Discrimination in the private rental market in Australia: large families from refugee backgrounds

Abstract

Securing appropriate housing is a crucial component of resettlement for people with refugee experience, but many face challenges in securing private rental housing, including discrimination, particularly for large families. This paper explores refugee and asylum seeker experiences of discrimination in the private rental market through in-depth semi-structured interviews with refugees and asylum seekers from large families (N = 22), service providers (N = 18), community leaders (N = 4), real estate agents (N = 11) and lessors (N = 10). Interviews were thematically analysed. The analysis identified the pervasive nature of discriminatory practices in private rental housing affecting large refugee and asylum-seeking families, though it was not always recognised as discrimination. Market factors and risk assessments were highlighted as contributing to discrimination and how agents’ and lessors’ working definition of discrimination manifested in their tenant selection practices. While service providers and some agents sought to counter discriminatory practices, the significant impact of discriminatory housing practices for refugees and asylum seekers was evident and poses important policy and practice questions.

Keywords:

• Refugee
• asylum seeker
• housing
• private rental
• discrimination

Introduction

Securing affordable and appropriate housing is a crucial part of resettlement and integration for people with refugee experience (Ager and Strang, 2008). After resettlement, the majority of refugees and asylum seekers experience at least some time in private rental housing (Flatau et al., 2014). However, a range of challenges have been identified for refugees and asylum seekers in securing private rental housing (Beer and Foley, 2003; Carter and Osborne, 2009; Flatau et al., 2014; Murdie, 2010; Phillips, 2006; Rose, 2019; Teixeira, 2008; Ziersch et al., 2023; Ziersch et al., 2017). These difficulties in securing housing can have significant impacts for refugees and asylum seekers such as housing stress and homelessness (Beer and Foley, 2003; Flatau et al., 2015; Kaur et al., 2021), impacts on health and wellbeing (Ziersch and Due, 2018) and integration more generally (Ager and Strang, 2008).

Amongst the challenges in securing private rental housing is the issue of discrimination from lessors and other housing providers on the basis of cultural, racial or religious background and also immigration status, as well as family size and status (Beer and Foley, 2003; Forrest et al., 2013; Miraftab, 2000; Murdie, 2002; Teixeira, 2008; Weidinger and Kordel, 2023; Ziersch et al., 2017). However, there is limited research in this area, in particular in considering the issues of particular groups of refugees such as those in large families, and the perspectives of private rental housing lessors and real estate agents is largely missing. This paper reports on a qualitative study of experiences of discrimination in the private rental market including 65 interviews with people with refugee experience from large households, real estate agents, lessors, service providers and community leaders. It seeks to answer two research questions: What have been the discrimination experiences of large families with refugee experience; and what are the perspectives of lessors, real estate agents and service providers?

Terminology and definitions

Refugees are defined as people who meet the criteria for refugee status according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Refugees are granted permanent protection visas before arriving in a country of resettlement. Asylum seekers are individuals who have submitted a claim for protection in a country with established refugee assessment procedures (such as Australia). The person remains an asylum seeker while their claim is being considered by that country, but may not ultimately be recognised as a refugee (UNHCR, 2006). Henceforth, in this paper, for brevity we use the term ‘refugee’ to refer to both refugees and asylum seekers unless immigration status is important, but we acknowledge that this is only one aspect of identity.

Discrimination in the private rental market

Safe and secure housing is an important aspect of integration and is particularly crucial for refugees to regain a sense of safety, stability and ontological security (Ager and Strang, 2008; Due et al., 2020; Fozdar and Hartley, 2014; Phillips, 2006). As noted, a key source of housing for refugees, particularly in the early years of resettlement is the private rental market. However, a range of housing difficulties in securing private rental housing have been identified for refugees including an understanding of tenants’ rights and responsibilities, limited English language and computer skills, as well as restricted literacy in local cultural mores, limited income and lack of rental and employment references (Beer and Foley, 2003; Carter and Osborne, 2009; Flatau et al., 2015; Ziersch et al., 2017). Many of these barriers are amplified for asylum seekers due to factors such as unresolved residency status and restricted social security benefits (Kissoon, 2010; O’Mahony and Sweeney, 2010; Phillips, 2006; Ziersch et al., 2017). Compounding these issues for both refugees and asylum seekers is racism and discrimination in the private rental market (Murdie, 2008; Rose and Ray, 2001; Ziersch et al., 2017). Due to the competition inherent in tenant selection, marginalised groups such as refugees experience limitations in the properties available to them (Short et al., 2008). Direct as well as indirect and systemic discrimination contribute to this uneven playing field.

There is a comprehensive body of evidence documenting racial discrimination in housing markets internationally (Flage, 2018; Nelson et al., 2016; Pager and Shepherd, 2008) and a small number of papers have reported experiences of direct discrimination against refugees. For example, Beer and Foley (2003) found that 35% of refugees in Australia reported that they had experienced discrimination while searching for housing, most commonly due to race, followed by appearance, household structure, immigration status, economic status, religion, language and culture and finally large families. Similarly Forrest et al.’s (2012) analysis of data from the Longitudinal Study of Immigrants to Australia found that 33% of refugees recalled ‘some’ intolerance towards them while searching for housing, and eight percent expressed ‘a lot’. Other studies have likewise documented experiences of refugees of discrimination in the housing market (Miraftab, 2000; Murdie, 2008; Weidinger and Kordel, 2023; Ziersch et al., 2017). There is also evidence that some refugee groups experience greater discrimination in private rental housing than others (Forrest et al., 2013; Waxman, 2001).

Housing-related discrimination has been distinguished in a range of ways, indicating different underlying mechanisms (Choi et al., 2005). ‘Agent-prejudice’ is described as being where an agent has a personal bias against a particular racial or ethnic minority and may therefore be unwilling to rent to someone from that background. ‘Customer-prejudice’ is where a rental agent may discriminate against minority groups in order to protect their business with customers they perceive to be prejudiced – for example, other renters in a block or landowners that they represent (Verstraete and Verhaeghe, 2020). These two forms of prejudice can be considered ‘taste-based’ discrimination, based upon a particular set of preferences or ‘tastes’ either of the agent themselves or via a ‘customer’ (Becker, 2010; Guryan and Charles, 2013). In the case of refugees this may be based on an underlying prejudice about the racial or ethnic background of the refugee as well as prejudicial views about their immigration status. ‘Statistical prejudice’ is where agents treat people in particular groups differently because of a belief that being part of that group is correlated with characteristics that might affect the profitability of their actions. In this case, an agent might consider a particular racial or ethnic background as an indicator of a person’s preferences for a particular type of housing or neighbourhood or that a person may be less likely to be able to afford the rent or adequately look after the property. For example, a view that someone from a refugee background and/or with a particular ethnic or racial background would be better suited, or only be able to afford, to be in a lower income area or in housing of a poorer standard.

