Living in Australia A snapshot of Australian society and how it is changing over time - Melbourne Institute
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CONTENT | 2 Living in Australia A snapshot of Australian society and how it is changing over time
2 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services with scientific leadership by the Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, the University of Melbourne. Since 2009, Roy Morgan has been responsible for conducting the fieldwork. The findings and views reported here, however, are those of the authors’ and should not be attributed to the Australian Government Department of Social Services, the Melbourne Institute or Roy Morgan. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the contributions of Roger Wilkins, Inga Laß, Peter Butterworth and Esperanza Vera-Toscano. Thanks to The Editorial Collective for subediting and Qualia Creative for the design of the report.
FOREWORD | 3
FOREWORD
Professor A. Abigail Payne
Director and Ronald Henderson Professor
Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research
Living in Australia is fundamentally different today It is with heartfelt thanks to the HILDA Survey
than it was 20, 10 or even five years ago. We are a participants, who generously give their time each year,
nation that has been defined by social transformation, that we have been able to keep the study running for
driven in part by shifting employment conditions, as long as it has, and in doing so, provide a vital source
diverse family structures and changes in our health of information to those making economic and social
and wellbeing that affect the opportunities with which welfare decisions for all Australians.
we are provided and the decisions we make.
The study stands as a guide to better inform our
As society evolves, it is important that we have a understanding of what’s shaping modern Australia,
clear understanding of our living, employment and and whilst the Melbourne Institute has been a driver in
educational opportunities, so that decision makers at its creation, we are just one of many organisations and
the highest levels are informed and can plan effectively people around the world that can make important use
for the future prosperity of our nation and its people. of the strong body of knowledge it has created.
That is why almost 20 years ago the Australian To the survey participants, all of Australia owes you
Government partnered with the Melbourne Institute: its eternal thanks.
Applied Economic & Social Research to design and
manage the pioneering Household, Income and
Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey.
This long-running survey collects and analyses
information from thousands of different families
and individuals across the country to provide insights
into how living in Australia has changed over time.
Today, the HILDA Survey remains the first and only
study of its kind that involves telling the story of the
same group of people and families over their lifetime.
The ongoing cooperation of the survey participants,
who represent the voices of all Australians, is vital to
the study’s success and the ability to make a real and
long-lasting difference.
4 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
CONTENTS
3 Foreword
5 Welcome
7 The evolving household structure
8 Love and relationships in an ever more
diverse Australian society
9 Pathways to adulthood
11 Household income changes
and income inequality
13 Freedom from welfare dependence
14 Children living in poverty
16 New ways of working
18 Juggling work and family life
21 Trends in dual-earner couples
24 The daily commute and its impact
on job satisfaction
27 Taking care of Australians’
mental health
29 Illicit drug use: A growing concern
for Australian society?
31 Meet two of the HILDA Survey team
WELCOME | 5
WELCOME
Every year some 20,000 Australians are invited to
Professor Mark Wooden participate in the Household, Income and Labour
Director, HILDA Survey Project Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The information
Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic that is collected is then fed into an ever-growing
& Social Research database describing how Australian lives have been
changing (and not changing). With these data,
researchers have access to a powerful tool that is
informing policy settings in a wide range of areas.
Included here are: income inequality; poverty; minimum
wages; housing affordability; child care; public health;
employment conditions and job quality; the setting of
official interest rates—I could go on.
This report, the first in what we expect to be an
annual production, seeks to provide you with more
insight about a small selection of some of the trends
and findings that emerge from the data you provide
each year.
The material covered is drawn from a larger report—
the annual HILDA Survey Statistical Report—which we
have been producing every year since 2006. This new
report, however, is very different in that it has been
designed specifically with you—the HILDA Survey
participant—in mind.
Finally, I would like to express my own deepfelt thanks
to you (and your family) for inviting our interviewers
into your home and/or answering their phone calls
every year. Without your cooperation there would be
no HILDA Survey.
6 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
HOUSEHOLDS
and family life
• THE EVOLVING
HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE
• LOVE AND RELATIONSHIPS IN AN
EVER MORE DIVERSE AUSTRALIAN
SOCIETY
• PATHWAYS TO ADULTHOOD
HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILY LIFE | 7
THE EVOLVING
Figure 1: The most common household
structure in Australia, 2017
household structure
41%
41%
The structure of Australian households has changed
over the last two to three generations. People living
under the same roof still tend to see themselves
as part of family units, but families have become
increasingly diverse.
59 %
Households are constantly changing, with new
Couple with
members entering and others leaving. From one
59 %
dependent
year to the next, approximately 23.5 per cent of children
individuals, on average, experience some sort of
Couple with
change to their household structure according to the dependent
HILDA Survey. Over a five-year period, slightly more children
than half of the population experiences at least one 6.2% 56.
Other 0%
change in household structure, and over a 16-year %
7.7
period more than two-thirds (76.6%) experience at
least one change. 2%
6. 56.
