Chapter 24
Conclusion
24.1
In chapter 4, the committee recommended that the Australian Government
appoint a Minister for Housing and Homelessness, with the portfolio to be
located in a central agency. The evidence taken in this second part of the
report, drawn in particular from people involved in social housing, gives even
greater force to this recommendation.
24.2
In this chapter, the committee draws together the principal themes
developed in part II of the report and links them to the two headline
recommendations—appointing a Commonwealth Minister for Housing and Homelessness
and establishing a COAG ministerial council on housing. Although the arguments
in favour of having a more integrated approach to affordable housing under
national leadership are similar to those presented in chapter 4 and 5, the
perspective, in this chapter, comes from people interested or involved in the
provision of affordable social and rental housing. The committee then draws
together its main conclusions.
National importance
24.3
Evidence before the committee overwhelmingly supported the contention
that access to affordable housing was a matter of national importance.[1]
But a number of submitters referred to what they perceive as the fragmentation
of housing policy and effort, which has led to a good deal of confusion and
discord in attempts to address housing issues. Generally speaking, these
submissions suggested that different levels of government, and indeed different
areas of the same government, often have dissimilar objectives that pull in
different directions. For example, Mr Wolfe, Housing Industry Association, informed
the committee that:
Our frustration goes more to the fact that at various points
along the continuum councils point to state governments, state governments
point to the federal government and the federal government points to state
government and local councils. The three levels of government do not seem to be
working in concert.[2]
24.4
The Junction and Women's Housing believed that to deal with any one
element of affordable housing in isolation was to ignore the interrelated
nature of Australia's housing system and 'the impact of other policies,
particularly at a federal level'.[3]
Mr Langford explained further that an integrated policy response would cut
across the tiers of government and all parts of the housing system and that such
an approach would be led nationally, as a national conversation allowing for
state and local policy context.[4]
Noting that housing affordability presented many and various challenges that should
not be underestimated, Professor Beer told the committee that multiple solutions
operating in all dimensions of the housing supply and demand equation were
needed:
Solutions that focus only on demand will be inadequate and
solutions that focus only on supply will be inadequate.[5]
24.5
According to Mr Langford, there should be an integrated approach to the
social and economic issues that relate to housing. He suggested that bricks-and-mortar
housing solutions without appropriate and funded support would:
...not address the issue of homelessness for many people and
will just create and foster a cycle where people continue to fall into
homelessness and are picked up through other systems, be it the health or
justice systems, imposing a cost on the rest of the community. Support services
need appropriate and secure funding to allow that to happen, and that funding
needs a longer term vision than the current format, which often is short-term
funding contracts, which creates uncertainty for support partners and also
creates uncertainty for tenants who are being supported to sustain successful
tenancies.[6]
24.6
National Seniors Australia argued that NRAS, which provided incentives
to developers to supply affordable rental housing within the private sector,
and the Social Housing Initiative and CRA programs were very successful when
well integrated. Ms Skinner explained that integration was important
because of situations where there was 'not necessarily a complete support
system'. She noted:
You might have housing assistance happening for one group of
people. You might have access to aged-care services for another. Other people
are getting the health supports they need. It is not until you bring it all
together for the individual—so it is person-centred—that you are going to get
the best success and the longest tenure or security. It is not just people living
in rentals who experience problems. It is also people who are in the homes that
might be quite run down and do not have the amenities they need.[7]
24.7
Ms Palumbo, Community Housing Council of South Australia, acknowledged
that CRA was a very important element of affordable housing but that NRAS was
critical. She also referred to the NAHA grants. According to Ms Palumbo, they
can make a difference if they pull together in a way that targets a specific
reform agenda around social and affordable housing. She stated:
You can definitely do things with those three components
together. The NAHA is used by state authorities, in the main, to plug their
administration cost gaps. In this state [South Australia], there is none of
that that goes to any capital or any renewal and that kind of thing, so it is
kind of a lost revenue source.[8]
24.8
As this report shows, the Australian Government uses a number of
measures to improve Australian's access to affordable housing. To implement an
effective strategy, the government needs to have a clear appreciation of how
the various measures interact and form a coherent approach—NAHA, CRA and NRAS,
the various taxation incentives as well as the contributions of the states and
territories. For example, government decision-makers should understand whether
CRA inflates rents, if at all; how housing associations benefit from CRA; the
extent to which they use it to build their stock of affordable houses; and how
NRAS and CRA work together. Also the committee has referred to the two groups
of investors in affordable housing—the individual and institutional—and how,
because of their different tax arrangements, derive different benefits from the
NRAS incentives. The committee has also referred to the proposal for housing
supply bonds.
24.9
Indeed, the criticism levelled at NAHA and NPAH all point to the need
for an integrated and coherent framework with consistent policy governing a
national approach to affordable housing. An institutional mechanism is required
to deliver such an overarching strategic approach.