Another aspect of discrimination is where an apparently neutral requirement has a disadvantaging affect. In the case of refugees in the private rental sector this includes requests for evidence of rental experience and stable employment, the lack of forms and letters of correspondence in languages other than English (or the main language of the country), as well as the low incidence of agents offering telephone interpreting. In Australia, agents are legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of adequate income, rental history and a history of stable employment. This is of course problematic when all three measures work against entire social groups such as newly arrived refugees, precisely because of their newness and the challenges that accompany the resettlement process. Private rental applicants compete on the basis of their merits but also on their lack of risk factors. The published literature concurs that risk assessment holds formidable weight in the private rental application process (Short et al., 2003). Formalised risk-assessment processes used by real estate agencies are aimed at protecting the financial interests of their lessor clients as well as maximising agency returns by selecting the most ‘low-maintenance’ tenants, and direct and indirect discrimination can all feed into these ‘assessments’.

Compared to other migrant groups in countries such as Australia, large households are relatively common amongst refugees (San Pedro, 2001). Amongst refugees, large households may experience additional discrimination on the basis of their size. However, there is very limited evidence in relation to this. Likewise, while some studies have examined lessor or real estate agent attitudes by proxy (e.g. through examining discrimination rates against prevalence of anti-immigrant sentiment in an area (Verhaeghe and De Coninck, 2022)), and there has been research on attributes agents and lessors look for more generally in prospective tenants, (Short et al., 2003; Short et al., 2008), there has been very limited examination of lessor and agent perspectives on discrimination against refugees in private rental housing specifically.

Housing new arrivals in Australia

Offshore refugees become eligible for settlement support as soon as they arrive in Australia. In South Australia, at the time of the research, clients sub-leased a property for approximately six months via a non-profit organisation, contracted by the government to deliver accommodation services. Alongside this, refugee clients were also provided some assistance to access long-term accommodation in the private rental market. Asylum seekers living freely in the Australian community (i.e. not detained) were only offered up to four weeks of accommodation in a hostel and then expected to secure alternative accommodation while their immigration status was resolved.

There are reports that approximately 60 (Beer and Foley, 2003) to 85% (Flatau et al., 2014) of refugees have little choice but to seek private rental accommodation following the expiration of initial supported accommodation. In Australia, the private rental sector is characterised by limited regulation and small-scale investment by lessors who own one or two properties (Seelig et al., 2009). The weak regulation of privately rented housing is viewed as favourable to lessors who are not restricted in their increase of rents between tenancy agreements and have no obligations for provision of tenure at the cessation of rental contracts. Tenancy agreements themselves are typically restricted to a maximum of one year so that a measure of housing stability beyond this is all but impossible for private tenants to achieve. Self-managing lessors are known for being difficult to regulate due to the lack of auditing and enforcement mechanisms.

Australia’s housing stock is geared towards single people, couples and small families. For instance, in South Australia most private rental dwellings have either two or three bedrooms. There are limited Australian studies focusing on the experiences of refugees in the private rental sector (Beer and Foley, 2003; Flatau et al., 2015; Forrest et al., 2013; Fozdar and Hartley, 2014; Ziersch et al., 2017). Likewise, although there have been reports of the barriers faced by large refugee families in private rental (e.g. Kelly, 2004), a focused empirical study of their experiences has not been completed in Australia or overseas, nor have any studies examined the perspectives of lessors and agents in renting to refugees in Australia.

This study seeks to examine housing experiences of refugees from large families, drawing on interviews with refugees, service providers, community leaders, and lessors and real estate agents.

Materials and methods

Setting

The study focused on refugees who lived in the northern areas of Adelaide in the Local Government Areas of Playford and Salisbury, which are key resettlement destinations (largely due to the availability of more affordable housing). The centre of Salisbury is approximately 15 km north of the Adelaide Central Business District, while Playford is even further out to the north and northeast, with some suburbs as far as 30 km from the Adelaide CBD. Both areas are relatively disadvantaged, with low scores on the Australian Bureau of Statistics SEIFA Index (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas), where a higher SEIFA score reflects a lower level of disadvantage (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013).

Recruitment

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 people with refugee experience from large households, 11 real estate agents, 10 lessors, 18 service providers and four community leaders. In this study, large households were defined as having at least four children or at least five co-habiting adults.

Recruitment of refugees occurred initially through service providers, with snowball-sampling supplementing this. For involvement in this project, refugees needed to be 18 years or older, awarded a visa through Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program since 2002, live in the City of Salisbury or City of Playford, and have signed an Australian private rental lease agreement or have sought to do so as a member of a large family or household.

Agents and lessors were recruited via purposive, volunteer and snowball sampling methods. To be eligible to participate in the study, agents were required to be managing properties or work out of offices located in Salisbury or Playford. Lessors were required to either reside or own properties in these areas and have first-hand experience of leasing or managing a rental property with refugees as tenants. Real estate agents were recruited through a presentation to a Real Estate Institute of South Australia meeting and distribution of invitations to members, recommendations from service providers, and snowball sampling. Lessors were recruited through a presentation to Landlords Association South Australia and distribution of invitations to members, recommendations from service providers, snowball sampling and via purposive sampling of owners who advertised their properties on the Gumtree Australia® website. All but two were self-managing lessors.

Service providers and community leaders were overwhelmingly recruited via purposive sampling methods from the research team’s networks and with some snowball sampling. Informants in this group included industry representatives, government employees, educators, and service providers across national, state and local scales of influence. All service providers had a role in serving the residents of Playford and Salisbury and had experience in providing, coordinating or designing services that relate to refugees in the private rental market.

Interviews were conducted in 2012–2013 and ranged in length from 60 to 90 min. Interpreters were used in eleven of the 22 interviews with refugees. The interviews were preceded by a brief interviewer-administered questionnaire to collect demographic data. The interviews took place at a mutually agreed location including the participant’s workplace or residence, libraries and community meeting rooms. All interviews were recorded using a digital audio recorder and were transcribed verbatim. Interview questions posed to all informant groups centred around their experiences of inclusion, exclusion and equity in the private rental sector, cross-sector integration in private rental housing provision, and the provision of private rental housing to large families and households. Data collection continued until the researchers were satisfied that an adequately deep and nuanced understanding of the phenomena of interest had been achieved and saturation of the superordinate themes, with no new high-order themes emerging for at least three interviews.

