of control suffered by most tenants in the private sector. From the standpoint of women, particularly women on their own with children, these benefits are particularly important. The Community Tenancy Scheme has exposed a significant hidden housing need amongst households, many female-headed, who experience difficulty obtaining accommodation through the more traditional routes to housing. Equally important, it provides an example of how the state can intervene to positively challenge the inequities of the private rental sector. It is an example which other states apart from NSW would benefit from following. In conclusion, life for women in the private rental sector is not an easy one. They face high rents, insecurity, often poor conditions, and discrimination from landlords and real estate agents. Yet for many women, and their children, there is little alternative. There are various mechanisms for shifting the structure of provision and social relations of private rental accommodation; however, the more logical solution to the rental crisis is to increase the stock of public or cooperative forms of rental accommodation through new initiatives at federal, state and local levels.

73

5 Why be a wife? Housing after divorce

Housing discourses are usually quite separate from legal discourses. In the final part of this chapter I have tried to look at how in the case of the Family Law Act these intersect. What is interesting is that policies which purport to address the same problem often occupy quite different arenas. Each of these usually are treated as unrelated, often have different intentions, and each use a quite different rhetoric. If we are considering the question of gender and divorce there are four different policy areas which intersect to supposedly help, but often to hinder women who are divorcing: the housing system, the law, the income maintenance system, and labour market policies. The focus of this chapter is on housing; the interface between the four areas is briefly explored. The rhetoric in each area is contradictory, as are the intentions embodied in it. Many women going through divorce or post-divorce fall into some black hole residing within these areas. At a policy level, each bureaucracy is divorced from the other relevant areas and rarely do they meet to consider the impact of their combined intentions. The interrelationship between demographic trends and the nature of housing provision, in most western capitalist countries, is an increasingly incompatible one. On the demographic front the changing form of marriage, notably its increasing brevity, has had a particularly important impact on housing demand and supply. Thus one kind of divorce, that is the breakdown of a relationship, leads directly into another—the divorce between changing housing need on the one hand, and inflexible and slowto-change housing provision, on the other. In Australia marital breakdown has been increasing for several decades, although the relative significance of divorce to separation has changed with the 74

Housing after divorce

ease of obtaining divorce since the Family Law Act 1975. The proportion of first marriages ending in divorce within the first 5 years of marriage rose from 7.8 per cent in 1966 to 20.7 per cent in 1980. What then does this imply for housing? Decisions as to how the matrimonial home if owned, should be divided, or how it should be allocated if rented, invariably constitute a highly contentious part of the divorce process. Housing is a tricky commodity for several reasons. Firstly, it is very expensive to buy; for most couples who are homeowners the equity in the house represents the major part of the couple's wealth (50-90 per cent in one study [McDonald, 1985: 7]). Secondly, unlike other consumption items such as furniture, it cannot be fairly divided and distributed, or traded for alternative items of equal value. Further, if the dwelling is sold and the equity is shared the two new households are unlikely to be able to repurchase without either increasing their housing costs, moving area, or considerably reducing the size or standard of their dwelling. Third, a house is fixed in location, with one set of implications for a woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who wants or needs the house for accommodation reasons, but for her safety's sake needs a new address; and another set of implications for a woman who wants to remain in the area and therefore the house, because it is close to her childrens' school, employment, or known community and social networks. These are clearly issues faced by homeowners. Theoretically tenants, in contrast, can simply move and rent elsewhere. However, as has already been discussed, the constraints on access to both public and private rental accommodation in Australia are not minor. The central theme of this chapter is the essentially inflexible nature of the housing system in Australia, one which cannot easily accommodate changing household structures and forms. More specifically, it is ill-suited to the increasing number of marriages ending in divorce. Contrary to the myth that home ownership enables individuals and households to have freedom of movement and choice over their housing, I argue that much of the inflexibility within the housing system derives precisely from the dominance of home ownership in Australia. Approximately 69 per cent of all households in Australia owned or are purchasing their dwellings, 5% are public tenants and 20% of households are tenants in the private sector. Clearly the lower costs involved in entering rental accommodation, the ease of leaving a tenancy, the 75

Accommodating inequality

lack of capital embedded etc., means that the structure of rental housing provision enables greater fluidity of movement. However, as this chapter argues the structure of a particular form of housing provision is culturally and historically specific. Theoretically it can be changed through mechanisms directed at its production or consumption in order to respond to changing housing needs. An economic and social profile of divorced households There has been little research in Australia on the impact of divorce on men's and women's economic and housing status. Published economic and social statistics provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics are rarely disaggregated by the marital status of individuals or heads of households. However, an analysis of data from the 1981 Census 1 per cent sample of Australian households and data from the 1982 survey of Australian families (ABS. 1984) can provide some insight into the effects of divorce on men's and women's post-marital circumstances. At the outset it is important to counteract the myth that divorced people, and women in particular, are very likely to remarry. The actual number of divorced persons grew from 69195 in 1954 to 133170 in 1971 to 403537 in 1981, with corresponding increases in the number of separated persons from 123 869 to 183 389 to 277 560 in the same years (ABS Census 1981 table 6). The statistics from the Families survey (ABS, 1984 table 10) on the number of times individuals have married indicate that remarriage is slightly more prevalent amongst women. However, the likelihood of a woman remarrying is a function of her age at divorce: the older she is the less the likelihood of remarriage (Weitzman 1981: 1229). Also, the extent to which remarriage represents simply the most attractive alternative to poverty and dependence on the state or a former husband for a single mother with negligible future employment and/or housing prospects, is difficult to ascertain. A comparison between divorced men's and women's employment and income status reveals sharp discrepancies. Labour force participation is clearly crucial. If divorced men's and women's employment status is compared, in all age groups men are more likely to be in the paid labour force than women: in 1982 as many 76

Housing after divorce

as 102 000 divorced women under 44 compared with 26 000 divorced men of the same age were not in the labour force (ABS 1984). Moreover, where women are employed, a substantial proportion work part-time. It is interesting to analyse the impact of age and children on employment status; this reveals that even where there are no dependants involved, women's labour force participation rate is adversely affected by marriage whereas men's is not (Watson, 1985). If people without dependants are compared, while an equal proportion (7 per cent) of men and women under 40 who had never married were not in the labour force in 1981, over five times as many married women (17 per cent) compared to married men (3 per cent) and twice as many divorced women (15 per cent) compared to divorced men (7 per cent) were not in the labour force. From these figures it appears that it is not merely responsibility for children which decreases women's labour force participation, but other aspects of marriage also. These might include other forms of domestic responsibility or the dominance of the ideology that women should be economically dependent on male partners. Once dependants are included in the picture it is clear that women's labour force participation very significantly decreases, particularly when the children are young: 47 per cent of married women and 49 per cent of divorced women under 40 with dependents were not in the paid labour force in 1981, compared with 3 per cent and 12 per cent of equivalent men (Watson, 1985). Where the youngest child is between 1 and 4 years as many as 60 per cent of married women and 72 per cent of single parents in the 1982 survey were not in the labour force (ABS, 1984: 43). Labour force participation also decreases with age, for women particularly, with as many as 49 per cent of married women between 40 to 59 compared with 8 per cent of married men not active in the labour force in 1981, irrespective of the presence of dependants in the household. Overall, divorced women's labour force participation rate is consistently much lower than that of never-married men irrespective of age or the presence of dependants within the household. Given this picture of divorced men's and women's employment it is not surprising to find large discrepancies between their incomes. Overall the incomes of women are considerably lower than men's. Even where there are no dependants involved, the individual incomes of divorced women differ significantly from 77

Accommodating inequality

those of never-married women particularly in the 40-59 age group: only 6 per cent of divorced women compared to 23 per cent of never-married women had incomes over $15 000 in 1981. In contrast divorced men in this age group had greater incomes than never-married men of the same age (Watson, 1985). This suggests that marriage has a particularly detrimental impact on women's incomes, whereas the reverse is true for men. Once individuals with dependants are compared, the contrast between men's and women's poverty upon divorce is even sharper: 54 per cent of divorced women with children aged 40 to 59, and 45 per cent between 25 and 39, compared with 23 per cent and 10 per cent in the equivalent group of men had incomes of less then $6000 in 1981. What are the implications of employment and income for housing? In a society where housing primarily constitutes a commodity produced and exchanged for profit, we would expect the relationship between income status and housing to be a strong one. This is indeed the case. The housing tenure of female singleparents is in marked contrast to that of male single parents. One quarter of women with children who are under 40 compared with 1 per cent of men are public tenants, reflecting their lower incomes and consequent lack of alternatives in the private sector. As would be expected from women's lower economic status, fewer female single parents are in the position of being able to take on a mortgage: 33 per cent of male single parents under 60 compared with 19 per cent of female single parents were buying their dwelling in 1981. This suggests that men who have custody of the children after marital breakdown are more likely to become home owners, while women are more likely to become public tenants, particularly younger parents. There may also be other reasons for lower home purchase rates among women. These are discussed below. An Institute of Family Studies report on the economic consequences of marriage breakdown in Australia (McDonald 1985: 8) sheds further interesting light on these discrepancies in tenure. The study found that divorced men who have responsibility for the children are highly likely to remain in the matrimonial home at separation (87 per cent in the study). Second, individuals who stay in the matrimonial home are considerably less likely to have repartnered; third, repartnering (although very common) is less common amongst middle or higher income groups, who are also 78

Housing after divorce

more likely to be home owners. Thus, for these reasons also, a higher rate of home ownership amongst divorced men revealed in the census statistics (which do include repartnered divorced men), is not surprising. Discrepancies are also revealed between divorced men and women even where there are not dependants in the household, although in this instance the differences are confined to younger households: a higher proportion of divorced men under 40 (33 per cent) than divorced women (23 per cent) were purchasers in 1981, with more single divorced women being forced to rely on the private rental sector for accommodation. Amongst older divorced households without dependants there is a greater similarity in the level of home ownership. This suggests that older divorced women may have been able to become purchasers by receiving a substantial sum as equity in a marital home where the outstanding mortgage is likely to be small. Although home ownership represents the dominant form of tenure for the majority of households in Australia, what is interesting in relation to divorced households is the importance of other forms of tenure in their lives. The public sector is clearly a very important source of housing for many divorced women, as is the private rental sector, particularly among younger households. These three sectors constitute the major source of accommodation for divorced women and men. However, there is evidence which suggests that a substantial number of divorced households, particularly divorced women, are forced to adopt less than adequate housing solutions, due to lack of available and affordable alternatives. Such solutions include staying with friends or relatives and constitute a form of concealed or hidden housing need, which is rarely recorded or recognised. A manipulation of the Census categories of primary and secondary family units according to marital status is illuminating in this respect. Eight per cent of divorced men with dependants constituted secondary family units in 1981 compared with 14 per cent of divorced women with dependants, which indicates that nearly twice as many divorced women with children are living with friends or relatives. It is likely that in many cases this sharing does not reflect choice so much as economic and housing constraints on women establishing an independent household. This substantiates the argument that women's housing need has a tendency to become concealed which I have developed elsewhere (see Watson 79

Accommodating inequality

1986). The discrepancies between divorced men and divorced women are again evident when the quality of housing is considered: even where there are no dependants, 55 per cent of divorced men under 40 and 58 per cent of divorced men over 40, compared with 41 per cent and 55 per cent of women in the same categories lived in a separate house. Divorced women were much more likely to be living in medium-density accommodation, with over twice as many of the younger divorced women with no dependants than men in the same category, living in medium density housing in 1981. The total number of rooms in a dwelling also represents some measure of housing standard. An analysis of the data reveals a similar picture. For example divorced men without dependants are particularly likely to have more rooms in their dwellings than their female counterparts: 62 per cent of men compared with 49 per cent of women live in dwellings with 5 or more rooms. Another aspect of divorce is a decline in levels of home ownership. If a married couple were mortgagors of a dwelling where the level of repayments necessitated an income from both partners, it is unlikely that the two new households will each be able to repurchase alternative accommodation on marital breakdown, particularly if the equity in the house was low. Instead, one (most probably the woman) or both partners will have little choice but to rent. If they were public tenants on marital breakdown, in most states both partners are unlikely to be rehoused in the public sector. The partner without custody—usually the male—may have no option but to live in a boarding house or stay with friends; this, likewise, represents a decline in standards. The ABS data presented above suggested some movement from home ownership to private and public rental accommodation following divorce, particularly amongst women. The Institute of Family Studies study also reported a considerable drop-out of home ownership on divorce. Amongst those who left the matrimonial home, 40 per cent of former owner/mortgagors had become renters. According to McDonald, (1986, chapter 8) * given the upper socioeconomic bias of the sample, the real drop out of home ownership is likely to be somewhat higher'. Overall a substantial proportion of people were reported to be experiencing a major drop in the real value of their housing, an increase in mortgage levels and in particular massive drops in equity. 80

Housing after divorce

When divorced people's perceptions of the relative quality of their post-divorce housing are considered, an interesting anomaly emerges. The Institute of Family Studies respondents were asked to give their perceptions of the relative quality of their housing before and after separation: the majority reported their current housing situation to be equal to or better than pre-separation. The greatest number of respondents to report a deterioration in their housing were younger women who had custody of the children and whose marital home had been sold. Not surprisingly, highest satisfaction was expressed by the younger women with children who had been allocated the house at distribution, since for these women staying in the marital home was clearly the most straightforward solution (with the exception of domestic violence cases). Only one-tenth of the younger women who had custody of the children and whose husbands gained the house at distribution reported being worse off in 1984. There is one simple explanation for the increased housing satisfaction perceived by the respondents in this study, particularly the women. If the marital home represented the site of distress and disharmony and for the women lack of control, insecurity and possibly potential violence, it would be no surprise to find that a new dwelling was considered to be better, even if according to more material criteria it appeared to be of a lesser standard. The IPS report (chapter 15) also substantiated this view: satisfaction with housing was clearly related to more general levels of satisfaction amongst the respondents. The other important factor is that the IPS study included a large number of people who were currently repartnered, whereas the Census data on divorced persons did not. Repartnered people are likely to have access to better housing than non-repartnered people (particularly women, who are more likely to gain access to new accommodation through a male partner) since in many cases household income increases as the result of repartnering. Finally, there are the spatial discrepancies between divorced men and women: women tend to be more concentrated in major urban areas than men. In 1981, 74 per cent of divorced women with children who were between the age of 40 and 59, compared with 59 per cent of similar divorced men lived in major urban areas, while 23 per cent of these men and 4 per cent of women lived in rural areas. This pattern applies across all age groups and for men and women with or without children (Watson 1985: 19). 81

Accommodating inequality

It would appear that greater numbers of women leave rural areas for the city on marital breakdown. This can be explained in several ways. First, in some cases the marital home in rural areas may have been associated with the husband's employment, for. example in the farming and mining industries. Second, women's employment opportunities are more concentrated in urban areas. Third, there is more rental accommodation, both public and private, available in urban areas. Fourth, the minimal childcare services available to single parents to enable their participation in the labour market are concentrated in urban areas. In conclusion then, it is clear that divorced women fare worse than divorced men in economic and housing terms. The discrepancies between men's and women's economic status in society appear to be further exacerbated by marriage, particularly where children are involved. Men's economic status does not however appear to be worsened by marriage, in fact the figures suggest that the reverse is the case. What then are the housing options for women (and their children) on divorce? Home ownership We have seen how there are marked discrepancies between households in relation to tenure: male single parents are more likely to be purchasing their own home while female single parents are more frequently located in the public sector. Similarly, there are numerically more single male purchasers than female purchasers, while single people as a whole are largely excluded from public housing and concentrated instead in the private rental sector. Traditional nuclear family households are more frequently home owners, with or without a mortgage, compared to all other households under retirement age. As argued earlier discrepancies between male and female households can in part be explained by differences in economic status; eligibility criteria for access to home loan finance and access to a public sector tenancy are of equal importance. Of crucial importance is the significant spatial variation between states in housing markets and housing policies. Consider the following example. A woman divorces and gains custody of the children. Having spent many years out of the labour market as a housewife and mother, her employment prospects are poor, she is liable to be reliant on a 82

Housing after divorce

dependable but low income—supporting parents benefit. She has gained a sizeable share of the equity in the family home, but not sufficient to buy a property without a substantial mortgage. If she is living in a state where concessional loans are available to single parents on supporting parents benefit, irrespective of whether the woman has previously been granted a state concessional loan with her husband at an earlier date, it is possible that she will regain entry into the owner-occupied sector. If on the other hand she lives in a state where such concessional loans are not available, the housing outcome will differ significantly. The specific housing context within which matrimonial property is divided is thus of considerable relevance. In chapter 4 I argued that there were several major constraints on women gaining access to home loan finance from the major financial institutions. Some of these were structural and financial, while others derived from the sex discrimination of the officials controlling access to finance. For these reasons, and because of women's lower economic and employment status, Federal and state home purchase assistance schemes are of specific relevance to women. There is currently one federal home ownership assistance scheme of relevance—the First Home Owners Scheme (FHOS), which commenced in October 1983. Under this scheme first home owners are eligible for a grant to assist both with the deposit and repayments. Home buyers can opt for a subsidy only payable over 5 years or a lump sum plus a reduced 5 year subsidy. In 1987 applicants without dependants with an income of $23 000 or less are eligible for the maximum grant of $4000 which reduces as incomes reach the upper limit of $30 000. If there is one dependant the respective figures are $25 000 or less up to $32 000, with further increases for more children. For single applicants in contrast, the upper income limit is set at $15 000 a year, with the full grant of $4000 payable to applicants with incomes up to $11 500 a year, on the assumption that these applicants 'typically have fewer financial commitments than families, as well as different housing needs' (Wight 1984; 9). There are several points about the scheme of relevance to divorced households. First, the provision for a lump sum payment at the time of purchase may be useful for a divorced person whose income is such that a mortgage can be sustained, but who has little or no savings to pay the full deposit, solicitors' fees or 83

