[The Conversation]

The Market Has Failed To Give Australians Affordable Housing, So Don’t Expect It To Solve The Crisis​

The federal Labor government has promised to craft a national housing and homelessness plan and to fund new social housing, returning Canberra to a field it all but abandoned for a decade. A new Productivity Commission reportis scathing about current arrangements and calls for far-reaching change.

Yet some of the report’s key recommendations rest on faulty assumptions and outdated economic thinking. It relies on a misplaced belief that the market will respond to low-income households’ need for affordable housing. Its faith in deregulation as a cure-all is misguided.

The experience of recent decades and a wealth of research evidence instead point to the need to increase government investment in public and community housing.

Failed policies must change​

The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement provides $1.6 billion a year in federal funding to the states and territories. It’s meant to improve Australians’ access to affordable and secure housing.

However, in its review of the agreement, the commission judges it ineffective and in need of a major shake-up.

With rents rising and vacancies falling, low-income private renters “are spending more on housing than they used to”. Some “have little income left after paying their rent”. Almost one in four have less than $36 a day for other essentials.

More people are seeking emergency housing support from homelessness services. And, as the report acknowledges, more are being turned away.

The commission declares “homelessness is a result of not being able to afford housing” and governments must “address the structural factors that lead to housing unaffordability”. As experts in housing policy, economics and urban planning, we agree. Far-reaching reform is long overdue.

The report concludes, for example, that first home-buyer grants and stamp duty concessions are counterproductive and push up prices. It advocates spending these billions on preventing homelessness instead.

The report endorses a “housing first” approach to tackling homelessness – this means housing people unconditionally as the first priority before dealing with their other needs. The report also calls for early intervention programs for “at risk” cohorts, such as people leaving hospitals, prisons or out-of-home care.

So what’s wrong with the report?​

The review’s terms of reference, set by the previous government in 2021, meant the commission did not consider how easy credit, negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount drive real estate speculation, inflate prices and lead to inefficient use of housing and land. Coupled with the commission’s embedded faith in market forces, these omissions skew its recommendations, especially on social housing.

Instead of more public investment to provide more social housing, the commission urges Canberra to convert its $1.4 billion-a-year support for social housing running costs through the national agreement into Commonwealth Rent Assistance. It wants to up-end the current system by replacing income-based rents with market rents across social housing.

But most of these renters would be much worse off unless there is a large rent assistance increase across the board. Recognising this, the commission advocates a top-up payment “to ensure housing is affordable and tenancies can be sustained”. Without estimating the cost, it optimistically suggests the states should pick up the tab.

The commission argues this approach would be more equitable for social and private renters. The implicit subsidy from capping social housing tenants’ rents at 25% of income typically exceeds the rent assistance paid to private tenants. Yet reducing social housing tenants to the same level of precarity as private renters seems an odd way to eliminate unfairness.

Enabling low-income Australians to secure decent private rental homes would require a dramatic rise in rent assistance payments, perhaps even to a level equating to the implicit subsidy social housing tenants receive.

Broader benefits of social housing overlooked​

The commission has neglected the broader benefits of social housing investment that delivers good-quality, well-managed homes that low-income earners can afford.

Decades of mounting rent assistance expenditure have failed to fill the gap created by the lack of a sustained national program of social housing construction since the 1990s. Research shows the shortfall in private dwellings affordable to low-income renters ballooned from 48,000 in 1996 to 212,00 in 2016.

Chart: The Conversation Source: Hulse et al (2019), AHURI Get the data​

Simple comparisons between the costs of rent assistance and building affordable homes also ignore the wider community benefits of social housing. SGS Economics recently found the return on social housing investment is “comparable to, or better than” major infrastructure projects. And economics professor Andi Nygaard estimates the “large, but avoidable, annual social and economic costs” of the affordable housing shortage will top $1 billion a year by 2036.

Why planning reform is no panacea​

Underlying much of the commission’s thinking is the idea that the main cause of unaffordable housing is outdated land-use planning rules that restrict new housing supply.

This contention ignores two decades of state planning reforms, including higher-density housing near transport and town centres, simplified rules and accelerated decision-making.

The commission estimates a 1% increase in overall housing supply (implicitly achievable through planning deregulation) could deflate rents by 2.5%. But what makes this scenario implausible is the development industry’s time-honoured – but entirely rational – practice of drip-feeding new housing supply to keep prices buoyant. Even if planning relaxation could enable ramped-up construction, it’s hard to imagine that being sustained in the face of any resulting market cooling.

However, the commission argues all private real estate development, regardless of cost, will eventually trickle through to those in need. As properties are traded over time, pricier homes will “filter down” through the market at progressively lower rents.

This view defies evidence that many factors other than planning have profound impacts on housing costs and supply. New Australian research strongly suggests “filtering” alone will not make homes affordable for lower-income earners.

None of this is to deny that the planning system could be improved. But if solving housing unaffordability were simply a case of “unleashing planning reforms”, other countries would have managed it long ago.

Australians struggling to pay the rent, or even find a home, deserve a much better response from Australia’s premier economic policy agency, and one that actually reflects the dynamics of the housing system.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by Hal Pawson Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney, Bill Randolph Professor, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, at UNSW Sydney, Chris Leishman Professor of Property and Housing Economics at University of South Australia, Nicole Gurran Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, at University of Sydney, Peter Mares Lead Moderator, Cranlana Centre for Ethical Leadership at Monash University, Peter Phibbs Director, Henry Halloran Trust at University of Sydney, Vivienne Milligan Honorary Professor – Housing Policy and Practice, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney

 

[John Campbell]

The Market Has Failed To Give Australians Affordable Housing, So Don’t Expect It To Solve The Crisis​

The federal Labor government has promised to craft a national housing and homelessness plan and to fund new social housing, returning Canberra to a field it all but abandoned for a decade. A new Productivity Commission reportis scathing about current arrangements and calls for far-reaching change.