Participants

Of the 22 refugees, six were female and sixteen were male. Table 1 below illustrates the age ranges of the informants, almost half of whom were between the ages of 40 and 54. Informants came from seven different countries of origin. Several informants described protracted periods in countries other than their self-identified country of origin. Just over half the informants were from African nations. At the time of the interviews, informants had lived in Australia for as long as fourteen years and as little as six months. Nine were Australian citizens, 11 were on a permanent refugee visa and two were on a bridging visa while their claim for asylum was assessed.

Table 1. Refugee and asylum seeker participants.

		Number
Gender	Male	16
	female	6
Age	1–24	3
	25–30	2
	31–39	5
	40–54	10
	55–64	2
	Not disclosed	1
Country of origin	Afghanistan	4
	Bhutan	4
	Burundi	6
	DRC	3
	Rwanda	2
	South Sudan	1
	Sri Lanka	2
Household size	Four	1
	Five	3
	Six	4
	Seven	2
	Eight	6
	Nine	2
	Ten	3
	Thirteen	1

All the refugees interviewed in this study were part of large households with five or more members, or in the case of the two asylum seekers, shared a dwelling with four other housemates. Table 1 illustrates the number of people that lived in informants’ households during their most recent private rental experience, though seven of the informants described how the number of people in their household changed over the years they have lived in Australia. All but one of the informants had been a private rental tenant. One particular tenant had lived only in community housing but had attempted to source more spacious accommodation in the private rental market.

Eighteen service providers (nine men and nine women) and four community leaders (two men and two women) were interviewed. The eighteen service providers were housing workers (N = 8), resettlement workers (N = 3), public servants (n = 5), and real estate legal, policy and training professionals (N = 2). As only four participated in the study, community leaders have not been separated out from service providers in order to further protect their anonymity. Representatives from all three levels of government were included in the study. Eight of the 22 service providers identified as Anglo Celtic/Saxon Australians, five were of African heritage, three were European and a further two were from Asian countries. Four informants indicated that they did not identify with a particular ethnic heritage.

Although not a requirement for participation, it emerged that all agents had leased to large families with four or more children. Eight were female and three male, and nine of the informants were highly experienced, with more than ten years of experience in property management. Most stated that they were Australians of Anglo Celtic/Saxon heritage. However, one identified as being of Continental European heritage, while another identified another non-Anglo-European background. Two informants indicated that they did not identify with a particular ethnic heritage.

All lessors had experience with tenants from refugee backgrounds. Half of the lessors had experience with large groups (four or more children, or five or more adults) as tenants. In four of the five cases, the members of the large households were refugees. Seven of the ten lessors were male and overall, half of the lessors had more than ten years of experience as owners of rental properties. Half the lessors were migrants to Australia and half were Australian-born. Amongst the Australian-born lessors, two were first-generation Australian whose parents migrated from the UK and continental Europe. Six of the lessors owned between one and five rental properties. Two had seventy or more rental dwellings. All properties were owned solely by the lessor or by the lessor and his or her spouse. There were no corporate lessors amongst the informants. Seven of the ten lessors managed their rental properties themselves while a further two employed an agent to manage their property/ies. One used an agent for some properties, but self-managed another property.

Ethical clearance

The study was granted ethical approval by the Flinders University (then) Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee. The project was overseen by a critical reference group consisting of six members: a public sector employee, a resettlement service provider, a lessor, a real estate agent, a community member with refugee experience and a representative of an ethnic association. Although disclosures relating to breaches of equal opportunity legislation remained confidential, all lessors and agents were given information about equal opportunity laws as they related to the provision of accommodation as well as a brochure from a service providing support to property managers with tenants from refugee backgrounds.

All informants gave their written informed consent to participate in the project and provision of consent was treated as an ongoing relational process. Interpreting services were offered to all informants who needed them and when required, interpreters explained the consent form in a language the informant understood. At the end of each interview, the researcher asked informants if there were any parts of the interview that they thought might identify themselves or others. Several informants requested that certain details be omitted from the transcription. No health and safety incidents or ethical complaints occurred over the course of the research.

Analysis

The study and data analysis were informed by interpretative phenomenology (Smith and Osborn, 2008). The analysis was undertaken by NL, with input from AZ and KM. Transcripts were read and initial noting made in hardcopy and then emergent theme titles were coded for each transcript in NVivo® software as a separate and slightly higher stage of interpretation. The emergent themes were developed by referring to the initial notes in the context of the entire text and finding phrases that captured the most essential qualities of what was found in the transcripts. The researcher then looked for connections between the emergent themes, which were then clustered, drawing on the hermeneutic circle considering each emergent theme in the context of the whole transcript, before deciding which other themes it bore a connection to. Super-ordinate themes manifested as theme headings for each of the emergent theme clusters. Once all the transcripts were analysed, summary tables of super-ordinate and emergent themes were created for each of the four informant groups and from this a master table of super-ordinate themes was produced.

Where extracts from interviews with informants are presented, the gender of the individual is noted by either the letter ‘m’ or ‘f’ after the numeric label. Ethnic and religious labels of refugees have been concealed in relation to any negative comments to avoid the perpetuation of existing negative and potentially harmful stereotypes. The terms ‘real estate agent’ and ‘agent’ are used interchangeably and the term ‘property manager’ is used to refer to agents and lessors collectively. The term ‘tenant’ is used to cover both refugee and asylum seeker participants, unless immigration status was important to the context, while the term ‘service provider’ is used to refer to the eighteen informants employed by non-profit organisations, public services or industry bodies, as well as the four community leaders as described above.

Findings

The analysis revealed significant experiences of exclusion and discrimination in the private rental market for refugees (though in some cases this was not recognised as discrimination), and also identified the market factors that contribute to discrimination and how property managers’ working definition of discrimination manifested in their tenant selection practices.

Exclusion and discrimination

Almost all of the refugee participants, even those whose rental experiences were relatively smooth, described the systemic housing barriers they experienced while adjusting to what was expected of them in the private rental market. Comprehension of tenant rights and responsibilities, understanding of the tenancy agreement and completion of property condition reports were just some of the administrative issues that refugees often felt ill prepared for. These challenges were echoed by service providers who talked about how their clients’ difficulties with private rental housing were intrinsically linked to other issues associated with resettlement such as un/under-employment, inadequate access to transport, a lack of rental references, limited English and lack of familiarity with local systems and culture. Service provider 8f succinctly summarised many of the key challenges that refugees encounter when first engaging with the private rental sector.

… the humanitarian refugees who just are at sea, swamped, just don’t know the first thing in how to go about [leasing properties]. So, my role is to help ease that path, [] help them understand the forms that they’re signing and why they’re signing them and help them understand their responsibilities when they go into a rental property, but also their rights and what they’re allowed to do. [Service provider 8f]

This housing worker’s metaphor of being swamped and at sea was used to illustrate her experience of refugees who were overwhelmed by almost every aspect of what they needed to do in order to secure and sustain a tenancy. She had identified that supporting refugees with logistical and administrative tasks needed to be paired with efforts to conceptually prepare clients for the power dynamics and cultural climate of the private rental market.

