TY  - RPRT
AU  - Haslam McKenzie, F.
AU  - Phillips, R.
AU  - Rowley, S.
AU  - Brereton, D.
AU  - Birdsall-Jones, C.
CY  - Melbourne
L1  - internal-pdf://3124169543/AHURI_Final_Report_No135_Housing market dynami.pdf
M3  - FR
N1  - This research used three case studies across four resource boom towns in Western Australia and Queensland to examine the role of housing in attracting and retaining staff to remote towns, in both the public and private sectors (Haslam McKenzie et al. 2009). Remote towns are defined here as being more than four hours drive to service centres (4-5) . 
The research confirms the crucial role of housing in providing both the physical infrastructure needed for sustainable mining operations, and the social/economic wellbeing of the local region.
Mining booms can often lead to recurring housing shortages and even housing crises (1). Rapid demand for increased housing, along with mining employer subsidies for worker housing, can also lead to shortages and push prices up to the point where only mining employees can afford to pay for housing within the town. Furthermore, mining company employees frequently only stay in the region for a short period of time and then re-settle elsewhere – typically in larger urban regions. So there is little incentive for them to purchase a home and they instead continue to place pressure on local rental markets.
Booms often only have a short life. Therefore major public investment into more affordable rental housing and related infrastructure in the town can be seen as wasteful, where there is little economic diversification and a high risk of the post-boom settlement becoming a ‘ghost town’ (6). The dominant approach of Australian governments to dealing with this problem has been to largely leave the provision of such housing to market forces and private stakeholders (12).
Traditionally, mining companies were the major investor into housing and related infrastructure in towns close to mining projects. Rising costs of such investment in recent years have led to a situation where mining companies may regard fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) and drive-in-drive-out (DIDO) arrangements as more cost-effective (14). This has further reduced the possibility for investment in housing in mining towns in recent years.
FIFO and DIDO workers also often live in temporary camps at the worksite, with food and other supplies flown in from larger urban regions, bypassing small local towns. This results in lost social and economic opportunities for building sustainable settlements in these locations.
There are considerable challenges for adequately managing housing demand and supply in resource boom towns (1-3). These include:
à	The diversity in scale and nature of industry.
à	The cyclical, often unpredictable, nature of the mining industry.
à	The regional/remote location of many mining operations. 
à	Changing technology and labour market practices.
à	The varied policy and institutional arrangements in different states.
à	The need to broaden the demographic and economic diversity of these small settlements.
A range of obstacles complicate attempts to more effectively plan for resource boom towns – the wide range of stakeholders involved, the often limited capacity of local governments in remote regions to undertake rapid strategic planning activities, and the inherent difficulties in predicting the scale and timing of future growth (3).
To deal with these challenges, one constantly recurring appeal in this research is for improved ‘coordination with and between different levels of government, and in turn, between mining companies and government’ (3). A new governance mechanism at the regional level is recommended by the authors to ensure better collaboration/coordination and information sharing between governments and industry. The research also proposes a range of strategies to manage housing in boom towns (1-2):
à	A ‘categorical commitment from governments to positive long-term futures for remote settlements’, leading to improved coordination of public and private planning and delivery of infrastructure.
à	Realistic incentives for private and community investment in infrastructure.
à	Increased government investment in affordable housing (including social/community housing) – both rental and assisted purchase.
à	Provision of affordable accommodation for workers on low-middle incomes who don’t qualify for regular housing assistance.
à	Government land banking of serviced land for housing once current demand has been met.
à	Relaxation of local government land-use planning restrictions which unduly delay the delivery of key infrastructure.
à	Affordable housing made to look aesthetically attractive.
à	Increased supply of government housing for key workers and government service providers.
à	Publically provided housing maintained consistently and upgraded as necessary.
à	A commitment to complex community development strategies, based on solid relationships to mitigate common boom town problems such as substance abuse.
à	Planning undertaken with an eye to sustainable, liveable, permanent settlements in these locations.
These strategies require longer-term implementation timeframes (3).
The following three case studies illustrate some of the housing issues facing mining communities and how these have (or have not) been dealt with effectively.
Case Study 1: Karratha (Pilbarra Region WA)
Karratha is located in northern WA, and was established specifically as a mining settlement in the 1960s boom (28). The population had grown to 11,275 by 2006 and is expected to continue to grow to 30,000 by 2015 (29). Some even predict it may grow as high as 75,000, depending on expansion plans of mining companies.