Yet some of the report’s key recommendations rest on faulty assumptions and outdated economic thinking. It relies on a misplaced belief that the market will respond to low-income households’ need for affordable housing. Its faith in deregulation as a cure-all is misguided.

The experience of recent decades and a wealth of research evidence instead point to the need to increase government investment in public and community housing.

Failed policies must change​

The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement provides $1.6 billion a year in federal funding to the states and territories. It’s meant to improve Australians’ access to affordable and secure housing.

However, in its review of the agreement, the commission judges it ineffective and in need of a major shake-up.

With rents rising and vacancies falling, low-income private renters “are spending more on housing than they used to”. Some “have little income left after paying their rent”. Almost one in four have less than $36 a day for other essentials.

More people are seeking emergency housing support from homelessness services. And, as the report acknowledges, more are being turned away.

The commission declares “homelessness is a result of not being able to afford housing” and governments must “address the structural factors that lead to housing unaffordability”. As experts in housing policy, economics and urban planning, we agree. Far-reaching reform is long overdue.

The report concludes, for example, that first home-buyer grants and stamp duty concessions are counterproductive and push up prices. It advocates spending these billions on preventing homelessness instead.

The report endorses a “housing first” approach to tackling homelessness – this means housing people unconditionally as the first priority before dealing with their other needs. The report also calls for early intervention programs for “at risk” cohorts, such as people leaving hospitals, prisons or out-of-home care.

So what’s wrong with the report?​

The review’s terms of reference, set by the previous government in 2021, meant the commission did not consider how easy credit, negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount drive real estate speculation, inflate prices and lead to inefficient use of housing and land. Coupled with the commission’s embedded faith in market forces, these omissions skew its recommendations, especially on social housing.

Instead of more public investment to provide more social housing, the commission urges Canberra to convert its $1.4 billion-a-year support for social housing running costs through the national agreement into Commonwealth Rent Assistance. It wants to up-end the current system by replacing income-based rents with market rents across social housing.

But most of these renters would be much worse off unless there is a large rent assistance increase across the board. Recognising this, the commission advocates a top-up payment “to ensure housing is affordable and tenancies can be sustained”. Without estimating the cost, it optimistically suggests the states should pick up the tab.

The commission argues this approach would be more equitable for social and private renters. The implicit subsidy from capping social housing tenants’ rents at 25% of income typically exceeds the rent assistance paid to private tenants. Yet reducing social housing tenants to the same level of precarity as private renters seems an odd way to eliminate unfairness.

Enabling low-income Australians to secure decent private rental homes would require a dramatic rise in rent assistance payments, perhaps even to a level equating to the implicit subsidy social housing tenants receive.

Broader benefits of social housing overlooked​

The commission has neglected the broader benefits of social housing investment that delivers good-quality, well-managed homes that low-income earners can afford.

Decades of mounting rent assistance expenditure have failed to fill the gap created by the lack of a sustained national program of social housing construction since the 1990s. Research shows the shortfall in private dwellings affordable to low-income renters ballooned from 48,000 in 1996 to 212,00 in 2016.

View attachment 7210
Chart: The Conversation Source: Hulse et al (2019), AHURI Get the data​

Simple comparisons between the costs of rent assistance and building affordable homes also ignore the wider community benefits of social housing. SGS Economics recently found the return on social housing investment is “comparable to, or better than” major infrastructure projects. And economics professor Andi Nygaard estimates the “large, but avoidable, annual social and economic costs” of the affordable housing shortage will top $1 billion a year by 2036.

Why planning reform is no panacea​

Underlying much of the commission’s thinking is the idea that the main cause of unaffordable housing is outdated land-use planning rules that restrict new housing supply.

This contention ignores two decades of state planning reforms, including higher-density housing near transport and town centres, simplified rules and accelerated decision-making.

The commission estimates a 1% increase in overall housing supply (implicitly achievable through planning deregulation) could deflate rents by 2.5%. But what makes this scenario implausible is the development industry’s time-honoured – but entirely rational – practice of drip-feeding new housing supply to keep prices buoyant. Even if planning relaxation could enable ramped-up construction, it’s hard to imagine that being sustained in the face of any resulting market cooling.

However, the commission argues all private real estate development, regardless of cost, will eventually trickle through to those in need. As properties are traded over time, pricier homes will “filter down” through the market at progressively lower rents.

This view defies evidence that many factors other than planning have profound impacts on housing costs and supply. New Australian researchstrongly suggests “filtering” alone will not make homes affordable for lower-income earners.

None of this is to deny that the planning system could be improved. But if solving housing unaffordability were simply a case of “unleashing planning reforms”, other countries would have managed it long ago.

Australians struggling to pay the rent, or even find a home, deserve a much better response from Australia’s premier economic policy agency, and one that actually reflects the dynamics of the housing system.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by Hal Pawson Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney, Bill Randolph Professor, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, at UNSW Sydney, Chris Leishman Professor of Property and Housing Economics at University of South Australia, Nicole Gurran Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, at University of Sydney, Peter Mares Lead Moderator, Cranlana Centre for Ethical Leadership at Monash University, Peter Phibbs Director, Henry Halloran Trust at University of Sydney, Vivienne Milligan Honorary Professor – Housing Policy and Practice, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney

Well written article , I haven't seen definitions for "affordable Housing " as in size , quality , number of bedrooms , bathrooms , car accommodation , yard and many other necessities , eg 4 bedrooms , ensuite double lock up garage and media room down to small almost motel style rooms with a bathroom and kitchenette , as we live in a country which is running out of land for urban development .Remember it is the value of land which determines the value of the house not particularly the structure
I also have a problem with the other definition of "affordable" is it simple people don't earn enough working a 35 hour week ?perhaps a tax break for working another 10 hours a week or a 2nd or 3rd job .
I did live in a housing commision home in the 70's near a train and services . And aspired to have home ownership early in my life . I don't want people to be homeless and South East Qld has plenty of land stock owned by Local and State Govts who haven't got a clue how to develope it .