Accommodating inequality

stamp duty. Secondly, when financial institutions loan money to FHOS recipients, they rely heavily on their assessment of likely future increases in the borrower's income. This is because the home buyer has to increase repayments as the subsidy is withdrawn. Inevitably, women are disadvantaged under such scrutiny since traditional female occupations are concentrated in low-paid sectors where there is minimal career structure or chance of promotion and increased wages. More important for divorced couples is the criterion that those assisted should be first-home buyers. Thus, if a couple have jointly owned property during their marriage, neither partner is eligible for FHOS assistance on divorce. The fact that two new households or economic units have been formed is not recognised as a legitimate claim for assistance. It is in relation to the FHOS that possibly the only advantage in not being a joint tenant to the property during marriage resides. Clearly, however, this conflicts with the claim made by some feminists (e.g. Scutt and Graham, 1984) that women should have equal access to and ownership of property within marriage. It also reflects the public policy ideology of permanence within family structures, and a refusal within such policy to acknowledge changing needs and economic realities over the life-cycle. Secondly, the spouse without the children (usually the man, but not always) who has not previously been a home owner is highly likely to be excluded from FHOS assistance on income grounds, since the income limit for sole applicants without dependants is set so low that the majority of employed households are excluded. In the event that an individual is on state benefits or has an income low enough to be eligible for FHOS, financial institutions will be reluctant to lend additional amounts, unless the term of the mortgage is very short or the borrower has considerable savings and/or share of the equity in a property settlement. Not surprisingly therefore in 1983/84 only 5 per cent of FHOS recipients were sole applicants who were fomerly married (i.e. widowed, divorced or separated) (Wight 1984: 6). The absurdity of such a low income limit reflects once again the marginalisation of single peoples' housing needs, which affects women particularly. The spatial variation in house prices for matrimonial property settlements also has implications for divorced couples. If a couple divorce in Western Australia or Tasmania where house prices are relatively low, (e.g. median house prices in August 1987 in Perth 84

Housing after divorce

and Hobart were approximately $61 700 and $64 800 REIA, 1987) it is easier for the two new households to repurchase with their share of the equity, if they are in employment, than in areas such as Sydney or Canberra where house prices are high (where median house prices were $139 800 and $101 100 in August 1987). Take for example cases where one-third of the mortgage on the marital home has been paid off, leaving two-thirds outstanding. If average house prices in the area are $60 000 and the equity in the marital home is shared equally, each partner will have to obtain a mortgage of approximately $50 000, if they want to repurchase in that area. In an area where average house prices are $120 000, in similar circumstances each partner will have to obtain a mortgage of approximately $100 000. In one area the equity share allows the possibility of a new mortgage being obtained, while in another it does not (except in rare income circumstances). This is particularly relevant in the case of divorced women whose incomes are low and who are in their forties or fifties. Some deposit however will always be necessary so that a small amount of equity will not necessarely enable re-entry into home ownership, even in low price areas. Also the higher the house price the more difficult it is for a woman buy out the husband's share of the equity; where house prices are rising fast this can be particularly problematic. It is sometimes argued that 'buying down' — that is , buying a property that is less expensive, smaller, in a poorer state of repair, or in a new location — represents an option for divorced households. This may be a possibility for the non-custodial parent where housing needs have changed to some extent. However, even the non-custodial parent will need extra space in order to be able to have his/her children to stay regularly according to the access arrangements. Specific bedrooms for children are clearly preferable. As for the custodial parent—usually the woman—the departure of a spouse does not significantly affect the housing requirements of the remaining household. For most female single parents the option of moving into a dwelling in a poorer state of repair is unlikely to be a feasible one, due to lack of resources, time and often confidence to rehabilitate or refurbish a dwelling. Change in location is also rarely a feasible option since it implies leaving established networks, possibly employment and schools or established childcare. For these reasons buying down does not represent a positive alternative for many households on divorce. 85

Accommodating inequality State home purchase assistance schemes

A comparison of state home purchase assistance schemes is interesting because it reveals that divorced women on low incomes with small amounts of equity can be assisted to buy if new methods of lending arrangements are devised. Not surprisingly it is in the states where innovative housing policies are seen as a priority by Labor governments that new schemes have been initiated. Many low-income divorced women are excluded from home ownership because of the initially high real levels of repayment in the early years of a loan that are involved in traditional lending arrangements. As Nippard (1985) from the Ministry of Housing in Victoria argues, this artificially raises the income level necessary to service a loan, and because of women's relative low incomes, this constitutes a serious barrier. He argues (1985: 1) that because of excess demand and conservative attitudes to risk, current income is generally used as a guide to a person's ability to repay a home loan within 20 to 30 years. For many people, particularly single mothers, current income is an inadequate guide to future income and ability to repay a home loan, because their low income state is often temporary relative to a 30 year home loan. Under traditional mortgage lending arrangements (credit foncier loans) the repayments are calculated given an interest rate, term and amount borrowed. The repayments are constant for the term of the loan, assuming interest rates are constant. However, higher levels of interest rates have dramatic effects on the level of repayments and hence the minimum income necessary to service the loan. The Ministry of Housing have restructured mortgages using capital-indexed loans to overcome these effects on the repayment burden by replacing constant nominal payments in favour of constant real repayments. Under this scheme, repayments are set at a constant rate of 25 per cent of the household's income and adjusted every 12 months to the household's current income. A loan of up to a maximum $45 000 is provided to eligible applicants; the loan can be given up to 95 per cent of the value of the house. The remaining 5 per cent of the value must be provided by the applicant in the form of a share of the equity from a previous dwelling, gift or first home owners assistance (if eligible). South Australia is another state in which there are realisable 86

Housing after divorce

options for a woman with or without dependants to remain in the marital home or to purchase another dwelling on divorce. The Home Ownership Made Easier Scheme (HOME) was introduced by the South Australian government in October 1983 and incorporated State Bank concessional low interest loans and the rental purchase scheme. There are three aspects of these State Bank loan arrangements of relevance to divorced people. First, the loans are not restricted to first home buyers. Second, divorced men or women over 30 without dependants are eligible for concessional loans; and third, the bank introduced a special scheme for people in difficulty with commercial loans, aimed specifically at the party left in the home after marital breakdown. In such instances loans are made available to refinance existing borrowings from commercial sources in order to pay out a joint owner. Approximately 120 people had applied to this scheme in the first year, the overwhelming majority of whom were women. Data provided by the State Bank of South Australia showed that 12.7 per cent of applications for loans approved between March and September 1984 were in receipt of benefits. From a survey of 722 loans advanced in July, August and September 1984, 98 loans had been granted to single-parent families of which 93 were headed by women. All five men were in employment whereas only 38 of the women were employed; the average age of the employed women was 34 (Watson, 1985: 44). The Rental Purchase Scheme in South Australia assists low income households to become home owners. The South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) buys the property of the household's choice, receives rent payments which are equivalent to home loan repayments and transfers ownership on completion of the repayment period. The scheme is aimed at households who have difficulty raising a deposit, who are worried about taking out a mortgage, who are the subject of some doubt as to their ability to fulfil their mortgage obligations or whose income is considered too low to qualify for a concessional loan from the State Bank. The maximum housing loan available through the scheme is $38 000 and a minimum deposit of $500 is required. With a large deposit a house may be purchased up to a maximum price of $55 000. The household is responsible for maintenance and rates. Interest rates are the same as for State Bank loans. The waiting time for these loans, as with the State Bank loans is 12-14 months. The State Government Insurance Commission will make 87

Accommodating inequality

funds available to the SAHT where one spouse is pressing for a settlement on a property the other spouse has elected to remain in. These funds are available as a bridging loan, at a relatively low interest rate (l3l/2 per cent) compared with the commercial rate (22 per cent), to buy the other partner out. This is clearly a positive scheme as far as divorced women are concerned. In the first 9 months of the scheme 179 (37 per cent) of the 482 applicants were divorced or separated women; there were 15 male applicants. The majority of the female applicants (185 out of 214) had children. Seventy-seven per cent were under 40. The incomes of the female applicants were much lower than the incomes of the male applicants: 86 per cent of women compared with only 44 per cent of men had incomes less than 55 per cent of average weekly earnings. One hundred and forty nine of the 214 female applicants were on supporting parents benefit and only 42 were employed, compared with 182 men in employment out of the total (268) number of applicants. The examples of the Victorian and South Australian schemes to assist low-income households into home ownership already discussed in chapter 3 illustrate the way that the structure of provision of a particular form of tenure can be altered with important distributional consequences. Home ownership can become accessible to a wider range of households through State intervention to support the interest of the capital involved by guaranteeing repayments. Nevertheless it can well be argued that public subsidies to home ownership represent a drain on expenditure on public housing, which is a more viable and sensible use of public funds for low-income housing provision. With more and more households in need of low-income housing the continued promotion of home ownership as the dominant tenure is clearly misplaced. The South Australian Housing Trust and the Victorian Ministry of Housing are not the only state housing departments to offer concessional interest rate loans. New South Wales, Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australia and the ACT all provide loans under various concessional lending arrangements. However, none is as innovative or as accessible as the two schemes outlined. In New South Wales for example the concessional loans have traditionally been available through the cooperative housing societies. Until the Department of Housing became involved these loans could be argued to have been inaccessible to significant 88

Housing after divorce

sections of the divorcing population. First, the scheme was not well advertised or marketed, and where it was promoted tended to have a pro-traditional family orientation. Moreover, because the cooperative housing societies had grown up from employment (sometimes trade union) and social networks, the more marginalised sections of the community, unemployed or lowincome women, tended to be excluded. This was particularly the case for women who have always been housewives and financially dependent on their husbands. There are several other problems with access to home ownership through such assisted schemes. One is that research and evidence (see Watson, 1986) suggests that many are marginalised in the housing market because they have minimal knowledge about how the housing system operates. Secondly, low income divorced households, the majority of whom are headed by women, are often unable to re-enter the home ownership sector due to the prohibitive costs associated with buying a property. This may occur when the share in the equity only just meets the deposit requirement with little to spare. Such costs include solicitors' fees, bank fees, building survey and stamp duty. The latter fee is usually the most prohibitive. In New South Wales a couple or individual buying their first home—which includes a divorced person who may have been assisted previously as part of a couple—can elect to pay the stamp duty by instalments if the purchase price is under $105 000. A very small quantity of dwellings in Sydney however, remain in this price range. A third issue is that assistance is restricted to first home buyers in the Northern Territory, Queensland and in the ACT, at least in the written documentation in 1985. In the latter two states this restriction can be waived (in Queensland after 12 months) if the applicant is not put off by the stated eligibility criterion as many women are liable to be. A fourth issue is the waiting time between an application for a loan being made and the loan being granted, which can be up to three years in most states. In Victoria for example, the Ministry reported that many women with a share of the equity from a property settlement spent three years in the private rental sector between the settlement and the allocation of a loan, during which time the size of the equity diminished. This is particularly disastrous where a small amount of equity is involved (often younger applicants). This was neither to the applicant's or the Ministry's advantage since a larger loan was 89

Accommodating inequality

then necessary. Alternatively if a woman is waiting for a loan to refinance the marital home, she may experience pressure or hostility from an ex-partner who is demanding immediate payment of his share of the equity. If the Family Courts were aware of the housing options for households on divorce in the relevant state a possible solution might be to delay the sale of the marital home until the spouse in need of the concessional loan had reached the top of the waiting list. This issue is considered shortly. This brief summary of state policies on home purchase assistance has illustrated how divorce can have a different housing impact on the households involved, depending on where the couple lived. Nevertheless for many women home ownership will not be an option on divorce due to their low incomes, employment status, age or discrimination. It is for this reason that the public housing sector is of specific relevance to women. The public sector Despite the small size of the public sector in Australia, it can play an important role on divorce both for public and private tenants, and also when a marital relationship ends between home owners where one or both of the two new households is on a low income or unemployed, and/or where the equity in the home is too low to enable one or both of the parties to remain in home ownership. Once again we find a high level of variation between states in public sector housing policies and in the size and standards of public housing provision: the largest two public housing sectors in Australia are in the Northern Territory where one fifth of households were public tenants in 1981, and in the ACT where 13 per cent of households were public tenants in 1981. This derives from the earlier provision of public housing to Federal employees, both as an employment incentive and as a necessity, due to lack of available housing alternatives. The larger public sector in South Australia (10 per cent of all households) also arose from an attempt to encourage industry and workers into the area, while the governments of Victoria (3 per cent) NSW (5 per cent) and Queensland (3 per cent) were impelled to make no such response, for obvious reasons. Accessibility to public housing on divorce is clearly related to the size of the sector. 90

Housing after divorce

In most states housing is allocated on two bases — the waitturn and the priority systems. Since many divorced women with children are in need of accommodation as quickly as possible priority housing policies are of particular significance. However, many divorced applicants have to apply through the standard wait-turn system where applicants register on the list and waiting time depends on the availability of appropriate housing in the relevant state. Eligibility for priority housing requires that an applicant be in urgent need of housing assistance due to medical, financial, social (e.g. family reunification) and accommodation (e.g. eviction) difficulties. The decision-making process involved in the allocation of priority housing is obviously a discretionary one. Individual assessment and prejudice are inevitable when the power to define need lies with an individual or group of individuals who are perceived as, and who act as, professionals and experts. Obviously the majority of applicants for public housing are in acute housing need, the question arises as to how and where to draw the line. With a limited housing stock every priority allocation for one applicant implies an extended time on the waiting list for another. Not only does this divide public tenants amongst themselves and cause hostility between two sections of the population who are in housing need, it also stigmatises the priority applicants who tend to be allocated the lower standard and least desirable dwellings. In the context of the current housing crisis in Australia, priority housing assistance allocations constitute a stable or an increasing proportion of allocations in many states: for example 17 per cent in South Australia in 1983-84. The definition of priority need will thus become more and more extreme, as the disabled woman with three kids about to be evicted from a one bedroom flat on the fourth floor is weighed up against the family of five living in a caravan. The proportion of priority applicants who are female single parents is also rising. Growing pressure on the priority allocation system has meant that the waiting-time for priority assistance is so long as to make the notion of priority absurd. For example, the Western Australian Housing Commission reported (Watson 1985: 73) that so many applications could be classed as an emergency that there was a waiting time of up to one year on the priority housing list. During this period households are often in extremely inadequate housing circumstances — caravans, tents, friends or families' floors, bedsitters and so on which for women 91

Accommodating inequality

with children can be particularly dire. Single-parent families are likewise making up a fast growing proportion of applicants on waiting-lists. In New South Wales for example, in 1985-86 there were 31 763 new applications to the Department of Housing, of which approximately one-third were single parents. This represented an increase of 5500 applications since 1975-76, and the numbers are rising each year. Despite the growing number of applications for public housing, the statistics indicate that the acceptance rate (or the rate of allocations to applications) of couples with children is higher than that of single-parent families in some states, which suggests favoured treatment of the traditional nuclear family by housing authorities. In Tasmania, for example, 73 per cent of couples with children who applied for accommodation in 1983-84 were housed, compared with 57 per cent of single-parent families. New South Wales provides a more positive contrast. In 1985-86, 39.9 per cent of new tenancies allocated were to single parents, reflecting the fact that over half the priority applicants (1985) in that year were from this group. There is constant criticism from the community sector of the practice of locating single parents in poorer standard dwellings and ill-serviced locations far from employment centres and transport. As would be expected the incomes of female single-parents registered on housing waiting-lists are very low. In 1984-85 67 per cent of single parents were reliant on supporting parents benefit and the majority were clustered in the 26-40 age group. Similarly, in South Australia approximately half of the single parent applicants in 1983-84 were in this age group, while overall single parents constituted over one-quarter of all applicants. Finally, waiting times for accommodation vary substantially between states and according to the accommodation needs of the applicant. For example in the ACT public rental sector waiting times are typically 18-24 months, whereas in Victoria they can vary from 3 to 5 years. For women who are public tenants on divorce there is a third avenue to a new dwelling, and this is a tenancy transfer. Policies on transfers vary between states, some evict the remaining spouse where a woman leaves with her children, some are reluctant to offer alternatives until legal custody of the children is finalised (e.g. Northern Territory) and some will rehouse both partners, usually offering the non-custodial spouse a bedsitter (e.g. in the 92

Housing after divorce

ACT) In South Australia, for example, priority transfers take 3—4 weeks depending on the dwelling and location requested. On marital breakdown SAHT policy is to house the parent who has the children. If the children are divided between them, both partners normally will be housed. Of the 2388 transfers in 1983-84, 59 were made to women and 22 to men because of a change in marital status (i.e. divorce or imminent marriage). A woman requesting a transfer post-separation is not obliged to return to the marital home before the application is considered. Under these circumstances the Trust can evict the husband, transfer the housing agreement to the wife's name and allocate her a new dwelling. If the husband refuses to leave the marital home the SAHT will house the woman and children pending a more permanent outcome. Similarly, while custody is unresolved, the woman and children are housed, with the proviso that if the husband obtains custody the woman will relinquish the interim accommodation. On the question of public housing as an option on divorce there is one further point. Some women on divorce either have no dependants living with them, or have dependants over 18. Under these circumstances public housing in the majority of states (with South Australia as the notable exception) was not available to single households until very recently. This exclusion of single people has specific implications for women whose access to the private sector is restricted by their income and employment status. In recent years however some of the Labor states have initiated housing schemes for single people, as a response to changing demographic trends and increased demand for housing by and for this by no means insignificant section of the population. New South Wales, for example has initiated a singles policy, under which single people with an income less than $201 a week are eligible for accommodation. The stock specifically for single households includes self-contained bedsitters and onebedroom apartments as well as more communal arrangements. Single people can also apply for standard pensioner type accommodation through the normal procedures, or can elect to share a larger dwelling as a group. According to the Department of Housing a significant proportion of applicants to the scheme since its inception have been middle to older aged women. There is also an innovative housing programme for women providing medium-term accommodation of high quality standard, where 93

