REPORT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page

 

CHAPTER 6 - POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

6.1 At the time that this inquiry was initiated Commonwealth and State governments were considering replacing Commonwealth assistance for public housing through the CSHA with rent assistance for public as well as private tenants. As noted in Chapter 3 of this report, this policy is not currently being pursued. However even though the CSHA is not about to be totally replaced with rent assistance, the relative balance between these two forms of assistance continues to be altered in favour of rent assistance payments. The current ways of providing housing assistance through assisting the States in providing public housing and through rent assistance payments to social security recipients are not the only options for the future in the area of social housing. Possibilities exist for the greater involvement of community housing organisations, local governments and the private sector in providing low cost housing to special needs groups in the community.

The Role of Community Housing

6.2 Community housing is able to provide a different type of housing from public or private rental housing and to increase the choices open to low income renters. The Committee received submissions and evidence from a number of community housing organisations supporting the expansion of community housing. Community housing is `publicly subsidised non-profit housing which is not publicly managed' [1], in other words it is similar to public housing but is managed by a community or non-profit organisation instead of State government housing authority.

6.3 Community housing is a diverse sector. In the words of the Community Housing Federation of Australia:

The two most common forms of community housing are housing cooperatives, in which new tenants take full responsibility for all of the management decisions related to the properties under their control: and secondly, housing associations, in which tenants are encouraged to participate on a board of management, which in turn takes responsibility for that housing decision making.

The people housed by community housing organisations are as diverse as the society itself and include people with disabilities, single parents with children, women and children who are leaving situations of violence or abuse, older people, younger people people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people with mental health difficulties and so on, all of them on low to moderate incomes. [2]

6.4 The advantages claimed for community housing are that it can provide housing that is particularly appropriate to the needs of the tenant by involving the community and tenants in the planning and provision of the housing. It can also foster a beneficial sense of belonging to a community. For example, the Community Housing Advisory Service of the ACT stated that:

Community housing offers a choice to people on low to moderate incomes to live in situations where they can participate actively in commercial and social decisions that affect their community. It provides a supportive environment which is not offered through any other form of housing. [3]

6.5 Two main roles have been identified for community housing:

• providing housing for people with special needs; and
• providing choices and alternatives for people who would otherwise become tenants of public housing authorities. [4]

6.6 In evidence to the Committee it was argued that community housing organisations were often better placed than the private rental market or public housing authorities to house people with special needs, such as people with disabilities (including those with mental illnesses) or people who have been homeless. This is because community housing organisations have the ability to, and usually do, create strong networks with crisis and other support agencies to assist people in difficult housing situations. [5]

6.7 The St George Community Housing Co-op Ltd, for example, has been able to offer housing, both group housing and individual tenancies, to people requiring support services such as those with mental health problems or those leaving crisis accommodation services. Support is provided to these tenants by local area organisations with whom they work, such as a local hospital, local crisis accommodation services, and community mental health services. St George Community Housing estimate that 35 per cent of their recent placements into their housing involve linking support with housing and 14 per cent were from people leaving refuges. Currently they control around 144 properties. [6]

6.8 St George Community Housing is an example of a larger community housing organisation of the type being encouraged to grow in NSW in order to become cost effective. [7] Other community housing organisations, such as co-operatives, are much smaller but are able to achieve similar administrative costs as in public housing by making use of voluntary labour from their tenants (co-operatives) or volunteer management committee (some housing associations) instead of paid staff. Co-operatives depend on. having sufficient tenants with the commitment to make the necessary contribution. [8]

6.9 Some community housing representatives argued that community housing could play a role in a `multi provider' model of public housing provision. Such a model envisages the ending of the monopoly by State governments on the provision of housing for those in the lowest income bracket. Under the proposed model, the States would reorganise their current public housing services into two branches a `purchaser' of cheap housing and a `supplier'. The purchaser would be free to chose between a number of suppliers, including various community housing organisations and possibly private sector organisations as well as the State government supplier. This approach provides an element of competition and can increase the choices available for public tenants. [9]

6.10 Some State governments supported an expanded role for community housing. New South Wales has introduced a `multi-provider' model and is planning to significantly expand the community housing sector. [10] The ACT also intends to do the same through a pilot program of transferring stock from public housing to community housing organisations. [11]

6.11 Community housing organisations saw community housing as being well placed to enter into arrangements with the private sector, including headleasing of stock from the private sector and joint venture arrangements with private as well as government capital. [12]

6.12 The ability to raise additional funds from the private sector is another reason to support the expansion of the community housing sector. The ability of the community housing sector to use private sector funds will depend on the detailed nature of the arrangements and the income levels of its tenants. The Committee considers that funding arrangements for community housing organisations should allow them to raise private sector finance where possible, thus organisations should be entitled to use any surpluses they are able to make as a result of their operations to attract private finance in order to expand their stock. Future CSHA funding arrangements should not require community housing organisations to return surpluses to the State or Commonwealth governments.