Housing stock in the town fluctuates depending on resource cycles and commodity prices (28). Mining companies have a monopoly over hotel accommodation and housing. Other workers have been effectively shut others out, which makes it almost impossible for other businesses to attract and retain staff (28).  This has created a mono-economy as others have literally been squeezed out, marginalising other potential industries which could diversify the town’s economy.
There is a lack of key workers in health, teaching and child care, largely because of a lack of affordable accommodation. Despite many community agencies providing rental subsidies from $500 per fortnight through to government staff subsidies of $3,000 per week, they are unable to secure housing (30). Child care is also lacking due to a deficit of buildings which meet appropriate codes, and a shortage of staff which is exacerbated through prohibitive housing costs for staff (30).
Another major issue in the town is an insufficient supply of serviced land along with a highly uniform housing stock (31-32). There are a number of reasons for this. Advice in the 1990s regarding the boom and the urgent need for increased housing supply in the town appear to have been largely ignored. Residents and council staff alike also resist attempts to utilise alternative housing designs which would provide more affordable housing for workers within the limited current supply of serviced land (31). Finally, the Local Government is insufficiently resourced to conduct strategic planning activities, largely due to agreements between the State Government and mining companies. These agreements remove requirements for paying Local Government rates which are a vitally important income stream for financing a range of regulatory and civic functions required of it (32).
The State Government has played a significant role in the undersupply of housing in the town. Population projections have not been regularly updated, so planning is often based on outdated numbers (32). The result is an underestimate of the housing stock needed. Growth in the stock of government employee housing has not kept up and public housing stock has declined (33). The projections also fail to take into account FIFO workers’ movements (33).
State and local governments have been reluctant to invest large amounts of public money into mining areas such as the Pilbara, because of the view that the natural resources in the region are in finite supply.  ‘Hence, government investment in Pilbara towns has been at a minimum since towns were established...’ (33).
In an effort to respond to the housing crisis in Karratha, the State Government land developer, Landcorp, has recently begun investigating initiatives which would provide low cost rental and purchase housing options for low-middle income service workers (32). At the time of writing this research paper, however, none of these options had become available.
The Government has also set up the Pilbara Development Commission as the statutory authority responsible for coordinating planning for economic growth in the region. Importantly for housing, they have provided quarterly records of housing and land costs (33).
Nonetheless, current estimates suggest that about 80 per cent of housing in Karratha is owned by mining companies. These companies house their own workers and also provide around 470 houses to community organisations and government officers, in an attempt to alleviate housing shortages in the community (34).
Housing Market Dynamics in Karratha
The housing market in Karratha is ‘...one of the most expensive in Western Australia...... [H]ousing is out of the reach for those on low and even middle incomes....’ (34). There is pressure from investors on prices, along with major limitations to supply of land for new housing development. Limitations include native title issues, capacity constraints, and commercial pressures. As a result, only around 70 new blocks sold per annum (38). 
Rates of new housing construction have likewise hampered supply (40). Mining companies often need to pay for housing specifically for construction workers so they can afford to live in the area and build new homes (40).
The critical lack of new housing has created profound affordability problems, particularly for Indigenous people, the aged and other would-be residents. They are now forced to find accommodation outside the town or indeed the region (41). It is also contributing to workforce shortages, because no other company or organisation in the town can afford to match the wages paid by mining companies (43).
Karratha is a town in crisis.
Case Study 2: Kalgoorlie-Boulder (WA)
In contrast to Karratha, Kalgoorlie-Boulder is regarded as a highly liveable city, with a diverse and resilient economy (48-50). FIFO and DIDO workers are rare, although increasing (49), with most mining workers well able to purchase or rent a house in town. A diversity of businesses and services enables the town to maintain a stable population base despite the high and low cyclic nature of resource industries (49).
Significant investment in infrastructure over a long time period has had a major impact on the sustainability of settlement in the region. The Perth-Kalgoorlie pipeline opened in 1903, essentially making a water-starved town viable (50). This was an ambitious infrastructure project, which continues to pipe water over 500km uphill. The town is also connected to the southwest power grid (51) and is an important rail/road hub, with daily air services from Perth and, more recently, from Melbourne (51).