Accommodating inequality

women run their own lives with minimum support. This is an exciting outcome of pressure by feminists. The Community Tenancy Scheme in South Australia provides low-cost secure housing to single and single-parent households through acquiring vacant stock from private landlords or public authorities; such stock is managed by the CTS as cooperative housing with tenant participation. Despite the initiation of such schemes, single women's needs have tended to be very marginalised in the public sector. Even in South Australia where single applicants are housed as part of the mainstream allocations process the proportion of single applicants to those housed is considerably lower than for nuclear family households. In 1983-4 there were 2830 single women applicants and 856 allocations to new single female tenants, while 1816 allocations were made to couples with children in the same year, during which there were an equivalent number (2837) of applications. It is abundantly clear from the statistics presented here that the public sector is of increasing importance to women on divorce. This is likely to continue as home ownership continues to be unaffordable to many women, and as the private rental sector becomes less and less of a viable option. In conclusion then, what is the range of policy alternatives to alleviate the serious housing problems for women which result from the growing number of marriages ending in divorce? Policy proposals Policies in this area can be devised at, at least, three levels — setting aside for the moment more radical proposals such as an end to the institution of marriage, to family oriented social policies and to the ideological dominance and structural realities of female economic dependence. These three levels of policy can be described as economic, social and legal—although such separation is an artificial one. At the economic level there is clearly a need for policies to improve women's economic position both within and outside marriage. If women's financial position were improved many benefits would follow. Feminist academics, bureaucrats, and activists have been working in this area for over a decade with varying degrees of success. Suggested policies include reform of the tax system, income maintenance, and training and labour 94

Housing after divorce

market programmes. Until women have equal access to a nonsex segmented labour market, which would require the adequate provision of childcare services, their economic status will continue to be inferior to men's. In the social policy area the provision of housing is obviously central. The most pressing and immediate issue facing women, and their children, is where to live. This is particularly so in cases of marital breakdown. An expansion of the public housing stock in all states is a matter of some urgency, in order that waiting times for priority assistance and standard allocations can be reduced. There is also a need for greater resources to be allocated to emergency, short-term and medium-term accommodation, so that on marital breakdown women are not forced to rely on friends, family and inadequate forms of temporary accommodation. Innovative schemes which provide support to women in difficulty or new forms of long-term housing with communal facilities, for example, need to be adopted in some states and expanded in others. In the recognition that some women on divorce do gain a share in the equity, sometimes a considerable share, State-run home purchase assistance schemes are also useful, although this must not be at the expense of the provision of good and secure public housing. Finally, in cases of marital breakdown, what kind of legal response is the most beneficial to women? In Australia the Family Law Act 1975 permits all the property of the spouses, however and wherever acquired, to be divided on marriage breakdown. The discretion of the judges of the Family Court is fairly considerable, although broadly speaking the Judge will weigh up the contributions to the property against the future needs of the spouses. Contributions include both financial (usually the husband's) and domestic (usually the wife's) contributions, and a dilemma obviously arises over the relative worth of the two contributions. This Act has been the subject of some debate within feminist circles. Scutt and Graham (1984) argue that married women would be better off with a joint property arrangement with their husbands during marriage and fixed equal sharing of property on divorce. However, as Shiff (1985) points out, there are several problems with their proposals. First she argues: Joint management would symbiotically tie each spouse to the other so that neither would engage in commercial dealings 95

Accommodating inequality

without the agreement of the other. Secondly it may rebound dangerously against women, subjecting their financial independence to their husband's control. Thirdly, their proposals assume unity of property between husband and wife in which each shares in the income of the other. This runs counter to feminist campaigns to have the state treat a woman as separate from her husband for the purposes of tax and social security entitlement. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest as Scutt and Graham (1984) assert, that divorced women would be better off with a fixed property rights regime in which they were automatically entitled to equal shares. Indeed evidence from the United States suggests that lower income wives are worse off when they are subject to an equal sharing of debts and liabilities on divorce (Watson & Shiff, 1984). The evidence presented in this chapter suggests that a discretionary based system of matrimonial property division is the most appropriate model. There are two important reasons for this. First, the variations in housing markets and housing policies between states mean that equal division of matrimonial property has a differential effect depending on where the couple lived. If we take the example of a property settlement between two parties who have previously had state concessional home loans in the Northern Territory and South Australia, where the woman has custody of the children and has no employment and the man has a low income, different shares may be appropriate. In the Northern Territory, neither party is eligible for another concessional loan, house prices are high, waiting periods for public sector housing are long, and single applicants (who are not government employees) are unlikely to be accepted. Under these circumstances the court might allocate the matrimonial home in its entirety to the woman, in the recognition that there is no housing alternative for her and the children. Alternatively, it may decide to give an order for occupation of the marital home until the children are no longer dependent or until the woman has found employment and possibly private home loan finance. Or, it may decide that awarding the entire housing equity to the woman is not fair, since the male partner also has few housing options, and may therefore look towards a more 50/50 distribution. In the context of such a decision, it could be argued that the marginal effects of awarding the woman a slightly greater share are small, since in any event 96

Housing after divorce

she will be unable to repurchase. The court may thus decide on a strict 50/50 division as the fairest option. In contrast in South Australia, both parties will be eligible for a state concessional loan despite the fact that the woman is in receipt of supporting parents benefit and the man is a single householder. Further, both new households will have access to public housing within a shorter period than in the Northern Territory context. Thus the Judge may award equal shares to both parties in the recognition that both parties have a 'relatively' equal chance of obtaining further accommodation, or s/he may decide the age of the woman concerned, for example, warrants her receiving a slightly greater share of the equity to enable her to be assisted more easily by the state home purchase scheme. Under these circumstances however, it would probably be inappropriate to either give an order for a long period of occupation or to award the entire matrimonial home to the custodial parent. These snapshots serve simply as illustrations of the importance of taking account of state variation in housing markets and housing policies in matrimonial property division. In reality every situation is different and often more complex. The argument however, is that such state variation points to the need for a discretionary system of matrimonial property division, until there is more uniformity in housing across Australia. Second, a discretionary system of property allocation provides a mechanism for compensating for the inequalities between men and women, many of which derive from marriage. The evidence presented in this chapter demonstrates that women are more likely to suffer adverse consequences and have greater needs than men on divorce. This is for two major reasons. The first is that women are less likely than men to be well-qualified or trained or to have secure and well-paid employment and are likely to have poorer employment prospects than men. These disadvantages derive from both their former role within the marriage as mothers and housewives and from the sex-segmented nature of the labour market and women's 'inferior' position in society generally. The second reason is that women are far more likely to have the custody of the children on divorce. Obviously this is not a uniform picture; women's income status and employment prospects vary according to age, race and background; so also do housing prospects. Moreover, there are obviously cases where women's employment prospects and income are better than their 97

Accommodating inequality

husband's, and where men gain the custody of the children. The crucial point is that while there is a discrepancy between the two partner's needs and prospects (where usually women are worse off) and in particular their housing needs and prospects, a discretionary system of property allocation can help alleviate the inequitable outcomes on divorce. The Institute of Family Studies study of couples who had gone through the Family Courts substantiates this argument. With respect to the disposition of the home, it was found that the house was sold in approximately 35 per cent of cases, transferred to the wife in about 35 per cent of cases and transferred to the husband in about 20 per cent of cases. In the remaining 10 per cent, ownership of the house was unchanged (McDonald 1985: ch. 8). The tendency was for the house to be sold when the mortgage was high and the equity low or when the house had a very high value. Overall, 40 per cent of respondents had dropped out of home ownership where the house was sold or the spouse remained in the marital home. Given the upper socio-economic bias of the sample, it is likely that at a national level the percentage would be higher (McDonald 1985; 164). There was also a direct relationship between who stayed in the home after the separation and who was allocated the home on settlement: 94 per cent of the women who remained in the house for the three months after separation received the dwelling as part of the final property allocation. The final points of interest are that a much higher proportion of men repartnered, with implications for their ease of access to new joint mortgages. Second, women tended to be paying higher housing costs than men at the time of the interview. What is the relevance of these findings? Women in at least a third of cases are managing to retain the marital home. Even if their repayments are high, they have a roof over their heads for themselves and their children. This is important since once women lose the home their access to alternative housing is limited. It is also important because it means that less disruption has been caused to their own and their childrens' social, community and educational networks. The 1987 amendments to the Family Law Act and the proposed changes to the Social Security Legislation at the time of writing are likely to have an adverse effect on this outcome. Under the Family Law Amendment Act 1987 the amount of capital or 98

Housing after divorce

housing equity transferred under the settlement as part of the maintenance arrangements has to be specified. Under the proposed changes to the Social Security legislation this equity is to be imputed as income and subject to the income test. There are several implications here. First, women who have received the marital home as part of the settlement will be liable to a reduction in their benefit. The proposed maximum level of reduction is 25 per cent. This will mean that mortgage repayments will have to be met from a reduced pension, pushing women further into poverty. Given that the proportion of income that women spend on mortgage repayments is already considerably higher than their male counterparts, women may well be forced to sell the dwelling and move out of home ownership. This scenario brings me back to the argument raised at the beginning of this chapter. That is, the lack of connections made between different policy areas in terms of the discourses used, the policy intentions embedded and the outcomes of the policies. Central to the proposed social security legislation is the notion that women's dependence on the state for income support should be reduced. Instead women will be encouraged to enter labour market training programmes, enter the work force and support themselves. In principle, the objective is clearly a sensible one. In reality, however, if a woman sells up her marital home in Sydney she has three options: to trade down in the housing market, to enter the public sector, or the increasingly restricted private rental sector. The first two options may well imply moving out west where land and house prices are cheaper and where the majority of Department of Housing dwellings are located. These are precisely the same areas where there are high levels of female unemployment particularly amongst single parents. The accessibility of employment and transport problems (to introduce yet another disconnected and distinct policy area) also operate as significant constraints. Whether labour market training programmes will go to these areas is anyone's guess. However, according to this scenario, the move to subject housing equity transferred as maintenance to an income test could, in the long run lead to unintended, contradictory and unwanted consequences. That is, women will once again be reinforced in their marginal income and employment status. The combined effects of housing markets and labour markets could precisely lead to dependence on the state for income support 99

Accommodating inequality

through lack of employment opportunities. There is one other point of relevance here and that is the proposed income test would represent an anomaly within the social security system, since the principal home ordinarily is exempt from assets tests. Thus even within one policy area we see contradictions. At the time of writing the effects of this legislation can only be a matter for conjecture. Finally there is one other legal remedy of relevance to housing and that is occupation rights. As a general rule in Australia, orders for postponement of sale after property division are not popular with judges who prefer the clean break solution in a property settlement. However, there are several arguments which perhaps ought to be considered on the vexed question of the advantages and disadvantages of orders for occupation rights. These also relate to the state variation in housing markets and housing policies. In various countries (e.g. Great Britain) occupation rights are used more widely as a method of providing security of accommodation for the custodial parent and the children for the duration of the children's dependence. When the children become independent the house is sold and the equity is shared. This ensures some continuity and stability for the children on divorce and obviates the necessity of adjusting to a new neighbourhood, circle of friends, school and so on. It does however mean that the non-custodial spouse (usually the husband) cannot use their share of the equity for some years. The major negative outcome of this practice is the custodial parent's (almost always the woman's), subsequent homelessness in some cases. As mentioned earlier, if a woman has spent many years out of the labour market due to domestic responsibilities, she is liable to have difficulty re-entering the labour market or finding paid employment for the first time, particularly if she is in her late 40s or 50s. Even with a large share of the equity it is unlikely that this amount will be adequate to buy another dwelling outright. A woman who is unemployed or on a low income is liable to have even greater difficulty obtaining a mortgage. This difficulty increases with age. Because the public sector in most states (and in Britain also) does not cater for most single people a woman in such a situation has little choice but to rent privately—and thereby see her share of the equity dribble away in high rental costs — or to stay with friends or family. If however, the house is sold while there are still dependent children in the household, the 100

Housing after divorce

divorced woman will be eligible for public housing. These are issues which need to be recognised when the option of occupation for the duration of the children's dependence is considered. There is however a case for arguing that a limited period of occupation is a useful interim solution in some situations. State variation in housing policies and markets is relevant here. If, for example, the custodial parent is dependent on the public sector for future accommodation and lives in a state where either she is not accepted as a priority and thus has to wait for accommodation for a lengthy period on the waiting list, occupation of the marital home for a limited duration could be beneficial to the household concerned. Similarly an order for occupation may be useful where priority cases take some time to be allocated accommodation or where home purchase assistance schemes involve a specific waiting period before finance is granted. Conclusion The growing number of marriages ending in divorce or separation clearly has serious implications for housing. These implications can be important not only for the households concerned but also for the financial institutions involved in home loan finance who confront defaulting on mortgages and the difficulties of purchasers facing a sudden drop in household income. High rates of marital breakdown are incompatible with high rates of home ownership. In particular, women are disadvantaged in access to the private housing market due to their lower income and employment status, while at the same time it is women who most frequently take responsibility for the children of the marriage. Policy reform is needed at three levels, the economic, the social and the legal. Policies should be formulated to improve women's labour market and financial position, and to expand the public housing sector in all states. The discretionary system of property allocation on marital breakdown needs to be retained until women's economic and housing prospects are radically improved. The effects of the new Family Home Act amendments and the proposed Social Security Legislation need to be monitored, and any adverse effects will need to be challenged and addressed. Such policies will go some way towards alleviating the serious housing problems faced by women (and their children) on divorce. 101

6 Sexual divisions in old age A national profile An underlying theme to this book is that women's relation to housing differs from that of men's, and that this difference derives in part from the sexual divisions and gender in Australian society. A related argument is that although all women's lives are shaped by the dominant patriarchal relations, marriage further differentiates the experiences of women. It could be argued that there is no better place to analyse the effects on women of a lifetime structured by inequality and by marriage than in old age. However, there is little comparative data upon which to base any detailed analysis of older men's and women's economic and social status according to marital status. However, some published Census data and an analysis of the 1 per cent household file can provide some insights on this question. Such an analysis forms the basis of this chapter, while the following chapter looks more comprehensively at over 70 older women's experiences of housing. The fact that women, on average, live longer than men has obvious implications for their housing need. Male and female longevity has increased throughout this century however the proportion of older women to men has risen markedly as the proportion of women to men in the general population has begun to equalise. In 1901, 4 per cent of Australia's population was over 65 years, and 43.5 per cent of those over 65 were women. In 1980, 9.6 per cent of Australia's population was over 65 years, and 58 per cent in this age group were women. Moreover, women constitute up 71.2 per cent of those over 85 years. Since 1881, life expectancy has increased from 47 to 70 years for men and 51 to 77 years for women. Both sexes are living longer, but women currently outlive men by 7 years rather than 4 years (Slade, 1985: 1). By the end of this century, one in every ten 102

Sexual divisions in old age

persons will be over 65 (Radford, 1984: 10). In addition, older women are more likely to be widowed and living alone than older men. In the 65-69 age group, 10 per cent of men compared with 37 per cent of women are widowed; in the 80+ age group, 42 per cent of men are widowed compared with 75 per cent of women. Only 19 per cent of men over 75 live alone, compared with 42.3 per cent of women in the same age group. In contrast, in 1976 as many as 65 per cent of men over 70 years were married compared with only 27 per cent of women of equivalent age. This can be explained by the tendency of women to marry men older than themselves (Slade, 1985: 1). Table 6.1 shows a comparison of male and female household heads by marital status according to age. The implication of these figures is that greater numbers of women have to learn selfreliance and independent living in old age. Table 6.1 Marital status of household heads in 1981 60-70

Never married Divorced/separated Widowed Married

M

F

227 199 282 92

222 248 1442 70

70-80 M F 90 48 257 216

192 70 1344 25

M

81 +

22 9 140 15

F

59 9 512 9

Note: Derived from the ABS 1981 1 per cent household file.

Financial status The income status of an old person is clearly crucial in determining her/his standard of living (in which housing plays a major part) in old age. Analysis of the 1981 Census 1 per cent household file reveals marked discrepancies between men's and women's incomes and between women according to their marital status and age. Comparing all male and female households living alone we find that over 8 per cent of men over 60 had an income over $15 000 in 1981, compared with less than 2 per cent of women. If those in the 60-70 year age group are excluded from the figures, thus setting aside the financial advantages of the higher male retirement age, and the incomes of 70-80 year olds are analysed, there are still 5 per cent of men above this income level compared 103

Accommodating inequality

with just under 2 per cent of women. As would be expected, the reverse is the case for the lower income levels: 68 per cent of men over 65 compared with 80 per cent of women have incomes of less than $6000. In the younger age group the tendency for men to remain in employment for longer is clearly significant, whereas for the older groups the greater likelihood of men receiving superannuation from previous employment is an important feature. Women's lack of access to superannuation and hence to a better income in old age is a crucial aspect of women's restricted labour force participation. Table 6.2 shows the income sources of a random sample of 350 widowed men and women. The significance of superannuation as an income source is clear. Table 6.2 Income sources of retired widowed males and females and mean amounts of Income Income source

Males Females Percentage Mean income Percentage Mean income receiving (standard (standard receiving deviation) deviation) % % $ $

Pension

79

Investments, dividends, interest Superannuation

70 32

Rent/board

13

Life insurance

4

Employment

6

Regular help from family/ relatives

0

Other Mean Total Income Range Median Total Income Base Number of Persons

3233 (1214) 2993 (6589)

88

6124 (3411) 3120 ( 993) 500 ( 707) 4142 (3452) —

23

4220 (4693) 7388 3172-47000 5200 53

104

72

8 7 6 3

2997 ( 706) 2828 (4757) 4153 (3159) 1861 (1900) 2457 (4344) 1227 ( 651) 1863 (1426)

667 ( 605) 6165 2652-27 300 4295 97

Sexual divisions in old age Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because people were receiving multiple sources. Source: Widowhood Data, 1980, (unpublished). Quoted in Slade (1985: 3).

What is interesting is the impact of marriage on women's incomes in old age. It is clear from Table 6.3 that the women who have never married tend to have higher incomes than the widowed and divorced women and considerably higher incomes than the separated women who have left marriages with no settlement, and who are thus poorer than divorced women. As many as 91 per cent of separated women over 60 relied on annual incomes of less than $6000 in 1981 compared to 76 per cent and 81 per cent of never married and widowed women respectively. If these figures are disaggregated further by age even greater discrepancies emerge. Less than 1 per cent of separated women over 70, and 15 per cent of divorced women, had an income greater than $6000 in 1981. Table 6.3 Individual Incomes of women over 60 by marital status (%) $ 0-6000 6-15000 15000 +

Never married

Widowed

Separated

Divorced

76 18 4

81 14 2

91 7 —

83 15 2

Note: Figures do not add up to 100 because of not stated category. Source: ABS. Census 1981. 1 per cent "Household file.