0% Even though more diverse household types are
Both partn
11.2%
%
The most common sources of change are emerging, the most common structure over the
7.7
children leaving the parental home and then also last 17 years is a household containing a couple Both partn
same main
returning after a period of time. The birth of a child, with dependent children (41.3% in 2017), followed
new romantic partnerships and separation of spouses by households containing a couple and no children Both partn
are other causes of the ever-changing household (19.7%) who mayBothor
partners
may notborn in with
live Australia
others, such (in the sam
11.2%
structure in Australia. as siblings, parents or other unrelated persons. One partne
Both partners born overseas (in the
the other p
1 5.
same main English-speaking country) (main Engl
2%
Both partners born overseas One partne
(in the same other country) and the oth
Table 1: Proportion of respondents who experienced a change to their3.8household structure, 2001–2017 (%) overseas (o
%
One partner born in Australia and Both partn
the other partner born overseas
1 5.
overseas c
Changes since 2001
(main English-speaking country)
2%
One partner
1 year later born inlater
5 years Australia 16 years later
and the other partner born
Household structure 3changed
.8 % overseas (other country)
23.5 52.4 76.6
(someone left and/or someone entered) Both partners born in different
overseas countries to one another
Type of change:
Partnering 3.2 13.1 32.9
Separation 2.2 6.2% 10.2 23.7
%
Birth of a child 4.97.7 13.2 26.5 Both Austr
Child moving into parental home 3.9 14.5 31.1
Foreign bo
speaking c
11.2%
Child moving out of parental home 11.5 34.7 61.5
Foreign bo
Death of a household member
.2% 0.4 2.4 7.1
6
55.9%
Other source of increase
7% in household size (entry) 1.6 Both Australian 5.9
born 15.5
7. Native and
& mainly E
Other source of decease in household size (exit) 3.5 8.8 18.6
1 5.
Native and
Foreign born (same mainly English
2%
& other co
speaking country)
11.2%
Both foreig
3 .8
Foreign born (same other country)
%
8 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
41%
LOVE AND
RELATIONSHIPS
in an ever more diverse Australian society
59 %
Couple with
dependent
With more than one in four Australian residents born Figure 2: Types of couple relationships children
overseas according to 2016 Census data (26.3%), by country of birth, 2017
41%
there is a growing number of people from different
cultural backgrounds making romantic connections.
The increase in interethnic romantic partnerships 6.2% 56.
0%
could be a sign of successful integration to Australia %
and a more vibrant Australian society. 7.7
The HILDA Survey reveals that one in four couples in
2017 were interethnic—by which we mean that spouses
11.2%
are born in different countries. Results also show that
partnering with someone from a different country is
59 %
more likely if you have a bachelor degree or a higher
educational attainment compared to lower educational Couple with
attainment. Similarly, people who are relatively open dependent
to new experiences are significantly more likely to children
partner with someone from a different country; while Other
1 5.
more traditional attitudes towards marriage and
2%
children reduce the likelihood of living in an interethnic
relationship. 6.2% 56
.0%
% 3 .8
%
7.7
Both partners born in Australia
11.2%
Both partners born overseas (in the
same main English-speaking country)
Both partners born overseas
(in the same other country)
One partner born in Australia and
the other partner born overseas
1 5.
(main English-speaking country)
2%
6.2%
One partner born in Australia
and the other partner born
%
overseas (other country)
3 .8
% 7.7
Both partners born in different
overseas countries to one another
11.2%
Note: Main English-speaking countries: United Kingdom
(England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), Republic of
Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, United States of America
and South Africa.
55.9%
1 5.
2%
6.2%
3.
7.7
% Both8Australian
% born
HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILY LIFE | 9
PATHWAYS
to adulthood
The period between the end of adolescence and the YOUNG ADULTS IN NO HURRY TO GET MARRIED
late 20s—young adulthood—is a time of significant A longstanding coming-of-age tradition has been
change during which individuals graduate or leave the notion of leaving the family home to get married.
school, settle into a career, start a life on their own or However, the HILDA Survey indicates that this is
choose to build a family. How a young adult navigates changing, with a decrease in the number of young
this stage of the life-course is very important as it can adults who are married and living outside their
affect their future pathways. parents’ home.
Young men are less likely than their female peers
A LATER DEPARTURE FROM THE FAMILY HOME to be leaving the family home to get married. The
Compared with their parents and grandparents, young proportion of young male adults who get married
adults in Australia today are taking more time before following departure from the family home has fallen
entering family roles that have long defined adulthood. from 21.7 per cent in 2001 to 16.5 per cent in 2017.
The number of young adults living with their parents The decrease in young women is not as sharp, but
has significantly increased since the HILDA Survey is decreasing nonetheless, falling from 29.5 per cent
began 17 years ago. This increase has been led by young in 2001 to 26.6 per cent in 2017.
60%
female adults who are now leaving the parental home
at the age of 24 years, on average. The average age for 60% contrast, there has been a noticeable increase in
In
women leaving home has increased by two years since the
50%proportion of both male and female young adults
2001 when the average for going out on their own was 50% who have left the family home and live (or ‘cohabit’)
22. The average age for young men leaving home is with
40% a partner without being married. Between 2001
23 years and has remained the same between 2001 and 2017 the proportion who were cohabiting rose
40%
and 2017. by
30% 8 percentage points among men and 12 percentage
points among women. Today the proportion of young
30%
adults
20% living outside the parental home and cohabiting
20%
outnumbers those who are married.
10%10%
Men Men
0% 0%
Figure 3: Change in young adults (18–29 years) living outside
20012001
20032003the2005
2005 parental
2007 2009
2007 home,
2011
2009 2001–2017,
2013 2015
2011 20172015 2017
2013
by relationship status and gender
60%
60% 60%
50%
50% 50%
40%
40% 40%
30%
30% 30%
20%
20% 10%20%
Women
10% 0%10%
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Men Women
0% 0%
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Married Cohabiting Single With dependent children
60%
50% Married Cohabiting Single With dependent children
10 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
Household
ECONOMIC
WELLBEING
• HOUSEHOLD INCOME
CHANGES AND
INCOME INEQUALITY
• FREEDOM FROM WELFARE
DEPENDENCE
• CHILDREN LIVING IN
POVERTYHOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC WELLBEING | 11
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
CHANGES
and income inequality
Examining the pattern of changes to households’ HOW STABLE IS AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME?
income over time is vital to understanding the The HILDA Survey indicates that households tend to
economic potential of the Australian population. remain within the same income group from one year
Australian household incomes have, on average, to the next (that is, reporting roughly the same income
remained at the same level since 2009 ($90,578 in in real terms each year). This has especially been the
2009 compared to $93,734 in 2017). However, there case in recent years (since 2012). This income stability
have been noticeable changes in households’ income from year to year may be understood as a positive
from year to year. development, since average household incomes do
not appear to be decreasing. However, those in the
lowest income groups are more likely to be persistently
struggling to make ends meet and afford a decent
living standard, and require assistance to try and break
their cycle of disadvantage.