Land supply, although somewhat constrained, is far less of an issue than in Karratha. The town is surrounded by unallocated Crown land, Aboriginal-managed land, pastoral leases and mining safety exclusionary zones.  
Local government in the region works with industry and local businesses to meet housing demand (51). It has also actively encouraged mining companies to locate workers and their families in the region and has discouraged mining camps separate to townships (52). As a result, there is limited FIFO/DIDO activity, which is usually only for specific, specialised, shorter-term construction activities (52). Government staff housing is provided through lease arrangement with private landlords in the town (59).
Some capacity for growth was identified in the 2000 structure plan, although some suggest the town has now almost reached capacity (52). Landcorp is the main supplier of serviced land. 
Mining companies are not directly involved in the town’s housing market, and is one of the key factors that explain the very different housing market dynamics in the two locations’ (52).
Kalgoorlie-Boulder has a very affordable and diverse housing market. Median incomes are well above Perth levels, with median house prices about $100,000 below Perth.  Diverse stock allows upward movement, whilst affordability allows labour mobility and ensures a strong supply of staff for local businesses (53). In contrast to Karratha, local residents have a strong sense of local identity and commitment to long-term growth (59).
In recent years, there has been some house price growth throughout the region, although it is still affordable (54). The town has even been rated by one private affordability measure as the most affordable housing market in WA (57).
However, there is a small emerging issue with a lack of new supply of housing (54), which is placing upward pressure on house prices. A supply response is advocated in this research to reduce pressure on prices before they reach Karratha proportions (57).
These first two case studies show that land supply is a key housing affordability factor in both Karratha and Kalgoorlie-Boulder (60).
Case study 3: Bowen Basin – Moranbah and Emerald (QLD)
The Bowen Basin in Queensland has one of the world’s largest coal reserves (the largest in Australia), with nearly 30 mines operating (61). Twenty new or existing projects are currently in expansion or under development (61). A boom in mining has caused rapid increases in housing rent and purchase costs, due to a limited number of alternative housing options. For example, there is a limited supply of social housing as well as low rental vacancy rates. As a result, low and fixed income households are being forced out of some towns due to high housing costs (61). There are also some health and safety issues with DIDO workers commuting long distances to home bases in larger coastal towns after long shifts. A range of social problems plague some smaller mining towns in the region, such as large numbers of single miners living in a small town, and families separated due to extended rosters on mines (62).
Moranbah:
Moranbah is a purpose-built mining town, which was established in 1971 (62). It is a small but growing community, which is well-serviced and attractive (63-4). Much of the infrastructure was provided initially by the mining company in conjunction with the Queensland Government, in recognition of the long-term strategic significance of Moranbah through its ongoing role as a primary centre in the Bowen Basin (68).
However, housing has become prohibitively expensive due to the distortionary effect of mining employer housing subsidies. Some small businesses are struggling to survive, because they cannot attract and retain staff due to the high cost of housing (65).
Housing vacancies in Moranbah are extremely low with very high rental costs. The town has the highest levels of housing stress in the Bowen Basin (69). Home ownership rates are very low and declining (70), and the town has a high proportion of rental accommodation compared to Queensland average (70).
A wide range of housing strategies and policies have been employed by different mining companies in the region (68). They generally have limited involvement and display a preference to allow the local market to provide for the housing needs of workers.
However, in Moranbah there are high levels of employer-provided rental being (71). This has inflated housing costs in the town: median house prices are now comparable to Brisbane and higher than many regional centres (72). Rents are extremely high, but mining workers subsidised by employers are easily able to afford them (73-74). It is non-mining residents who are highly disadvantaged, as they compete on the open rental market with employer subsidised tenants (72). There is also an extremely limited supply of public housing (73) and the town is largely unaffordable for first home buyers (74).
There is a lack of long-term confidence in the town, due to constrained land supplies (74), limited infrastructure to cope with current rapid growth, and some speculation about relocating the town if coal prices underneath its current location make this economically viable (65). Growth in a range of infrastructure has been inhibited in recent years by a lack of agreement and coordination between state and local governments and the private sector (particularly mining  companies) (65). A Moranbah Growth Management Group has been convened to address these issues, with a local Member of Parliament leading (65). Some significant compromises between key but diverse stakeholders have resulted.
