Four Corners analysed ‘affordable’ rental listings. We found a reality that didn’t match the promise

A Four Corners investigation has discovered serious deficiencies in the nation’s housing affordability schemes, with an analysis finding rentals in Australia’s most populous states too expensive for people who need them most.

The analysis of about two months of affordable rental listings in New South Wales and Victoria also found some properties on offer were actually being advertised above median market rates.

Just over 30 per cent of Australians rent, according to the latest ABS data, and with house prices remaining out of reach for many, that is predicted to increase.

But the cost of rent has risen so much that there is a growing cohort of people for whom rent is unaffordable.

Since 2025, more than 33 per cent of Australia’s median household income has been required to service the median rent, the worst result on record.

Governments across Australia are spending billions, up-ending city planning laws and partnering with big investors and private developers to boost the number of rentals available to people on low and middle incomes.

The aim is to build at least 30,000 of these homes by 2029.

Under most affordable housing schemes, rents are supposed to be set at a discount to market rate. Ideally, they should not cost tenants more than 30 per cent of their pre-tax income, the commonly accepted threshold for housing stress.

This is a different type of rental home to public or social housing, where rents are set only according to residents’ incomes.

Four Corners analysed listings for rental properties offered under NSW and Victorian affordability guidelines between April 13 and June 11.

Our analysis found few of these homes could be affordable for lower-income households, especially those on single incomes.

Single parents have few options

To help illustrate the problem, let’s take a single parent with one child who lives in Sydney.

This person earns $74,000 before tax, which under the NSW affordability guidelines, puts them in a low-income bracket.

For a rental to be “affordable” for this family, it must cost less than 30 per cent of their total pre-tax income, according to the guidelines.

That means the weekly rent needs to be below $427.

But looking at rental listings over a two-month period, there are only four two-bedroom properties within their price range.

Slim pickings for singles

What about a single person in Sydney on a low income, earning $57,000?

This person could only afford properties with a weekly rent up to $329, but there are only three rentals available that fit that criteria.

They were all studio apartments in Kingswood, about 52 kilometres west of Sydney’s CBD.

And remember: these low incomes are on the higher end of the range, so there would be even fewer affordable options for those earning less.

Couples have more options

Let’s look at a couple earning $129,000, near the top end of the moderate range.

Under the 30 per cent rule, they can afford rent of up to $744 per week.

There are 93 properties in NSW that they’re eligible for, much more than singles on lower incomes.

Why is this a problem?

The NSW affordability guidelines say affordable homes should be allocated to a mix of households within the eligibility range, which spans very low, low and moderate incomes.

The government even said it was seeking to “increasingly benefit” lower-income households, “since they are the most vulnerable to housing stress”.

But our analysis of 127 rentals advertised under the NSW affordability guidelines suggests this is not happening.

We took the income ranges for very low, low and moderate households, and assessed whether a suitable affordable rental would cost less than 30 per cent of total income for the highest earner in each bracket.

The chart below shows that there are generally more affordable rental options for larger households, which have higher income limits under the guidelines.

For example, a couple on a low income could afford 40 properties, while a single person could only afford three.

A low-income single adult with one child has four options, while a couple with a child has 30.

In Victoria, the situation is similar.

Of the 53 rentals we found under Victorian affordability schemes, there were none that were affordable for very low or low-income singles.

However, there were 21 options for couples and 40 for families on lower incomes.

‘Bullshit affordable housing’

While our analysis reflects a small sample size, multiple experts who reviewed these figures suggested it highlighted a genuine problem.

Macquarie University research fellow Alistair Sisson said the ABC’s analysis was “sound” and offered a snapshot of the “marketised” part of the affordable housing sector.

He said it was possible this data excluded some lower-cost properties that might be owned by charities and not advertised.

University of Sydney emeritus professor Peter Phibbs said while some affordable housing was better than nothing, linking prices to market rents meant many properties were not cheap enough to target those in housing need.

“Affordable housing is being defined as affordable because it’s 20 per cent cheaper … than the market rent, but in many places for many households in New South Wales, that’s still very unaffordable,” he said.

“I think the real thing you’d say is it’s bullshit affordable housing.”

Some ‘affordable’ rentals priced above median market rates

Our analysis suggested that many “affordable” properties were not offered at a discount of “at least” 20 per cent from median market rent, as recommended by NSW government guidelines.