National leadership
24.10
In this context, many submitters underlined the need for national
leadership on access to affordable housing.[9]
For example, Mr Langford contended there was a huge opportunity for leadership,
and Australians would expect that some of that would come from the federal
level.[10]
Dr Burgmann spoke of the 'really important leadership role' that the Australian
Government had to have—not 'a sole role to play, but a shared role with the
states, with local government, with our industry and with other players'.[11]
24.11
Mr Schrapel concurred with this view of the need for national
leadership. While noting the complexity in providing affordable housing, he
stated:
All tiers of government plus the not-for-profit sector, the
business community and the private investors play a part, but the levers the
Commonwealth has are probably the most significant ones.[12]
24.12
Dr Clark, Shelter SA, added her voice to the call for national
leadership.[13]
As did Ms Palumbo, who wholeheartedly endorsed the push for a national
approach. She was of the view that 'handballing this to the states to sort out
on their own is a step backwards'.[14]
24.13
As noted earlier, Ms Palumbo regarded NAHA as the best lever the Australian
Government had for reform. She highlighted the influence the Commonwealth could
exercise through this lever:
When the Commonwealth drives reform, things happen; when it
is left to the states, our experience has been that things meander. So a really
driven reform that is actually attached to that agreement is probably the most
effective way we can look at genuine change, where that agreement says that we
actually want to have a mixed model, we want a multi-provider system, we want
to see different business models operating in this state not an old and tried
monolithic model that means that nobody can really do anything other than on
the fringes.[15]
24.14
Mr Wolfe, HIA, argued strongly that the Australian Government needs to
take a role. He noted:
Look at NAHA payments, CRA payments and the investment made
by the then government into the Social Housing Initiative—$5.4 billion. If you
also look at the amount of money that is spent on residential aged-care
facilities of which the residence itself is a significant amount of money—that
is, about $8.9 billion—there is an enormous amount of money that is contributed
from the federal government down to the states and into housing. They have a
role, a function, and it needs to be more than simply writing cheques. They
need to take a role in assisting with state and local governments in the
provisioning of the necessary infrastructure to support housing developments.[16]
24.15
Professor Dalton drew attention to what he believed was the political
parties' waning interest in housing policy, with some exceptions from time to
time. In his view, the challenge was 'to bring housing policy into the
political process more forcefully than it has been now for many decades'. He
referred back to the post-war period when housing policy was 'quite central to
the way we thought about Australian society'.[17]
Professor Dalton then noted that, apart from a few examples, the minister
responsible for housing has not held a senior ministerial position in the
government: that it has tended to be a junior ministry.[18]
24.16
Both Shelter WA and National Shelter suggested that 'to achieve
effective coordination, a single minister, at both State and Federal levels,
with a responsibility for Housing, Homelessness and Urban Development is
required. Similarly, the Queensland Council of Social Service recommended that a
Minister for Housing, Homelessness and Urban Development be appointed at the
federal government level with responsibility to coordinate housing-related
policy decisions across agencies and jurisdictions.[19]
In its view, there would be value in re-examining the roles and
responsibilities undertaken by the state and Commonwealth governments to
facilitate access to affordable housing to ensure these roles and
responsibilities are clear, mutually exclusive and well-targeted. Dr Clark argued
that a dedicated federal housing minister and a national plan for the housing
system were required to effect real change. She noted that the government had a
range of levers available to it to alter in order to achieve change.[20]
Anglicare Australia and the City Futures Research Centre also argued the case
for a national Housing and Homelessness Minister, preferably one that would sit
in Cabinet.
24.17
As the committee noted in the previous chapter, the overriding message
coming out of this inquiry was the need for the Australian Government to give
coherence to the numerous local, state and national incentives and schemes
intended to contribute to the provision of affordable housing. It can only do
so by providing much needed leadership through a renewed COAG process and by
having a Minister for Housing and Homelessness driving this process. Indeed, a
dedicated minister for housing and homelessness could spearhead this process,
supported by an institutional infrastructure that would provide the continuity,
expertise, experience and established networks with all levels of government.
Committee view
24.18
In this report, the committee has underscored the importance of
affordable, secure, and suitable housing as a vital determinant of wellbeing.
For example, Dr Julie Lawson and Professor Mike Berry, RMIT University, stated
simply that few material concerns were more important to Australians than the
homes they live in:
Secure, affordable housing contributes to our sense of
security, individual wellbeing, health and supports family stability.[21]
24.19
Indeed, Mr Scott Langford, Junction and Women's Housing, described,
secure tenancy as 'the bedrock of building capacity for social and economic
participation'.[22]
24.20
But the committee took evidence that highlighted the fact that a
significant number of Australians were not enjoying the security and comfort of
affordable and appropriate housing: that currently Australia's housing market
was not meeting the needs of all Australians. This situation was most evident
in the private rental market where low- to medium-income earners were
encountering significant problems accessing affordable and appropriate housing.