Figure 4: Income by family type (mean equivalised)
$65k
$60k
$55k
$50k
December 2017 prices
$45k
$40k
$35k
$30k
$25k
$20k
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 015 16 17
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2 20 20
Couple (at least one member10% 10%
8% 8%
12 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
6% 6%
4% 4%
2% 2%
0% 0%
01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 0
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Persons aged 65 and over
14% 70%
12% 60%
10% 50%
8% 40%
6% 30%
4% 20%
2% 10%
0% 0%
01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 0
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
More than 50% of household income from welfare
More than 90% of household income from welfare
Figure 5
INEQUALITY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME Figure 5: Long-term inequality (Gini coefficient)
The gap between people with high incomes and
those with low incomes provides us with a measure 0.300
of income inequality. There are some people with
temporarily low incomes and some people with
temporarily high incomes. When we examine incomes 0.290
over five years, these temporary fluctuations are less
important and so incomes look more equal. Looking
at household incomes reported in the HILDA Survey 0.280
Ratio value
reveals that the gap between people at the high and
low end of the income spectrum is somewhat smaller
over a five-year period than the gap in incomes when
0.270
measured over only one year. However, even though
inequality measured over five years is not very high
(ranging from 0.266 to 0.277), the gap has been
expanding since the early 2000s. 0.260
0.250
5
6
07
8
20 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Figure 4
HOW CAN INEQUALITY
BE MEASURED?
Inequality is measured based on an
index known as the Gini coefficient, Long-term inequality is widening
whereby 0 signifies an equal society the gap between the highest
and 1 signifies an unequal society. income group whose economic
prosperity is increasing and the
lowest income group whose
economic prosperity is declining.HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC WELLBEING | 13
Peopleliving
People livingin
inpoverty
povertyat
atsome
somestage
stage
overaa10-year
over 10-yearperiod
period
40%
40%
FREEDOM 35%
35%
30%
30%
Figure 6: Income support recipients by age (%)
Persons aged 18-64 25%
25%
from
14%
welfarePersons
14%
dependence
aged 18-64
14%
20%
20%
14%
Persons aged 18–64
12% 12%
15%
15% Persons aged 18–64
12%
10% 12%
10%
10%
10%
10% 5%
10%
5% >50% of household income
8% 8%
0% from
>50% ofwelfare benefits
household income
Broadly
8% speaking, welfare refers to the wellbeing 0%
8%
6% 6% from welfare benefits
of people: their security, health and happiness. Men
Men Women
Women Children
Children living
living Children
Children
6% 6% overall
overall overall
overall inmajor
in major livingin
living in
4%
The Australian welfare system supports the elderly 4%
urbanregions
urban
>90% of household regions otherregions
other
income regions
4%
and those
2% who may be unable to participate fully 4%
2% from
>90% ofwelfare benefits
household income
in the2%
labour market or otherwise achieve a 2%
0% 0% from welfare benefits
satisfactory 1 income,
3 for
5 reasons
07 009
such 1as
1 disability,
13 15 17 1 3 5 07 009 11 3 15 17
0% 200 200 200 20 7 2or 20 1 20 3 20 5 20 7 0% 200 0 0 0
20living 20in 20 at 01 20 5 20 7
illness, caring
1 responsibilities
5 9unemployment. 2People
People living
5 2 9 for
in7poverty
poverty for 2least
1 atleast
0 0 03 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 01 03 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1
Overall, 2welfare 20
20 dependency 20 in 20
20 Australia 0 20
2remains 20 20 20 over
20 77years
years 20 aa10-year
over 20
10-year 0
2period
period 20 20 20
well below what it was 17 years ago. There are, 4.0%
4.0%
Persons
however, groups within theaged 65 and over
population who require 3.5%
14% 3.5%
70%
support to help breakPersons theaged
cycle
65of disadvantage
and over Persons aged 65 and over
14% 3.0%
3.0%
70%
12% economic independence.
to obtain 60% Persons aged 65 and over
2.5%
2.5%
12%
10% 60%
50%
2.0%
2.0%
The 10%
HILDA Survey shows a declining trend in welfare 50% >50% of household income
8% over the 2001 to 2017 period. While 30.6
reliance 40%
1.5%
1.5% from
>50% ofwelfare benefits
household income
8% of individuals aged 18 to 64 were living in
per cent
6% 40%
1.0%
1.0%
30% from welfare benefits
a household
6% that received income support at some 0.5%
30%
0.5%
4% 20%
stage during the financial year ending 30 June 2017, 0%
0%
>90% of household income
4% 20% from
this is2%
substantially lower than in 2001, when the 10% Men
Men >90%
Women
Women ofwelfare
household benefits
Childrenliving
Children income Children
living Children
corresponding
2% figure was 38.5 per cent. 10% overall
overall overall
from welfare
overall benefits
inmajor
in major livingin
living in
0% 0%
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 urban
7 urban regions
9 regions 3other1regions
other 5regions
0% 200 200 200 00 200 11 13 15 17 0% 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 17
Nevertheless,
1 many
3 5 2
Australians,
7 20 1 20elderly
especially
9 3 20 5 20 7 1 20 3 20 5 20 7 20 9 20 1 20 3 20 5 20 7
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
20 (aged
Australians 20 20 and20over),
65 20 are still 20
20 heavily 20reliant
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
on welfare benefits (that is, the Age Pension). Despite
More than 50% of household income from welfare Figure77
Figure
the introduction of compulsory superannuation in 1992, Figure 7: Number of years in which more than 50 per
More than 90%
50% of household income from welfare
most persons aged 65 and over are reliant on the Age cent of household income comes from welfare benefits:
More than 90% of household income from welfare Working-age people observed over a 10-year period (%)
Pension, yet this trend is declining over time.