 

[piggyp]

Get rid of the Reserve Bank putting up interest to reduce inflation causes inflation mortgages cost of production wages etc what school of economics did they go to.Also stop sending millions to Ukraine to propup the Biden empire drug labs to kill people.Putin was right to try and shut this down.Australia complicit in the drug labs and should be held to account the same as the rest of them.What would you do in P.utins situation .Biden s little honey pot with his puppet illegally unelected in control..

 

[Luckyus]

T

The Market Has Failed To Give Australians Affordable Housing, So Don’t Expect It To Solve The Crisis​

The federal Labor government has promised to craft a national housing and homelessness plan and to fund new social housing, returning Canberra to a field it all but abandoned for a decade. A new Productivity Commission reportis scathing about current arrangements and calls for far-reaching change.

Yet some of the report’s key recommendations rest on faulty assumptions and outdated economic thinking. It relies on a misplaced belief that the market will respond to low-income households’ need for affordable housing. Its faith in deregulation as a cure-all is misguided.

The experience of recent decades and a wealth of research evidence instead point to the need to increase government investment in public and community housing.

Failed policies must change​

The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement provides $1.6 billion a year in federal funding to the states and territories. It’s meant to improve Australians’ access to affordable and secure housing.

However, in its review of the agreement, the commission judges it ineffective and in need of a major shake-up.

With rents rising and vacancies falling, low-income private renters “are spending more on housing than they used to”. Some “have little income left after paying their rent”. Almost one in four have less than $36 a day for other essentials.

More people are seeking emergency housing support from homelessness services. And, as the report acknowledges, more are being turned away.

The commission declares “homelessness is a result of not being able to afford housing” and governments must “address the structural factors that lead to housing unaffordability”. As experts in housing policy, economics and urban planning, we agree. Far-reaching reform is long overdue.

The report concludes, for example, that first home-buyer grants and stamp duty concessions are counterproductive and push up prices. It advocates spending these billions on preventing homelessness instead.

The report endorses a “housing first” approach to tackling homelessness – this means housing people unconditionally as the first priority before dealing with their other needs. The report also calls for early intervention programs for “at risk” cohorts, such as people leaving hospitals, prisons or out-of-home care.

So what’s wrong with the report?​

The review’s terms of reference, set by the previous government in 2021, meant the commission did not consider how easy credit, negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount drive real estate speculation, inflate prices and lead to inefficient use of housing and land. Coupled with the commission’s embedded faith in market forces, these omissions skew its recommendations, especially on social housing.

Instead of more public investment to provide more social housing, the commission urges Canberra to convert its $1.4 billion-a-year support for social housing running costs through the national agreement into Commonwealth Rent Assistance. It wants to up-end the current system by replacing income-based rents with market rents across social housing.

But most of these renters would be much worse off unless there is a large rent assistance increase across the board. Recognising this, the commission advocates a top-up payment “to ensure housing is affordable and tenancies can be sustained”. Without estimating the cost, it optimistically suggests the states should pick up the tab.

The commission argues this approach would be more equitable for social and private renters. The implicit subsidy from capping social housing tenants’ rents at 25% of income typically exceeds the rent assistance paid to private tenants. Yet reducing social housing tenants to the same level of precarity as private renters seems an odd way to eliminate unfairness.

Enabling low-income Australians to secure decent private rental homes would require a dramatic rise in rent assistance payments, perhaps even to a level equating to the implicit subsidy social housing tenants receive.

Broader benefits of social housing overlooked​

The commission has neglected the broader benefits of social housing investment that delivers good-quality, well-managed homes that low-income earners can afford.

Decades of mounting rent assistance expenditure have failed to fill the gap created by the lack of a sustained national program of social housing construction since the 1990s. Research shows the shortfall in private dwellings affordable to low-income renters ballooned from 48,000 in 1996 to 212,00 in 2016.

View attachment 7210
Chart: The Conversation Source: Hulse et al (2019), AHURI Get the data​

Simple comparisons between the costs of rent assistance and building affordable homes also ignore the wider community benefits of social housing. SGS Economics recently found the return on social housing investment is “comparable to, or better than” major infrastructure projects. And economics professor Andi Nygaard estimates the “large, but avoidable, annual social and economic costs” of the affordable housing shortage will top $1 billion a year by 2036.

Why planning reform is no panacea​

Underlying much of the commission’s thinking is the idea that the main cause of unaffordable housing is outdated land-use planning rules that restrict new housing supply.

This contention ignores two decades of state planning reforms, including higher-density housing near transport and town centres, simplified rules and accelerated decision-making.

The commission estimates a 1% increase in overall housing supply (implicitly achievable through planning deregulation) could deflate rents by 2.5%. But what makes this scenario implausible is the development industry’s time-honoured – but entirely rational – practice of drip-feeding new housing supply to keep prices buoyant. Even if planning relaxation could enable ramped-up construction, it’s hard to imagine that being sustained in the face of any resulting market cooling.

However, the commission argues all private real estate development, regardless of cost, will eventually trickle through to those in need. As properties are traded over time, pricier homes will “filter down” through the market at progressively lower rents.

This view defies evidence that many factors other than planning have profound impacts on housing costs and supply. New Australian researchstrongly suggests “filtering” alone will not make homes affordable for lower-income earners.

None of this is to deny that the planning system could be improved. But if solving housing unaffordability were simply a case of “unleashing planning reforms”, other countries would have managed it long ago.