Most of the refugee informants had been discriminated against on the basis of their family size without recognising the phenomenon as discrimination, lawful or not. Most had experienced repeated rejections of their tenancy applications with their large family-size and income often cited as the reason for being unsuccessful. Five (one female and four males) of the 22 refugees interviewed described their experiences of the private rental market as overwhelmingly poor. During their time as tenants, these migrants had some of the largest families of all the informants (between nine and thirteen residents). A further six had mixed experiences and impressions of their tenancies in the private rental market. Correspondingly, most of the eleven informants who described their private rental experiences in mainly positive terms, had seven or less members in their household as tenants.

Some refugees gave emotive accounts of the impact that perceived discrimination and systemic exclusion had on them. Although informants recounted being poorly appraised by property managers due to several factors including family/household size, ethnicity, employment status and rental history, only a few labelled their experiences as discrimination. In those few instances, it was in relation to race-based discrimination only. Tenant 20f, for instance, sensed underlying racism in her interactions with agents and lessors. While she was left saddened by the treatment she encountered, her father felt anger.

…I think they’re being racist to you [] it’s so bad, it’s crazy. Like you feel so sad…. And my Dad…I was just calming him down. It’s like ‘Dad, it’s okay, we’ll find a house.’ [Tenant 20f]

Tenant 20f, like several other refugees, also described how she struggled with the emotional impact of realising that her large family was mostly unwelcome in the private rental market. She recalled being frequently told by agents that her family’s income was too low, her family size too big and that ‘with this kind of past, we wouldn’t give it to you guys.’ She reflected on how these rejections affected her – ‘it was really sad…you kind of feel like you’re, you’re excluded from that community’ [Tenant 20f].

Closely related to the experience of discrimination, was the experience of repeated rejections of tenancy applications and the shame associated with only being able to gain poor quality housing. Regardless of whether informants identified this as discrimination, the phenomenon had its own damaging emotional impact. Tenant 4f, a single mother of four children, was left doubting herself and suspecting that false rumours had been spread about her after encountering tens of tenancy rejections: ‘Maybe I’m not like other people, maybe something wrong with me, maybe they heard something bad about me. All those affected me mentally.’ The multiple tenancy rejections she experienced devastated her and left her ‘worried in [her] heart.’

Conflicting notions of what constitutes discriminatory practice

Interviews with lessors and agents revealed a high degree of variance in how they defined discrimination and discriminatory practice. About half of the lessors talked freely about unlawful discriminatory practice that they had engaged in as a result of negative experiences they had encountered with tenants of particular ethnic backgrounds. This was less common amongst the agents. Only one agent referred explicitly to the less favourable treatment of a particular ethnic group, while two others explained why their experiences with some tenants had led to their reluctance to lease properties to particular ethnic groups.

The perception that discrimination equates to overt and direct discrimination was observed amongst agents and lessors alike. Lessor 5 m stated that he and his partner ‘don’t discriminate against age, children, sexuality.’ However he confided that ‘…if I’m going to discriminate [] I’ll just go “We had other applicants that were better.”’ Similarly, Agent 5f explained where she drew a boundary in her practice: ‘we’re not allowed to discriminate. We’re not allowed to be seen to be discriminating on race, religion, background, age, all that stuff.’ Agent 5f corrected herself. She was aware that equal opportunity laws prohibited discrimination, but in practice this meant ensuring that unlawful discrimination remained concealed.

A few agents described their dilemma of needing to heed discriminatory tenant-selection instructions from clients (lessors) or else lose their business. In explaining how she dealt with the dilemma, Agent 6f provided some insight into her conceptualisation of discrimination.

[I’ve had lessors who] don’t want [ethnic group 1], don’t want [ethnic group 2], ah don’t want [ethnic group 3], don’t want [ethnic group 4]. [] And I just sort of say to ‘em ‘That’s fine. I can’t discriminate.’ [] if they ring up about a property [] I’m obliged to take them through. [] But obviously I’m not going to go through [the application] because my landlord’s made it clear they don’t want them to apply [] I think ‘Poor buggers’ they fill in the application and they’re not going to get the house. And they’ve gone to all the trouble of doing it and I do feel sorry for them in that respect. [Agent 6f]

In this extract Agent 6f attempted to refrain from engaging in discriminatory practice herself by allowing the applicants to view the property. However, by not processing the application, the applicants were eventually treated less favourably by the agent on account of their ethnicity. Agent 6f therefore avoided overt, but not covert discrimination. Her sympathy for the applicants suggests her dissatisfaction with the process, however her reluctance to challenge her client’s instruction suggests that the lessor’s business was too valuable for her to jeopardise in this way.

Many agents displayed their confusion about whether they or their clients (lessors) could discriminate against applicants on the basis of family size. Highlighting the inherent difficulty in avoiding discrimination on the basis of an applicant’s association with a child or children, agents such as Agent 5f employed a logic that allowed them to overtly discriminate against large families who wished to apply for properties that they believed were too small to accommodate them.

I just say ‘I’m sorry but you can’t apply for this house because your family is too big.’ I tell them, that’s not being discriminatory. That, that is not discriminating by race or by anything or by children, it’s by pure and simple the size of the family is not going to fit into this little house. [Agent 5f]

In the absence of statutory guidelines for resident-to-bedroom ratios, the agent resorted to her own conception of acceptable resident density. Families were however not the only group to experience discrimination on the grounds of residential density. An asylum seeker (21 m) who sought accommodation with three other men who were seeking asylum was told by an agent: ‘The owner said it’s only for families, not for young boys.’ With options already limited to these men due to their unresolved immigration status and low-income, the rejection based on the household composition left them disappointed and at greater risk of homelessness.

The arbitrary decision to deny accommodation to households of a particular size, however, is not supported by law. Despite this, Service provider 16f (a real estate training professional) stated that, ‘[the statutory body responsible for addressing discrimination] you know, have often told our people, “You’re better off just saying ‘Sorry, your tenancy hasn’t been accepted.” This left her with little guidance on how to respond when an agent supported a lessor’s views that a two bedroom unit with a small hot water system is not adequate for a family with four children. Agent 4f also expressed her confusion about the legality of withholding certain properties from families with multiple children.