6.13 As well as providing funds for community housing through the CSHA the Commonwealth currently assists the development of the community housing sector by funding national organisations which support the community housing sector (for example, National Community Housing Forum and the Community Housing Federation of Australia. The Committee considers that supporting national organisations which promote community housing is an appropriate role for the Commonwealth. Both the National Community Housing Forum and the Community Housing Federation of Australia called for the Commonwealth and the States to increase capital funding in order to expand the provision of community housing. [13] The Committee was very impressed by the commitment and enthusiasm for community housing displayed by many community housing tenants who appeared before it.

Visit of community housing projects (ACT)

6.14 Some members of the Committee were also able to visit three community housing projects in the ACT: JUNO, Abbeyfield and Peasants of Ainslie Co-operative Housing (POACH). These projects have developed a variety of housing types to meet the needs of their tenants including group housing for older persons (Abbeyfield) and shared houses for two families (POACH).

6.15 The ability of community housing to develop a sense of community and for the tenants to support each other was demonstrated by these projects. JUNO for example, is a co-operative for single mothers and their children and a large amount of mutual support, including child care, is available to its residents.

6.16 The Committee notes that community housing has proved adept at developing a range of housing types. Many of the needs of low income earners, such as young and old single people, the homeless and people with disabilities, are not well served by the standard three bedroom house so prevalent in Australia. Public Housing Authorities have also been diversifying their stock for this reason and replacing family homes with units. One advantage of community housing is that, by involving the tenants and community organisations experienced in the needs of the client group, it can develop housing which is particularly appropriate to the needs of the tenants.

6.17 The Committee considers that community housing does have considerable potential, both to provide appropriate housing for people with special needs and to increase choices for low income public renters more generally. In view of the advantages that community housing can bring, the Committee considers that the Commonwealth should ensure that a percentage of CSHA capital funds are used by the States for the provision of community housing.

Recommendation 21: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth continue funding for national community housing organisations which provide support for the development of community housing.

Role of Local Government

6.18 A number of submissions supported a role for local governments in housing provision. This view was expressed not only by local government organisations but also from broader organisations such as the Australian Council of Social Service. [14] Of the various roles that local government plays in housing provision, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) identified the following as being very important:

• an awareness and identification of local needs;
• planning and regulatory functions relating to land and development approvals;
• facilitation of housing outcomes; and
• direct provision and management of housing. [15]

6.19 Current involvement by local governments in public housing is patchy and the attitude of local governments to involvement in public housing varies. [16] ALGA did not wish to see involvement by Councils as compulsory, seeing it as a matter for each Council. [17]

6.20 Some councils have been particularly active in trying to ensure that older persons (especially aged pensioners) who may have lived for a long time in a particular locality and are attached to it, can access affordable housing in the area. As land values (and consequently council rates) rise, they are often in need of special financial assistance or access to special housing in order to continue to live where they feel they belong. North Sydney Council is one local government body which has pursued the option of raising additional funds.

6.21 The Committee considers that local government does have the potential to play a valuable role in relation to housing assistance. In particular the identification of local needs and opportunities for meeting those needs can assist in filling gaps in provision that might otherwise be missed and local governments should be encouraged to undertake this role. However in view of the variation between Councils in their involvement and their wish to be involved, the Committee does not consider it possible to specify a desirable level of local government involvement nationally. It is for each State to decide the appropriate level of local government involvement.

Attracting private investment into low-cost housing

6.22 A greater involvement from the private sector is one way of increasing capital resources for building rental housing for low income tenants. Broadly two approaches can be identified, firstly encouraging more investment into private rental housing and secondly, private investment into public or community housing. A number of submissions addressed the use of taxation measures designed to attract private investment into `affordable' housing. The majority of those submissions considered that the current taxation concessions for negatively geared rental property had only benefited landlords interested in the affluent end of the rental market and had neither increased supply or affordability for low-income renters.