Figure 5
In 2017, welfare provided moreFigure 5
than half of household
2008–2017
2001–2010 2008–2017
Women
Women
income for almost 10 per cent of Australians aged
18 to 64, and just over half of all Australians aged
Men
Men
65 years or more.
2001–2010
Further, for a substantial minority this dependency Women
Women
is long-lasting. One in 10 (10.7%) working-age
females (aged 18–64) and 8.6 per cent of their male Men
Men
0.300 have relied on income support for 10
counterparts
0.300 years, between 2008 and 2017. Despite the 00 10 20
10 20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70 80
80 90
90 100
100
consecutive
decline in overall welfare dependency, the level of long-
Nowelfare
No welfare 7–9years
7–9 yearsofofhousehold
household
term reliance
0.290 has barely changed.
support
support incomesupport
income support
0.290
1–3years
1–3 yearsof
ofhousehold
household 10years
10 yearsof
ofhousehold
household
incomesupport
income support incomesupport
income support
0.280 4–6years
yearsof
ofhousehold
household
value
4–6
0.280 incomesupport
income support
value
WELFARE BENEFITS
Ratio
There has been a decrease in the proportion
Welfare
0.270benefits comprise income support
Ratio
of the population who require income support,
payments
0.270 such as the Age Pension, Disability
but the proportion of the population who rely
Support Pension,
No Parenting Payment
No 1-3 yearsand
1-3years of Newstart4-6
of 4-6years
yearsof
of 7-9years
7-9 yearsof
of 10years
10 yearsof
of
welfare household on income support
household remains unchanged.
household household
Allowance, and non‑income support
0.260 welfare payments,
household household household household
such support
support
as Family income
income
Tax Benefit Parts support
A support
and B. incomesupport
income support incomesupport
income support incomesupport
income support
0.260
0.250
0.250
5 5
6 6
07 07
8 8
92 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 20
0 20
0 20
0 20
0 20
0 20
0 20
0 0
20
20
20
20
20
014 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
CHILDREN
living in poverty
Living in poverty during childhood can have Figure 8: Experience of relative poverty over a 10-year
negative long-term effects. It is therefore important period by type of individual and place of residence (%)
that policy both responds to these long-term effects
People living in poverty at some stage
and focuses on breaking the cycle of deprivation. People living in10-year
over a povertyperiod
at some stage
over a 10-year period
More than 28 per cent of children born between 40%
40%
1 July 2000 and 30 June 2008 lived in relative 35%
35%
poverty for at least one year. More specifically, 18.2 30%
per cent were living in relative poverty for one to two 30%
25%
years, while 4.7 per cent were in poverty for at least 25%
20%
half of their first 10 years of life. 20%
15%
15%
Children who grow up outside the major urban 10%
10%
areas (towns and cities with a population of at least 5%
5%
100,000 people) are more likely to experience relative 0%
poverty within the first 10 years of life—with 34.2 per 0% Men Women Children living Children
cent experiencing relative poverty at some stage in overall
Men overall
Women Children living
in major Children
living in
overall overall in major
urban regions living
other in
regions
their lives, compared with 25.8 per cent of children
urban regions other regions
growing up in major urban areas.
Children growing up outside major urban areas are
People living in poverty for at least
also more likely to experience long-term relative People living
7 years in apoverty
over 10-yearfor at least
period
poverty, with 3.4 per cent experiencing disadvantage 7 years over a 10-year period
for seven or more of the first 10 years of life, 4.0%
4.0%
compared with 1.4 per cent of their peers. 3.5%
3.5%
3.0%
3.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0%
CHILD RELATIVE POVERTY 0% Men Women Children living Children
overall
Men overall
Women Children living
in major Children
living in
According to the OECD, children are in overall overall in major
urban regions living
other in
regions
relative income poverty if their households urban regions other regions
are unable to afford the goods and
services needed to provide them with Note: Major urban regions refers to cities with populations of 100,000
or more. Other regions include towns and cities with populations of
a mainstream lifestyle in the country in Figure 7 of less than 1,000, and rural
1,000 to 99,999, towns with populations
which they live. and remote areas. Figure 7
008–2017
Women
8–2017
Women
MenTHE LABOUR MARKET | 15 The LABOUR MARKET • NEW WAYS OF WORKING • JUGGLING WORK AND FAMILY LIFE • SPOTLIGHT ON: CHILD–CARE COSTS • TRENDS IN DUAL-EARNER COUPLES • THE DAILY COMMUTE AND ITS IMPACT ON JOB SATISFACTION
16 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
NEW WAYS
of working
2001
8%
22%
Over the last two decades there has, at least among 18% Figure 10: Share and definitions of different
employees, been a shift away from ‘traditional’ full- employment types, 2001 and 2017
time permanent employment towards different forms 50% 55%
11%
of work—also known as non-standard forms of work.
2001
They include: temporary jobs, permanent part-time
work, and casual or seasonal work. These new forms 24% 8%
8%
of work can create pathways into employment and 4%
new career opportunities, as well as offer greater 22%
flexibility to individuals. However,
18% non-standard
forms of work also typically lack the stability and
employment benefits that are offered by traditional 50% 55% 2017
11%
forms of employment.