Moranbah is considered to be large enough with sufficient amenity to have potential for social and economic sustainability (75). However, the high cost of housing means residents are largely dependent on employment to cover housing costs. Those unable to work, or children of former workers, are unable to form new households or remain in town once parents have relocated (76). A high reliance on DIDO workers has road safety implications (76). Work camps often source supplies from larger centres, so smaller local townships such as Moranbah also miss out on economic benefits of mining where there are large numbers of DIDO workers (77).
Emerald:
Emerald is ‘the main population centre of the 'Central Highland Region' of Queensland (78). It has a diverse industry base, including agriculture, mining, horticulture, and gem fossicking (78). The town is home to a young, transient population (78).
The town is well-established with business and government services for townspeople and the region (79). It has regular train, bus, and air services (79), and a well-planned, reliable supply of water with sufficient infrastructure to cope with projected growth (79).
The Local Government has taken a strong, proactive approach to planning for growth: there is a diversity of housing stock, mixed-use developments are encouraged, special/temporary accommodation is encouraged in a balanced manner, and the council undertakes residential development (79-80). There is low involvement of mining companies in the local housing market, because of sufficient market rentals to cover workers’ needs (80).
Housing in Emerald is expensive, but there is far less stress than in other Bowen Basin towns such as Moranbah. The diversified economy may in large part account for this (80). The town has a relatively high rate of renting, with a diversity of rental stock available, and a low rate of home ownership compared to Queensland averages (81-82). Rental costs are also high – similar to coastal towns, although lower than other mining towns such as Moranbah (82). Local government has proactively ensured adequate supply of new land for housing in recent years (83). Council is involved in development in efforts to saturate the market and keep prices down.
The town boasts a relatively well-off community with high workforce participation. There are limited affordable housing options for low-income groups, who tend to migrate through the town from inner regions to more affordable housing in coastal areas (83). The town is less affected by the presence of non-resident workers as these tend to locate in other smaller nearby towns closer to mining centres (84). The long history and diverse economy of the town mean high levels of social and economic sustainability (84), although housing costs are a major impediment to attracting skilled employees and lower-income occupations (85).
Conclusions:
This research project highlights the importance of worker preferences to live in capital or coastal locations as a major factor in FIFO/DIDO arrangements. It is not just a failure of mining companies to provide local housing which triggers these arrangements (91-92). Some principles for the appropriate deployment of FIFO/DIDO workers are provided in this paper (95-96). A FIFO/DIDO workforce may be appropriate where:
à	The work is of a time limited nature (95).
à	Sufficient housing and other local infrastructure is temporarily unavailable (96).
Mining companies should also make every effort to provide skill development and employment opportunities to local residents before they import workers from elsewhere. Further, employment practices should support local social and economic development. Long-term planning and implementation is required for strategies to appropriately integrate short-term workforces into existing communities (96).
A range of issues contribute to the pervasiveness of unaffordable housing in three out of four of the case study mining towns:
à	Conflicting land uses which can constrain or delay land release for housing development (93).
à	Importance and capacity of local authorities to engage in housing development and planning is an important factor in managing boom time housing growth (93).
Some other key themes which emerge from this study are (94-95):
à	The importance of cumulative, regional planning in managing rapid boom-growth. 
à	The criticality of land supply and infrastructure coordination.
à	The need for flexible approaches to housing density and diversity.
à	The importance of governance structures to actively engage key stakeholders.
à	Timely release of adequate land supply for housing is critical (96).
à	There is a strong case for state governments to intervene in local housing markets in mining towns to prevent and correct market failure (97).
Finally, this study finds that there is a need to improve coordination within and between different levels of government, as well as between governments and mining industry to ensure adequate supply of housing (99). Better planning is critical: governments at all levels need to plan for community sustainability in mining towns (98).
This study demonstrates that early strategic planning, with strong engagement and coordination of all major stakeholders is vitally important to sustainable growth of mining towns and an ongoing supply of affordable housing. Infrastructure must be provided, and service land for housing released in the timely way.
Mining company housing subsidies seriously distort local housing prices, effectively driving out service sectors needed to sustain the town. Where they are adequately resourced, local governments can intervene in the housing market and keep prices down – largely by actively developing housing to ensure a plentiful supply of a range of appropriate types of housing to meet to demand.