The effect of negative gearing tax concessions

6.23 A number of submissions and witnesses to the Committee addressed the issue negative gearing for properties. [18] Different arguments against negative gearing were put forward. The majority of submitters who addressed this question saw the present system as being inequitable in that it favoured the haves over the have nots. It did not increase the supply of affordable housing for low-income people and they argued that the revenue lost in terms of taxation income foregone could, if collected and used for housing assistance, prove invaluable in improving both the supply of public housing and the levels of Rent Assistance available to low income renters.

6.24 The Inner Urban Regional Housing Council (IURHCa Victorian organisation) was one of the groups that argued that the taxation income forgone should be included in calculating the `actual' cost of the average annual rent assistance because the $1,600 quoted in the last COAG paper on housing assistance (1996) only takes account of the direct cash payment. [19]

6.25 By viewing the taxation benefits of negative gearing as a form of assistance to landlords, IURHC's approach implies an acceptance that the opportunities for lower taxation thus offered, help to keep private rents down. Those who hold that view would argue that investors in the private rental market are prepared to forego a higher rental return because of the tax advantages offered through negative gearing. This view was challenged by other submissions, including the Brotherhood of St Lawrence who argued that negative gearing did not in fact address the issue of housing affordability. [20]

6.26 Some submitted that the availability of negative gearing to private rental investors did not improve the supply of low income housing. A witness from National Shelter told the Committee:

Negative gearing in itself is not a good way to influence supply, but as happened when it was quarantined in the late 1980s, there were supply problems. But that is an externality rather than intentional...I am saying that if you want to increase supply, you have to be aware of negative gearing, but (it) is a fairly blunt instrument. [21]

6.27 ACOSS submitted that negative gearing should be suspended for reconsideration in the absence of evidence that it makes any positive contribution towards increasing either the supply or affordability of low cost housing:

Negative gearing on housing should once again be quarantined until such time as a long term housing investment strategy is developed. Providing that such action is not retrospective, there should be no disinvestment in the private rental sector and hence rents should not rise. [22]

One of the witnesses from ACOSS, Mr Nicolades told the Committee that it estimated that `about $900 million worth of tax expenditure' [23] was lost to government each year through negative gearing on private rental properties.

6.28 In the absence of official figures (recognising that this is not an item of budget expenditure in the same way as direct housing or rental assistance) the Committee's research, assisted by the Department of the Parliamentary Library's Information and Research Services and based on Taxation Statistics for 1994-95, indicates a figure of between $800 and $900 million lost in tax revenue for the year 1994-95 without taking into account the significant loss to partnerships, trusts and companies for similar types of investment. The last could take the amount to around $1,364 million.

6.29 The Committee notes that, together with other submitters and witnesses to the Committee, Mr Nicolades from ACOSS considered that the large sum of money `lost' to tax concessions on negatively geared property could be better spent in a targeted way ensuring `that there is a supply of low-income earners'. [24]

6.30 The possibility of targeting the tax concessions to those who invest in `affordable housing' was raised in submissions and by a number of witnesses. [25] For example, in its 1997 policy paper on housing, Ecumenical Housing deplored the fact that negative gearing provided:

The most benefits to higher income earners who can afford to invest in the upper end of the residential property market to maximise both their tax deductions and their potential capital gains. [26]

6.31 Ecumenical Housing went on to suggest that:

To improve targeting, the Commonwealth should require private rental investors who wish to qualify for concessional tax treatment to register with State Ministries of housing and meet specified housing and residential tenancy standards. [27]

6.32 A great proportion of the market research that is carried out in the private rental market is localised and based on relatively small samples. As a result, real estate agents acquire an in-depth understanding of a particular market. Large scale surveys are not common. One of the few comprehensive survey of rental investors in Australia is the 1993 Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Rental Investors.

6.33 The survey found that 65 per cent of rental properties had an estimated market value of less than $150,000 and that 66 per cent of investors earned less than $720 per week with a further 18 per cent earning between $720 and $1,040. There are no more detailed figures so that it is impossible to establish whether the 35 per cent of rental properties that are valued at more than $150,000 are those where negative gearing is most often used. The market value of rental properties is likely to be much higher. Current median house price for Sydney (October 1997) is $237,600 and for units and townhouses, it is $195, 700. The equivalent figures for all capital cities follow:

Table 4

Median House Prices Capital Cities (1996-97)

Sydney	$237,600	Brisbane	$138,000
Melbourne	$159,700	Perth	$130,000
Darwin	$168,800	Adelaide	$116,700
Hobart	$108,800

Source: Real Estate Institute of Victoria figures, quoted in The Age, Friday, 24 October 1997.