Australians struggling to pay the rent, or even find a home, deserve a much better response from Australia’s premier economic policy agency, and one that actually reflects the dynamics of the housing system.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by Hal Pawson Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney, Bill Randolph Professor, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, at UNSW Sydney, Chris Leishman Professor of Property and Housing Economics at University of South Australia, Nicole Gurran Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, at University of Sydney, Peter Mares Lead Moderator, Cranlana Centre for Ethical Leadership at Monash University, Peter Phibbs Director, Henry Halloran Trust at University of Sydney, Vivienne Milligan Honorary Professor – Housing Policy and Practice, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney

Too many bloody sodding useless bureaucrats involved.

 

[Maurice_McGahey]

Don't look to governments that rely on patronage ... usually by the very wealthy ... the solve the housing problem. There is one reason that Australian is unaffordable ... US! No not the USA, you and me ... US!

My parents and their peers bought houses to raise their families and expected to live in those houses for fifty years. Fifty years raising families, and in years to come, playing with grandchildren in the quarter acre backyard full of fruit trees and lawn.

In the 1970s and 1980s men in suits and a few well dressed ladies started turning up asking, "How much did this wonderful house cost you?"
"$3,000 in 1950." our parents would answer.
"Oh you could get at least $6000 dollars for it now!" the suits would exclaim.
"But where would my grandchildren play? Where would we have our family Christmas dinner?" our parents would ask.

The uptake of speculation on the family home was slow, but some parents did take the increased capital and then take out a loan to buy a more expensive home ... or at least a different home that cost more. The myth that accommodation real estate could be speculated on by Jack and Jill Average spread. It spread at an exponential rate! Pretty soon fathers were working unreasonable amounts of overtime, mothers were finding jobs and latchkey kids were ... well, looking after themselves. Bank managers and finance companies were getting little woodies as people were buying money to buy ever more expensive homes. But the key to keeping this finance ponzi scheme going was ... You MUST keep the mugs turning over their homes! Enter the "Renovation Revolution" Bunnings, Mitre 10 and others nearly choked on their boardroom coffee as the profit sheet was read out. "Buy a 'renovator's dream' and make even more money!" the pulp fiction vending TV channels screamed at their evening audiences. And who was going to disagree? Not the finance industry, not the governments ("A busy voter is a happy voter ... and FAR TOO busy to think about our lack of housing policy!") ... not even Mom and Dad. They had been sucked into the same message and PROMOTED IT!

Speculation on accomodation real estate was never going to be sustainable. It is a bloody ponzi scheme! No ponzi scheme is sustainable. A US ... yes, from the USA ... financial expert said on the ABC about 20 years that Australian real estate is about 60% overvalued. He said this was his calculation based on his observation of REAL Australian household incomes, building costs and the costs of subdividing properties (installing roads, utilities and the alternate value of the land to, farming, commercial and industrial development etc). I have never seen that financial expert back on Australian TV, so I guess no one thought that his opinion (backed by evidence) was worth anything.

(Joe Hockey )

So here we are, nearly a quarter way through the 21st Century and kids ... if you want to buy a house, you better "Get a good high paying job." or have wealthy parents (Malcolm Turnbull https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...to-buy-their-kid-a-house-20160505-goml5z.html). Of course this doesn't seem to gel with the Liberal Party policy of designed low wage growth

(Mathias Cormann )

So your children cannot afford a house because -
1. The financial and real estate sales and the TV triopoly industries have encouraged working Australians to speculate on the houses that they live in.
2. Governments have not just dropped the ball on policy, but kicked it away whenever it rolled back with "first home buyers schemes", "lower interest rates for a few, allowing cashed up foreigners to enter and speculate against their own citizens (Gladstone Qld, Sydney NSW, Melbourne Vic, Brisbane Qld).
3. Conservative governments actually believe that the people that actually generate wealth in Australia, should be treated as mugs and ridden as hard as they can be while accepting the responsibility for their own financial demise.
4. Most importantly - Australians are apathetic and probably DESERVE to be ridden and abused. The phrases, "Oi hate talking about politics!" ... "There's nothing Oi can do about it." ... "Oi'm sure someone will take care of it." are generic in our lexion. We need to get rid of them. Because believe me, when they said that "Australia was built on the sheep's back." it was not the sheep that you thought it was!

 

[Ricci]

Back in the day each council was responsible for building and maintaining houses for needy at a reasonable rent. These houses were well thought out and well built. Over the years the council recouped their build costs many times over by collecting rents and eventually they were offered for sale at the going rate, firstly to the tenant and then on the open market. The monies raised from sales would be ploughed back into building more homes. Why can't we go back to those times. Homes don't have to be fancy, a decent 3 bed 1 or 2 bath and parking for 2 vehicles is plenty for most people.

 

[Pink lion]

The Market Has Failed To Give Australians Affordable Housing, So Don’t Expect It To Solve The Crisis​

The federal Labor government has promised to craft a national housing and homelessness plan and to fund new social housing, returning Canberra to a field it all but abandoned for a decade. A new Productivity Commission reportis scathing about current arrangements and calls for far-reaching change.

Yet some of the report’s key recommendations rest on faulty assumptions and outdated economic thinking. It relies on a misplaced belief that the market will respond to low-income households’ need for affordable housing. Its faith in deregulation as a cure-all is misguided.

The experience of recent decades and a wealth of research evidence instead point to the need to increase government investment in public and community housing.

Failed policies must change​

The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement provides $1.6 billion a year in federal funding to the states and territories. It’s meant to improve Australians’ access to affordable and secure housing.

However, in its review of the agreement, the commission judges it ineffective and in need of a major shake-up.