Nearly half of the listings we analysed in NSW did not cost 20 per cent less than the median for that property type in the local area.

In fact, some of these properties, shown in dark red below, were more expensive than median rentals in their area.

That included a one-bedroom unit in Bondi Beach initially advertised for $925 per week, and a two-bedroom unit in the same suburb initially advertised for $1,400 per week.

Neither property costs less than 30 per cent of any eligible household’s income. 

But the thing is, the NSW rules are vague enough that providers can essentially calculate their own market rent figure. 

A spokesperson for the agent for both properties, HomeGround Real Estate Sydney, said it set rent in line with NSW guidelines, with market rents based on properties “of a comparable size, age, location and with similar amenities or features”.

“All properties are advertised at a 20 per cent discount to local market rent, which may be further reduced to ensure affordability for the successful applicant based on their household income,” the spokesperson said. The spokesperson said the two-bedroom property, which had been advertised for $1,400 per week, was leased for $1,150 per week.   

Macquarie University’s Alistair Sisson said the providers were not doing anything wrong “in a legal or regulatory sense”. He said the NSW guidelines were “loose” and that when new properties were being taken up in expensive areas like the eastern suburbs, providers could “go with the market rent estimate that suits them best”.

While those Bondi properties were among the most expensive outliers, they speak to a broader problem.

Ryan van den Nouwelant, a senior lecturer at the School of Built Environment at UNSW, said the ABC’s findings on how “affordable” rents were set reflected a need for clearer regulations, now that governments were increasingly relying on the private sector to develop and own affordable housing.

“Relying on market mechanisms to provide housing options at a range of price points below market rents was always going to fail: the market will only ever offer products at the highest possible rent,” he said.

“Larger households that are eligible for these rent-controlled products can pay more rent, so it is not surprising the available options skew to this group.”

The NSW government is reviewing its affordability housing guidelines.

The state’s Minister for Housing Rose Jackson said the government was making changes to strengthen the state’s affordable housing system and would be “throwing the book at those not doing the right thing”.

Affordable rental ‘felt too good to be true’

When 30-year-old Sarah Hutt was offered an affordable rental owned by Mission Australia at the Midtown development at Macquarie Park, 13 kilometres north-west of Sydney’s CBD, she thought she’d hit the jackpot.

When she moved in, in 2024, Sarah was told the rent for her studio apartment would be calculated as a proportion of her gross income, 30 per cent, or about $412 per week, which felt manageable for her wage (about $70,000 per year) as a social media manager.

“It felt too good to be true,” she said.

In May this year, Mission Australia told her it was recalculating her rent.

Instead of tying it to her income, it would now be set at 75 per cent of the market rate.

She would have to pay about $80 more per week, meaning rent would eat up about 35 per cent of her pre-tax income. “It’s been a bit of a shock,” she said.

“I’m supposed to be here because I’m earning less than the average person … and now it’s the same as renting anywhere else,” she said.

The thing is, Mission Australia acted within the rules.

Sarah thought the apparent market rate of her apartment, $660 per week, seemed high.

The charity explained to her that it calculated the figure based on data for a one-bedroom in the same local government area, even though she lives in a studio.

A Mission Australia spokesperson told Four Corners that where a direct comparison for a particular type of housing was not available in the relevant data, the closest comparable property type was used as the benchmark to determine market rent.

There is nothing in the rules of the NSW scheme to prevent it from doing that.

The NSW government guidelines also state “greater flexibility in pricing” can be applied to middle-income earners, a clause at odds with a state law that defines an affordable household as one in which tenants pay no more than 30 per cent of their income in rent.

In a statement, Mission Australia confirmed it was switching all its tenants in Sarah’s building to a discounted market-based rent model and had acted within the rules.

“Due to the high costs of delivering and managing affordable housing … Mission Australia has made the decision to set all Midtown affordable housing rents at 74.99 per cent of market rent to ensure the ongoing financial sustainability of this vital project,” a spokesperson said.

‘Goldilocks’ and ‘unicorn’ tenants

Our investigation has also found cases of people being locked out of “affordable” rentals, seemingly because they did not earn enough.

Casual university tutor and rideshare driver Christopher Hewson applied for an affordable rental at a new Melbourne complex called Swift Walk, run by superfund-backed developer Assemble and its charity housing partner Housing Choices Australia.