6.34 Certainly, witnesses to the Committee felt that, `negative gearing...did not deliver at that (lower) end of the market'. [28]There is a need for more research to be done on the relationship between housing policy changes and what happens in the market.

6.35 More significantly, the ABS survey showed that only about 15 per cent of survey investors (and potential investors) cited the tax advantages provided by negative gearing as the main reason for investing in rental property(compared with 52 per cent whose main aim was to make a secure long term investment and 16 per cent who would invest for retirement). [29] There are many other factors at play and it is for this reason that the Committee has recommended that more research be carried out on how the market operates.

6.36 The Committee gave serious consideration to all the issues raised in relation to the tax concessions available through negative gearing of private rental property. It is mindful however, that as well as being essentially a matter of taxation rather than of housing policy, the issue of negative gearing is not one that can be addressed solely within the context of property investment. This was recognised by Professor Judith Yates at the Sydney hearing. [30] If reforms are to be considered, then the tax concessions currently available for a whole range of investments must be reviewed. As the Committee has already stated in Chapter 2, it considers that this is clearly outside the scope of this inquiry.

Private investment into public or community housing

6.37 The use of private as well as government capital to finance public and community housing was identified by a number of submissions and in evidence to the committee as one way of increasing the stock without increasing the level of government funding. For example, the Brotherhood of St Laurence stated in evidence to the Committee:

In terms of where the money comes from, I draw your attention to the remark by the Minister for Social Security when asked about cuts to public housing spending in this year's budget , who pointed out the wonderful things which state housing authorities could do if they could get into a bit of debt financing. There is no doubt that there are ways of financing a supply of low-cost accommodation which do not necessarily involve an enormous outlay in current government spending. [31]

6.38 The Committee's attention was drawn to the fact that in a number of overseas countries, for example the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, private institutional investors were a significant source of funding for public or social housing. [32] The Committee is also aware of an Occasional Paper by AHURI published in 1995, which deals with a number of successful low cost housing projects in other countries where the private sector has played a central role. [33]

6.39 The North American experience shows a range of social housing developments for the benefit of different client groups. Financing methods also show a diversity of approaches.

6.40 In San Francisco land use zoning has been used to increase the amount of housing which is affordable for low income families. `Density bonuses' are offered to developers. These permit increased residential densities provided that a proportion of the units are for 'affordable housing', that is the units go to families with income under defined levels. The aim of the policy is to encourage a mix of household incomes in all neighbourhoods, and thus avoid the creation of low income ghettos.

6.41 San Francisco requires the inclusion of some `affordable housing' in all developments of ten units or more. San Francisco also funds `affordable housing' through developer contributions from inner city office developers. These were introduced because increased office development had led to high demand for inner city housing from office employees resulting in a sharp increase in costs. Developers of office accommodation must either construct a number of affordable dwellings based on the floor space of the office development, or pay into a fund which the City of San Francisco uses to provide housing for lower income earners. [34]

6.42 `Density bonuses' are also offered in Montgomery County, which is north east of Washington DC and is a predominantly high income area. The policy aims to provide accommodation for lower income earners in various areas dispersed throughout the county. [35] Land use zoning was also used in Atlanta to encourage residential development in downtown areas. The object in Atlanta was to revitalise these areas by attracting those working in the area to also live there. A number of Housing Enterprise Zones were created which permitted higher densities and allowed tax free development. As in the other examples considered above requirements for a proportion of 'affordable housing' are included for residential developments in these zones. [36]

6.43 The City of Boston was faced with a similar situation in 1986 to that of San Francisco in that inner city office development was forcing up housing costs. They also introduced contributions from developers as a condition of undertaking the development. In Boston these contributions are paid into a Neighbourhood housing trust, which uses the funds to develop `affordable housing' throughout the City of Boston. [37]

6.44 The city of San Diego introduced a Single Room Residential Hotel program in 1987. An ordinance was passed requiring developers to replace each room lost through re-development of downtown hotels and to fund developers re-location costs. Many of these hotels were providing long term accommodation for single people, including those who would otherwise be homeless. Changes were made to building codes to encourage the development of new single room occupancy accommodation. these included reduced building and planning requirements such as small sprinkler systems in each room rather than thick fire doors and limited parking requirements near mass transport.