NV  - 80370
PB  - Australian Housing and Urban ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿Ú Institute Limited
PY  - 2009
RP  - This research used three case studies across four resource boom towns in Western Australia and Queensland to examine the role of housing in attracting and retaining staff to remote towns, in both the public and private sectors (Haslam McKenzie et al. 2009). Remote towns are defined here as being more than four hours drive to service centres (4-5) . 
The research confirms the crucial role of housing in providing both the physical infrastructure needed for sustainable mining operations, and the social/economic wellbeing of the local region.
Mining booms can often lead to recurring housing shortages and even housing crises (1). Rapid demand for increased housing, along with mining employer subsidies for worker housing, can also lead to shortages and push prices up to the point where only mining employees can afford to pay for housing within the town. Furthermore, mining company employees frequently only stay in the region for a short period of time and then re-settle elsewhere – typically in larger urban regions. So there is little incentive for them to purchase a home and they instead continue to place pressure on local rental markets.
Booms often only have a short life. Therefore major public investment into more affordable rental housing and related infrastructure in the town can be seen as wasteful, where there is little economic diversification and a high risk of the post-boom settlement becoming a ‘ghost town’ (6). The dominant approach of Australian governments to dealing with this problem has been to largely leave the provision of such housing to market forces and private stakeholders (12).
Traditionally, mining companies were the major investor into housing and related infrastructure in towns close to mining projects. Rising costs of such investment in recent years have led to a situation where mining companies may regard fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) and drive-in-drive-out (DIDO) arrangements as more cost-effective (14). This has further reduced the possibility for investment in housing in mining towns in recent years.
FIFO and DIDO workers also often live in temporary camps at the worksite, with food and other supplies flown in from larger urban regions, bypassing small local towns. This results in lost social and economic opportunities for building sustainable settlements in these locations.
There are considerable challenges for adequately managing housing demand and supply in resource boom towns (1-3). These include:
à	The diversity in scale and nature of industry.
à	The cyclical, often unpredictable, nature of the mining industry.
à	The regional/remote location of many mining operations. 
à	Changing technology and labour market practices.
à	The varied policy and institutional arrangements in different states.
à	The need to broaden the demographic and economic diversity of these small settlements.
A range of obstacles complicate attempts to more effectively plan for resource boom towns – the wide range of stakeholders involved, the often limited capacity of local governments in remote regions to undertake rapid strategic planning activities, and the inherent difficulties in predicting the scale and timing of future growth (3).
To deal with these challenges, one constantly recurring appeal in this research is for improved ‘coordination with and between different levels of government, and in turn, between mining companies and government’ (3). A new governance mechanism at the regional level is recommended by the authors to ensure better collaboration/coordination and information sharing between governments and industry. The research also proposes a range of strategies to manage housing in boom towns (1-2):
à	A ‘categorical commitment from governments to positive long-term futures for remote settlements’, leading to improved coordination of public and private planning and delivery of infrastructure.
à	Realistic incentives for private and community investment in infrastructure.
à	Increased government investment in affordable housing (including social/community housing) – both rental and assisted purchase.
à	Provision of affordable accommodation for workers on low-middle incomes who don’t qualify for regular housing assistance.
à	Government land banking of serviced land for housing once current demand has been met.
à	Relaxation of local government land-use planning restrictions which unduly delay the delivery of key infrastructure.
à	Affordable housing made to look aesthetically attractive.
à	Increased supply of government housing for key workers and government service providers.
à	Publically provided housing maintained consistently and upgraded as necessary.
à	A commitment to complex community development strategies, based on solid relationships to mitigate common boom town problems such as substance abuse.
à	Planning undertaken with an eye to sustainable, liveable, permanent settlements in these locations.
These strategies require longer-term implementation timeframes (3).
The following three case studies illustrate some of the housing issues facing mining communities and how these have (or have not) been dealt with effectively.
Case Study 1: Karratha (Pilbarra Region WA)
Karratha is located in northern WA, and was established specifically as a mining settlement in the 1960s boom (28). The population had grown to 11,275 by 2006 and is expected to continue to grow to 30,000 by 2015 (29). Some even predict it may grow as high as 75,000, depending on expansion plans of mining companies.