With rents rising and vacancies falling, low-income private renters “are spending more on housing than they used to”. Some “have little income left after paying their rent”. Almost one in four have less than $36 a day for other essentials.

More people are seeking emergency housing support from homelessness services. And, as the report acknowledges, more are being turned away.

The commission declares “homelessness is a result of not being able to afford housing” and governments must “address the structural factors that lead to housing unaffordability”. As experts in housing policy, economics and urban planning, we agree. Far-reaching reform is long overdue.

The report concludes, for example, that first home-buyer grants and stamp duty concessions are counterproductive and push up prices. It advocates spending these billions on preventing homelessness instead.

The report endorses a “housing first” approach to tackling homelessness – this means housing people unconditionally as the first priority before dealing with their other needs. The report also calls for early intervention programs for “at risk” cohorts, such as people leaving hospitals, prisons or out-of-home care.

So what’s wrong with the report?​

The review’s terms of reference, set by the previous government in 2021, meant the commission did not consider how easy credit, negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount drive real estate speculation, inflate prices and lead to inefficient use of housing and land. Coupled with the commission’s embedded faith in market forces, these omissions skew its recommendations, especially on social housing.

Instead of more public investment to provide more social housing, the commission urges Canberra to convert its $1.4 billion-a-year support for social housing running costs through the national agreement into Commonwealth Rent Assistance. It wants to up-end the current system by replacing income-based rents with market rents across social housing.

But most of these renters would be much worse off unless there is a large rent assistance increase across the board. Recognising this, the commission advocates a top-up payment “to ensure housing is affordable and tenancies can be sustained”. Without estimating the cost, it optimistically suggests the states should pick up the tab.

The commission argues this approach would be more equitable for social and private renters. The implicit subsidy from capping social housing tenants’ rents at 25% of income typically exceeds the rent assistance paid to private tenants. Yet reducing social housing tenants to the same level of precarity as private renters seems an odd way to eliminate unfairness.

Enabling low-income Australians to secure decent private rental homes would require a dramatic rise in rent assistance payments, perhaps even to a level equating to the implicit subsidy social housing tenants receive.

Broader benefits of social housing overlooked​

The commission has neglected the broader benefits of social housing investment that delivers good-quality, well-managed homes that low-income earners can afford.

Decades of mounting rent assistance expenditure have failed to fill the gap created by the lack of a sustained national program of social housing construction since the 1990s. Research shows the shortfall in private dwellings affordable to low-income renters ballooned from 48,000 in 1996 to 212,00 in 2016.

View attachment 7210
Chart: The Conversation Source: Hulse et al (2019), AHURI Get the data​

Simple comparisons between the costs of rent assistance and building affordable homes also ignore the wider community benefits of social housing. SGS Economics recently found the return on social housing investment is “comparable to, or better than” major infrastructure projects. And economics professor Andi Nygaard estimates the “large, but avoidable, annual social and economic costs” of the affordable housing shortage will top $1 billion a year by 2036.

Why planning reform is no panacea​

Underlying much of the commission’s thinking is the idea that the main cause of unaffordable housing is outdated land-use planning rules that restrict new housing supply.

This contention ignores two decades of state planning reforms, including higher-density housing near transport and town centres, simplified rules and accelerated decision-making.

The commission estimates a 1% increase in overall housing supply (implicitly achievable through planning deregulation) could deflate rents by 2.5%. But what makes this scenario implausible is the development industry’s time-honoured – but entirely rational – practice of drip-feeding new housing supply to keep prices buoyant. Even if planning relaxation could enable ramped-up construction, it’s hard to imagine that being sustained in the face of any resulting market cooling.

However, the commission argues all private real estate development, regardless of cost, will eventually trickle through to those in need. As properties are traded over time, pricier homes will “filter down” through the market at progressively lower rents.

This view defies evidence that many factors other than planning have profound impacts on housing costs and supply. New Australian researchstrongly suggests “filtering” alone will not make homes affordable for lower-income earners.

None of this is to deny that the planning system could be improved. But if solving housing unaffordability were simply a case of “unleashing planning reforms”, other countries would have managed it long ago.

Australians struggling to pay the rent, or even find a home, deserve a much better response from Australia’s premier economic policy agency, and one that actually reflects the dynamics of the housing system.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by Hal Pawson Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney, Bill Randolph Professor, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, at UNSW Sydney, Chris Leishman Professor of Property and Housing Economics at University of South Australia, Nicole Gurran Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, at University of Sydney, Peter Mares Lead Moderator, Cranlana Centre for Ethical Leadership at Monash University, Peter Phibbs Director, Henry Halloran Trust at University of Sydney, Vivienne Milligan Honorary Professor – Housing Policy and Practice, City Futures Research Centre at UNSW Sydney

The closest thing there is to actually do something like physically working, is talking about it and the massive amount of time it takes to get anything done is the proof.

The majority of our politicians (though not all) appear to be afflicted with a condition called negative dissonance. They actually cannot hear another person's viewpoint.
So when everyone's got an opinion about what to do, like how to build or improve housing, nobody is prepared it seems to accept another's perspective is in line with their own and so work with them towards achieving a common goal for Australia.
667,000? immigrants are expected in the next year, its somewhere in this number. And yet over a hundred thousand of our fellow Australians (many very young) are without housing right now and nobody seems to have a clue what to do about this.
Like chooks, crowing and squawking at each other, there's so much clucking going on in the house that even if a positive viable solution was suggested, what if it came from a faction within a party seeking prominence, OR WORSE what if the suggestion came from the party in opposition, OR WORSE what if it came from an independent!
Nothing to do, but push through its true and rework old, failed policies by chucking more money at them... Australia could solve it EASILY! all you have to do is ask for suggestions from us, and we'll gladly give them. But what if the suggestion came from outside of the party? Who would get the credit?... Oh the calamity there is no end.

