Income eligibility limits are not effectively managing the waitlist

WA’s income limits are the lowest in Australia and have remained effectively static in real terms for over a decade. Yet the social housing waitlist has more than doubled over the same period, demonstrating that income eligibility limit settings are a secondary driver of waitlist dynamics compared with housing supply, private rental market conditions and homelessness rates.

WA’s IELs are creating severe work disincentives

The survey of 180 people who were currently in or had been in social housing or on the waitlist found that only 18% felt they would be financially better off if they got a job or worked more hours.  Almost half (46%) had turned down work or additional hours to stay below the income eligibility limit threshold.

Waitlist applicants face deeper disadvantage

The work disincentives created by income eligibility limits are particularly severe for people on the waitlist, who face an extended period during which earning above the limit can cost them their eligibility. The survey found that 48% of applicants cited fear of losing their place on the waitlist as a barrier to employment, higher than the 40% of current tenants who said the same.

The current system traps people in poverty and undermines wellbeing

The survey findings reveal that income eligibility limits are experienced not simply as a policy threshold but as a structural force that constrains life choices, undermines wellbeing, and in many cases contributes to intergenerational poverty. Respondents described being unable to afford healthcare, medication or therapy because they must keep income low to remain eligible. Parents described being unable to meet their children’s basic needs or provide stability for their families.

The current system has an information and trust problem

Nearly half of respondents (47%) were unclear about how long they could remain in their housing if they earned over the income limit, and one in three (35%) had received conflicting advice from different sources including property managers, housing providers and Centrelink. Some respondents reported deliberately not disclosing income out of fear of triggering a review or losing their housing.

Reform is feasible and the risks are manageable

The evidence from other Australian jurisdictions shows that income eligibility limit reform can be managed without producing a waitlist blowout. Victoria’s experience demonstrates that the effects of income limit changes on waitlists are moderated by supply, prioritisation settings and broader policy frameworks.

1. Substantially raise Western Australia’s income eligibility limits to align with either the national median, average weekly earnings or the real cost of renting, and index limits to the consumer price index (CPI) or the relevant Commonwealth payment rate.
    
2. Introduce a protected waitlist period for people who take up work so they can retain their place in the queue if they lose employment or fall back below the income limit.
    
3. Replace the income cliff with graduated income limits so that additional earnings result in proportionally higher rent rather than immediate loss of tenancy, and introduce rent freezes, income averaging and higher exit income limits.
    
4. Build real pathways out of social housing through measures such as transition support packages, shared equity schemes and increasing affordable housing stock.
    
5. Address tenant and applicant skills and employment needs by funding targeted brokerage services, developing scholarship and fee waiver programs, and prioritising flexible training options.
    
6. Provide consistent and reliable information about income eligibility limits by developing a plain language guide to eligibility, training property managers and housing officers, establishing a dedicated income and eligibility advice service, and providing timely written advice upon request.