5%
24% 8%
22%
WOMEN AND NON-STANDARD EMPLOYMENT
21% 4%
Non-standard employment is a common way of
Male working for many women inFemale
Australia. The HILDA
45% 52%
Survey shows that there are more women working in 14%
35%
non-standard forms
30%
of employment than men, with 2017
the average share
25% of female non-standard employees
being almost double
20% that
5% of their male peers.29%
In 2017, 10%
61 per cent of employed
15%
women were in non-standard
10% 22%
jobs compared 5% to 37 per cent of men.
21% 2%
0%
-term Casual
ract employment In addition, women are overrepresented in three
Temporary Permanent
agency part-time
Fixed-term Casual
contract employment
Temporary Permanent
agency part-time STANDARD EMPLOYMENT
employment employment 52%
out of the four most common types 45%
of non- Full-time dependent employment on a permanent
14%
standard employment:
2011 2017
fixed-term contracts, casual contract.
employment and permanent part-time work.
Figure 9
29%
CASUAL EMPLOYMENT10%
The most common form of non-standard employment
in Australia. Its main feature is the absence of any
2%
advance commitment by the employer regarding both
Figure 9: Average share of non-standard
the duration of employment and the number of days or
employment by gender, 2017
hours to be worked. Additionally, casual employees are
Female
usually not entitled to paid annual or sick leave.
37%
PERMANENT PART-TIME WORK
Usually working, on a permanent basis, less than
35 hours per week in the main job.
Male
FIXED-TERM CONTRACTS
Employment contracts that specify a specific date
when employment will be terminated.
TEMPORARY AGENCY EMPLOYMENT
Where a worker is employed by a temporary agency,
and then hired out to perform her/his job at a
company. No employment relationship exists between
Figure 8 61% employer and company and wages are paid by the
temporary agency.A SNAPSHOT OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY AND HOW IT IS CHANGING
THE LABOUR
OVER
MARKET
TIME | 17
Figure 11: Share of fixed-term contracts, casual employment, temporary agency employment and
Lowest Level of work-family con
permanent part-time work by gender: Employees aged 15 and over (%), 2001 and 2017
1 2 3 4
Male Number of working hours18 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
JUGGLING WORK
and family life
Finding a balance between raising children and paid have mothers’ working hours increased since 2001,
work is something most parents strive for. However, full-time working mothers, on average, also express
in Australia this is challenging as many parents have a a significantly higher degree of difficulty in balancing
full-time paid job and work long hours. Understanding work and family life than is the case for all parents.
the differences in how paid work and family
commitments are perceived and experienced by men Being able to achieve a work–family life balance also
and women provides important insights into how to depends on the person’s family situation, including
design policies that support work–life balance. the age of their youngest child, number of children
and marital status. Mothers with young children
The HILDA Survey reveals a clear connection between (aged 0 to 3 years) report relatively low levels of
longer working hours and greater work–family conflict. work–family conflict, which is partly explained by their
Mothers seem to feel the effects the most. Not only concentration in part-time jobs.
Figure 13: Level of work–family conflict by number of working hours: Working parents
with children aged 17 or younger, 2001–2017 (pooled)
Lowest Level of work-family conflict Highest
1 2 3 4 5 6 7A SNAPSHOT OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY AND HOW IT IS CHANGING
THE LABOUR
OVER
MARKET
TIME | 19
Factors such as working schedule and whether the in both years (persistent) and those who experience
person is self-employed or an employee also influence high work–family conflict in one year but then have
how mothers and fathers perceive the impact of a low level of conflict by the following year (exiting).
work on their family lives. The long-term nature Workers who have low conflict in the first year and
of the HILDA Survey enables us to examine how a remain employed in the following year are also studied.
range of employment-related changes impacts work– A reduction in the number of hours worked from one
family balance. We compare the share of workers year to the next, a change in working schedule, or
experiencing these changes from one year to the next giving up a supervisory role seem to decrease the level
among those who experience high work–family conflict of work–family conflict for those who are employed.
Table 2: Proportion of workers experiencing employment-related changes by level of work–family conflict:
Working parents with children aged 17 or younger, 2001–2017 (pooled) (%)
Change
Reduce Give up Change Change
Level of conflict working
hours supervision employer occupation
schedule
Low conflict 30.1 16.1 17.6 10.6 30.9
High conflict—persistent 33.8 17.0 13.7 11.1 29.0
High conflict—exiting 40.4 17.4 19.7 15.6 33.120 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
Spotlight on:
CHILD-CARE COSTS
Over the past few decades, child care for children The HILDA Survey has
not yet in school has become a major concern among
Australian families who struggle to balance their found a drastic increase
child care responsibilities with paid work outside in the share of household
their home.
income spent on child
The HILDA Survey data show sustained and substantial care since 2002.
rises in median weekly expenditure on child care
for children not yet in school over the 2002 to 2017
period—by around 145 per cent ($62 per week in
2002/2003 rising to $153 per week in 2016/2017).
In part, this is the result of increased uptake of child- Figure 14: Top child care challenges
care services. However, hourly costs of formal care for parents face.
young children have also been rising. After adjusting
for price inflation, these have risen by 51 per cent—
from $4.10 in 2002/2003 to $6.20 in 2016/2017.