Still the meetings are always fun and the foods nice I guess, is the consensus. The truth is ladies and gentlemen, nothing will change, if nothing gets done.
Australia the timeless land, they got that right, because nobody in government it seems has the time to actually listen to any but their own supporters.
Answers are everywhere.
People just have to ask the right questions of those that know, and they'll find them.
You have to know a thing intricately, to understand how to resolve a problem.
How many of our politicians know what it's like to sleep in their car, or on a beach, in the park, or on the street. not many. How can they hope to think away from their P. C's.
Prepared market survey questionnaire sheets, that have no place for a person's input, identify they are clearly not interested in being educated in how to resolve it.
Never forget that they removed NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE the Northern Rivers Railway line to create push bike tourism to service a city and other major towns.
I figure our well-meaning bureaucrats are synthetic knowledge re-administrators and not exactly creative thinkers. This is okay because they aren't known to be.
The sad thing is our Nation used to be LAUDED for our innovative thinking before free thought was streamlined into political factions and corporate lobbyists.
it's sad eh.

 

[Ricci]

The problem could be solved quite easily but the people who need the homes wouldn't want them, they would not be trendy enough.
After the war Nissan hut and prefabs took care of the problem of homelessness and cheap housing in a hurry. They could be made really nice and homely inside but they do not fit the bill for today, they do not fit the mental picture of what an Aussie home looks like, they are not looked upon as a place of respite, a stepping stone to something better. These days it could be container homes, even 3D printed houses.
People say they want a roof over their heads but only if it includes all the mod cons, curtains, carpets etc. all brand new.

 

[Loubeauxarts]

The problem could be solved quite easily but the people who need the homes wouldn't want them, they would not be trendy enough.
After the war Nissan hut and prefabs took care of the problem of homelessness and cheap housing in a hurry. They could be made really nice and homely inside but they do not fit the bill for today, they do not fit the mental picture of what an Aussie home looks like, they are not looked upon as a place of respite, a stepping stone to something better. These days it could be container homes, even 3D printed houses.
People say they want a roof over their heads but only if it includes all the mod cons, curtains, carpets etc. all brand new.

I tend to disagree somewhat by lumping everybody into one category. I admit that younger Australians, in general, have unrealistic expectations regarding subsidised housing but there are many single parent families, aged pensioners, in fact many people of all ages who would be very grateful to have a roof over their heads. Even just until they can sort themselves out. In my younger years I slept rough on a few occasions, due to circumstances beyond my control, but I was fortunate enough to always find work, even if it meant door knocking to find it. I've slept under the stars, a couple of times in Salvation Army hostels, even lived in a room at a pub for 2 years and I can state categorically that I would given almost anything to have a secure roof over my head at those times.
As the actor in Field of Dreams said, "Build it and they will come." I honestly believe that you would be amazed at the response you would get if they were built.
Let the pretentious, lazy, want everything for nothing brigade sleep rough. Build affordable container housing or even the old Nissan huts, make them available to those in real need and the gratitude would be soon be evident

The problem could be solved quite easily but the people who need the homes wouldn't want them, they would not be trendy enough.
After the war Nissan hut and prefabs took care of the problem of homelessness and cheap housing in a hurry. They could be made really nice and homely inside but they do not fit the bill for today, they do not fit the mental picture of what an Aussie home looks like, they are not looked upon as a place of respite, a stepping stone to something better. These days it could be container homes, even 3D printed houses.
People say they want a roof over their heads but only if it includes all the mod cons, curtains, carpets etc. all brand new.

 

[Ricci]

I tend to disagree somewhat by lumping everybody into one category. I admit that younger Australians, in general, have unrealistic expectations regarding subsidised housing but there are many single parent families, aged pensioners, in fact many people of all ages who would be very grateful to have a roof over their heads. Even just until they can sort themselves out. In my younger years I slept rough on a few occasions, due to circumstances beyond my control, but I was fortunate enough to always find work, even if it meant door knocking to find it. I've slept under the stars, a couple of times in Salvation Army hostels, even lived in a room at a pub for 2 years and I can state categorically that I would given almost anything to have a secure roof over my head at those times.
As the actor in Field of Dreams said, "Build it and they will come." I honestly believe that you would be amazed at the response you would get if they were built.
Let the pretentious, lazy, want everything for nothing brigade sleep rough. Build affordable container housing or even the old Nissan huts, make them available to those in real need and the gratitude would be soon be evident

I would like to think you are right and I'm sure there are many that would jump at the chance of a roof over their heads but I also think that for some the novelty would soon wear off and they would start to demand more. When my parents first started out they rented two rooms and every drop of water used had to be carried up a flight of stairs, did they complain? No, they were grateful, got on with it and worked hard for something better. I can't imagine that anyone would start out like that today and to be honest I wouldn't expect them to. So people do have expectations when it comes to housing. These days even the "where" is of paramount importance.

 

[Luckyus]

The problem could be solved quite easily but the people who need the homes wouldn't want them, they would not be trendy enough.
After the war Nissan hut and prefabs took care of the problem of homelessness and cheap housing in a hurry. They could be made really nice and homely inside but they do not fit the bill for today, they do not fit the mental picture of what an Aussie home looks like, they are not looked upon as a place of respite, a stepping stone to something better. These days it could be container homes, even 3D printed houses.
People say they want a roof over their heads but only if it includes all the mod cons, curtains, carpets etc. all brand new.

When we came to Australia we were housed in half a Nissan hut that was deemed sufficient for 9 of us, I must admit the condition was atrocious but they were livable, they were uninsulated, the wall were mason board, block toilets and showers when the girls went for showers or baths we lads were outside to make sure they were safe. We only stayed for a few months but some families had been living in them for years? and they certainly weren't cheap renting. That was 65 years ago, a time I'd like to back to when the country had Bollocks?