6.45 Some 2,753 low income units have been provided under this program in San Diego, including 599 `guaranteed affordable' units. `Guaranteed affordable' units have to be let at not more than 30 per cent of income to low income earners who meet specified income levels. The tenants of these units include the elderly, students and military personnel. [38]

6.46 The City of Vancouver in Canada has combined a number of the techniques used by other North American cities. Vancouver has used re-zoning of land to encourage residential development in selected areas and has also altered regulations to encourage housing above shops in commercial areas. The city requires that all residential developments include 20 per cent of social housing that is housing for low income earners operated by the City of Vancouver or non-profit organisations. Where residential units are demolished by developers a fee has to be paid which goes to fund social housing. [39]

6.47 This brief survey of North American developments shows that planning and development requirements can be used to encourage the provision of housing for those on low incomes. There are some examples in Australia of this approach. North Sydney Council for example told the Committee that it actively sought to provide some affordable housing each year through a joint venture project with the NSW Department of Housing. [40] It is currently meeting its modest target of eight bedspaces of affordable housing per year which is low but is no doubt a reflection of housing costs and excessively high demand in one of Sydney's most sought after suburb.

6.48 It has also been raising additional funds for affordable housing through the following mechanism:

North Sydney Council has recently adopted a voluntary program, or bonus system, which provides a benefit to the developer (an extra storey allowed in the development, above the prescribed limit) and a benefit to Council (a set-aside of a proportion of the development for local housing). At this stage, this model has been limited to selected sites. [41]

6.49 The success of the use of planning requirements in North America suggests that there could be more exploration of the use of planning requirements in Australia. It should be borne in mind however that differences in the housing, social and economic conditions between areas means that what works in one area can not necessarily be replicated in another.

6.50 The Committee was encouraged to hear that:

`The NSW Ministerial Taskforce on Affordable Housing is currently considering strategies for attracting investment into affordable housing. This includes an assessment of barriers to investment and looking at appropriate inducements to the private sector'. [42]

The NSW Federation of Housing Association went on to call for a study to be undertaken into the factors that constitute a barrier to private investment into low cost housing.

6.51 One other possible source of private fund investment into low cost housing is from superannuation funds. Professor Mike Berry, from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute in Melbourne thought that the build up of superannuation funds opened opportunities for the investment of funds from this source into public or community housing. [43] However, there are some major difficulties to overcome before this source of fund becomes a realistic option. The funds' managers would want to have the guarantee of a better return than is now currently available from private rental housing generally.

6.52 Not all who gave evidence to the inquiry were optimistic about this possibility. For example John Nicolades, from the Australian Council of Social Service:

My point is that trying to encourage investment by the private sector in low income housing will, going on history, only add marginally to the supply of low income housing stock. As I said, going on past history it has been very difficult to get superannuation funds involved. [44]

6.53 Professor Judith Yates thought that attracting institutional funds was feasible, but that it would be expensive:

If you want to talk about institutional investment, you have to get packages that the institutions want and they want yield, which they are not going to get. At the moment they talk about there being at least two to three per cent yield gaps between what is currently available and what they would want. So that is three per cent higher return that you are going to have to provide. That is going to have to come out of rent subsidies or rent assistance, to cover it for your low income earners. [45]

6.54 The current CSHA allows States to use Agreement funds for arrangements involving investment from the private sector into public housing. However some aspects of the current arrangements affecting housing investment would discourage private sector investment. One of those are the current taxation arrangements. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute commented that:

Head leasing seemed to be a way that state housing could in fact secure an increase, perhaps a fairly rapid increase, in their stock. This is a little like the transport departments did by selling and leasing back their stock. The problem is that under existing taxation legislation this tends to fall afoul of a couple of sections which say that if the end user is a government then the private partner involved will not get the taxation deductions and benefits, tax savings. [46]

6.55 The NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning argued that that the three year nature of the 1996 CSHA also inhibited the use of private sector funds:

As a three year agreement, the interim CSHA does not facilitate recurrently-funded housing supply models (such as leasing and gearing) which may need long-term subsidy commitments. The previous Commonwealth Minister had indicated to New South Wales that a mechanism would be put into place to facilitate joint forward commitment to sustained recurrent funding. However this approach was not pursued by the current Minister. As a result the New South Wales social housing supply targets as set out in the Green Paper have been substantially reduced, with the abandonment of the proposal for 6000 properties to be leased or acquired through borrowing over 3 years. [47]

6.56 Professor Yates also argued that long term funding commitments, of up to ten years would need to be given [48] if this hurdle were to be overcome. There is no doubt that forward guaranteeing of funding for a longer period would make it easier for States to use methods such as leasing and borrowing funds from the private sector.