49%
Table 3: Expenditure on formal child care for children
not yet at school, 2002/03 and 2016/17 Financial cost
of child care
December 2017 prices 2002/03 2016/17 % change
Median weekly expenditure $62 $153 145
Median expenditure per
$4.10 $6.20 51 35%
hour of child care
Finding care
for a sick child
33%
Finding care
at short notice
The financial cost of child care is
the main difficulty experienced by
parents (whose youngest child is
below five years).THE LABOUR MARKET | 21
Male breadwinner households
Male breadwinner households FemaleFemale
breadwinner households
breadwinner households
100% 100% 100% 100%
80% 80% 80% 80%
60% 60% TRENDS 60% 60%
40% 40% 40% 40%
20%
in dual-earner
20%
couples
20% 20%
0% 0% 0% 0%
Employed Employed
Employed Employed Casual Casual
Fixed-term
Fixed-term EmployedEmployedEmployedEmployedCasual Casual
Fixed-term
Fixed-term
There has been
full-time apart-time
full-time
significant increase
employee
part-time
in employee
femaleemployee Results
employee from
full-time thepart-time
full-timeHILDA Survey reveal
employee
part-time that
employee there
employee was
employee
workforce participation over the last 50 years, which a substantial rise in the number of dual-earner couples
has given rise to growth in ‘dual-earner’ couples—that between 2008 and 2011, which was mainly driven by
Men Men Women
an Women
increase in female breadwinners (that is, female
is, couples in which both members are employed and
contributing to the household finances. spouses who earn more than their male partners).
This may reflect the slowing in wages growth and a
Figure 13 decline
Figure 13 in job security experienced by households in
the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Since 2011, however, the growth of dual-earner families
has been led by an increase in couples in which
There has been an both the man and the woman evenly contribute to
increase in the number household income.
of families where both
spouses are employed
since 2001 by
17%
Figure 15: Share of dual-earner couples
by relative earnings, 2001–2017 (%)
25% 25%
20% 20%
15% 15%
10% 10%
5% 5%
0% 0%
01 0021 0032 000 43 054 0065 00076 00087 00098 010 09 1110 01121 1312 01143 1154 01615 01716
0 17
20 2200 2200 2 20 2200 2200 220 220 220 220 2200 220 2200 220 2200 220 220 20
Approximately even even
Approximately
Man earns
Man50% to50%
earns 80%to
of80%
woman
of woman Man earns
Manless than
earns 50%
less of50%
than woman
of woman
Figure 12
Figure 1222 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
IT’S NOT ALL EQUAL
Women in employment are more likely to be working
in part-time, casual and fixed-term jobs; they are
also more likely to have a lower hourly wage rate
and annual salary than their male counterparts. This
has repercussions for women who are the main
breadwinners of their household (that is, where they
are part of a couple, but earn more than their male
partner and contribute more to household expenses).
Over the past 17 years, there has been an increase of
two percentage points in the proportion of couples
in which the woman earns more annually than the
man, from 22 per cent in 2001 to 24 per cent in 2017.
Yet, their employment characteristics and income
are not equal to those of men who are the household
breadwinners. As a result, female breadwinners tend
to support households on lower levels of income.
Also, their employment is less secure and their
disposable income is lower than their equivalent male
breadwinners, despite the fact that they are the main
source of income in the household.
Figure 16: Employment characteristics of men and women in dual-earner couples by major contributor
to household income, 2015–2017 (%)
Male breadwinner households Female breadwinner households
100% 100%
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
Employed Employed Casual Fixed-term Employed Employed Casual Fixed-term
full-time part-time employee employee full-time part-time employee employee
Men Women
Figure 13
Women are more likely to be working in a mix
Men are more likely to be employed full-time
of full-time and non-standard employment in
in households where they are the primary
households where they are the primary source
source of income.
of income.THE LABOUR MARKET | 23
100%
11.9% 14.6% 16.9% 16.3% 17.4% 18.3%
80%
25.7% 26.1% 26.9% 28.2% 29.6% 29.0%
60%
40%
62.5% 59.3% 56.3% 55.6% 53.0% 52.7%
Within
20% couples where the man is the Table 4: Earnings and job experience of men and women in dual-earner
primary source of household income, couples by major contributor to household income
89.60%per cent of men work in full-time
employment and earn 2002$107,366 on2005 2008 2011 Male
2014 Female
2017
average per year compared to $73,988 breadwinner breadwinner
per year for female
Short (lessbreadwinners—a
than 1 hour) Medium (1 hour but less than 2 hours) Long (2 hours or more)
difference of 45 per cent. Men Women Men Women
Mean hourly wage
The situation where the woman is the 45.47 31.8 31.05 38.31
($, December 2017 prices)
primary source of household income Figure 15
tends to be more temporary than the
Mean annual wage
male breadwinner arrangement. Among 107,366 27,611 25,114 73,988
($, December 2017 prices)
couples, less than 60 per cent of women
who are the breadwinners in their Mean tenure in job
household still have that arrangement 8.6 6.3 8 8.5
(years)
five years later, whereas more than 80
per cent of men who are the primary
income earners are still breadwinners
five years later.
Figure 17: Share of households by relative earning arrangements: Change after one, three and five years (%)
100%
88.7
83.2 82.4
80% 73.9
63.7
59.9
57.6
60%
47.9
42.0
40%
20%
0%
Male Approx. Female Male Approx. Female Male Approx. Female
bread- equal bread- bread- equal bread- bread- equal bread-
winner winner winner winner winner winner
One year later Three years later Five years later
Figure 1424 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
THE DAILY COMMUTE
and its impact on job satisfaction
For most of us, the time spent waiting for public transport or stuck in traffic
is an unavoidable part of our working day. The HILDA Survey shows that
Australians spend, on average, 4.5 hours a week or just below one hour per
work day, travelling to and from work. This is 23 per cent higher than in 2002.
More importantly, these trends are impacting the wellbeing and job satisfaction
of Australian workers.