 

[Pink lion]

This is what I meant before about NORMAL Australians with life experiences that relate directly to issues like here, about housing needs, their Affordability and how to resolve issues, are not being consulted.



Ricci, I had an AHHA moment reading your response. You are right mate; Australia is an Iron ore-based country. And our Politicians in the past set the standard, by doing this before!


We really could house EVERYBODY in really excellent strong tasteful many years lasting, accommodation, that could go up more or less instantaneously, once the paperwork and talking about it all over again, was out of the way.

How, is because the modules (the individual separate parts) of a Nisson hut are Readily available. They remained an industry standard item that has been structurally approved for this exact use. Sheeting is available in abundance, right now. Ask Metrol, they are just one company that makes it.


We have an abundance of Sheeting, and it would clean up the environment to melt down all of the iron laying around in unused buildings everywhere and smelt as many as we want.


To make it durable and appealing triple dunk the corrugated iron etc in melted plastic (to solve another crisis at the same time). Construction wise, it's like how Lego's works. It's what you do with the pieces, of anything, that makes the result at the end. They could look amazing and be HUGE inside

The standard dome shaped Nisson hut of every size right up to huge, works, as a base model shape for parking your car, having a laundry/storage shed. or some other purpose area. to create designs for a home. Run a competition in the media (stations would love it) and give Australian schoolchildren carboard base plates out of carboard and a set number of miniature plastic pieces as part of a competition entry package.


Their task is to create a great looking home out of the supplied (or purchased pieces) These pieces are in four different sizes and can be cut. Award prizes so that the media can remain involved.


To create the home itself, get our nations hwy creating road teams on it and create a contract arrangement for anyone with machine experience to demolish old run-down sites, clear old or new areas that are on places in towns where water, power and sewerage are handy.


Get the rest of the nation involved in the project Pour the slab and pay both skilled and unskilled workers to assemble the modules the way the Mormon, Indian, Chinese, people, etc do it (the way that Australians built the snowy mountains scheme) and have everyone hop in as a national let's do it, effort. All that stops it is the fact that it being so ridiculously easy to do may confuse those that have no need for immediate housing and no real idea how creative they could look so show them after. All it needs is an entrepreneur who can see the long term advantage due to the world wide market



BUT ONLY AFTER AUSTRALIAS OWN IMMEDIATE NEEDS are met



Surely, we don't need a war to get politicians from separate parties all moving in the one same aligned purpose. The ones that help the most, can use that record of evidence, for voter approval ratings.

A Nissan hut building design made out of triple plastic dipped iron, that can be altered easily (it's all about how you assemble it) will create appeal and if people want to purchase the Moulds privately? Let people take the super inexpensive route and home build if they are licenced.

WELL, DONE RICCI, that is a brilliant idea! The best way to get it done, is not to put it to politicians but to talk to absolutely everybody until the resounding outcry about it MAKES those that legislate change, consider that it could just work and upon recognizing the ongoing great need, approve it.

There’s no need to assess it for years, that’s all been done! People have lived in them. It's got that lets get up off our bum and just do it because we certainly need it, everyday Australian, appeal about it.

Someone who knows what they are doing and wants to be known as a Nation Builder is bound to say Yes, here's is a very low-cost effective way of not just talking about it, and let's fix it!

NB. Integrated recyclers in Victoria made railway Lines out of plastic for Richmond station (google it) They are just one of the many with the potential machine set up right now that could dunk the corrugated iron etc. sheets.

This housing solution needs to get to ZIGGY FORREST, if anyone knows him?" you could send this.

 

[Ricci]

This is what I meant before about NORMAL Australians with life experiences that relate directly to issues like here, about housing needs, their Affordability and how to resolve issues, are not being consulted.



Ricci, I had an AHHA moment reading your response. You are right mate; Australia is an Iron ore-based country. And our Politicians in the past set the standard, by doing this before!


We really could house EVERYBODY in really excellent strong tasteful many years lasting, accommodation, that could go up more or less instantaneously, once the paperwork and talking about it all over again, was out of the way.

How, is because the modules (the individual separate parts) of a Nisson hut are Readily available. They remained an industry standard item that has been structurally approved for this exact use. Sheeting is available in abundance, right now. Ask Metrol, they are just one company that makes it.


We have an abundance of Sheeting, and it would clean up the environment to melt down all of the iron laying around in unused buildings everywhere and smelt as many as we want.


To make it durable and appealing triple dunk the corrugated iron etc in melted plastic (to solve another crisis at the same time). Construction wise, it's like how Lego's works. It's what you do with the pieces, of anything, that makes the result at the end. They could look amazing and be HUGE inside

The standard dome shaped Nisson hut of every size right up to huge, works, as a base model shape for parking your car, having a laundry/storage shed. or some other purpose area. to create designs for a home. Run a competition in the media (stations would love it) and give Australian schoolchildren carboard base plates out of carboard and a set number of miniature plastic pieces as part of a competition entry package.


Their task is to create a great looking home out of the supplied (or purchased pieces) These pieces are in four different sizes and can be cut. Award prizes so that the media can remain involved.


To create the home itself, get our nations hwy creating road teams on it and create a contract arrangement for anyone with machine experience to demolish old run-down sites, clear old or new areas that are on places in towns where water, power and sewerage are handy.


Get the rest of the nation involved in the project Pour the slab and pay both skilled and unskilled workers to assemble the modules the way the Mormon, Indian, Chinese, people, etc do it (the way that Australians built the snowy mountains scheme) and have everyone hop in as a national let's do it, effort. All that stops it is the fact that it being so ridiculously easy to do may confuse those that have no need for immediate housing and no real idea how creative they could look so show them after. All it needs is an entrepreneur who can see the long term advantage due to the world wide market



BUT ONLY AFTER AUSTRALIAS OWN IMMEDIATE NEEDS are met



Surely, we don't need a war to get politicians from separate parties all moving in the one same aligned purpose. The ones that help the most, can use that record of evidence, for voter approval ratings.