You won’t get it back as, as well as you’ve given it to [a large family]. Okay? So basically you just have to say, ‘This home will not suit you because the laws are…’ and you tack on the laws. ‘But I can give you a house that is really strong.’ [] And you’re not discriminating because at the end, you know we are working for the land- for an owner, okay. But you also have to make the owner understand um, you know, can’t discriminate because of the children. [Agent 4f]

It is unclear what legislation the agent was referring to when she talked about telling the applicant what the laws were. She may have been under the impression that there are laws about the number of people allowed to live in a property of a certain size.

As opposed to some of the agents, none of the lessors described anti-discrimination law as being part of their tenant selection process. Indeed, two lessors illustrated their view that anti-discrimination legislation was out of touch with the business of being a lessor. Lessor 1 m, for instance, exclaimed ‘I don’t really ah, give a shit about this [] discrimination.’ He explained ‘I pay all my taxes, I pay everything []. So this is my choice who I want to rent this place to.’ Similarly, when Lessor 9 m was asked whether equal opportunity laws played a role in the renting of his properties he replied:

Not at all. I don’t care what the government thinks or what the government wants me to do. I suit pretty much myself. [] …nobody, including the government has the right to tell me who I can and cannot put into a property. And they can make all the laws they want on anti-discrimination, and all the rest of it. [Lessor 9m]

Most agents had only a general awareness of legislation disallowing discrimination on several grounds and lessors displayed very little familiarity with equal opportunity legislation altogether. This is perhaps not surprising considering that only six property managers had completed a nationally recognised qualification or licence in real estate or property services. Despite their responsibility for negotiating both lessor and tenant rights in their role, none of the agents recalled ever receiving training on any of the social aspects of property management, including on working with people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. While most recalled learning about equal opportunity legislation and how it applies to property management, there was evidence to suggest that agents were also taught how to protect themselves and their clients from accusations of unlawful discrimination. One service provider who provided property management training gave an example of what students are taught about how to respond to discriminatory lessors.

… some landlords may well say to you that they don’t want a certain race of people living in their house and ultimately it is their house. But as a property manager you need to be professional about that and [] obviously not tell people that that’s the case. But equally, if someone puts in an application, you should present it to the landlord… [] . And ultimately they have the right to say [] which application they say yes or no to. Um, but sort of encourage them to, to give everybody who comes through the property and applies for it, fair opportunity and probably shield [from] that racist landlord that is there. [Service provider 16f]

Investment-focussed property management

Interviews with the vast majority of both agents and lessors contained the theme of their role as managers of an investment, over and above their role as managers of a tenancy. While lessors’ ultimate vulnerability was the endangering of their financial futures and secure retirement, agents’ vulnerabilities were more aligned with reducing work-related stress especially with regard to time pressures and high expectations from lessors.

In most agents’ experience, race-based discrimination by lessors as a risk management strategy, was prevalent. Most agents had encountered lessors informing them of ethnic groups they did not want living in their property. Agent 9f estimated that ‘probably 80% of landlords refuse to rent to anyone that black’ and Agent 8f recalled that upon meeting with new clients for the first time ‘a lot of the landlords will tell me they only want Australians’. Agent 1f was one of the few agents that spoke about the discriminatory practice she had observed amongst other real estate agents. In her experience, ‘discriminat[ion] is quite rife.’

Lessors often spoke about their bottom line, that for them their investment portfolio was essentially a business venture, and that financial viability was therefore imperative. Lessor 8f’s experience revealed how risk assessments may extend to considerations of how neighbours may respond to their choice of tenant. This lessor’s property was located in a complex of units inhabited primarily by elderly residents who had asked her to find a tenant ‘who is not going to cause problems.’ When three young refugees applied for the property, she initially feared that they might host parties that would disturb the neighbours. However, ‘those prejudices did not stop me from [] giving them that property. Because I knew that we have to talk to them about, you know about respecting other tenants.’ Her efforts were rewarded with a successful tenancy.

Lessors’ vulnerabilities to risk filtered into the practice of real estate agents as well. Providing insight into the weight of their responsibility to act in their clients’ best interests was Agent 5f’s reminder of the great personal and financial significance of their clients’ assets.

Cause you know, investment properties is the biggest investment, the biggest money draining thing that anyone’s going to have outside the house they live in. So it’s our responsibility to look after them. [] we’re responsible for millions and millions and millions of dollars worth of property. [Agent 5f]

This agent, like several others, described the burden of responsibility they felt for the success of tenancies, despite most insisting that lessors make the final tenant-selection decision. Agent 6f recounted an experience of placing a family of refugees that resulted in significant property damage. Letting her client down resulted in much regret and damage to her reputation – ‘that made me look really bad because she [the lessor] was not happy’ [Agent 6f]. The negative experience led to the agent avoiding tenants from the same ethnic group in the future. However, she continued to regularly house applicants from several other groups of refugees and had very positive experiences.

Severe time pressures emerged as a strong theme in agents’ experiences of property management and on their tenant selection and property management practices. Agents reported it was highly likely that newly arrived refugees would demand more time investment than long-term Australian residents. Agents mentioned using interpreters, explaining rights and responsibilities and conducting additional home visits as some of the time-consuming activities they engaged in with their refugee tenants.

… it’s very time consuming so I can understand why people don’t want to take people [from refugee backgrounds]… [] …it’s much easier to take a westerner than it is a refugee. [] I’m just thinking of the [refugee] that broke a lease last year somewhere. [] … we had to get the interpreter in to explain that to her, so this is what I’m saying about taking extra time [pause], when you take on a migrant tenant. [Agent 2f]

Although this agent, like many others who were interviewed, was willing to invest the extra time in the interests of equity, such agents saw themselves as the minority. This view was supported by Service provider 16f, a property management trainer, who reasoned that since ‘ninety-nine per cent of the calls [agents] get are complaints or problems’ they are greatly motivated to take measures to avoid additional time-consuming responsibilities.

Illuminating an eagerness to avoid costs associated with increased wear and tear, a lessor (5 m) expressed their concern about the impact of large households on the plumbing and hot water systems: ‘Seven people and your toilet’s going to get thrashed all the time. Showers, hot water service breaks down’ (Lessor 5 m). Agent 8f described her experience of leasing a four-bedroom property to a family of seven refugees, where wear and tear was compounded by more serious property damage and rent arrears, which significantly harmed her opinion of families from these tenants’ ethnic background.

Finally, it emerged that two lessors associated refugees with riskier tenancies. Lessor 3f, for instance, used her conception of former refugees as ‘angry and war-torn’ to screen them out of consideration for her ‘nice properties’ with brick veneer walls while Lessor 5 m expected that leasing his property to a particular refugee family would result in ‘chaos’ as he reflected on how ‘their country is so damaged’. He was however pleasantly surprised to find that the twelve-month lease with this family went smoothly, and he was disappointed when they decided to move. These lessors’ reactions serve as a reminder that in addition to being subject to negative stereotypes due to ethnicity, religion or family size, refugees may also be stigmatised by their experiences of war-related trauma.