Figure 18: Trends in the share of workers with short, medium and long commutes per day
100%
11.9% 14.6% 16.9% 16.3% 17.4% 18.3%
80%
25.7% 26.1% 26.9% 28.2% 29.6% 29.0%
60%
40%
62.5% 59.3% 56.3% 55.6% 53.0% 52.7%
20%
0%
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
Short (less than 1 hour) Medium (1 hour but less than 2 hours) Long (2 hours or more)
Figure 15
100%
88.7
83.2 82.4
80% 73.9
63.7
59.9
57.6
60%
47.9
42.0THE LABOUR MARKET | 25
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
The HILDA Survey reveals that a long commute to People who work in highly-skilled occupations are
5%
work
0% impacts people’s satisfaction with their jobs. more likely to have lengthy commutes compared to
Those 15–34 a long time getting
who spend 35–54 to and from55 and over people in 15–34 35–54
lower-skilled occupations. Even55though
and over
0%
work each day 15–34 35–54
are more likelyMales 55 and over
to be dissatisfied people in 15–34 35–54
highly-skilledFemales
occupations 55 and
spend moreover
time
with their job overall, as well as with their working getting to and from work, they have higher levels of
Males Females
hours, flexibility to balance work and non-work life satisfaction, possibly due to their greater earning
commitments, and salaries. In addition, 2009
people who 2013 2017
potential and other favourable working conditions
have a longer daily commute are more likely2009 to expect and benefits associated
2013 2017with more highly-skilled
to leave their jobs in the next 12 months than those occupations.
who spend less time getting to and from work. Figure 17
Figure 17
Figure 19: Job satisfaction and job stability by length of commute
Job satisfaction
Satisfaction with aspects of job: 0 to 10 scale,
where 0 equals ‘Totally dissatisfied’ and 10 equals ‘Totally satisfied’
Satisfaction with working hours Satisfaction with flexibility to
7.8 Satisfaction with working hours balance work
Satisfaction and
with non-work
flexibility to
7.8 balancecommitments
work and non-work
7.6
7.8 commitments
7.6
7.4 7.6
7.8
7.4 7.4
7.6
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.2
7 7
7.2
7 < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours 7 < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours
< 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours
Satisfaction with total pay Satisfaction with job overall
7.8 Satisfaction with total pay 7.8 Satisfaction with job overall
7.8
7.6 7.8
7.6
7.6
7.4 7.6
7.4
7.4
7.2 7.4
7.2
7.2
7 7.2
7
7 < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours 7 < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours
< 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours
The chances of leaving the job Job stability The share of people having looked
voluntarily
The chancesin the next 12the
of leaving months
job for a
The new of
share jobpeople
in the having
past 4 weeks
looked
are higher for
voluntarily longer
in the nextcommuters
12 months forisalarger forin
new job long
the commuters
past 4 weeks
25% are higher for longer commuters 15% is larger for long commuters
24%
25% 15%
10%
23%
24% 10%
5%
22%
23%
21% 5%
0%
22%
21% < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours 0% < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours
< 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours < 1 hour 1-2 hours > 2 hours
Figure 16
Figure 1626 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA CONTENT | 26
HEALTH and
WELLBEING
• TAKING CARE OF AUSTRALIANS’
MENTAL HEALTH
• ILLICIT DRUG USE:
A GROWING CONCERN FOR
AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY?HEALTH AND WELLBEING | 27
TAKING CARE
of Australians’ mental health
Since the early 2000s, there has been a substantial WHO IS MOST AFFECTED?
increase in reported rates of depression and anxiety The HILDA Survey collects information about
among people living in Australia. Depression and selected serious medical conditions every four years,
anxiety are serious illnesses that make it hard to cope including most recently in 2017. These data reveal that
with daily life. When these conditions are intense depression and anxiety are some of the most common
and experienced over a long period of time, they can illnesses reported by respondents; only asthma is more
have devastating implications for the individual with prevalent. In addition, there has been a substantial and
a mental illness and their family, as well as impacting ongoing increase in the incidence of depression and
society at large. Understanding the pattern of these anxiety across genders and different age groups.
conditions and who is most adversely affected within
the community helps provide an understanding of Most notable is the rise in the incidence of depression
how to improve the quality of and access to care. and anxiety among those aged 15 to 34. In 2017, 20.1
per cent of females and 11.2 per cent of males in this
age group reported being affected by these conditions
compared to 12.8 per cent of females and 6.1 per cent
of males in 2009.
Figure 20: Prevalence of depression or anxiety, by gender and age group in 2017 (%)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
15-34 35-54 55 and over 15-34 35-54 55 and over
Males Females
2009 2013 2017
Figure 17
action with working hours Satisfaction with flexibility to
balance work and non-work
commitments28 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
Table 5: Prevalence of selected serious illness conditions, by gender and age group in 2017 (%)
39%
Males Females
15–34 35–54 > 55 15–34 35–54 > 55
Arthritis or osteoporosis 1.1 9.2 27.6
Illicit drug usage
1.6 11.2 45.9
(only)
Asthma 10 8 9 11.5 11.7 12.9
Any type of cancer 0.2 2 9.1 0.4 2.5 5.6
Illicit drug usage
29%
and drinking alcohol
Chronic bronchitis or emphysema 0.4 0.7 4.4 0.2 1.5 4.6
Type 1 diabetes 0.5 0.8 2 0.4 0.9 1.2
Illicit drug usage
18%
Type 2 diabetes 0.5 and smoking
3.3 15.2 0.5 3.1 10.3
% 35% Depression
40% or anxiety 11.2 13.5
Illicit 11.5
drug usage, 20.1 19.4 16.5
drinking alcohol 13%
Other mental illness 2.3 2.6
and smoking
1.5 3.1 3.2 1.2
Heart disease 0.4 1.9 16.1 0.2 1.3 10
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30
High blood pressure 1.3 10.9 39.9 1.7 9.6 42.7
Any other serious circulatory condition
0.3 1.8 9.2 0.5 Figure1.7
19 7.4
(e.g., stroke, hardening of the arteries)
Note: In interpreting these results, it is important to recognise that reported prevalence could diverge from actual prevalence because of the
potential for undiagnosed conditions.