Recommendation 22: The Committee recommends that in negotiating the next CSHA, the Commonwealth examine methods of providing funding guarantees of more than three years to the States and Territories in order to facilitate private sector involvement in the provision of low cost housing.

Recommendation 23: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth and the States:

• explore different community housing models to suit the needs of different groups;
• explore ways of raising private finance for low cost and community housing;
• increase the size of the community housing sector; and
• develop model head leases for community housing organisations which are applicable to their relationships with the various State and Territory housing authorities.

Recommendation 24: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth commission a study into the factors that constitute a barrier to private investment into low cost housing. Such a study should have regard to overseas developments referred to in the earlier discussion.

Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page

 

FOOTNOTES

[1] Submission No.222, p.2 (National Community Housing Forum).

[2] Transcript of Evidence, p.254 (Community Housing Federation of Australia).

[3] Transcript of Evidence, p.225 (CHASACT).

[4] Submission No 222, p.3 (National Community Housing Forum).

[5] Transcript of Evidence, p.164 (NSW Federation of Housing Associations).

[6] Submission No.106, p.1 (St George Community Housing Co-op Ltd).

[7] Transcript of Evidence, p.220 (NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning).

[8] Transcript of Evidence, p.266 (Community Housing Advisory Service of the ACT).

[9] Transcript of Evidence, p.162 (NSW Federation of Housing Associations); Transcript of Evidence, p.158 (National Community Housing Forum).

[10] Submission No.280, pp.28 and 32 (NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning).

[11] Transcript of Evidence, p.301 (ACT Housing).

[12] Transcript of Evidence, pp.158-159 (National Community Housing Forum).

[13] Transcript of Evidence, p 162 (National Community Housing Forum); Transcript of Evidence, p.255 (Community Housing Federation of Australia).

[14] Transcript of Evidence, p.195 (ACOSS).

[15] Submission No.271, Attachment Toward a National Local Government Housing Policy, pp.10 -11 (ALGA).

[16] Transcript of Evidence, p.281 (ALGA).

[17] Transcript of Evidence, pp.283-284 (ALGA).

[18] Submission No.235, p.5 (Mr Murray).

[19] Submission No.250, p.7 (Inner Urban Regional Housing Council).

[20] Submission No.263, p.6 (Brotherhood of St Lawrence).

[21] Transcript of Evidence, p.234 (Ms Morgan-Thomas).

[22] Submission No.282, p.35 (ACOSS).

[23] Transcript of Evidence, p.206 (Mr Nicolades).

[24] Ibid.

[25] Submission No.245, p.4 (Tenants Advice Service (INC) East Perth); Transcript of Evidence, p.236 (Ms Foley).

[26] Submission No.1, Attachment 1 (Ecumenical Housing).

[27] Ibid.

[28] Transcript of Evidence, p.45 (Mr O'Brien).

[29] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Investors in Rental Dwellings, July 1993

[30] Transcript of Evidence, p.208 (Professor Yates).

[31] Transcript of Evidence, p.71 (Brotherhood of St Laurence).

[32] Transcript of Evidence, p.7 (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute).

[33] Lawson, J. Low Cost Housing Opportunities: Case Studies from the United States and Canada, AHURI Occasional Paper Number 2, Melbourne, 1995.

[34] Ibid, pp.28-29.

[35] Ibid, pp.29-32.

[36] Ibid, pp.32-34.

[37] Ibid, pp.38-40.

[38] Ibid, pp.26-28.

[39] Ibid, pp 33-34.

[40] Submission No.295, p.3 (North Sydney Council).

[41] Submission No.295, p.5 (North Sydney Council).

[42] Submission No.260, p.24 (NSW Federation of Housing Association).

[43] Transcript of Evidence, p.7 (AHURI).

[44] Transcript of Evidence, p.209 (ACOSS).

[45] Transcript of Evidence, p.208 (Professor Yates).

[46] Transcript of Evidence, p.8 (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute).

[47] Submission No.280, p.37 (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the Department of Housing, NSW).

[48] Transcript of Evidence, p.208 (Professor Yates).