Housing stock in the town fluctuates depending on resource cycles and commodity prices (28). Mining companies have a monopoly over hotel accommodation and housing. Other workers have been effectively shut others out, which makes it almost impossible for other businesses to attract and retain staff (28).  This has created a mono-economy as others have literally been squeezed out, marginalising other potential industries which could diversify the town’s economy.
There is a lack of key workers in health, teaching and child care, largely because of a lack of affordable accommodation. Despite many community agencies providing rental subsidies from $500 per fortnight through to government staff subsidies of $3,000 per week, they are unable to secure housing (30). Child care is also lacking due to a deficit of buildings which meet appropriate codes, and a shortage of staff which is exacerbated through prohibitive housing costs for staff (30).
Another major issue in the town is an insufficient supply of serviced land along with a highly uniform housing stock (31-32). There are a number of reasons for this. Advice in the 1990s regarding the boom and the urgent need for increased housing supply in the town appear to have been largely ignored. Residents and council staff alike also resist attempts to utilise alternative housing designs which would provide more affordable housing for workers within the limited current supply of serviced land (31). Finally, the Local Government is insufficiently resourced to conduct strategic planning activities, largely due to agreements between the State Government and mining companies. These agreements remove requirements for paying Local Government rates which are a vitally important income stream for financing a range of regulatory and civic functions required of it (32).
The State Government has played a significant role in the undersupply of housing in the town. Population projections have not been regularly updated, so planning is often based on outdated numbers (32). The result is an underestimate of the housing stock needed. Growth in the stock of government employee housing has not kept up and public housing stock has declined (33). The projections also fail to take into account FIFO workers’ movements (33).
State and local governments have been reluctant to invest large amounts of public money into mining areas such as the Pilbara, because of the view that the natural resources in the region are in finite supply.  ‘Hence, government investment in Pilbara towns has been at a minimum since towns were established...’ (33).
In an effort to respond to the housing crisis in Karratha, the State Government land developer, Landcorp, has recently begun investigating initiatives which would provide low cost rental and purchase housing options for low-middle income service workers (32). At the time of writing this research paper, however, none of these options had become available.
The Government has also set up the Pilbara Development Commission as the statutory authority responsible for coordinating planning for economic growth in the region. Importantly for housing, they have provided quarterly records of housing and land costs (33).
Nonetheless, current estimates suggest that about 80 per cent of housing in Karratha is owned by mining companies. These companies house their own workers and also provide around 470 houses to community organisations and government officers, in an attempt to alleviate housing shortages in the community (34).
Housing Market Dynamics in Karratha
The housing market in Karratha is ‘...one of the most expensive in Western Australia...... [H]ousing is out of the reach for those on low and even middle incomes....’ (34). There is pressure from investors on prices, along with major limitations to supply of land for new housing development. Limitations include native title issues, capacity constraints, and commercial pressures. As a result, only around 70 new blocks sold per annum (38). 
Rates of new housing construction have likewise hampered supply (40). Mining companies often need to pay for housing specifically for construction workers so they can afford to live in the area and build new homes (40).
The critical lack of new housing has created profound affordability problems, particularly for Indigenous people, the aged and other would-be residents. They are now forced to find accommodation outside the town or indeed the region (41). It is also contributing to workforce shortages, because no other company or organisation in the town can afford to match the wages paid by mining companies (43).
Karratha is a town in crisis.
Case Study 2: Kalgoorlie-Boulder (WA)
In contrast to Karratha, Kalgoorlie-Boulder is regarded as a highly liveable city, with a diverse and resilient economy (48-50). FIFO and DIDO workers are rare, although increasing (49), with most mining workers well able to purchase or rent a house in town. A diversity of businesses and services enables the town to maintain a stable population base despite the high and low cyclic nature of resource industries (49).
Significant investment in infrastructure over a long time period has had a major impact on the sustainability of settlement in the region. The Perth-Kalgoorlie pipeline opened in 1903, essentially making a water-starved town viable (50). This was an ambitious infrastructure project, which continues to pipe water over 500km uphill. The town is also connected to the southwest power grid (51) and is an important rail/road hub, with daily air services from Perth and, more recently, from Melbourne (51).
Land supply, although somewhat constrained, is far less of an issue than in Karratha. The town is surrounded by unallocated Crown land, Aboriginal-managed land, pastoral leases and mining safety exclusionary zones.  