SEEKING SUPPORT Figure 22: Factors associated with onset
of depression and anxiety
People living with anxiety or depression are more
likely to see a doctor if they are already under the Fired from job
supervision of a medical practitioner, and the change
in self-assessed health over a four-year period is more Victim of violence
positive. In addition, the mental health of individuals Separated from partner
improves when admitted to inpatient services, Openness to experience
reflecting the importance of providing everyone
Emotional stability
in Australia with access to mental health services and
treatment. Conscientiousness
Drink full-fat milk
Exercise at least
3 times per week
Drink at least 42
alcoholic drinks per week
Smoker
Disability that severely
restricts ability to work
In poor mental health
Figure 21: Do people with depression Household equivalised income
or anxiety regularly see a doctor? Employed part-time
Employed full-time
No Yes
Non-urban area
47.9% 69.1%
Immigrant (Non-English speaking)
Couple with
No Yes dependent children
55.7% 70.7%
Lower risk of Greater risk of
depression/anxiety depression/anxiety
Do they see improvements
in their health condition (%):
Greater emotional stability is associated with lower
Health improved probabilities of depression or anxiety while poor
Figure 18
Health decreased mental health is, unsurprisingly, connected with an
increased risk of onset.A SNAPSHOT OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY AND HOW ITHEALTH
IS CHANGING
AND WELLBEING
OVER TIME | 29
ILLICIT DRUG USE:
A growing concern for Australian society?
The HILDA Survey shows that 12 per cent of The HILDA Survey shows that the beginning of illicit
Australians aged 15 years or older had used at least drug use usually occurs between the ages of 15 and
one illicit drug in the past 12 months. Illicit drug use 21 years. Illicit drug use is most common among those
can cause premature death, disability and functional aged in their 20s, with almost a quarter of those in
impairment, as well as negative effects on physical, this age range reporting current use (within the past
mental and cognitive wellbeing. In addition, the 12 months). The rates of current illicit drug use tend to
individual health and behavioural issues associated decline with increasing age.
with some forms of illicit drug use (such as crime,
violence and social dysfunction) are a social concern
that requires a community response to protect those
most at risk.
Figure 23: Use of multiple types of illicit and legal drugs (%)
Just over 60 per cent of
Illicit drug usage those using illicit drugs
(only) 39%
also smoke tobacco and/or
drink alcohol at risky levels
(measured according to
Illicit drug usage the quantity and frequency
29%
and drinking alcohol that is consumed). The
combination of risky levels
of illicit drug use and
Illicit drug usage
18% alcohol consumption
and smoking
(42%) is more common
than the combination with
Illicit drug usage, smoking (31%).
drinking alcohol 13%
and smoking
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Figure 19Figure 20
30 | LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
Figure 24: Lifetime illicit drug use by type of drug (%)
Marijuana/cannabis
Meth/amphetamine
Cocaine
Ecstasy
Hallucinogens
Inhalants
Other (e.g. Heroin, GHB)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
While marijuana/cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug, the majority of those using this
drug are not using any other type of illicit drug. Conversely, consumers of meth/amphetamines,
cocaine or ecstasy combine them with other illicit drugs.
Figure 21
Figure 25: Cannabis use and family background among respondents aged under 35 years
Mother with lifetime
history of cannabis use
Mother has no
history of cannabis use
Father with lifetime
history of cannabis use
Father has no
history of cannabis use
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
This graph shows the percentage of respondentsFigure
aged20under 35 years
who are still living at home with their father and/or mother and had
used cannabis in the past 12 months. It shows that parents’ use of
cannabis can affect their children’s probability of using cannabis.
Note: Mother and/or father must also have completed the survey.MEET TWO OF THE HILDA SURVEY TEAM | 31
MEET TWO OF THE
HILDA SURVEY TEAM
MICHELLE SUMMERFIELD
HILDA Deputy Director, Survey Management
Each year we collect information from thousands of different families
and individuals across Australia which enables us to get a true picture
of how Australian households change over time. The security of your
information is one of the most important parts of the HILDA Survey.
While your personal details (your name, address and phone numbers)
are used to contact you each year, your details are restricted to those
who require it for the purposes of conducting the study and are never
made available to researchers or other companies who might use
them for marketing purposes. This information is held by our fieldwork
company (Roy Morgan) in an encrypted database.
All your survey answers are combined with the answers from all the
other respondents and then securely transferred to the Melbourne
Institute using an encrypted portal. All your personal information is
removed so you cannot be identified.
Here at the Melbourne Institute we analyse and prepare the data
for researchers. The HILDA Survey data are only available to those
authorised to access them and any analysis done on the data is
reported in terms of percentages of people and not on any
individual’s answers.
We are thankful that you have entrusted us, year after year with your
data. We hope that you will continue to let us into your household for
many years to come.
PROFESSOR ROGER WILKINS
Professorial Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute
Roger has, with the help of others, been producing the annual
Statistical Report since 2008.
As an economics researcher focused on informing and helping to
improve economic and social policy in Australia, I see the HILDA Survey
as one of the most important innovations in my field in the last 50 years.
The HILDA Survey has generated a much richer understanding of the
lives of Australians and how they change from year to year. There is no
substitute for the HILDA Survey, and there never will be, because the
longer the study runs, the richer a source of information it becomes.
It is therefore critical that the HILDA Survey continues to flourish.1 | MELBOURNE INSTITUTE—HILDA SURVEY REPORT Commenced in 2001, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey is a nationally representative household-based panel study, providing longitudinal data on the economic wellbeing, employment, health and family life of Australians. The study is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services and is managed by the Melbourne Institute at the University of Melbourne. Roy Morgan Research has conducted the fieldwork since 2009, prior to which The Nielsen Company was the fieldwork provider. © 2019 Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, The University of Melbourne ISBN 978 0 7340 5547 7
You can also read