Past experiences and gut feelings

Over the course of their interviews, agents and lessors described many of the applicant characteristics, which they took into consideration when selecting a tenant. They included assessments of how affordable the property was for the applicant, rental references, employment status, family size, assessments of the likely longevity of the tenancy and whether or not a support worker could assist with the tenancy. In addition, many gave detailed accounts of the judgments they made as part of applicant assessments and the role that ‘gut-feelings’ and first impressions played in tenant selection.

Several agents and a few lessors stressed the important role that personal presentation played in their assessment of potential tenants including refugees. Lessor 1 m illustrated his rationale behind judging applicants in this way: ‘They come in dirty shorts [] what happened with the place in half a year time? It would be the same. Stinky and dirty, you know?’ In a similar way, impressions of applicants’ politeness and manners were used as a proxy for how cooperative they would be as tenants: ‘They don’t realise they’re all on trial if you like as they go through the house. And if they’re rude to you at the… Well they’re not going to get it’ (Agent 5f). Agent 4f recounted the advice she gave to refugees at a community forum with respect to making a good first impression.

I explained to them. ‘You know when you go to an office you’ve got make sure you’re presented well. [] They take you on face, what they can see… [] Make sure you know you’re dressed well. You can wear your African colourful, [clothes]. [Agent 4f]

Agent 4f stressed that agents were not interested in applicants conforming to norms of Western attire, in fact several agents and lessors commented on their appreciation of traditional dress and home furnishings. What they were looking for was an indication that applicants took pride in their appearance and were well-groomed. Likewise, Agent 10f who, having had bad experiences with refugees as tenants, said she ‘would not put them in properties now’, was then convinced to house a single refugee mother because ‘she was a really nice well-dressed lovely lady. Her little children were nice and lovely and the lady that came with her was a nice lady.’

Similar to Agent 10f, other agents and lessors also reported careful observation of the behaviour of the children of potential tenants during open inspections, including the parents’ responses to what the children did.

I just watched the kids you know. And, and there was one kid touching everything and screwing [makes motion of turning oven knobs]. You know and I just thought ‘Nah!’ [laughs]. I mean that’s not being prejudicial, it’s just like you’re looking after your assets aren’t you? [Lessor 10f]

Well if the kids are rushing up and down the passage, running his hands down the wall and screaming and the parents aren’t doing anything, well they get a little mark on their applications so that when it comes in, we don’t want them. [Agent 5f]

The critical observations these lessors and agents made is of special concern to large families, who may not be able to arrange alternate care of all their children to attend numerous open inspections.

Comments made by both agents and lessors suggested that they took great pride in the expertise they had gained through their years of industry experience and the influence of their ‘gut feelings’ and ‘vibes’ part of their tenant-selection process:

I think you get good vibes too I mean when you’ve been doing this for as long as I have you sort of, you can read people pretty well. [Agent 6f]

Three agents and five lessors made almost entirely positive assessments of refugees’ property maintenance skills. In some cases, agents and lessors relied on their previous positive experiences to favour and actively seek out refugees from particular ethnic groups. However as highlighted above several also commented that their poor experiences caused them to avoid refugees from particular ethnic groups. Unfortunately for the refugees concerned, a single negative experience appeared to have a significant impact on some agents’ willingness to rent to people from their ethnic group again. Agent 8f, for instance, explained how hard it was for her to lease to a particular ethnic group, since her last experience with this demographic involved her spending hours appearing at the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and attending to property damage following their exit from the property ‘…it’s hard, it springs to mind, like those images of the probably going to the tribunal every time. Is this going to go down the same path?…you have a few bad experiences and it just puts you off renting to them again.’ Likewise, while lessors’ insurance often covered any damages agents indicated that even the apprehension of the work involved in completing the paperwork for an insurance claim was enough to make them hesitant of selecting applicants assessed as posing a higher risk to the property.

Most service providers and community leaders were also keenly aware of the risk that poor experiences with a migrant tenant would result in the rapid development of cultural stereotypes amongst property managers. Further highlighting the potency of negative experiences with tenants, Service provider 4 m warned that ‘five good experiences’ agents have with a tenant from a particular ethnic group ‘can be cancelled out by one bad one.’

Matching tenants to properties

The notion of matching tenants to suitable properties was established as a guiding principle for tenant selection by some agents and lessors, where they tried to match the quality of a property to applicants whom they believed had the necessary skills to maintain it. Across the participant groups (including refugees themselves) it was reported that refugees were more likely to be offered older double-brick houses rather than more modern brick veneer houses available; houses ear-marked to be demolished soon (and therefore often have not been refreshed/upgraded in a long time and where the landlord was very reluctant to fix anything unless they absolutely had to); unrenovated houses and ‘tenant-proof’ houses.

Lessor 3f, for instance, had personally experienced the walls of her brick veneer property being damaged by a tenant’s punch (not a refugee). While she was happy to have refugees reside in her ‘tenant-proof’ double brick property, she ‘probably wouldn’t have refugees in one of my nice properties.’ Despite not having experienced a refugee purposely damage her property, she explained: ‘[Refugees will] punch holes in walls, you know, you can see that.’ With particular relevance to large families, Lessor 1 m took the number of children into account when deciding whether to lease-out particular properties.

If it is let’s see, very good new house, I’m trying to stay away from big families because kids always trash [the place], always trouble. [] If place is, is not really perfect state… [] I probably let these people stay. [] …with the big families usually I take [] consideration who they are, the background, what the kids doing, how big they are… [Lessor 1m]

This lessor based his treatment of large families on prior unpleasant experiences with large families (regardless of ethnic background) as tenants and was only willing to lease less delicate properties to large families.

Several refugee informants were very familiar with the experience of only being able to access lower calibre rental properties. For example, after three months of being rejected for suitable properties he could afford, Tenant 1 m eventually found he could only be successful with a ‘very, very old house.’ He shared his painful realisation ‘nobody else take it, that’s why they [] need to give it to us.’ Tenant 8 m, a father of eleven children commented that his experience had taught him that ‘if you have many kids, don’t bother yourself to go to have a look [at] new private rental. [] Yeah because the new house even the owner will be scared of kids they may damage the new house.’ These participants and others had learnt through repeated tenancy rejections that their families were not likely to be offered properties that were well-presented or in more affluent neighbourhoods.