It would seem probable that never-married women are likely to have higher incomes in old age because their labour-force participation would have been greater than that of women who had spent time as wives and mothers. Analysis of the 1 per cent household file of the 1981 Census confirms this view. As many as 16 per cent of women over 60 who had never married were in the labour force in 1981, compared with 8 per cent of widowed, 9 per cent of separated, and 12 per cent of divorced women. Moreover, never-married employed women of over 60 were concentrated in the better-paid sectors; over half were in clerical jobs compared to approximately one-quarter of widowed and separated women. The service sector represents a significant area of employment (half of separated, one-quarter of widowed and only one-sixth of never-married women who worked were in this sector).

W5

Accommodating inequality

As has already been stated, marriage does not have the same detrimental effect on men's incomes in old age: 11.9 per cent of divorced men over 60, compared with 7.4 per cent of nevermarried men, had an annual income over $15 000. To summarise: men's incomes in old age tend to be higher than women's incomes. Women's incomes are affected by marriage whereas men's are not, and this pattern is evident in old age as well as among younger age groups. What then are the implications of income and marital status for older women's housing? This is considered next. Housing tenure A comparison of the current tenure of men and women over 60 reveals only two notable differences between the sexes. More women are public tenants than men whereas more men fall into the Census category — 'other tenant not elsewhere included' — which covers accommodation provided by an employer, caretakers' accommodation, etc., as well as special forms of provision for elderly people. Thus 7.8 per cent of women over sixty are public tenants compared to 4.1 per cent of men, whereas 9.3 per cent of men and 6 per cent of women fall into the 'other tenant' (NEI) category. Approximately equal proportions of men and women were owner/purchasers (67.6 per cent, 68.6 per cent) and private tenants (12.3 per cent and 12 per cent). Women's greater reliance on the public sector is no surprise in the context of their lower economic status. It is also interesting to compare single and couple-headed aged households on tenure. As many as 85 per cent of aged married couples are owners or purchasers compared with 60 per cent of single aged households, reflecting the dominance of this tenure amongst traditional family households. An analysis of the figures disaggregated by marital status reveals that there is a higher percentage of home owners/purchasers amongst never-married (69%) and widowed (70%) women than amongst separated (48%) and divorced (60%) women. Lower levels of home ownership amongst divorced men and women can be explained by the difficulties encountered by divorced households trying to enter, re-enter or remain in home ownership after the marriage has broken down as chapter 6 showed. Especially lower levels of home ownership amongst separated older women

106

Sexual divisions in old age

derives from women's powerlessness within the marriage, which militates against women being able to gain a fair share of the equity outside of the legal process. Research evidence suggests (McDonald 1985) that women are more likely to leave an unsatisfactory marriage first, thereby losing their claim to the marital home. Surprisingly enough, there is no discrepancy between nevermarried men's and women's home ownership rates in old age. Given women's generally lower income and employment prospects and discrimination towards women attempting to gain access to home loan finance, we could reasonably expect lower rates of home ownership amongst never-married women. No large-scale research has explored never-married older women's access to home ownership. Several possible explanations could be suggested, however. Given lower rates of home ownership amongst young never-married women compared to young nevermarried men, it would appear that many never-married women are becoming owners/purchasers at a later stage in life. This could be because the ideology of women as carers means more single women are expected to look after ageing parents and thus tend to take on this role more frequently than single men (Phillipson, 1981). This course of action is likely to result in these women remaining in or inheriting the parental home on the death of the parents. Another explanation might lie in differences in employment patterns between single men and women. A certain proportion of never-married Australian men's employment of this generation was in the services, mining, agricultural and other sectors which provided tied accommodation and required frequent mobility. Never-married women's employment on the other hand is likely to have involved less mobility. Without the evidence however, such hypotheses remain a matter for conjecture. The rate of home ownership in old age also varies between widowed and never-married women. As mentioned above, older women are more reliant on the public sector than older men, which reflects their lower income status. This is particularly true for separated women, 18 per cent of whom were public tenants in 1981, compared with 4 per cent of separated men. The public sector in the post-war period would have represented the only option on separation for women on low incomes with children. The smaller proportion (5 per cent of never-married public tenants reflects the eligibility criteria of public housing authorities, where, 107

Accommodating inequality

with the exception of South Australia and the Federal Territories, single people had no access to public housing until recent years. In most cases the older never-married public tenants would have thus gained a tenancy as aged pensioners. Finally the private rental sector is of particular significance to older people who have divorced or separated, with one-fifth of men and women living as private tenants in 1981. Given the high rents in this sector and the minimal financial assistance given to private tenants contrasting with the lower rents in the public sector, it is clear that divorced and separated older women are particularly disadvantaged in housing terms. Structure of dwelling and housing costs The structure of a dwelling is a useful indicator of relative housing standard; that is, whether it is high, medium or low density, or whether the dwelling has three or eight rooms. Housing costs are likewise important since the greater the housing expenditure the less the amount of disposable income for other goods and services. Analysis of the Census household data reveals that women over 60 tend to have a lower standard of accommodation than men. Seventy-four per cent of men alone over 60 compared with sixty-four per cent of women lived in a separate house in 1981. Women were more concentrated in mediumdensity housing: 27 per cent of women and 17 per cent of men lived in medium-density housing or flats over three stories high. If space is taken as a measure of standard, older men are better housed. A similar picture emerges on a comparison of the size of dwellings: 43 per cent of women over 60 lived in dwellings with a total of four or fewer rooms, compared to 38 per cent of men. An analysis of housing costs reveals that as many as 43 per cent of women over 60 have monthly mortgage payments over $399 compared with less than one-third of male owners over 60. Bearing in mind women's generally lower incomes, this is a significant discrepancy. It implies that many older female home owners have low disposable incomes to maintain and repair dwellings and to spend on other goods and services. Although the numbers in each group are relatively small, a further disaggregation of housing costs by marital status indicates very high housing costs amongst the never-married home purchasers (com-

108

Sexual divisions in old age

pared to widowed purchasers), indicating a hidden level of poverty within this group. Seventy-six per cent of never-married female home owners had monthly mortgage repayments over $399, compared with 42 per cent of widows. This suggests that the never-married women had become home owners at a later stage in their lives having saved for a deposit for many years, whilst the widowed women were able to enter this tenure with their husband, on the basis of a higher male income or two incomes in the household. Location A higher proportion (69 per cent) of women over 60 than men (59 per cent) lived in major urban areas in 1981. Whereas over twice the percentage of men (15 per cent) than women (6 per cent) lived in rural areas. Location of housing in old age is relevant in terms of access to services. Services tend to be more highly concentrated in urban areas and on these grounds it would appear that older women fare better than men. However, there are also advantages associated with living in rural areas in old age, particularly in country towns or villages as opposed to outerlying suburban or run-down inner-city areas. These include the concentration of shops, the local doctor, community centre and so on, all within walking distance or short car or taxi rides. A sense of community may well be easier to achieve in rural areas. A greater proportion (8 per cent) of never-married and divorced women than widows live in major urban areas. This could be explained by the concentration of female employment in urban areas and the greater ease of access to public and private rental housing which would have been crucial to women starting life independently. Remaining in a small town after marital breakdown was also mentioned by some women as an unpleasant experience. Cities offer the anonymity sometimes sought. In conclusion then, older women appear to be worse off than older men in financial terms. Moreover, marriage has a detrimental effect on women's earning capacity with the result that never-married older women overall have higher incomes than women who have once been married. In housing, older women tend to have lower housing standards and relatively higher housing costs than men if they are purchasing their dwelling. There 109

Accommodating inequality

also appears to be a greater reliance by older women than men on the public sector. Marital breakdown also has a significant impact on women's housing in old age, with separated and divorced women relying more heavily on the public and private rental sectors. Never-married women who are purchasers, on the other hand have higher housing costs than widowed purchasers. This then is a summary analysis of older women's economic and housing position. Extensive interviews with 73 women provide some substance and colour to this rather numerical picture, as we see in the following chapter.

110

7 On the scrap heap: Older women, housing issues and perspectives An essential component in the well-being of older women is their housing. Since old age implies a withdrawal (often forced) from active participation in the labour force, an end to motherhood and related responsibilities, and for a minority, restricted mobility and ill-health, the home takes on an increased significance. It is important to emphasise that the centrality of the home to many older women results as much from a lack of outside focus, in the form of paid employment, accessible and inexpensive cultural or educational activities, community centres and the exclusion of old people in Australian society generally, as from a choice on the part of the woman concerned. For whatever reason, to a greater or lesser extent, housing plays a crucial part in the lives of older women. This chapter draws on a study of women over 60 living alone who were interviewed in Sydney, Canberra and Queanbeyan in 1984—5 (Coleman and Watson, 1987). The emphasis was on collecting qualitative information to sharpen, and provide depth to, the statistical picture of older women's lives that emerges from an analysis of Census, and other national data. (See Chapter 7). The question we set out to explore was how the sexual division of labour in Australia acts to structure older women's lives in ways that set their experiences apart from those of many older men. Seventy-three women over 60 were interviewed in four different housing sectors: home ownership (which included a predominance of outright owners, and mortgagors in houses and units); private rental; public rental; and retirement villages/institutional care (which included non-resident and resident-funded hostels, self-contained units and nursing homes). Many of the women were very articulate about the problems and issues central to their lives, while for others the problems were submerged, 111

Accommodating inequality

having never before been articulated. Prevalent assumptions about 'aged housing', for example, the notion that a 'bedsit' can adequately meet the 'needs' of the aged or that retirement villages suit many older people's housing needs, were questioned by many of the women interviewed. The study focused mainly on Australian-born older women; no Aboriginal and very few ethnic women were in the sample. This reflected the difficulties of finding ethnic or Aboriginal women to interview and a lack of resources. The few non-Australian born women interviewed were from European countries and spoke English fairly fluently. An analysis of the literature on the subject suggests that the difficulties women face in old age are compounded for ethnic women by language problems, alienation from white Australian culture, isolation and poverty. Home ownership It is commonly assumed that home ownership is one of the more satisfactory forms of housing for the aged, especially in economic terms, and that there are no major problems associated with this form of tenure (Graycar, 1984). This may be the case for married couples where there are two incomes and costs are shared, but when a woman is widowed or divorced the economies of scale alter, and other fundamental issues relating to a woman's former dependency on a deceased or divorced spouse can affect her ability to cope in the home ownership sector. Traditional sexual divisions in Australian society have meant that many women of the current over-60s generation are unaccustomed to dealing with maintenance and repairs, or the entire economic responsibilities of upkeep and rates and the payment of bills: He did everything, I was a thoroughly kept woman, now I have to cope with maintenance, which I never had to deal with. Women who are widowed in old age are particularly vulnerable in this respect. As Slade (1985: 5) points out 'the shift into these new and frightening areas of responsibility comes at a time when their lives are dislocated by the loss of a partner and they are struggling to survive emotionally'. The costs of living are essentially doubled when paid out of a 112

Older women and housing issues

single income, particularly since this income for many is merely the aged pension ($91.90 per week at the time of the study). Fifteen of the 25 home owners interviewed derived their primary income from the pension. Where women do have a supplementary income this reduces the pension so that real income falls accordingly. The following woman's costs illustrate how weekly bills can easily exceed the pensioner rate of $91.90. A Canberra woman's bills

Per week

Electricity, $125 per quarter Telephone, $84 per quarter Food (depending upon number of visitors) Maintenance & repairs: painting $600, plumbing $40, gutters $40, trees cut $100, other maintenance and repairs — approximately $1000 per annum Service: lawns cut, $40 month Other rates $635 per annum Insurance $300 per annum Transport

$11 $7 $30

$20 $10 $12 $5 $5

$100

These bills only take into account essential requirements and do not include money for clothes, entertainment, extra food, a meal out—all of life's simple pleasures. It is not only the widowed home owners who suffer these straitened financial circumstances; never-married and divorced home owners — many of whom entered this tenure through marriage—do also. After a lifetime of low-paid sometimes intermittent employment, some of the never-married women, and those who had divorced many years previously, had reached old age with few accumulated assets, savings and resources. Unfortunately, the data collected on savings was unreliable, since some respondents found these questions intrusive, however impressionistic assessments during the interviews suggested that many of these women experienced considerable financial difficulties. Another important issue in the home ownership sector is repairs. The McLeay Report (1982) indicated that lack of income 113

Accommodating inequality

and reduced ability to undertake repairs means that many aged home owners are living in dwellings that are in a poor state of repair. Over half of the aged home owners in Australia live in dwellings built before World War II, which due to their age are generally in much poorer condition than newer ones (Kendig, 1981: 9). The existing dwelling stock is largely not suited to older people's needs, particularly if they are frail or infirm. Gardens are frequently of unmanageable size, bathrooms and toilets are not appropriately designed, entrances can be inconvenient and interior access poor (Kilner, 1983: 9). The Newcastle Inner City Survey of Elderly Housing Need indicated that such problems were serious enough to force one-third of the residents interviewed to consider alternatives even if this would mean unfavourable tradeoffs in their lifestyle (Lynch, 1983: 44). Over half the women in the home-ownership sector found maintenance and repairs to be a problem after their husband's death/divorce. The economic responsibility of maintaining the house had become a problem, as was the necessity of calling in tradesmen to do jobs that had previously been done, or organised, by their husbands. I have to rely on tradesmen, I don't feel secure about tradesmen's quotes, often I can't get simple jobs done cheaply, for example cleaning the guttering. I never feel confident about getting people in, I never feel happy about it — having to pay to get the lawns mowed and leaves cleared. Often the simplest of tasks is difficult for older women, particularly for those who are becoming a little frail: 'The biggest problem is putting in light bulbs'. This comment reflects not necessarily a physical inability but more a fear of falling and having no-one near to call out to. For some women the primary reason for leaving their last accommodation was because the house and garden were becoming unmanageable. This is substantiated by a survey of 60 prospective consumers of retirement villages, almost a third of whom were interested in this form of housing because it represented freedom from home maintenance. The survey concluded that one of the three main reasons elderly people consider alternative accommodation is 'the current cost of maintaining their present accommodation' (Chandler, 1984: 136). Another maintenance cost, of relevance to homeowners in 114

Older women and housing issues

units and flats, is the body corporate maintenance fee. These fees are common now to most strata-titled and company title units and range from minimal annual amounts to considerable annual costs. One Sydney woman explained: I'm worried about the increasing cost of maintenance, my capital is getting eaten away, I'm afraid that soon I may not be able to afford the maintenance. This year the CPI index increased the pension by $130 per year, but the maintenance increased by $108 per year also, making it $508, which only includes outside maintenance, garden, painting, pool etc.' (Rates, insurance, internal maintenance such as plumbing, electrical etc. are not included). According to this woman the maintenance fee rise derived from the fact that most of the units in her block were rental investment properties where the owners were keen to increase the maintenance in the short term, in order to increase the value quickly enabling them to sell with a profit. Rising maintenance costs can become a cause of great anxiety for people on fixed incomes. Tm finding that each year I have to use less electricity — I use a microwave to save electricity, turn off the hot water tank except before use, use less airconditioning . . . I no longer can afford to call my daughter in Penrith, I feel isolated from her, she can't afford to call me either as she has four kids.' Thus, although home ownership suits some individual's housing needs, major problems in this tenure can arise. There has been some recognition of such problems in reports, which have referred, for example to domiciliary services which are needed to maintain people in their homes, to the problem of large capital assets being tied up in the home, with less disposable income for living expenses, and other such issues. However, issues of specific relevance to older women in home ownership have been little discussed. These include their common poverty (which challenges the myth that home owners are necessarily well-off), and the problems associated with the home-maintenance for those on limited incomes, especially for women without the appropriate knowledge or confidence to organise solutions. Schemes to provide maintenance at little or no cost to elderly home owners 115

Accommodating inequality

through well-publicised and reliable government funded organisations need to be widely developed. This is essential not simply to ensure that older people live in reasonable conditions, but also to maintain the nation's housing stock. As the McLeay Report recommended, minor repairs could be best met by local services. Major renovations and improvements require a state or Commonwealth response. One method of finance would be for such costs to be reimbursed from the estate when the house is finally sold, distributed or left to dependants. The poverty issue can be addressed in various ways. The Poverty Inquiry proposal that eligibility for supplementary assistance be extended to reduce the high housing costs faced by some owners, as well as public and private tenants (Kendig, 1984a) is a particularly sensible one. Finally, there is a need for innovative schemes to enable elderly home owners who so desired to move into accommodation more adequately suited to their needs — be it smaller, more manageable, newer, one storey, etc. Alternatively, schemes could be devised to enable older home owners to stay in their dwellings by selling or part-selling their property to the Housing Department or a local authority. Responsibility for maintenance could thus be transferred elsewhere. An option for conversion to two dwellings, or sharing the dwelling, might also be considered. Although home owners are likely to have made tax-free gains on their dwellings, for many women the substantial reserve that this represents (Kendig, 1984a: 10) is not easily realisable as cash to buy into specialised retirement housing if necessary. Many women lack knowledge of the housing market (house prices, how to buy and sell, the alternative options) and confidence; and the sheer physical and legal difficulties associated with moving house appear to militate against many women shifting accommodation in old age. Retirement villages There is a growing trend amongst private, church and charitable organisations away from a needs-based rental system into the provision of resident-funded retirement villages. Retirement housing has increasingly become a field of activity for private developers who are primarily governed by the profit motive. Thus, in NSW approximately 887 retirement villages require 116