Local government in the region works with industry and local businesses to meet housing demand (51). It has also actively encouraged mining companies to locate workers and their families in the region and has discouraged mining camps separate to townships (52). As a result, there is limited FIFO/DIDO activity, which is usually only for specific, specialised, shorter-term construction activities (52). Government staff housing is provided through lease arrangement with private landlords in the town (59).
Some capacity for growth was identified in the 2000 structure plan, although some suggest the town has now almost reached capacity (52). Landcorp is the main supplier of serviced land. 
Mining companies are not directly involved in the town’s housing market, and is one of the key factors that explain the very different housing market dynamics in the two locations’ (52).
Kalgoorlie-Boulder has a very affordable and diverse housing market. Median incomes are well above Perth levels, with median house prices about $100,000 below Perth.  Diverse stock allows upward movement, whilst affordability allows labour mobility and ensures a strong supply of staff for local businesses (53). In contrast to Karratha, local residents have a strong sense of local identity and commitment to long-term growth (59).
In recent years, there has been some house price growth throughout the region, although it is still affordable (54). The town has even been rated by one private affordability measure as the most affordable housing market in WA (57).
However, there is a small emerging issue with a lack of new supply of housing (54), which is placing upward pressure on house prices. A supply response is advocated in this research to reduce pressure on prices before they reach Karratha proportions (57).
These first two case studies show that land supply is a key housing affordability factor in both Karratha and Kalgoorlie-Boulder (60).
Case study 3: Bowen Basin – Moranbah and Emerald (QLD)
The Bowen Basin in Queensland has one of the world’s largest coal reserves (the largest in Australia), with nearly 30 mines operating (61). Twenty new or existing projects are currently in expansion or under development (61). A boom in mining has caused rapid increases in housing rent and purchase costs, due to a limited number of alternative housing options. For example, there is a limited supply of social housing as well as low rental vacancy rates. As a result, low and fixed income households are being forced out of some towns due to high housing costs (61). There are also some health and safety issues with DIDO workers commuting long distances to home bases in larger coastal towns after long shifts. A range of social problems plague some smaller mining towns in the region, such as large numbers of single miners living in a small town, and families separated due to extended rosters on mines (62).
Moranbah:
Moranbah is a purpose-built mining town, which was established in 1971 (62). It is a small but growing community, which is well-serviced and attractive (63-4). Much of the infrastructure was provided initially by the mining company in conjunction with the Queensland Government, in recognition of the long-term strategic significance of Moranbah through its ongoing role as a primary centre in the Bowen Basin (68).
However, housing has become prohibitively expensive due to the distortionary effect of mining employer housing subsidies. Some small businesses are struggling to survive, because they cannot attract and retain staff due to the high cost of housing (65).
Housing vacancies in Moranbah are extremely low with very high rental costs. The town has the highest levels of housing stress in the Bowen Basin (69). Home ownership rates are very low and declining (70), and the town has a high proportion of rental accommodation compared to Queensland average (70).
A wide range of housing strategies and policies have been employed by different mining companies in the region (68). They generally have limited involvement and display a preference to allow the local market to provide for the housing needs of workers.
However, in Moranbah there are high levels of employer-provided rental being (71). This has inflated housing costs in the town: median house prices are now comparable to Brisbane and higher than many regional centres (72). Rents are extremely high, but mining workers subsidised by employers are easily able to afford them (73-74). It is non-mining residents who are highly disadvantaged, as they compete on the open rental market with employer subsidised tenants (72). There is also an extremely limited supply of public housing (73) and the town is largely unaffordable for first home buyers (74).
There is a lack of long-term confidence in the town, due to constrained land supplies (74), limited infrastructure to cope with current rapid growth, and some speculation about relocating the town if coal prices underneath its current location make this economically viable (65). Growth in a range of infrastructure has been inhibited in recent years by a lack of agreement and coordination between state and local governments and the private sector (particularly mining  companies) (65). A Moranbah Growth Management Group has been convened to address these issues, with a local Member of Parliament leading (65). Some significant compromises between key but diverse stakeholders have resulted.