Service providers substantiated this ‘glass ceiling’ effect when attempting to acquire suitable accommodation for their clients. Service provider 14f had over ten years of experience working with refugees and had never encountered large families living in high quality, or indeed ‘normal’ housing. In her experience, large families were seen by lessors as the ideal tenants for properties due to be demolished. Illustrating the complicity of real estate agents in pairing large families of refugees with dilapidated properties, Service provider 1 m recounted agents telling him ‘you won’t be successful in this application because this is not what, what the landlord is looking [for]’ when his clients applied for newer properties. He would then be guided toward older properties. Although overtly and directly discriminatory, by providing this advice, the agent did avoid covert discrimination in the form of repeated rejections of large families’ tenancy applications.

Challenging discrimination

Most real estate agents struggled to overtly challenge lessors’ discriminatory practice. However, a small number of agents sought to communicate their disapproval of unlawful discrimination by (i) asking clients not to divulge why they rejected or accepted a particular applicant, (ii) informing overtly discriminatory lessors of the unlawful nature of their behaviour and/or (iii) informing clients from the outset about the equal opportunity legislation that applies to both agents and lessors. A review of the contract that lessors sign to appoint an agent to let and/or manage their property, revealed that amidst three pages of terms and conditions, the issue of unlawful discrimination was not mentioned at all. In light of this absence, it is not surprising that so few agents warned lessors against unlawful discrimination. Agent 9f was the only informant who strongly insisted that her clients adhere to equal opportunity legislation. She ‘told landlords to take their properties back if they’re gonna break the law’ and sought to protect herself from complicity in unlawful discrimination by requesting her clients not to inform her of their reasons for accepting or rejecting a tenancy application. However, even she struggled with the conflict of interest of having to either comply with the lessor’s discrimination or reject their business, in which case she reported, her manager would override her anyway: ‘Cause they don’t want to lose the property.’

Agent 7 m was occasionally successful in convincing lessors to look beyond their stereotypes of refugees. One passive strategy he used was to facilitate private inspections of a property for refugees where the lessor was also present. By inviting both the lessor and the prospective tenant, the refugees can ‘chat with the owner [] [and] the owner will then sort of have that little bit of connection,’ and perhaps even empathise with them as a family with young children. However, Agent 7 m also explained why he was cautious about encouraging lessors to accept applicants they were sceptical about because ‘if there ever is an issue… [] they’ll come back and hit me with it.’ Although occasionally successful in convincing a client to put their prejudice aside, Agent 7 m also had experienced being blamed for problems that emerged later in the tenancy.

One lessor and one agent referred to their recognition of refugees’ disadvantages in the private rental market as a reason for favouring them in the tenant selection process. Lessor 8f had personally experienced repeated tenancy rejections before she became a homeowner and the lessor of an investment property. These experiences gave her sharp insight into the plight of refugees in the private rental sector and resulted in her favouring refugees as tenants because ‘if a housing issue can be addressed… [] they will have less worries.’ Agent 2f had a similar philosophy on property management where she advocated more for particular migrant groups ‘because I know that they have a harder time getting a property, then what a Westerner will’. [Agent 2f]

Discussion

Consistent with existing literature on the psycho-social benefits of a sense of home (Ager and Strang, 2008; Due et al., 2020; Fozdar and Hartley, 2014; Hiscock et al., 2001; Phillips, 2006), the emotive manner in which refugees described how their difficult housing experiences affected them highlights the impact of discrimination and exclusion from housing on their resettlement journey, supporting other literature in this area (Beer and Foley, 2003; Forrest et al., 2013; Fozdar and Hartley, 2014; Miraftab, 2000; Murdie, 2002; Teixeira, 2008; Weidinger and Kordel, 2023; Ziersch et al., 2017), and extending this to a consideration of larger familes. Less examined in the literature is the role of real estate agents and lessors in discrimination in the private rental market for refugees. This paper highlights how an aversion to financial and litigious risk, combined with limited awareness of anti-discrimination legislation and ethnic stereotyping contribute to discriminatory practices.

There were examples in the study of all forms of discrimination outlined above (Becker, 2010; Choi et al., 2005; Guryan and Charles, 2013; Verstraete and Verhaeghe, 2020). Taste-based ‘agent’ prejudice was evident in the personal discriminatory views and actions of some lessors about some racial and ethnic groups, as well as towards refugees specifically as well as family size. In this case ‘agent’ refers not to the role as landowner or real estate agent, but as the individual directly interacting with potential tenants. ‘Customer’-based discrimination, drawing on economic concerns, was also evident in the ways that real estate agents acted to represent (even if in an obscured way) the discriminatory views of their clients (property owners), did not challenge prejudiced owners (as one said of their manager ‘cause they don’t want to lose the property’) and sought to minimise extra demands on their time from ‘higher risk’ clients. It was also evidence in how lessors sought to consider the potentially prejudicial views of neighbours to their properties (Verstraete and Verhaeghe, 2020). ‘Statistical’ discrimination was also apparent in the ways that both agents and lessors made assumptions in their property ‘matching’ about the type of properties and locations that would be preferred by refugee tenants with large families and the properties that would thus be show to them, though underlying this were still prejudicial views about potential risks to properties and neighbourly relations associated with this group. Unpacking these different elements of discrimination is crucial as the underlying mechanisms point to potentially different policy and practice implications.

Risk emerged as a powerful driver of the practices, attitudes and behaviours that effectively excluded many refugees, and particularly large families from the private rental market. The notion of risk society (Beck et al., 1992; Giddens, 1994) where individuals, enterprises and communities ought to develop strategies to avoid perceived dangers illuminates several facets of the discrimination refugees (and in particular those with large families) experience in the private rental market. In particular, rather than discriminating against tenants solely on the basis of race (though previous poor experiences with tenants from a particular ethnic group did contribute to future race-based discrimination), agents and lessors did so based on their beliefs that large refugee families and those who had limited experience in Western housing, put their properties at greater risk of damage. The message provided directly by some agents, and more surreptitiously by others, was that with low vacancy rates, they were in a position to choose only the tenants who would pose the smallest risk to the property and require the least of their time and frequently relied on informal risk-assessment practices based on gut feelings. Likewise, lessors’ financial dependence on their investment properties and tendency to match properties of a particular calibre to reduce risk was also raised. While lessors exhibited more concern about acquiring financial risk, agents were more concerned about the risk of litigation, extra pressures on their time, and the personal and professional repercussions of their clients’ properties being damaged by tenants whom they recommended.

Most agents were aware that they were not permitted to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity and religion (as well as several other characteristics). However, they also illustrated the many ways in which their sense of responsibility (and economic imperative) to protect the assets of their clients made these laws very challenging to abide by. Agents and lessors appeared to find it extremely difficult to accept that their own unfavourable treatment of particular groups (justified as a risk minimisation strategy) amounted to unlawful discrimination (Short et al., 2008), and redefined unlawful discrimination for themselves by equating discrimination to overt and direct discrimination only. As Short et al. (2003) have previously inferred, the rhetoric of risk has placed upon agents the responsibility for preventing foreseeable harm to their clients (lessors) so that the discourse of equal opportunity pales alongside risk prevention.