Older women and housing issues

donations or resident funding for entrance (NSW Council on Ageing, 1982, 1983, 1984) and in Canberra the proportion is approximately two-thirds, according to the local Council on Ageing. Resident funding requirements act to exclude many older people who have minimal savings, incomes or assets. Chandler (1984: 137) in her survey found that the few church and charitable organisations that did provide rental accommodation had long waiting lists (as much as 3 years) and limited choice of location. The poor location of these villages derives from the obvious financial constraints upon such organisations. The cheaper land is often at some distance from services and many residents have to move away from their existing social networks (Kearney, 1984: 20). The growth of resident-funded villages is all the more inequitable when considered in the context of the Federal Government subsidies to these institutions under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954-76, since most of this accommodation goes to the more affluent elderly people and not to those most in need (McColl, 1985: 2). Hansard records reveal that the question of subsidising such accommodation was raised shortly after the legislation was passed in 1954 and has been the subject of debate since that time. Retirement villages have been highly promoted in recent years and many 'aged' are 'encouraged' to move into this form of housing. But like the other tenures the choice is not straightforward and problems can occur. Indeed retirement villages are not necessarily the best form of housing for many older people. In this study the problems and levels of satisfaction in retirement villages varied markedly between the different institutions according to several factors. These included the management, the nature of accommodation provided (e.g. self care/self-contained units, hostels, nursing homes), the socioeconomic position of the women, and most importantly whether the woman entered the village by choice, or upon persuasion by her family or doctor. Of the women interviewed those that were 'persuaded' to move into the villages were less likely to be satisfied: My daughter put my name down, I didn't even know, when she brought me to look at it I said 'I'm not moving in here they're all geriatrics'. 117

Accommodating inequality

You feel as though you're dumped. You either adapt to institutions or you don't. I haven't. I feel very isolated, very ashamed of this place, I wish I hadn't left home. Not like home, very sad places, you never get used to it! I'd like to get out of it if I could but where would you go? These women lived in a retirement village where the $10 000 deposit was not refundable if an individual decided to move. No trial period was allowed. They were also in 'hostel type' accommodation which means that they had a bedsit and toilet facilities, with meals and recreation provided in the main dining room. In this village and in most hostel situations there were no individual cooking facilities for the women; cooking in the rooms was prohibited. They don't advise cooking in the rooms here, scared of fire, no cooking facilities, too many waftee people. Many women in this situation expressed a desire to entertain, and to be able to choose their own food or to bake a cake or biscuits. Women's primarily domestic role in this society means that cooking and entertaining has often been a central part of their lives. To suddenly deny this by accommodating them in small bedsitter arrangements with no space or cooking facilities can become a very restricting and isolating factor. I feel very restricted, can't ask anybody in for a meal — I'm used to having people in for a drink and dinner at least once a week — but I couldn't ask them here for the food is too terrible. The limited size of bedsits also prevents friends or relatives staying overnight. One woman in a Queanbeyan retirement village whose daughter lived in Sydney, explained that her daughter was forced to travel down and return in the same day because she was unable to afford overnight accommodation and there was no room for her daughter to sleep: 'I bought a folding bed, I don't know why, there's nowhere to put it up'. Indeed four out of the ten women interviewed in retirement villages concluded that accommodation size was their major complaint. 118

Older women and housing issues

Another significant issue is that of individual control. Some women, particularly in the resident-funded villages, where financial commitment compounded their lack of mobility, mentioned lack of control. You've got no say . . . Now they even inspect the fridges! You're always under supervision, god help you if you need a bid of kindness .. . If you complain they say 'there's the door .. . Too much damn religion here, if you don't go to the services they look down at you .. . In her study Legge (1984: 5) also found lack of control to be one of the major differences between retirement village residents and old people who had stayed in independently owned or rented accommodation. Those who were satisfied tended to live in one bedroom, selfcontained units, where they primarily cared for themselves, but had the security of either ongoing care or staff, or neighbours at close quarters to help when you needed (most retirement villages are designed with 'panic buttons' to call for help). They were also relatively secure from the fear of intruders. Security is one important issue, maintenance is another. In retirement villages maintenance worries are taken care of. For many women this was an important factor in the move. Fortythree per cent in this type of accommodation indicated that their main reason for leaving their last accommodation was because the house and garden were becoming unmanageable. Others felt their fears and inability to cope with further maintenance and repairs, rising rents in the private rental sector, or concern about their health failing had pushed them into retirement villages prematurely. Women often accepted an offer when it arose in the fear that the second offer might be too late. Several other positive aspects of retirement villages were discussed. One issue was the companionship that some women found in these villages and an end to isolation and loneliness. Another was the freedom from domestic responsibilities, which have been so central to many women's lives. These findings support those of the NSW Council of Ageing survey of prospective retirement village consumers, which indicated that the prime reasons for interest in retirement accommodation were security 119

Accommodating inequality

(40 per cent), the possibility of relieving the family of future worries (30 per cent) and freedom from home maintenance (29 per cent) (Chandler, 1984: 142). For many of the women, although not all, retirement village life implied losing autonomy in their lives and often a subjection to a way of life that they found unacceptable. For some the retirement village had been less a matter of choice than a lack of alternative options. Some women had ended up there from family pressure while others had seen the retirement village as a possible solution to their fear or emotional insecurity; others had found the move a positive one. What is important however, is that the change of accommodation necessarily implied a change of lifestyle, which in many cases was an unwelcome one. Yet, many of the imposed changes in lifestyle of the residents could be avoided relatively easily. Access to cooking facilities and the ability to entertain and have friends to stay are two such issues; the obligation to participate in communal (religious or otherwise) life is another. Changes in the design of such dwellings or the internal organisation of space would help to solve the former problems, changes in attitudes to old people would go some way to solving the latter. Nevertheless, as Legge (1984: 7) argues, retirement villages do represent a positive solution for some older people, and as such should be an option available to all, not just the very wealthy. Nursing homes A small number of women were interviewed in nursing homes, and several others commented on this form of accommodation. The thought of moving into nursing homes was considered far from ideal by the women, despite their physical disabilities. Familiarity with their current dwelling and neighbourhoods, and fear of having to live amongst people more infirm and less alert than themselves were mentioned: My doctor has wanted to put me into a home for years but I refuse. As long as you are mentally fit you shouldn't go. I have a friend in one but it's very depressing going to see her. One of the women interviewed was virtually blind but insisted on staying in her own house. She was unlikely to be eligible for 120

Older women and housing issues

self-contained or minimal care retirement village housing, since the ability to look after oneself is the usual requirement for such accommodation. Her only option would have been a nursing home which she rejected in favour of the autonomy she still had, living in her own house and being visited by a community nurse. The private rental sector Of all the housing sectors, the private rental sector appears to be least satisfactory for older people. The main problems are economic, insecurity of tenure, material conditions and privacy. Rental costs in the private sector have been escalating for some years and are generally markedly higher than rents in public housing, nonresident retirement villages or the maintenance costs of home owners. The Poverty Inquiry revealed that many private tenants were in particularly dire straits. The financial difficulties of private tenants in Sydney, where their median housing expenditure is twice that of public tenants and four times that of outright owners, are particularly severe. However, throughout Australia older private tenants live on little more than the basic pension, with more than half paying over one-third of their income in rent and one-third paying over half their income on rent. The private tenants interviewed in our survey reflected this pattern. Several women were paying up to 80 per cent of their pensioner income on rent. Although some women received a $10 rental rebate, others did not, often simply because they were unaware of their eligibility. Pensioners are not periodically notified of concessions available. It is entirely up to the pensioner to find out what concessions they are eligible for and to notify Social Security. Women interviewed in this sector, particularly in Sydney, not only were paying high rents in proportion to income but were living in accommodation where the location and conditions of the premises were not favourable. Most of the private tenants interviewed preferred to live alone (10 out of 13) — sharing as a way of reducing individual rental costs was not considered. One woman who gave up a good tenancy due to prohibitive rental increases was forced to move into a boarding house where she took on a caretaking/cleaner position to reduce her rental (from $55 to $25 per week.) For $30 121

Accommodating inequality

a week she was expected to clean all the bathroom and toilet facilities (which she shared also) including the 'mens'. She was there 3 years. They were dirty beggars too, most were alcoholics. I had to put up with it because I couldn't afford anything else. Eventually her doctor told her that she would have to move on account of her health. Although she was now unable to afford her current rent, It was all that was available and I was desperate, I'd been looking for a place for months. It was full of cockroaches and rat droppings and I had to buy a fridge and there's not enough sunlight, but I had to get out of the other place. Security of tenure is rare in the private rental sector. One 83 year old woman (in Sydney) had not lived in one place for more than 3 to 4 years in all her adult life. Another, commenting on the insecurity of her accommodation, said: I am one of hundreds of elderly people who have spent something like half a century living in inadequate conditions (small rooms, shared bathrooms, toilets, often with dubiously clean people) and being booted out at regular intervals when houses change owners or are remodified or whatever. According to one study (Kendig, 1981: 24) older tenants are inclined to put up with poor housing conditions through fear of moving or an inability to find a better alternative. Thus, given the current high rentals, older women on a limited income who have to rely on the rental market often live in substandard accommodation. (Most of the Sydney private tenants interviewed were in bedsitters). Women at the cheaper end of the market complained about the filthy conditions, and for two women their current accommodation was the first place that they had lived in during all their years as tenants which had bathroom and toilet facilities. The majority of the Sydney private tenants were living in poorer, higher risk areas, where low rents and access to city services attracted individuals who were seen by the women as threatening. A study of old people in the inner city of Brisbane (Selby and Hall, 1984: 21) similarly found that older people renting in the area felt Vulnerable to intimidation, assault, 122

Older women and housing issues

and robbery, and because of that did not seek or encourage social relationships with other people including other elderly tenants living in the same buildings'. Maintenance repairs in private tenancies are also a problem: I've been here six weeks and the toilet is still broken, I've got to put my hand in the cistern to flush it, it's a health hazard — there's a hole in the wall, I'm frightened rats will get in, the place was filthy, it took me 2 weeks to clean it. I paid $30 to have a few jobs done. Lack of privacy was another: The flat's very noisy, I don't know people, the chap who lives opposite has outrageous parties — if I'd been on the phone (can't afford it) I'd have called the police to complain, but I can't go out to use the phone at night. All of the private tenants interviewed in the three cities were eligible for public housing, and the majority had applied, some not only to the Housing Commission but also to various local council housing programs. What is interesting is that some women had elected to remain in private rental accommodation. One reason was the 3-year (minimum) waiting list for public housing which put them off completing their registration. For old women who consider their future to be a limited one, 3 years is a long time to wait. Another was the freedom to keep pets, which was clearly significant to many of the women. I put my name down but I told them not to hurry because I don't want to be separated from my pussy cat. The desire to keep pets was mentioned by women in all the sectors, including the owner-occupied sector (some body corporates in unit blocks forbid pets). For older women living alone pets can provide an important sense of company, and in the case of dogs — security. Although pets are allowed in the public sector in some states, it is often not written into the tenancy agreement. This policy clearly needs to be rectified, since the lack of published information meant many women were unaware of their potential right to keep pets in public housing. Another aspect of private rental accommodation which makes it unsuitable for the aged is the lack of modifications in private 123

Accommodating inequality

rental dwellings to accommodate the frailty of old people. Very few landlords would be likely to consider carrying out modifications such as the installation of ramps and bathroom rails. Obviously, there is little incentive for private landlords to make such modifications for temporary residence. In this respect once again private tenants are the most disadvantaged. Retirement villages are specifically designed with such modifications, public housing authorities will often modify accommodation to suit the handicapped if necessary and some special aged persons' units are designed with modifications. Home owners are able to make such modifications if affordable, and some of the home maintenance services such as Handy Help and Techelp (a community organisation in Sydney) can also make modifications for low-income owners. This problem is further compounded for tenants living in accommodation with 'shared facilities.' A survey of frail tenants in Brisbane found: Being frail, it was not easy for them to make their way to the communal bathroom and nor was it easy for them to dress and undress or get themselves in and out of the bath or shower. Because it was so difficult for them to manage, they did not do it as often as they probably should have. . . . Keeping clean was a problem for them .. . The same sort of conditions applied with regard to the laundering of their clothing and bed linen . . . (Selby and Hall, 1984). The two principal reasons for women choosing the private rental sector were location and accommodation size. Location was of particular relevance to Sydney women, many of whom wanted to remain near the city centre where they had lived most of their lives, or where they had social and service networks established. Some preferred poor private-rental accommodation to relocation to the 'western suburbs'. One woman who had previously accepted a Housing Commission tenancy was relocated to Bankstown but it was too far for her to travel to her hospital which she visited for regular treatment. Distance was one issue, cost of fares another. After a varied housing history (which included nursing homes) this woman ended up back in the private rental market where, despite the expense, she had some choice about where she lived. This locational freedom represents one of the only positive factors of the private rental market. However even that is now threatened with the gentriflcation of the inner 124

Older women and housing issues

city suburbs, which have traditionally housed low income households. Many elderly private tenants are subject to familiar market pressures — gentrification, rising rents, the growing popularity of the inner suburbs and strata-titling of flats. The private rental market is more competitive than ever, especially at the bottom end, and it clearly does not help to be frail, without transport or without financial reserves. (Kilner, 1983: 9). Other former public tenants complained that they could not bear to return to the limited space usually provided in the form of a bedsit: I tell you what, those Housing Commission flats, you couldn't swing a mouse in 'em let alone a cat! They're only bedsitters, that's why I don't want to go back to the Housing Commission! Without substantial regulation of the private rental sector, it is likely to remain a negative option for most older women. Nevertheless, many older women do currently live in this tenure and like other private tenants they would benefit from rent controls, enforced standards of repairs and maintenance, and greater security. Similarly, an increase in the rent relief allowance would represent a substantial gain for women whose sole income is the pension. As Kending points out (1981: 35) the supplementary assistance for aged pensioners who rent could be raised considerably without placing major burdens on public expenditure. However, the public sector is likely to continue to be the more appropriate rental sector for older people in terms of security, cost, conditions and adaptability to older peoples' housing needs. Public housing Although most states provide special pensioner housing, the majority of aged public tenants remain in standard public dwellings which they entered, often as part of a family household, many years earlier. Almost all the Canberra public tenants interviewed were in such standard dwellings. In contrast, in Sydney the majority of tenants interviewed lived in special pensioner housing constructed in the past 2 decades. This comprised several high-rise blocks of one-bedroom pensioner units in Redfern, and smaller two-storey blocks of one-bedroom units in the western suburbs.

125

Accommodating inequality

There are significant advantages associated with living in the public sector for many older women. The first is its low cost: rental payments are set at less than 25 per cent of the aged pension. The second is security of tenure. The third is the inclusion of maintenance and repair costs within the rental payments. The fourth is the freedom from responsibility for repairs and maintenance, and the fifth advantage in some, but not in all, pensioner housing is the security provided by caretakers and the special facilities available. Of course many pensioners live in standard public housing where no such security exists, and where fear of vandalism and harassment is a real issue. Despite the advantage there is substantial room for improvement in the provision of aged housing, as the interviewees' comments illustrate. Location and size were the major complaints made by women in the public housing sector. Privacy and heating, or the lack of these, were the other major problems. Seven of the 20 public tenants gave size of the accommodation as their first major housing problem, bedsitters were simply too small (although in many areas they continue to be the standard housing form for 'aged' housing). When asked what their accommodation lacked, 8 of the women in public housing and ten of the 16 women in bedsits said an extra bedroom. One woman who hated living in a bedsitter had been trying to transfer for 4 years but 'was knocked back last time, they said I wasn't entitled to a bedroom'. Isolation was another concern. Feelings of isolation were clearly not simply a matter of distance and transport problems (which were acute) but also derived from the downgraded local conditions some of the women experienced: Housing Commission put me out in Ashcroft. I had to walk 2 miles if I was out after 6 pm. My neighbours were all really weird people, so foul-mouthed . . . they'd pee at the bus stop .. . I've never come into contact with such misfits — only one out of eight in the flats could communicate. This woman's sense of isolation was not simply a result of acute transport problems. She stayed there 2V2 years. After losing 2l/2 stone in despair, she obtained a transfer—one of the few people fortunate enough to relocated in the central city area. Most others were not so fortunate. Some women had accepted bedsitters in the western suburbs because they were given the im126

Older women and housing issues

pression that they could subsequently be transferred. For many, going out was the only escape, although for a pensioner in the west of Sydney it was a costly venture: You've got to rely on private buses, no public transport that far out, which is expensive, and hope you connect with the train, otherwise you've got to catch a taxi. This woman paid $17 or more per week on fares and spent 2 hours each-way travelling time (bus, train, bus for every journey). Having spent the majority of her adult life in the eastern suburbs, she preferred to continue to see her doctor of 20 years, and go to the senior citizens clubs there, because it was familiar and all her friends lived in that area. When she was placed in Mount Druitt 5 years ago, she was told to accept the allocation because she could always apply for a transfer—she had contacted the Housing Commission three times for a transfer but had been refused. Her final comment about the Housing Commission was: 'It's certainly better than sleeping in the park but other than that it has no advantages at all'. The importance of location is increasingly recognised by agencies involved in housing the aged. The importance of trying to provide housing for the aged in familiar areas and close to services is now being stressed by authorities such as the South Australian Housing Trust, who recognise the importance of maintaining the (aged) tenant's needs for 'familiarity': 'Familiarity relates largely to the location of the housing which must enable the post-retirement tenant to retain neighbourhood networks of friends and services' (SAHT). The Abbeyfield Society also stress this issue. Lack of privacy and security in public sector blocks was emphasised by women in both Sydney and Canberra. Also frequent complaints were made about noise and difficult neighbours. A woman in Canberra explained: It's too noisy, a lot of drunkards, one neighbour is deaf and so talks loudly, another bangs on the floor when I talk or roll the bathroom door — my neighbour has written dozens of letters but nothing is done — the police come a lot. On the security issue the most common complaint was theft. Lack of security in housing blocks in inner city Redfern was not so much an issue about the accommodation itself as the area: 'It's 127