Moranbah is considered to be large enough with sufficient amenity to have potential for social and economic sustainability (75). However, the high cost of housing means residents are largely dependent on employment to cover housing costs. Those unable to work, or children of former workers, are unable to form new households or remain in town once parents have relocated (76). A high reliance on DIDO workers has road safety implications (76). Work camps often source supplies from larger centres, so smaller local townships such as Moranbah also miss out on economic benefits of mining where there are large numbers of DIDO workers (77).
Emerald:
Emerald is ‘the main population centre of the 'Central Highland Region' of Queensland (78). It has a diverse industry base, including agriculture, mining, horticulture, and gem fossicking (78). The town is home to a young, transient population (78).
The town is well-established with business and government services for townspeople and the region (79). It has regular train, bus, and air services (79), and a well-planned, reliable supply of water with sufficient infrastructure to cope with projected growth (79).
The Local Government has taken a strong, proactive approach to planning for growth: there is a diversity of housing stock, mixed-use developments are encouraged, special/temporary accommodation is encouraged in a balanced manner, and the council undertakes residential development (79-80). There is low involvement of mining companies in the local housing market, because of sufficient market rentals to cover workers’ needs (80).
Housing in Emerald is expensive, but there is far less stress than in other Bowen Basin towns such as Moranbah. The diversified economy may in large part account for this (80). The town has a relatively high rate of renting, with a diversity of rental stock available, and a low rate of home ownership compared to Queensland averages (81-82). Rental costs are also high – similar to coastal towns, although lower than other mining towns such as Moranbah (82). Local government has proactively ensured adequate supply of new land for housing in recent years (83). Council is involved in development in efforts to saturate the market and keep prices down.
The town boasts a relatively well-off community with high workforce participation. There are limited affordable housing options for low-income groups, who tend to migrate through the town from inner regions to more affordable housing in coastal areas (83). The town is less affected by the presence of non-resident workers as these tend to locate in other smaller nearby towns closer to mining centres (84). The long history and diverse economy of the town mean high levels of social and economic sustainability (84), although housing costs are a major impediment to attracting skilled employees and lower-income occupations (85).
Conclusions:
This research project highlights the importance of worker preferences to live in capital or coastal locations as a major factor in FIFO/DIDO arrangements. It is not just a failure of mining companies to provide local housing which triggers these arrangements (91-92). Some principles for the appropriate deployment of FIFO/DIDO workers are provided in this paper (95-96). A FIFO/DIDO workforce may be appropriate where:
à	The work is of a time limited nature (95).
à	Sufficient housing and other local infrastructure is temporarily unavailable (96).
Mining companies should also make every effort to provide skill development and employment opportunities to local residents before they import workers from elsewhere. Further, employment practices should support local social and economic development. Long-term planning and implementation is required for strategies to appropriately integrate short-term workforces into existing communities (96).
A range of issues contribute to the pervasiveness of unaffordable housing in three out of four of the case study mining towns:
à	Conflicting land uses which can constrain or delay land release for housing development (93).
à	Importance and capacity of local authorities to engage in housing development and planning is an important factor in managing boom time housing growth (93).
Some other key themes which emerge from this study are (94-95):
à	The importance of cumulative, regional planning in managing rapid boom-growth. 
à	The criticality of land supply and infrastructure coordination.
à	The need for flexible approaches to housing density and diversity.
à	The importance of governance structures to actively engage key stakeholders.
à	Timely release of adequate land supply for housing is critical (96).
à	There is a strong case for state governments to intervene in local housing markets in mining towns to prevent and correct market failure (97).
Finally, this study finds that there is a need to improve coordination within and between different levels of government, as well as between governments and mining industry to ensure adequate supply of housing (99). Better planning is critical: governments at all levels need to plan for community sustainability in mining towns (98).
This study demonstrates that early strategic planning, with strong engagement and coordination of all major stakeholders is vitally important to sustainable growth of mining towns and an ongoing supply of affordable housing. Infrastructure must be provided, and service land for housing released in the timely way.
Mining company housing subsidies seriously distort local housing prices, effectively driving out service sectors needed to sustain the town. Where they are adequately resourced, local governments can intervene in the housing market and keep prices down – largely by actively developing housing to ensure a plentiful supply of a range of appropriate types of housing to meet to demand.
ST  - Housing market dynamics in resource boom towns
T2  - ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿ÚFinal Report No. 135
TI  - Housing market dynamics in resource boom towns
UR  - /research/final-reports/135
ID  - 154
ER  -