The analysis exhibited lessors’ firm defensiveness of what they saw as their right to decide who resides in their investment properties, with lessors offering the clearest examples of personally prejudiced views. Given Australia’s long history of a weakly regulated private rental market (Hulse et al., 2011), it is possible that lessors have come to view it as logical that they should have a great deal of authority over how their investment properties are managed. As expected, all the lessors recruited in this study were found to be Mum and Dad lessors (Short et al., 2003) al) or petty landlords (Berry, 2000) and as Short et al. (2003) have pointed out, this type of landlordism is associated with the vulnerabilities of needing to service mortgages and/or to acquire a household or retirement income from the rental income.

The analysis supports previous research (Flatau et al., 2014) showing that refugees who have never before competed for housing often have trouble implementing the many complicated and culturally specific indicators of how a good tenant behaves and presents to an Australian property manager. Beck (1999) provides some further insight into the salience of the cultural, linguistic and systemic literacy required to navigate the Australian private rental market. According to Beck’s definition of individualisation as ‘institutionalised individualism’ (1999, p. 9), it is the individual applicant who is made responsible for designing their own ‘biography, identity, social networks, commitments and convictions’(Beck et al., 1994, p.g. 14). In this way, the analysis concurs with previous observations (Short et al., 2003) of the manifestation of individualisation in how risk society appears in the private rental market. Also noteworthy is the way that ‘negative vibes’ experienced by agents may be a mistaken register of cultural differences in behaviour, social norms and manners of address.

A positive finding was that not a single property manager or service provider recalled an instance of malicious property damage by a refugee. Despite this, one lessor illuminated how characterisations of refugees as traumatised and war-torn could evoke the negative stereotype of war-torn refugees, quick to anger and likely to damage property. This analysis verifies Marlowe’s (Marlowe, 2010) assessment that ‘assumptions surrounding ‘the refugee journey’ and associated sequelae from trauma’ has the potential to foster discriminatory practice. A particularly complex issue that has previously emerged in housing studies (Murdie, 2002; Turner et al., 2002) is that not all ethnic groups of refugees were reported to be discriminated against to the same degree. It appears that property managers are most likely to discriminate against any (non-Anglo-European Australian) ethnic group with which they have previously had negative experiences as tenants. However, some ethnic groups were favoured over Anglo-European Australian applicants based wholly on direct positive experiences with members of that group. It did also emerge that property managers are often unsure whether applicants are former refugees, asylum seekers or fit within another category of migrant. This suggests that efforts to ameliorate racial discrimination ought not to focus on refugees alone and also the importance of taking an intersectional approach (Bauer, 2014; Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2012; Ziersch et al., 2020) to both examining as well as addressing discrimination.

The analysis indicates that multiple compounding barriers for refugees in private rental housing are even more acute for large families of refugees who experienced additional discrimination in securing properties, with agents’ concerns about wear and tear and an increased likelihood of being ‘matched’ to housing in poor condition. The practice was discussed openly as a risk management strategy by both agents and lessors, and as noted above reflected both taste-based and statistical discrimination. All relevant federal and state-based legislation indicates that housing discrimination on the basis of number of children is unlawful. However, agents and lessors felt justified in projecting their own personally and culturally defined notions of acceptable residential densities as a tenant selection tool. Considering that lessors are obliged to account for the ‘effect of reasonable wear and tear’ when they seek compensation for damages (Residential Tenancies Act 1995 [SA], Section 69), it can be seen how a risk-management appraisal of large families creates a significant motivator for housing discrimination by lessors. Of particular concern were the agents and lessors who drew parallels between how children behaved at open inspections and to what extent the children might put the property at risk. Given the wide array of personal and cultural differences in parenting approaches, there is a great potential for applicants to be disadvantaged based on the developmentally appropriate exploratory behaviour of their children.

Strengths and limitations

The study brought together a rich range of perspectives on private rental housing. However, there are a number of limitations that need to be acknowledged.

There was an imbalance in the gender in most of the informant groups (refugees, agents and lessors). Amongst the refugees, few informants were aged under 25, which is significant given the specific age-related challenges young people face in the private rental market. Furthermore, although refugee participants were drawn from seven different countries, only a very small number were drawn from some of these countries and other countries were not represented at all.

The high reliance on snowball sampling to recruit real estate agents has likely resulted in a sample of professionals who are highly experienced in managing tenancies with refugees, and for the most part, quite successful in negotiating the cultural and linguistic differences that prove challenging for other, perhaps less experienced agents. However, this bias has meant that the interview content includes experiential accounts of some of the best practice in the successful and inclusive management of properties with refugee tenants.

Lessor and agent informants may have been concerned about reporting on more explicit discriminatory actions, for fear of any repercussion, despite assurances about confidentiality.

The data was collected nine years ago. However, research since then indicates that discrimination is still a feature of refugee accounts, with Covid-19 exacerbating difficulties in the private rental sector. Moreover, the inclusion of agent and lessor voices and the focus on additional considerations for large families remains a novel contribution to the literature.

Conclusion

The analysis found significant experiences of discrimination in the private rental market for refugees in large families, which were substantiated in the interviews with agents, lessors and service providers. There are a range of policy and practice implications emerging from this analysis, which reflect the different forms of discrimination identified. For example, there is a strong case for greater regulation of the private rental market. This includes that all property managers, including self-managing lessors, should be registered and that minimum training requirements around equal opportunity should be made a condition for registration. However, given the influence of customer-based discrimination, while anti-discrimination training may be useful for challenging prejudicial attitudes of lessors and agents, it may not be as effective for addressing the economic considerations for agents acting on behalf of prejudicial clients. As such, real estate agency contracts with lessors should include a clause on what constitutes unlawful discrimination in tenant selection, and there is also a potential case for economic penalties for discriminatory behaviour - in order to counter any economic returns for discrimination. Refugee tenants and property managers alike are also likely to benefit from refugees spending more time in supported housing followed by more widespread longer-term access to housing workers to support the private rental tenancies of refugees, and in particular, those with large families. This research serves as a reminder that for individuals who have experienced repeated and prolonged denial of their human rights, followed by potential experiences of hostility and discrimination in Australia, the emotional impact of exclusionary, as well as inclusionary treatment can be particularly profound. Efforts to address this are an important priority.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship, Flinders University, and a small grant from the Australian Federation of University Women of South Australia. We would also like to acknowledge the critical reference group and the study participants for their contributions to the project. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions which have improved the paper.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.