Accommodating inequality

handy but there are always brawls on the corner—several women have had their bags stolen from out the front of the building/ Maintenance and repair problems were more frequently mentioned by Canberra's public tenants than Sydney tenants. A large proportion of Canberra's public tenants expressed concern over the run-down nature of tenancies allocated: This flat hasn't been painted (on the inside) for 11 years by the Housing Department; it was over 3 years before I moved in that it had last been painted — I had to paint it myself which cost a lot — they seem to paint the outside every 3 to 4 years. This suggests that maintaining the public facade was considered of greater priority than the residents' satisfaction. Heating problems were also prevalent in each housing sector, but particularly in the public sector, especially in Canberra where the winters are long and cold. Nearly half the women who considered heating to be their first problem were public tenants: I asked the Housing Commission about another heater in the living/kitchen room but they said the wiring is too bad (despite the fact that there are eight power points in the room!) — I can't carry the other heater downstairs so I usually cook tea before it gets dark, it's too cold after that — and the heater in the bedroom doesn't work too well — I've got a kero heater but can't carry the fuel home. The main problem, however, was not so much the lack of heaters as the cost of heating. Many women described going to bed early to save on heating costs. Since people tend to become more susceptible to the cold in old age, and also to spend more time at home, it is of some urgency that heating needs be addressed for this section of the population. Although public housing can be unsatisfactory in terms of its size, location, privacy and maintenance and repairs, its advantages were seen by the women to lie in its low rental costs and its security of tenure. A Sydney woman who had spent most of her life in the private rental sector considered herself fortunate to be living in the public sector. Realising the struggle involved in living on the pension and paying a low rent she did not envy women in the private rental sector who were paying inflated rents with added insecurity of tenure. 128

Older women and housing issues Location Housing cannot be considered in isolation from the wider urban system. The relation of housing to centres of employment; transport; social, community, medical, educational and support services, is a crucial one. The location of housing in the lives of older people who are more likely to be restricted in their mobility and in the lives of older women specifically,' who are less likely than men to own or drive a car (ABS, 1981), is of particular concern. This issue is frequently neglected by planners and architects. Too often the emphasis is on constructing streamlined modern housing estates, the well-designed retirement village or the model public housing complex while the wider context of such housing is often forgotten. A central issue is accessibility — transport constitutes the essential link between housing, services, and social networks. Where frailty is involved, transport is essential even where distances are short. The interviews suggested that public transport played a specific role in the lives of older women, since many were frightened of assault in the streets and many had no access to a vehicle and no driver's licence: only one-third of the women interviewed had drivers' licences and an even smaller proportion owned a car. The majority of the women with cars were home owners (reflecting their higher economic status), and more carowners lived in Canberra, where the layout of the city makes car ownership a virtual necessity. Not surprisingly over half of the women relied on public transport as their primary form of transport, the level of reliance varying markedly between cities and according to marital status and housing tenure. First, only 38 per cent of the Canberra women, and one-third of the women in Queanbeyan used any form of public transport, compared to 71 per cent of the Sydney women interviewed. This lesser use of public transport in Canberra can be attributed to the nature of the transport system in that city. Bus services are designed primarily to meet the needs of those in full-time employment, in the major centres, with services decreasing during the day. Those who need to travel outside of rush hours or on circuitous routes between neighbourhoods to the local doctor, for example, are at a distinct disadvantage. Women as single parents and in old age are specifically affected by these constraints. Thus, only two of the Canberra 129

Accommodating inequality

women took buses to do their shopping, two walked one way and caught the bus home, and a further two walked one way and took a taxi back—either because the waiting time between buses was too long or the bus stop was too far from their homes. Another woman with a heart condition had campaigned for months for an additional bus stop to be located on the hill where she lived, because she could not manage to climb to the nearest stop at the top of the hill. Other women commented on the lack of bus seats at bus stops, and described sitting on the pavement in desperation. In Queanbeyan there is no public transport on Sunday which militates against social visits and activities, on what, for many people is a day of recreation and social life. Although older women in Sydney made greater use of public transport, they also reported problems. These problems were exacerbated the further west from the city centre the women lived. In many respects the western suburbs are similar to Canberra in that the low-density housing and large distances enforce dependence on a car for mobility. In some areas there is a total absence of public transport and private buses are the only option. These are not only more expensive but are also infrequent and unreliable. The lack of adequate transport provision means that the aged in such circumstances are less likely to receive visits, particularly from their peers in similar circumstances. Overall, a fifth of the women interviewed in Sydney reported rare visits from friends because of transport inaccessibility. The lack of public transport servicing specific areas is one issue, the infrequency of public transport is another. One woman living in what she considered a dangerous inner city suburb, felt unsafe waiting alone at a bus stop for long periods. Of the public tenants, 45 per cent—more than any other tenure group— reported that the inaccessible location of their housing inhibited visits from friends and family. Private tenants in contrast tended to live in areas which although accessible were often perceived as 'high-risk' areas (Kings Cross and Bondi), particularly for women, which hence inhibited visits from friends. What clearly emerges from this picture is the significance of the location of housing for the aged, particularly women. Greater numbers of public and private tenants and retirement village residents (approximately two-thirds) relied on public transport as their primary form of transport than did home 130

Older women and housing issues

owners. This relates to the relative economic positions of the women. Interesting variations were also revealed between the women on the form of transport used according to the women's marital status. Under half of the widowed women relied on public transport compared with approximately 70 per cent of the never-married and divorced women. Widowed women tended to rely on taxis, family and friends, reflecting their generally higher income status and probably the greater support received from family members by such women in old age. Forty-two per cent of the women who were divorced or widowed said that transport had become a problem once they were on their own, illustrating a further aspect of dependence experienced in marriages. Only half the widowed and divorced women had once held driving licences, in contrast to six of the eight never-married women. At the time of the interview only 21 of the 70 women had current driving licences. Ideal housing Overall the older women who were privately renting appeared to be in the worst housing situations. The financial difficulties of private tenants were fairly extreme: nine of the fourteen private tenants found it hard to manage on the pension; only one woman reported that money was not a problem. By comparison only half the public tenants found it hard to manage, four of the eleven women in retirement villages (those in institutional care and nonresident funded) and only three of the 25 home owners. Other studies and organisations have also shown the private rental sector to be the worst form of housing tenure in old age (e.g. Combined Pensions Association, Victorian Ministry of Housing). Disadvantages are seen to include: High monthly costs subject to market fluctuations, insecurity of tenure in rented accommodation, prevailing tightness in the private rental market, often unsuitability of fittings and services for aged occupants, less choice regarding size of dwelling/space, often lower standards of dwellings and less privacy for the lower-income aged (Smyth, 1984: 151). The women's comments on their ideal form of housing substantiated this view. The private tenants were the least satisfied

131

Accommodating inequality

with their current tenure. Quite realistically few women had aspirations to own their own home—except as a fantasy: 'If I win lotto, just 3 good size bedrooms, and separate dining and living rooms would do'. Instead, the majority of private tenants wanted a self-contained flat in the public sector. For most of these women a history of bedsitters meant a separate bedroom was a primary concern. However, there was a low level of optimism about future housing possibilities. Many women had applied to the local housing authority, but they were aware of the long periods involved before a suitable allocation would be made. Some of these women had agreed to be interviewed because they mistakenly thought that it might represent a route to public housing. One woman had been trying to get into the public sector for 4 years. She had applied to the NSW Housing Commission, City of Sydney and Waverley Councils in 1981, and produced a batch of letters reflecting a constant effort since then. Her only option had been to become a caretaker in a substandard boarding house, to reduce her rent to an affordable level: two-thirds of her current income. She was unaware of the rent concessions available, minimal as they are. She recounted an experience where a local council had offered her substandard council housing which she considered unacceptable: They found me a flat, for $50 per week. They picked me up in a car to show me but it was inadequate. Padlocks all over the doors, no carpet, bad condition — he said he d have a car pick me up (later) to go to the magistrate to see about putting the rent down — but they didn't turn up. When I called back about the flat he said 'The council don't carpet flats' and I couldn't afford it. After my refusal to accept that place he said 'You'd get more points if you were in a de facto relationship'. At the age of 71 years, having left a violent marriage, she was infuriated with the suggestion. One-third of the private tenants could envisage no housing alternatives or future ideal beyond their present accommodation, even at a fantasy level. Housing had always been hard. Some women said they would have been just happy not to move again after a lifetime of insecure private rental accommodation. Others simply wanted cheaper accommodation. One woman wanted to live in a boarding house, having spent years in such accommo132

Older women and housing issues

dation, but the decline of boarding houses in the inner city meant this was no longer an easy option. This form of accommodation is, however, notoriously insecure (McColl, 1984: 3). Public tenants were much less dissatisfied with their tenure. Less than a quarter expressed an interest in owning their own homes, reflecting both a realistic assessment of their options and a positive perspective on public housing as a tenure—despite the pervasive discourse on home ownership as the ideal tenure or the ultimate goal in life. Nevertheless, home owners were the most satisfied group, with nearly two-thirds of these women responding that their current housing was their 'ideal'. This confirms Radford's (1983: 11) study of old peoples' housing, where the vast majority were home owners, and levels of dissatisfaction were low. Of the women who did mention a preferred alternative, smaller and more manageable flats, units or cottages predominated as a response. Retirement villages were not a popular option. Lack of finance was reiterated when women were questioned as to their ideal housing: I would like to have more money to pay for things to be done to this house and the garden here. and

If I had a lot of money I'd buy a nice little house. Other home owners were remaining in their houses because it represented the cheapest option. Some mentioned that retirement villages (especially the resident-funded ones) were more expensive than home ownership on a weekly basis. As many as half of the women living in retirement villages indicated a preference for alternative accommodation, and nearly all the women wanted to live alone rather than in their current semi-shared accommodation. For those who were dissatisfied, self-contained units, flats and houses with gardens were the preferred alternatives. In conclusion, two points need to be made. First, notions of ideal housing alternatives are inevitably structured by what is known to exist. Without extensive in-depth interviewing, alternative design options, photographs and models, etc., it is unlikely that the women would have suggested innovative designs or alternative housing tenures as their ideal. Choices are expressed in the context of existing constraints and known options. 133

Accommodating inequality

Second, their ideals reflect the class and gender structures and housing discourses of a society. A woman who has lived on the margins of the labour and housing markets for many years will have different expectations from a woman who has lived in owner-occupied property or who has worked in professional employment all her life. Thus women's satisfaction with their current tenure varied according to their socioeconomic status and past housing experiences. Bedsitter accommodation or housing in poor condition was perceived differently by women who had rented privately for years and women who had lived in good standard accommodation during their marriage. As would be expected, the latter group expressed greater dissatisfaction. The principal reasons women gave for liking their current dwelling were: having lived in the house and area for a long time, autonomy and independence, proximity to friends and relatives and services, quality of the dwelling, low cost and familiarity. The picture to emerge endorses the findings of the 1974 Aged Persons Housing Survey (see Pollard and Pollard, 1984: 23) in these respects. Finally, an interesting way of exploring individuals' perspectives on their current housing, is to examine the house/home dichotomy. As I have argued elsewhere (Watson, 1984: 60): 'A 'house' is generally taken to be synonymous with a dwelling or physical structure, whereas a 'home' is not. A 'home' implies a set of social relations, or a set of activities within a physical structure, whereas a 'house' does not. The home as a social concept is strongly linked with a notion of family. .. The word home conjures up such images as personal warmth, comfort, stability and security, it carries a meaning beyond the simple notion of shelter'. I was thus interested in exploring .the older women's perspectives on their current accommodation—that is, whether they would describe their accommodation as a 'home' or not. When asked this question, 17 of the 21 public tenants and, not surprisingly, all of the home owners replied affirmatively. In contrast, only half the private tenants and a similar proportion of the women in retirement villages/institutions saw their accommodation as home (negating the myth that retirement villages are a preferred housing form for the 'aged'). Interestingly, an analysis of marital status reveals that the largest proportion of women who saw their dwelling as home were the women who had never been married (seven out of eight). The smallest proportion were 134

Older women and housing issues

the women who had divorced or separated (seven out of thirteen), some of whom felt they had failed in creating the stereotypical successful family home. To further explore this question, women were asked to describe their notion of the 'home'. The responses obviously varied but the main responses related to family and social relationships (25/67), material conditions (18/67), the view that where you live now is home (13/67), individual control (7/67) and privacy (4/67). The women for whom 'privacy' was the primary concern were women who lived in the public sector in Sydney and experienced considerable lack of privacy: 'the neighbours smash my pot plants and bang on the wall if I have the radio or T.V. on.' Those who considered 'individual control' as the most essential constituent of the concept of home ranged between home owners who feared losing their autonomy to those in the public and private sectors and retirement villages who felt they had lost their individual control and rights. Security of tenure was the key issue for private tenants, no control in the choice of location was central to public tenants, and loss of self-esteem in having to adjust to the rigid and restrictive rules imposed were mentioned by women in some retirement villages. For one-fifth of the women the notion of home revolved around the material conditions of their accommodation: Tve put a lot of energy and money into this house. If I had to live anywhere without a garden I'd turn my toes up and give up.' Most of these responses came from widowed home owners, although a few divorcees who had become home owners in their own right also greatly valued the material standards they had achieved: 'I have pride in it because it's mine. My husband left when the house had high payments, I've paid for everything including the extensions.' Women in the private rental sector on the other hand emphasised the substandard nature of their accommodation and thus their concept of home was focused on material conditions. Women who considered home to be simply 'where you live now' tended to be women who recognised their lack of choice and alternatives: 'You make it yourself, it's comfortable and clean. You make do — it's the only place I've got.' The responses in this category came predominately from women in Queanbeyan and Canberra, and from women in the private, public and retirement village sectors. 135

Accommodating inequality

A woman in a retirement village when questioned said: Yes, I suppose it is home, common sense tells me it is. It has a spare bed, as I often have people to stay with me. But we've got a snarly old creature on the committee who cuts down my plants — I guess its just old age — sometimes I wish I could be back in my old flat. The concept of home was most commonly associated with family proximity or other social relationships, reflecting the centrality of the family to many women's lives. This response was most frequently given in Canberra (15 out of 31 women) which is a city notorious for its nuclear family orientation. This is also not surprising since it corresponded with the high numbers of women who had relocated there for family reasons. Similar responses were given by Queanbeyan women who had relocated to be close to children. The following comments illustrate the family-home connections: It's more the people than the place. My son stops in every day Monday to Friday and my daughter works close and stops in too. and

What makes this home? Pleasant surroundings, space, room for family and minimum maintenance. and

It's somewhere for the family to come — and I love my garden. I don't want to let the house run down but I don't have much money to maintain it. Other women emphasised social relationships with friends rather than just family: My work, I wouldn't like to leave here, all my friends are around here. I like this suburb, with all my friends I'm very happy here. Others associated the home with their former husband reflecting the primacy of marital relationships: 'The home? Memories of my husband, he planted all the trees' and 'It's a lovely house, he designed it. We had a good marriage so I don't fancy leaving it!' The family and social relationships were more central to the 136

Older women and housing issues

concept of home expressed by widows than by either divorcees or never married women. Of those women that felt dissatisfied and not at home in their current accommodation, the majority were from Sydney. For almost half of these women it had been anywhere between 6 and 20 or more years since they had felt 'at home'. Conclusion Despite the fact that in the national population the majority of older women are home owners, older single women live in a diverse range of housing circumstances. Women's lower economic status, and their primarily domestic role and more 'privatised' existence in Australian society has important implications for their housing in old age. Many older women are poor, have little confidence or expertise in dealing with housing matters, and have relied on male partners for their accommodation for most of their adult lives. This means that many older women tolerate considerably dilapidated and insecure housing conditions either because they lack the finance, know-how or the confidence to improve their situation. It is clear from the findings presented here that adequate size of accommodation, privacy, security, proximity to transport and amenities, individual control, good heating, the possibility of entertaining and having friends to stay, keeping pets and individual autonomy are all important issues for older women. Yet the housing departments and other organisations providing rental units of accommodation do not take adequate account of the needs of older tenants. The fact that a woman is a home owner or a resident of a retirement village does not necessarily imply that her housing needs have all been properly met. Problems in the former case may arise from the lack of maintenance and repairs or from inadequate heating, and in the latter case from lack of space or individual autonomy. These findings accentuate the need for housing and welfare authorities and other organisations providing accommodation for older people to take account of the individuals involved. The goal should be to provide homes, not just houses, for people who so often deserve far better than they get.

