(Source: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research – HILDA survey)
Considering the amount of statistics that Australians are bombarded with, it is remarkable that there have been no official research whatsoever on inequality of wealth since 1915. The Census asks many intrusive and irrelevant questions (e.g. about race) but never about wealth. Therefore it was a great scientific advance when in the random sample of 12,728 Australians which the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research conducted in 2003, it decided to interview the respondents about the value of their private property. The above table shows the result. The Statistical Report of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (known as HILDA), first compiled in 2004, contains many other statistics of interest, but it is the above table which stands out from all the rest. It is ground-breaking in its significance, since there is no single more important social statistic than distribution of wealth.
The table is beautiful in its simplicity, not difficult to interpret. Nearly half of Australia's wealth (including housing) that is owned by its citizens is in the hands of the richest 10 per cent, whereas the bottom 10 per cent have nothing but debt. According to Mr Mark Wooden, one of the Institute AESR scholars who analysed the data, the report probably underestimates the wealth held by the top 10 per cent. The average wealth held by the top 10 per cent is around $2 million (in 2003 dollars). The bottom 10 per cent " have very little money in their bank accounts, but they've got a credit card, or they've got a car loan or something, and so that just means that their debts are going to exceed their asset position. And so what we find in the bottom 10 per cent is the mean effect is sort of minus $5,000. " (ABC Radio 23/4/2004)
The experts also predict that inequality will in future increase as the wealthy, who tend to have fewer children, pass on their wealth to their already rich heirs.