“I emphasised in the documents I sent that I was paying more rent where I was currently living and I wanted to move to Assemble to save money,” he said.

His application was rejected. Instead, he has ended up paying more for a rental in the private market.

We have done the maths on Assemble’s pricing to try to work out why applicants we have spoken to, like Christopher, have been unsuccessful.

Our analysis shows that for some of the “affordable” properties, only a narrow band of middle-income earners would be eligible: those with incomes low enough to meet the income caps, but high enough to meet the company’s commitment for tenants to pay no more than 30 per cent of their income in rent.

In the industry, people who qualify in a narrow band like this are sometimes called “Goldilocks” or “unicorn” tenants.

Seven months after its completion, we also found that some, about 18 of 181, of Swift Walk’s affordable properties were sitting empty, including those that appeared to be priced above median market rents for the area. 

Assemble told the ABC its market rents were set based on an independent valuation. 

Swift Walk is the largest completed development supported by the federal government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which is subsidising thousands of social and affordable homes around the country. 

It is one of the early examples where the government has managed to attract private sector investment, in this case superannuation firms AustralianSuper and Hesta, into the social and affordable housing space.

The federal government argues leveraging private sector investment helps more homes get built sooner.

RMIT economist and emeritus professor David Hayward said the needs of tenants, not investors, needed to remain at the centre of this system. 

“I think what’s happened is that we’re seeing this bizarre situation of us developing a system where social and affordable housing becomes a vehicle for people to make money out of, not how do you meet the housing needs of the tenants,” he said.  

The Assemble model is set to be scaled up. Alongside its charity partner, it has been awarded nearly $2.5 billion in HAFF subsidies and loans over 25 years for 11 projects, including for social and affordable homes at Swift Walk.

Assemble’s managing director Kris Daff said he was confident the vacant affordable homes would be occupied soon and stressed that more than 90 per cent of the affordable apartments had been leased.

“I don’t think we’re dealing with Goldilocks or unicorn tenants generally across all this housing that we’ve already leased out  because the reality is that’s no good for the community housing sector. That’s no good for Assemble either,” he said.

Mr Daff said Assemble did not receive subsidies for the affordable homes so long as they remained empty.

He also acknowledged that after the 25-year subsidy period ended, the affordable homes would transition to market housing.

“We’re really happy with the success of Swift Walk … I think these type of programs are exactly what Australians need in the face of a really difficult housing market.”

Federal Housing Minister Claire O’Neil acknowledged that setting affordable rents at a 25 per cent discount to market rents, which HAFF mandates, could pose some challenges.

“I think it is generally a workable model, but I think when you’re talking about building housing in areas where you’ve got extremely high market rents, it does create difficulties,” she said.

“I’m sure you’ve got examples where, at the fringes, things aren’t working as you would like them to [but] the fundamentals here are right, and that is lots more affordable housing for people who desperately need it,” she said.

Watch Four Corners’s full investigation into Australia’s housing crisis and the promise of affordable rentals at 8:30pm on ABC TV and ABC iview.

How we reported this story

• We collected listings for a little over eight weeks, from April 13 to June 11 from realestate.com.au, Welcome Mat and Echo for NSW, and the Victorian Affordable Rentals Consortium (VARC) Snug platform for Victoria daily during the analysis period. We did not collect listings from Domain as there was no web feature to reliably separate out affordable properties.
• Only properties offered under state-based affordability guidelines were included in the analysis.
• A property was considered affordable for an income bracket (either very low, low and moderate incomes) if the advertised rent cost less than 30 per cent of the household’s pre-tax income, the widely considered threshold for housing stress. We acknowledge some measures assume a medium-income household can afford up to 40 per cent of income, but the 30 per cent benchmark provides a strong indicator of affordability.
• For the affordability measure, each household type (e.g. single, couple, family) was only considered eligible for a reasonably sized property. As NSW does not specify this, we used Homes Victoria household size guidelines.
• Market rent was calculated from the median rent in the NSW Rental Report. As the guidelines are not specific in how to choose a market rent value, we looked at both LGA and postcode median rents for the specific property type and size, and selected the highest of the two.
• The ABC checked this methodology with multiple housing policy researchers.
• AI was used to assist in writing code to perform the analysis, which was checked and corrected manually.