137

8 Gender and urban theory The papers in this book have primarily been concerned to place women's housing needs in Australia on the public agenda. I have argued that gender relations imply distinctive differences between men's and women's experience of, and relation to, housing in all its forms — that is, as an item of consumption and production, as a commodity and as a system of bureaucratic or institutional relations. Without doubt, women's economic status and domestic responsibilities serve to marginalise them in housing terms. In the short term policy responses can alleviate some of the inequities, although more wide reaching structural changes will be necessary before all women are even 'adequately' housed. In this chapter I leave this more pragmatic and policy oriented focus behind and briefly sketch out some of the more theoretical questions that have been explored by feminist geographers and sociologists and suggest some possible future directions for analysis. Feminist analysis of housing can be situated within the urban studies literature. In contrast to feminist involvement with sociological, historical and cultural discourses, second-wave feminist theory took some time to challenge the dominant urban paradigms. It was not until 1978, with of course some exceptions (e.g. Davidoff, 1976; Mayo, ed., 1977), that feminist writers paid much attention to the 'the urban'. The devotion of an entire issue of one of the major journals in the area, the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research to the subject of 'Women and the City' in 1978 represented a significant turning point. Radical urban theory was criticised for either ignoring the sphere of reproduction entirely or for being theorised only in relation to the capitalist mode of production. Castell's (1977) analysis of the urban system in terms of struggles around collective consumption was criticised for not recognising the centrality 138

Gender and urban theory of women's domestic labour, both as a productive and reproductive activity. Urbanists' discussions of social movements were challenged for their blindness to the women's liberation movement and its diversity of campaigns. The home-work separation, and the tendency of theorists and planners to reproduce this separation at both an ideological and material level also begin to be mentioned. The articles in the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research raised many other questions explored more widely over the following decade: State policy in relation to the family (David. 1978; Fodor, 1978); patriarchal notions of the 'home' and 'community' as the refuge and haven away from the hostile world of 'work' (Dresser, 1978); a historical account of the feminist challenge to traditional architectural forms and the notion that new forms of urban design such as combining kitchenless houses with communal buildings for cooperative housekeeping, cooking etc., could break down normative sexual divisions (Hayden, 1978); an analysis of how the urban transport system produces and reproduces patriarchal relations (Coutras and Fagnani, 1978) the extension of the sexual division of labour into recreational activities (Morville-Descolonges, 1978) and women's social movements (Ettore, 1978; Rose, 1978, and Whyatt, 1978). A more recent issue of the American feminist journal Signs (1980) addressed similar questions. In the last decade or so since the debate got under way, research and analysis of gender and the urban can be characterised in terms of several strands: the 'where are women?' approach; the spatial/physical dimension; the deconstruction approach; gender, geography and locality studies; and 'the critique of dualisms and dichotomies'. These themes are of course not mutually exclusive and most research draws on more than one. The 'where are women?' discourse strand seeks to address women's absence from the literature and to reinsert them as objects of study. Thus, we see work on women and housing (e.g. Brion and Tinker, 1980), women and transport, women and leisure (Coles, 1980), women and the suburbs or planned neighbourhoods (Keller, 1981). This kind of work seeks to uncover the inequalities women face, and focuses on women's lack of access to the provision of goods and services within the urban systems, the constraints faced and so on. Although the work is often not explicitly theoretical, it fits most easily within the Weberian

139

Accommodating inequality

tradition. It draws attention to the multitude of institutional forms and patterns of organisation, allocation and planning which serve to marginalise women from a 'man's world' (man as subject, woman as object), and reinforce their subordinate, primarily domestic, role. The spatial/physical dimension has two major strands. One focus is on architectural and urban design. Making Space: Women and the Man Made Environment (Matrix, 1981) is a collection of essays by a group of architects, designers and builders that tries to illustrate how sexist assumptions about women's roles and family life have been built into the design of dwellings and cities; Jos Boys (1984: 37-54) illustrates how the idealised separation of home and work has affected the appearance and layout of housing estates to tie women to the locality away from the public world: central to the argument is the notion that men dominate the professions and skills which create the environment, and women are absent at all levels from decisions which affect where and how they live. This theme is re-iterated in various other works (for example, Leavitt, 1980), and informs the more speculative work of writers such as Hay den, (1980) who attempt to imagine nonsexist city forms. The American collection of writings New Space for Women (Wekerle et al. 1980) explores related questions. The other focus of work on the spatial/physical dimension is on the separation between home and work, suburbanisation and urban planning. Some of these contributions are historical (e.g. Allport, in Williams, 1983) and consider how the process of suburbanisation has produced and reproduced women's exclusion from waged labour and the 'public' sphere. Others have concentrated on the planning aspects which constrain and delimit women in their roles as mothers. On a slightly different and interesting tack, there is the discourse of the suburban as 'female', 'domestic', 'safe' and the urban as 'male', 'aggressive', 'assertive' (Saegert, 1980), or the suburban dream as combining the 'sexual' with distinctive consumption patterns (Game and Pringle, 1977). Leaving these latter works aside, since they reside more in a sociological discourse, there are several problems with the spatial/ physical/design approach. First, there is an assumption that there is a direct relation between men's domination in the architectural, planning etc. professions, and women's unmet needs in the urban environment. This causal relationship is of course rather simplistic. Were women to be in these occupations there is no 140

Gender and urban theory

guarantee that they would recognise other women's needs (Margaret Thatcher being the classic case in point). Class and race obviously cut across gender divisions on the one hand, and specific kinds of power-knowledge relations operate within the architectural and planning professions, on the other. Second, such an emphasis ignores the broader social and economic structures within which women's marginal and inferior status is located. Third, there is an inherent physical determinism within these analyses: physical structures and urban forms are seen to give rise to certain forms of behaviour or to operate as constraints. If these were transformed it is assumed that other possibilities would emerge. While the design of a building, or area, does affect the inhabitants, a one-directional relationship has to be questioned. People can change their environment, they are not passive recipients of a given physical world. Space can be mediated, particularly where there is the economic and social potential to do so. Fourth, there is a tendency within this work to focus on the private sphere and thereby to reinforce and reproduce existing sexual divisions. I have used the notion of the Reconstruction' approach to refer to work which attempts to re-examine traditional concepts and categories from a feminist perspective. My own work on the notion of the 'home' and 'homelessness' (Watson, 1986) draws on this approach. Attempts to redefine old dualisms and dichotomies could also be conceived as part of this project. In my own research the notions of 'home' and 'homelessness' are deconstructed or unpacked to reveal women's relation to the 'home'/ 'homelessness' discourse. Thus homelessness, particularly single homelessness, is seen as a male problem, the image of the male tramp on the park bench, the zipless torn trousers, the lace-less shoes, is the dominant one. Women's homelessness takes different forms and finds different 'solutions' and is thus hidden. Discourses on female homelessness also differ. Notions of psychiatry, immorality, deviance, are more often found. Correspondingly the concept of home for women is associated with warmth, security, privacy, control, emotional relations etc., with implications for a definition of what constitutes housing need. Is a lack of these attributes housing need? Studies of unemployment or 'homework' have similar potential to deconstruct old categories from a feminist perspective (Huws, 1983; Walker, 1987). 141

Accommodating inequality

The last two approaches 'gender, geography, and locality studies' and 'the critique of dualisms and dichotomies' are connected, for the former implies the latter and vice versa. Work in this area derives from the Marxist-feminist tradition, originally drawing on historical relationships between urban structure and the social organisation of production and reproduction (Rose, 1981; Mackenzie, 1980) and leading more recently into work which challenges the more traditional forms of conceptualisation. Bowlby et al. (1986) suggest there is cause for concern over much of the work on gender and the 'urban', or geography. First, gender and women have tended to be used synonymously, so that under the guise of 'gender' women have become legitimate objects of analysis. What this does is implicitly to portray men's lives and activities as the 'norm' against which a 'gender difference' embodied in women's lives and activities is presented (Bowlby, et al. 1986: 328). Second, there is the problem of the presumption that specific characteristics are male or female. Thus for example, a partial explanation for the growth of female waged labour in certain areas might be women's supposed dexterity or docility. Bowlby et al. argue that this represents a focus on gender roles — a set of static assumptions about men and women—rather than gender relations, which is a more active process whereby men's power over women is established and maintained. Third, they argue that gender has been primarily seen as constituted in the workplace, whereas what is needed is an analysis of how gender relations in the home, community and labour market are interconnected. Examples of the work criticised is research on localities (e.g. Bowlby, et al. 1983; Massey, 1984) which explains capital movements in light industry to a specific area, for example, in terms of the availability of cheap, inexperienced female labour. Such analysis tends to be one-directional and fails to explore the 'degree to which the spatial organisation of non-workplace social relations derives from or is related to labour market relations' (Bowlby et al. 1986: 329). A critique of dualistic conceptualisation has been current amongst feminists for some time, although it is only recently that geographers or urbanists have attempted to deconstruct these dichotomies. Thus, home/work, production/reproduction, production/consumption, the private/public have been treated as independent rather than interdependent spheres. The feminine, female, woman etc. is seen as located, produced and reproduced 142

Gender and urban theory

within the private/reproductive/home/consumption sphere and men/production/public/work etc. represent the other end of the polarity. Harman (1983: 106) argues that the use of these dichotomous categories by feminist urbanists to 'reveal how patriarchy is embedded in the organisation of urban space' is problematic because 'they are adopting a conceptual apparatus which is itself patriarchal in that such categories not only describe the way in which cities divide men and women; they are the basis of an ideology which helps maintain and perpetuate such divisions'. Saegert (1980) makes a similar criticism, arguing that these dichotomies are culturally based and operate as a symbolic system of ideas which informs and delimits analysis of gender and the 'urban'. The plea for an interconnected and interrelated form of analysis has become increasingly vociferous over the last few years (e.g. McDowell, 1983; Bowlby et al, 1986; Watson, 1988; McDowell, 1986). The interrelationships are not however easy to theorise. Pringle (1983) in her article on women and consumer capitalism challenges the primacy of the analysis of production and asserts the active nature of consumption. Drawing on Baudrillard (1975) she argues that in pre-capitalist societies the relationship between production and consumption was reciprocal, that with the development of capitalism 'women and commodities have come to constitute the new consumption sphere which represents nature dominated and by-passed... the relations of determinance have been changed' (Pringle, 1983: 89). Thus, she charts the growth of the consumption sphere and by challenging the dominance of production shows how the old dichotomies have little application. Various feminist writers in other academic discourses have similarly challenged the traditional dichotomies. Feminist historians (e.g. Davidoff, 1979; Matthews, 1983) for example have argued that throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries women's work was unrecorded and ignored because many women were involved in paid employment in an informal capitalist economy, often centred around the home. Thus, the provision of board and lodgings, the private sale of skills, outwork etc. was not seen as 'work' precisely because it was home based. In a recent paper (Watson, 1988) I also attempt to theorise the interrelationship between home and work and production and reproduction. I argue that the separate relation is breaking down in the current restructuring and the boundaries between the two spheres are 143

Accommodating inequality

shifting. Part of the problem lies in the concepts of work and home themselves, which shift culturally, historically and across class, race and gender lines. New forms of work are evolving; the growth of homework, as one of these, provides a sharp illustration of how the traditional dichotomies are not useful. The informal sector provides another. The paper also examines the interrelationship between housing and labour markets, and the processes by which access to one is affected by, and affects, access to the other. The commodification and decommodification of reproductive activities is also in a state of flux with the current economic structuring, as for example, traditional domestic activities enter the sphere of paid work production where married women enter the labour force. This process has different meanings and takes different forms across class, race and locality. Another reflection of the new forms of interrelationships, and shifting dichotomies, lies in the informal sector and self-provisioning. Mingione (1983) argues that the combination of inflation and reduced formal employment in the current economic crisis tends to shift the balance between work for income and work for self-consumption in favour of the latter. Divisions of gender, class and race are significant here. Pahl's work (1985) on the divisions of labour between and within households in the Isle of Sheppey in Kent develops these arguments. The study revealed, for example, that the poorer the household and the lower the number of income earners within the household, the less the self-provisioning and the greater the reliance on informal sources of paid labour. It is clear that the conceptual frameworks for new forms of analysis are beginning to emerge. Not only are old dichotomies not useful in the current restructuring, as further complexities emerge, but also new forms of interrelationships are developing which need to be explored and understood. New discourses are replacing the old. Feminist urban theory has been, in the main, slow to be affected by the new forms of analysis which are deconstructing and reconstructing sociological and related discourse. In particular I am referring here to post-structuralism. Despite the emergence of locality studies which attempt to look more specifically at how the human agencies, characteristics, histories, traditions and cultures of areas intersect with more general economic and social processes, there is still an allegiance to the notion of underlying 144

Gender and urban theory

structures at work. There still remains an unspoken belief that some kind of integrated and coherent theory is possible, that general conceptual frameworks can be discovered and analysed. Post-structuralism, in contrast, allows the possibility of a recognition of fragmentation. Within this approach individuals are buffeted by conflicting and often unconscious needs and desires and are situated in the midst of discourses not of their own making. Foucault's work (1977, 1980) offers many interesting possibilities and insights which could inform future work on gender and the urban. Taking my own work on 'homelessness' for example, which was latterly influenced by this approach, it would be interesting to extend the investigation to explore female homelessness in relation to the 'mechanisms' and 'technologies' of power that have been at work in circumscribing homeless women's lives. With the exception of my own book (1986) discourses on female homelessness, represent an area that has been little explored. Discourse analysis could illuminate the power/knowledge relations embodied in the planning/architectural professions which so forcefully delimit women's lives. Likewise Foucault's contention that no relations of power exist without resistance provides an impetus to perhaps refocus our attention as feminists on women's opposition to the forms of control that they experience within the urban system. His discussion of Bentham's Panopticon, of an all-seeing architectural form whose purpose was to enable prisoners to be under constant surveillance, illustrates a possible arena for feminist analysis of the way architectural forms might embody techniques for controlling women's behaviour. Finally, there are other absences in this chapter that deserve a mention. First, recent cultural analysis has for some years included analysis of certain forms, places, sites, which constitute the urban. Little work has been done, however, that is explicitly feminist. Meaghan Morris' paper on shopping centres presented at the ANU Humanities Research Centre conference on Feminism and the Humanities in 1985 illustrates the potential for this kind of work which will hopefully be further expanded in the future. The second point is that the research summarised here has necessarily focussed on trends within North American, British/European and Australian traditions. Inevitably, it can only represent a brief overview and doubtlessly there is feminist scholarship on urban questions developing in many other parts of the world. Anthropological studies are of relevance here. Certainly a shift away 145

Accommodating inequality

from a search for grand theory provides a way of avoiding the tendency of much feminist theory to be mono-cultural in its perspective.

146

Bibliography

The Advertiser, Adelaide Allport, C. (1983) 'Women and Suburban Housing: Post War Planning in Sydney 1943-61' in P. Williams (ed.) Social Process and the City Sydney: Allen & Unwin Austerberry, H., Schott, K. and Watson, S. (1984) Homeless in London 1971-81 London: International Centre for Economics and Related Disciplines, London School of Economics Austerberry, H. and Watson, S. (1982) Guide to Women's Hostels in London London: SHAG The Australian Australian Bureau of Statistics 1981 Census November 1984, The Labour Australia Catalogue No. 6203.0 (1984) Australian Families 1982 Canberra: AGPS (1987) Average Weekly Earnings, May 1987 Canberra: ABS, Labour Force Catalogue No. 6203.3 Australian Financial System Inquiry, 1982 Tables 66, 68, 82 and 84, Canberra: AGPS Australian Housing Research Council (1980) Women in Last Resort Housing AHRC, Project No. 46, Canberra: Department of Housing and Construction Baldock, C. and Cass, B. (eds) (1983) Women, Social Welfare and the State Sydney: Allen & Unwin Baudrillard, J. (1975) The Mirror of Production St Louis: Telos Press Barrett, M. and Mclntosh, M. (1983) The Anti-Social Family London: Verso Bowlby, S., Foord, J., Lewis, J. and McDowell, L. (1983) Recession and the Spatial and Sexual Division of Labour: the case of Women's Employment in New Towns in the Development Areas, conference paper, SSRC Conference on Urban Change and Conflict, Essex Bowlby, S., Foord, J. and McDowell, L. (1986) The Place of Gender in Locality Studies, Area 1986 18.4, 327-31 Boys, J. (1984) 'Women and Public Space' in Matrix 'Making Space: Women

147

Accommodating inequality and the Man Made Environment' London: Pluto Brion, M. and Tinker, A. (1980) Women in Housing London: Housing Centre Trust Castells, M. (1977) The Urban Question London: Edward Arnold Chandler, J. (1984) 'A Profile on the Consumers of Retirement Accommodation' NSW Council on the Ageing in seminar: Housing and the Living Environment of People in Retirement 21-22 August 1984, p. 136 Coleman, L. and Watson, S. (1985) 'Older Women: Housing Issues and Perspectives' Australian Journal on Ageing Vol. 4, No. 3 Coles, L. (1980) 'Women and Leisure: A Critical Perspective' in Mercer, D. and Hamilton-Smith, E. (eds) Recreational Planning and Social Change in Australia Melbourne: Sorrett Publishing Commonwealth Banking Corporation (1983) Getting Your Own Home in New South Wales Sydney: Commonwealth Bank, p. 17 Commonwealth Housing Commission (1944) Ministry of Post-War Reconstruction Final Report 25th August Coutras, J. and Fagnani, J. (1978) 'Femmes et Transport en Milieu Urbain' in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (IJURR) David, M. (1978) 'Women Caring for Pre-School Children in the U.S.A.' in IJURR Davidoff, L., Esperance, J. and Newby, H. (1976) 'Landscape with Figures: Home and Community in English Society' in Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (eds) The Rights and Wrongs of Women London: Penguin Books Davidoff, L. (1979) The Separation of Home and Work? Landladies and Lodgers in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century England' in Burman, S. (ed.) Fit Work For Women London: Croom Helm Davison, G. (1978) The Rise and Fall of Marvellous Melbourne Melbourne: Melbourne University Press Department of Attorney General and Justice Correspondence relating to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1924-1939 New South Wales: Mitchell Library 717184.2 Department of Environment (UK) (1971) Fair Deal for Housing Cmnd 4728, London: HMSO Department of Health and Social Security (UK) ,1974) Report of the Committee on One-Parent Families (The Finer Report) Cmnd 4728, London: HMSO Dresser, M. (1978) Review of 'Landscape with Figures: Home and Community in English Society' in IJURR Equal Opportunities Commission (1978) It's Not Your Business: It's How the Society Works— The Experience of Married Applicants for Joint Mortgages Manchester: EOC Ettore, E. (1978) 'Women, Urban Social Movements and the Lesbian Ghetto' in IJURR Fodor, R. (1978) 'Day-Care Policy in France and its Consequences for

148

Bibliography Women: A Study of the Metropolitan Paris Area, in IJURR Forrest, R. and Murie, F. (1988) The Affluent Homeowner: Labour Market Position and the Shaping of Housing Histories' in Allen, J. and Hamnett, C. (eds) Homes and Work: Understanding the Connections London: Hutchinson Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The'Birth of the Prison Harmondsworth: Penguin (1980) The History of Sexuality Vol. 1, An Introduction New York: Vintage Books Game, A. and Pringle, R. (1979) 'Sexuality and the Suburban Dream' Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology Vol. 15, No. 2, 4-15 July Gardiner, J. (1975) 'Women's Domestic Labour' New Left Review No. 89 Graycar, A. (ed.) (1984) 'Accommodation after Retirement' S.W.R.C. Reports and Proceedings No. 41, April. Social Welfare Research Centre, University of New South Wales Harman, E. (1983) 'Capitalism, Patriarchy and the City' in Baldock, C. and Cass, B. (eds) Women, Social Welfare and the State Sydney: Allen & Unwin Hay den, D. (1978) 'Melusina Fay Pierce and Co-operative Housekeeping' in IJURR 'What would a Non-Sexist City be Like?' Signs 5 supplement to special issue No. 3 on Women and the American City, pp. 170-187 House of Representatives Hansard Vols 109 and 185 Human Rights Commission (1984) A Guide to the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Legislation Canberra: AGPS Huws, U. (1984) The New Homeworkers London: Low Pay Unit International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (IJURR) Women and the City, Vol. 2, No. 3 Kearney, I. (1984) 'Housing for the Aged' seminar: Housing and the Living Environment of People in Retirement 21-22 August, I. B. Fell Research Centre, University of Sydney Keller, S. (1981) * Women and Children in a Planned Community' in Keller, S. (ed.) Building for Women Lexington: Lexington Books Kemeny, J. (1983) The Great Australian Nightmare. A Critique of HomeOwnership Ideology Melbourne: Georgian House Kendig, H. (1981) 'Housing and Living Arrangements of the Aged' in Howe, A. L. (ed.) Towards an Older Australia St Lucia: University of Queensland Press (1984) 'The Cumulation of Inequality: Housing Costs and Income support in Old Age' Australian Journal on Ageing Vol. 3, No. 1, February Kilner, D. (1983) 'New Directions for Aged Housing' in Shelter (S.A.) Newsletter October Leavitt, J. (1980) 'There's More to Affirmative Action than Gaining Access: The Case of Female Planners' in Welkerle, G. et al (eds) New Space for Women Colorado: West view Press