24.21
Drawing on the research on secure occupancy in rental housing, Dr Lawson
and Professor Berry suggested that the rental market had 'the potential to
provide a refuge, oasis and stepping stone for an increasing number of
households'. But, in their assessment, Australia's rental housing was:
...the least secure and most neglected pillar of our housing
system.[23]
24.22
Indeed, Mr Adrian Pisarski, National Shelter, stated bluntly that the
rental market was 'a brutal place if on a fixed income or even a pension.'[24]
In this context, a number of witnesses referred to an emerging housing
affordability crisis for older Australians.[25]
24.23
Many in the private rental market seek relief by accessing social
housing but here the waiting lists are long and such accommodation has become a
'housing of last resort'. Undoubtedly, Australia has a housing affordability
problem—the challenges are complex, diverse and interact differently in different
parts of Australia. Consistent with this overall assessment, and as noted
earlier, Professor Beer noted that housing affordability presents multiple
challenges and consequently 'needs multiple solutions operating in all
directions of the housing supply and demand equation'.[26]
24.24
Considering the vital importance of housing to a person's overall
wellbeing and the current problems encountered gaining access to affordable and
appropriate housing, the committee was firmly of the view that affordable housing
should be a national economic issue that needs to be a central and
cross-cutting theme of government. Furthermore, renting must be recognised as a
mainstream and, for some, a permanent form of tenure in Australia's housing
system. As a consequence, affordable rental housing must be placed on
Australia's national policy agenda as a key issue to address poverty.[27]
24.25
As the committee noted in the previous chapter, the increasing tight and
expensive private rental sector is locking low- to moderate-income earners out
of affordable and appropriate housing. This situation indicates market failure
and suggests that market solutions to low cost housing will simply not emerge
naturally: that there is a clear need to find ways to attract private
investment into low cost and social housing.[28]
But efforts to attract institutional investors into affordable housing have so
far been disappointing. Nonetheless, this challenge provides the Australian
Government with the opportunity to find and implement solutions.
Continuity and consistency
24.26
The committee identified the need for a long term housing strategy that
would: provide certainty and coherence for the affordable housing sector; clear
and consistent funding commitments; and policy certainty that would enable
housing providers to forge stronger partnerships with the private sector. This
call for certainty in policy and funding for affordable housing came from
numerous quarters—community housing providers, academics working in this area,
the Indigenous community and investors.
24.27
In this report, the committee has recommended that the Australian
Government direct its attention and efforts to a number of areas, and has made
recommendations accordingly, including developing a long-term national
affordable housing plan that:
-
recognises affordable housing, including affordable rental
housing, as a mainstream and national policy objective and places affordable
housing at the forefront of government policy across Australia;
-
is spearheaded by a dedicated minister for housing and
homelessness and supported by an institutional infrastructure that would
provide the continuity, expertise, experience and established networks with all
levels of government;
-
fosters intergovernmental cooperation in solving housing issues
within a 'whole-of-system housing policy framework';
-
places a high priority on improving the supply-side efficiency of
the Australian housing market;
-
reinvigorates NAHA placing particular emphasis on improving
transparency and accountability, and introducing a robust evaluation and
reporting framework;
-
contains clear, consistent and longer-term funding commitments
adequate to meet the growing demand for social housing;
-
recommits to halving homelessness by 2025;
-
takes account of the findings outlined in this report including
facts such as the age pension assumes home ownership and the projected decline
in home ownership especially among older Australian;
-
builds trust and confidence in both affordable housing providers
and investors that Australian governments at all levels, led by the
Commonwealth, are committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing;
-
provides certainty and coherence for the affordable housing
sector and policy certainty that would enable housing providers to forge
stronger partnerships with the private sector;
-
recognises that significant volumes of public and private finance
would be required to meet the projected need for additional rental housing and the
importance of attracting institutional investors into the affordable housing
market;
-
understands that efforts to attract a significant level of
institutional investment into affordable housing have to date been
unsuccessful; and
-
makes institutional investment a core policy objective in
affordable housing.
24.28
Overall, and as highlighted in the strong and resounding messages drawn
from the chapter on homelessness, the committee is firmly of the view that:
-
the Australian government cannot vacate the affordable housing
space or step back from its responsibilities to ensure that every Australian
has access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing; and
-
in the long run, investment in affordable housing returns
dividends not only to the individual struggling to access safe, secure and
affordable housing but to the budgets of the Australian, state and territory
governments and ultimately the Australian taxpayer (by having a more productive
community with reduced costs for social, health, unemployment services and for justice
and policing).
Senator Sam
Dastyari
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page