A Nissan hut building design made out of triple plastic dipped iron, that can be altered easily (it's all about how you assemble it) will create appeal and if people want to purchase the Moulds privately? Let people take the super inexpensive route and home build if they are licenced.

WELL, DONE RICCI, that is a brilliant idea! The best way to get it done, is not to put it to politicians but to talk to absolutely everybody until the resounding outcry about it MAKES those that legislate change, consider that it could just work and upon recognizing the ongoing great need, approve it.

There’s no need to assess it for years, that’s all been done! People have lived in them. It's got that lets get up off our bum and just do it because we certainly need it, everyday Australian, appeal about it.

Someone who knows what they are doing and wants to be known as a Nation Builder is bound to say Yes, here's is a very low-cost effective way of not just talking about it, and let's fix it!

NB. Integrated recyclers in Victoria made railway Lines out of plastic for Richmond station (google it) They are just one of the many with the potential machine set up right now that could dunk the corrugated iron etc. sheets.

This housing solution needs to get to ZIGGY FORREST, if anyone knows him?" you could send this.

Wow! I really did put the match to your flame!

It's not the insurmountable problem that the Pollies seem to think it is, they just need to have a rocket under them so they can break away from the inertia.

 

[Trudi]

"The Market Has Failed To Give Australians Affordable Housing, So Don’t Expect It To Solve The Crisis"

I hate to burst everybody's bubbles, but it isn't the "market's" responsibility to provide housing for people on low income! That is the responsibility of local Councils or State governments rather than mum and dad investors.

I own my own home plus two rental properties - it used to be four but I sold two in the past three years. When selecting a tenant - apart from checking their rental history, I focus on their source and amount of income. I do not offer a lease if the applicant's rent payments would exceed 33% of their total income, as a higher percentage would put them into rental stress.

Also, as I rely on rental income together with my superannuation pension to meet my own cost of living, I cannot afford to support a tenant defaulting on paying rent.

 

[SGH]

This is what I meant before about NORMAL Australians with life experiences that relate directly to issues like here, about housing needs, their Affordability and how to resolve issues, are not being consulted.



Ricci, I had an AHHA moment reading your response. You are right mate; Australia is an Iron ore-based country. And our Politicians in the past set the standard, by doing this before!


We really could house EVERYBODY in really excellent strong tasteful many years lasting, accommodation, that could go up more or less instantaneously, once the paperwork and talking about it all over again, was out of the way.

How, is because the modules (the individual separate parts) of a Nisson hut are Readily available. They remained an industry standard item that has been structurally approved for this exact use. Sheeting is available in abundance, right now. Ask Metrol, they are just one company that makes it.


We have an abundance of Sheeting, and it would clean up the environment to melt down all of the iron laying around in unused buildings everywhere and smelt as many as we want.


To make it durable and appealing triple dunk the corrugated iron etc in melted plastic (to solve another crisis at the same time). Construction wise, it's like how Lego's works. It's what you do with the pieces, of anything, that makes the result at the end. They could look amazing and be HUGE inside

The standard dome shaped Nisson hut of every size right up to huge, works, as a base model shape for parking your car, having a laundry/storage shed. or some other purpose area. to create designs for a home. Run a competition in the media (stations would love it) and give Australian schoolchildren carboard base plates out of carboard and a set number of miniature plastic pieces as part of a competition entry package.


Their task is to create a great looking home out of the supplied (or purchased pieces) These pieces are in four different sizes and can be cut. Award prizes so that the media can remain involved.


To create the home itself, get our nations hwy creating road teams on it and create a contract arrangement for anyone with machine experience to demolish old run-down sites, clear old or new areas that are on places in towns where water, power and sewerage are handy.


Get the rest of the nation involved in the project Pour the slab and pay both skilled and unskilled workers to assemble the modules the way the Mormon, Indian, Chinese, people, etc do it (the way that Australians built the snowy mountains scheme) and have everyone hop in as a national let's do it, effort. All that stops it is the fact that it being so ridiculously easy to do may confuse those that have no need for immediate housing and no real idea how creative they could look so show them after. All it needs is an entrepreneur who can see the long term advantage due to the world wide market



BUT ONLY AFTER AUSTRALIAS OWN IMMEDIATE NEEDS are met



Surely, we don't need a war to get politicians from separate parties all moving in the one same aligned purpose. The ones that help the most, can use that record of evidence, for voter approval ratings.

A Nissan hut building design made out of triple plastic dipped iron, that can be altered easily (it's all about how you assemble it) will create appeal and if people want to purchase the Moulds privately? Let people take the super inexpensive route and home build if they are licenced.

WELL, DONE RICCI, that is a brilliant idea! The best way to get it done, is not to put it to politicians but to talk to absolutely everybody until the resounding outcry about it MAKES those that legislate change, consider that it could just work and upon recognizing the ongoing great need, approve it.

There’s no need to assess it for years, that’s all been done! People have lived in them. It's got that lets get up off our bum and just do it because we certainly need it, everyday Australian, appeal about it.

Someone who knows what they are doing and wants to be known as a Nation Builder is bound to say Yes, here's is a very low-cost effective way of not just talking about it, and let's fix it!

NB. Integrated recyclers in Victoria made railway Lines out of plastic for Richmond station (google it) They are just one of the many with the potential machine set up right now that could dunk the corrugated iron etc. sheets.

This housing solution needs to get to ZIGGY FORREST, if anyone knows him?" you could send this.

Or maybe the Wagners from Toowoomba would like to get in and have a go?