149

Accommodating inequality Legge, V. (1984) * Attitudes to Living in a Retirement Village' Australian Journal on Ageing Vol. 3, No. 1, Feb, pp. 3-7 Loveday, P. and Lea, J. P. (1985) Aboriginal Housing Needs In Katherine Canberra: Australian National University: NARU Lynch, J. (1983) Housing the Aged: A Case for Action prepared for the Newcastle City Council, 1983 MacKenzie, S. (1980) Women and the Reproduction of Labour Power in the Industrial City Brighton: University of Sussex, Urban and Regional Studies, Working Paper 23 Manning, I. (1985) Incomes and Policy Sydney: Allen & Unwin Massey, D. (1984) Spatial Divisions of Labour London: Macmillan Matrix (1984) Making Space: Women and the Man Made Environment London: Pluto Matthews, J. (1983) The Proletarian's Wife' Politics Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 107 McColl, Older Women and Housing Adelaide: First National Housing Conference McDonald, P. (ed.) (1985) Settling Up: Property and Income Distribution On Divorce in Australia Sydney: Prentice-Hall McDowell, L. (1983) 'Towards an Understanding of the Gender Division of Urban Space' Society and Space Vol. 1, Department of Environment and Planning McDowell, L. and Massey, D. (1984) 'A Woman's Place?' in Massey, D. and Allen, J. (eds) Geography Matters! Cambridge: Cambridge University Press McFerren, L. (1989) 'The Interpretation of a Frontline State' in Watson S. (ed.) Playing the State: Australian Feminist Interventions London: Verso Mingione, E. (1984) 'Social Reproduction of the Surplus Labour Force: The Case of Southern Italy' in Redclift, N. and Mingione, E. Beyond Employment Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ministry of Housing (1980) (Victoria) Green Paper on Housing in Victoria Vol. 1, Melbourne Morville-Descolonges, M. (1978) 'A propos de la socialisation du travail domestique: 1'analyse d'un village de vacances' in IJURR Nippard, T. (1985) 'Women, Poverty and Access to Home Ownership' paper presented to the First National Women's Housing Conference, Adelaide Nittim, Z. (1980) 'The Coalition of Resident Action Groups' in Roe, J. (ed.) Twentieth Century Sydney: Studies in Urban and Social History Sydney: Hale & Iremonger Pacey, W. (1961) 'Management in the Home' paper presented to SBIC Women's Housing Seminar Sydney Pahl, R. (1984) Divisions of Labour Oxford: Basil Blackwell Paris, C. (1984) Affordable and Available Housing Canberra: Australian Institute of Urban Studies 150

Bibliography Phillipson, C. (1981) 'Women in Later Life: Patterns of Control and Subordination' in Hutter and Williams (eds) Controlling Women: The Normal and the Deviant London: Groom Helm Pollard, G. N. and Pollard, J. H. (1984) The Social Demographic Environment in Relation to the Dwelling Experience in Australia' in seminar Housing and the Living Environment of People in Retirement I. B. Fell Research Centre, University of Sydney, 21-22 August Pringle, R. (1983) 'Women and Consumer Capital' in Baldock, C. and Cass, B. Women Social Welfare and the State Sydney: Allen & Unwin Radford, A.J. (1983) 'Some issues in the Perception and Constraints of choice of Accommodation Options for the Elderly' Australian Journal on Ageing Vol. 2, No. 4, Nov, pp. 10-15 Real Estate Institute Australia (1987) Market Facts Canberra: R.E.I.A. Redclift, N. and Mingione, E. (1984) Beyond Employment: Household Gender and Subsistence Oxford: Basil Blackwell Rose, D. (1980) 'Towards a Re-evaluation of the Political Significance of Home Ownership In Britain' Conference of Socialist Economists: Housing Workshop Proceedings Vol. 1, pp. 71-76 Rose, H. (1978) 'In Practice Supported, in Theory Denied: An Account of an Invisible Urban Movement' in IJURR Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances Canberra: AGPS, 1928 Saegert, S. (1980) 'Masculine Cities and Feminist Suburbs: Polarised Ideas, Contradictory Realities' in Signs 5: Women and the American City pp. 596-611 Scott, R. (1919) 'Laws in New South Wales re Women and Children' paper read to the National Council of Women, 29 May, Mitchell Library, Vol. 30, p. 751 Scutt, J. (1983) 'Legislating for the right to be equal' in Baldock, C. and Cass, B. (eds) Women, Social Welfare and the State Sydney: Allen & Unwin Scutt, J. and Graham, D. (1984) For Richer, For Poorer Ringwood: Penguin Selby, J. and Hall, A. (1984) The Life Styles of Four Groups of Elderly People in the Inner City Area of Brisbane' Australian Journal on Ageing Vol. 3, No. 1 Senate Hansard Vol. 185 Senate, 14 June 1956, Housing Agreement Bill Shiff, D. (1985) review article for For Richer For Poorer Slade, J. (1985) 'Workshop: Older Women and Housing' First National Women's Housing Conference Adelaide Smith, D.J. (1977) Racial Disadvantage in Britain Harmondsworth: Penguin Smyth, B. (1984) 'Elderly Persons' Accommodation: Options and Policies in Victoria' in seminar Housing and the Living Environment of People in Retirement I. B. Fell Research Centre, University of Sydney, 21-22 August 151

Accommodating inequality Spearritt, P. (1978) Sydney Since the Twenties Sydney: Hale and Iremonger The Sun, Melbourne Sydney Building Information Centre (SBIC) (1961) Women's Housing Seminar Sydney, National Library of Australia, Canberra Troy, P. and Lloyd, C. (1981) The Commonwealth Housing Commission and a National Housing Policy Canberra, Australian National University, Urban Research Unit, Working Paper Vanek, J. (1974) 'Time Spent in Housework' Scientific American Vol. 231, November, pp. 116-20 (1978) 'Household Technology and Social Status: Rising Living Standards and Status and Residence Differences in Housework' Technology and Culture Vol. 19, pp. 361-374 Walker, J. (1987) Home-Based Working in Australia: Issues and Evidence U.R.U. Working Paper No. 1, Canberra: Australian National University Watson, S. and Coleman, C. (1985a) 'Older Women: Housing Issues and Perspectives' Australian Journal on Ageing August , (1986) 'Housing, Demographic Change and the Private Rental Sector' Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol. 21, No. 1 Watson, S. and Helliwell, C. (1985) 'Home Ownership — Are Women Excluded?' Australian Quarterly Vol. 57, No. 1 Watson, S. and Shiff (1984) 'Divorce's Real Cost. The Unequal End to Marriage' Australian Society Vol. 3, No. 8 Watson, S. (1986) Housing and Homelessness: A Feminist Perspective London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (1988) 'Productive and Reproductive Relations: The Restructuring of Work and Home' in Allen, J. and Hamnet, C. (eds) Homes and Work: Understanding the Connections London: Hutchinson Wekerle, G. Peterson, R. and Morley, D. (1980) New Space for Women Colorado: Westview Press Whyatt, A. (1978) Co-operative, Women and Political Practice' in IJURR 1978 Wight, B.J. (1984) The First Home Owners' Scheme: Experience to Date' paper delivered to 17th Annual Conference of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies Canberra Women's Bureau, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (1985) Women and Unemployment Information Paper No. 2, Canberra Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (1984) Women at Work Facts and Figures October

152

Index

Abbeyfield Society, 29, 127 aboriginals, 16, 20, 25, 43, 51, 67, 73-4 Advertiser, 17 Age, 42, 60, 63, 102-3 aged, see older women Aged and Disabled Persons' Homes Act, 117 alcoholism, 17, 122 Allport, C., 7, 140 anthropology, 145 architecture, see design, space Austerberry, H., 37, 70 Australian, 17 Australian Financial System Inquiry, 45 Australian Housing Research Council, 17 Barrett, M., 22 Baudrillard,J., 143 boarding houses, 15, 32, 72, 80, 121, 132-3 Bowlby, S., 142-3 Boys,J., 140 Brion, M., 139 Britain, 32-3 building societies, 44, 46-7 buying down, 85-6, 99 caravans, 37, 49, 91 Castells, M., 138 Chandler,]., 114, 117, 120 Chifley,J., 1 child care, 22, 25-6, 56-7, 85 child endowment, 9, 16

children, 46-50, 53, 57, 68-9, 75, 78, 85, 97-8, 100 Coleman, L., 24, 111 Coles, L. 139 Combined Pensioners' Association, 131 Commonwealth Banking Corporation, 28, 39, 45 Commonwealth Housing Act, 1928, 2 Commonwealth Housing Commission (CHC), 1-5, 7, 10, 12-13 Commonwealth—State Housing Agreement, 3-5, 7 Community Tenancy Scheme, 72-3, 94 concealed housing need, see hidden housing need cooperatives, 37 Council on Ageing, 117, 119 couples, 13-14, 48, 98 Coutras,J., 139 custody, 84-5, 93 Daily Mirror, 11 Davidoff, L., 138, 143 Davison, G., 7 deconstruction, 141 Defence Services Homes Scheme, 10, 47 Department of Attorney-General and Justice, 12 Department of the Environment, U.K., 27

153

Accommodating inequality Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS), 24 Department of Housing and Construction, 10, 58, 60 design, 18-20, 23-5, 57, 114, 118, 133, 140 developers, 23, 116 dichotomies, 6, 22, 42, 134, 139-44 discourse, 14, 19-20, 26, 37, 65-8, 133-4, 138-45 discrimination, 10-11, 16, 29-30, 45-6, 48, 50-5, 68-70 divorce, 10-12, 49, 56, 74-101, 106, 112-13, 135 domestic labour, 22, 41-2 domestic violence, 17, 23, 41, 75, 81, 132 domesticity, 5, 7 Dresser, M., 139 Equal Opportunities Commission, 30 equal pay, 8-9, 17, 29 ethnic groups, see migrant Ettore, E., 139 ex-prisoners, 17 Fagnani, F., 139 Families Survey, 76 family, 7, 10-13, 18-19, 21, 23-4, 27, 30-2, 41, 43, 48, 60, 62, 92, 106, 120, 134, 136, 139; allowances, see child endowment Family Court, 40, 95, 98 Family Law Act, 12, 74-5, 95, 98, 101 feminism, 7, 12, 16-19, 41, 94-5, 138-46 finance companies, 9-11, 47 financial institutions, 28-30, 43-7, 52-5, 84 First Home Owners' Scheme, 49, 83-4 flats, 64-5, 108, 133 Fodor, R., 139 Forrest, R., 41 Foucault, M., 143 furnished dwellings, 65

Game, A., 28, 140 Gardiner, J., 22 gender, 138-46; see feminism gentrification, 25, 124-5 geography, 138-9, 142 Graham, D., 84, 95-6 Gray car, A., 112 Hall, A., 122, 124 Hansard, 6-7, 117 Harman, E., 143 Hayden, D., 139-40 heating, 57, 128 hidden housing need, 37, 79 home, maintenance, 85, 112—16, 119, 123, 125, 128 notion of, 6-8, 19, 28, 134-7, 141 ownership, 1-2, 5-12, 19, 26-31, 39-55, 75, 79-80, 82-90, 106, 108-9, 112-16, 124, 131, 133-5 purchase assistance, 9-11, 15, 28-30, 44, 48-9, 86-90, 95-7, 101 Home Ownership Made Easier Scheme (HOME), 87 Home Savings Grant Act, 10; 1976, 14-15 homelessness, 14, 18, 32, 37, 100, 141, 145; homeless women, 28, 141 hostels, 37, 118 House of Representatives, 6, 11-12, 14, 18-19 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, 1973, 32 Housing Agreement Bill, 1956, 10-11; 1961, 12, 18 Housing Assistance Bill, 1976, 6; Act, 10 Housing Commission of NSW, 72, 123-7, 132; see Department of Housing housewives, 7, 23, 25, 28, 37, 82 Human Rights Commission, 50 Huws, U., 141 ideal housing, 131-4 income, see labour force participation

154

Index Institute of Family Studies, 78, 80-1, 98 International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 138-9 Kearney, I., 117 Keller, S., 139 Kemeny,J., 40 Kendig, H., 114, 116, 122, 125 Kilner, D., 114, 125 labour force participation, 8-9, 43, 76-8, 105-6 landlords, 58-9, 64, 67, 69, 70, 72, 124 Lea,J., 16 Leavitt,]., 140 leases, 70 Labor government, 5-7, 86, 93 Liberal government, 5-7 Lloyd, C., 1-2 loans, see financial institutions, mortgage lending arrangements, home purchase assistance local government, 132 location, 31, 61, 99, 109, 117, 121, 124, 126-7, 129-31, 136, 139, see space lodging houses, see boarding houses longevity, 102-3 Loveday, P., 16 Lynch,]., 114 Mackenzie, S., 142 maintenance, 74, 99-100 Manning, 1, 8-9 Married Women's Property Acts, 12, 16 Marxist-feminism, 142 Massey, D., 142 Matthews,]., 143 Matrimonial Causes Act, 12 matrimonial property, 12, 95-9 matrix, 140 Mayo, M., 138 McColl, S., 112, 133 McDonald, P., 75, 78, 80, 98, 107 McDowell, L., 143 McFerren, L., 17

Mclntosh, M., 22 McLeay Report, 113, 116 migrants, 15-16, 28-9, 43, 51, 112 Mingione, E., 144 Ministry of Housing, Victoria, 26, 47, 86, 88-9, 131 Morris, M., 145 Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme, 72 mortgage lending arrangements, 47, 86-8 Morville-Descolonges, M., 139 Murie, A., 41 National Council of Women, 17 National Women's Housing Conference, 7, 17, 47 negative gearing, 71-2 Neilson,]., 18 Neutze, M., 41 Nippard, T., 47, 86 Nittim, Z., 18 nursing homes, 120—1 occupation rights, 100-1 older households/women, 8, 14, 23-4, 37, 42, 56-7, 93, 102-37 owner occupation, 26; see home ownership Pacey, W., 8 Pahl, R., 144 panopticon, 145 Paris, C., 36, 58-9, 61 Patterson Report, 28 philanthropy, 1 Phillipson, C., 107 planning, 2, 31, 126, 129, 139-40 Pollard, G. N. and Pollard,]. H., 134 Poverty Inquiry, 116, 121, 140-1, 145 post-structuralism, 144-5 Pringle, R., 28, 140, 143 priority need, 57, 91-2, 101, 108 private rental, 1, 15, 33-6, 56-73, 75, 79, 80, 119, 121-5, 128, 130-2, 134-5 production, 23-5 property settlement, 95-8

155

Accommodating inequality public housing, 1-2, 13-14, 16, 31-3, 40-1, 57-8, 62, 79, 90-5, 106-8, 123, 125-30 racism, 24, 30, 69 Radford, A.J., 103, 133 real estate agents, 65-6, 68-9 Real Estate Institute, 64-5, 68, 85 refinancing, 90 refuges, 17-18 remarriage, 76 Rental Bond Board, 70 Rental Purchase Scheme, 87-8 repairs, see home maintenance residents* action group, 18 retirement villages, 114, 116-21, 124, 130-1, 133-6 Rose, D., 139, 142 Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances, 9, 16 Saegert, S., 140, 143 Salvation Army, 17 Scutt,J., 12,95-6 security, 19, 26-7, 36, 72, 81, 122-3, 127 Selby,J., 122, 124 self-provisioning, 144 Senate, 10-11, 13-15 sex discrimination legislation, 13, 29, 33, 50-2 sexual division of labour, 43 sexuality, 30, 48; see family shelters, see refuges Shiff, D., 95-6 single people, 13-15, 17, 19, 24, 30-3, 48-9, 57-60, 61, 63, 93-4, 106; parents, 13, 32-3, 42, 47, 49, 54, 56-7, 60, 62, 64-9, 78, 83, 85, 87, 91-2, 99; women, 36-8, 43, 46, 61, 69, 84, 94 Slade,J., 102-3, 105, 112 Smith, B., 131 Smith, D.J., 30, 51 social policy, 95-101 social security legislation, 99, 101 South Australian Housing Trust, 2,

87-8, 90-1, 93, 127 space, 18-19, 22-4, 41, 81-2, 118, 132, 143 Spearritt, P., 8 standards, 4, 18-19, 32, 36, 59, 61, 65-6, 72, 80, 108-9, 122, 125, 128, 135 strata titles, 15 Street,]., 9, 12 subsidies, 40 suburbanisation, 7, 19, 25, 42, 139-40 Sun, 9, 15 stamp duty, 89 superannuation, 104 Sydney Building Information Centre, 7-8

tenancy law, 69-71 tenancy transfer, 92-3, 126-7. tied accommodation, 37, 106-7, 121 Tinker, A., 139 transport, 126-7, 129-30, 139 Troy, P., 1-2 unemployment, 29, 37, 99 urban studies, 138-46 Vanek,J.,23 Victorian Ministry of Housing, 86, 88 waiting lists, 13, 33, 58, 91-3, 117, 123 Walker,J., 141 War Service Homes Act, 1919, 2 Watson, S., 24, 28, 37, 70, 77-9, 81, 87, 89, 91, 96, 111, 134, 141, 143 Weitzman, L., 76 Weberian, 140 Wekerle, G., 9, 40 Western Australian Housing Commission, 91 Whitlam, 13, 17 Whyatt, A., 139 Wight, B., 83-4 Women's Charter Movement, 9 Women's Coordinating Council, 12 Women's Housing Seminar, 7-8

156

Index young people, 13-14, 56, 63, 56, 65-7 Zika, S., 47

157