Time for common language on our national housing crisis

When it comes to discussing the current national housing crisis, we could be living in Babel rather than Australia.?

That is because there are multiple stakeholders attempting to fix a problem without a shared language that fully explains why housing matters for a civil society and what the housing problem is.

A shared commitment to a national integrated housing strategy is urgently needed.

Australia’s housing crisis has been acknowledged by federal, state and local governments. While the majority of Australians are adequately housed, home ownership is declining, a new group of long-term renters has emerged and increasing numbers are experiencing housing stress. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) defines housing stress as where households at the bottom 40 percent of Australia’s income distribution pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs, leaving little or no income for necessities such as food, healthcare and education.

Australia’s situation is not unique. The forces of globalisation have benefitted some more than others in similarly developed countries, manifesting, among other things, a housing crisis. In June this year, the World Economic Forum raised concerns about a global housing crisis fuelled by a severe decline in the availability of affordable housing to buy or rent.

Certainly, we have a clear understanding of what is happening in the housing sector. The consequences of current housing trends also need to be clear as they define the ‘housing problem’ and how housing outcomes affect achievement of the nation’s broad economic and social objectives. This is why housing matters.

There are key questions around why and how housing matters for a civil society. These include:

·?????What are the implications of being a lifetime renter in Australia for funding retirement in old age?

·?????What impact does constantly moving house, neighbourhood and school have on family function, educational achievement of children and social cohesion?

·?????What are the effects on physical and mental health from years of living in housing-induced poverty, or of living in crowded and poorly maintained housing?

·?????What are the implications of people exiting institutions of the justice system, crisis accommodation and the health system when there are insufficient secure affordable long term housing options?

·?????What are the implications for regional areas when there is insufficient housing to attract and maintain workers and their families?

Australia's unique housing policy history

An understanding of Australia’s unique housing policy history helps to explain the current situation. Analysis of this history, undertaken with colleagues Greg Hall and Peter Young,[1] documented overlapping phases of housing policy since World War Two that are defined by critical turning points. The common thread throughout was a desire for a truly national approach to housing in Australia.

First Phase

The first phase began with a call by the Commonwealth Housing Commission in 1944 for all levels of Government to work with the private sector to achieve an integrated national and state planning machinery to provide more affordable housing options. Subsequently, the Chifley Government established the first Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) in 1945. The CSHA provided funding to the States which fuelled significant investment in public housing as a post-War reconstruction stimulus.

Second Phase

The second phase began in 1949 under the Menzies Government and was characterised by a strong push for home ownership to support stable home life and give people a stake in their country. By the mid-1950s, governments were supplying almost a quarter of new mortgage finance in Australia through a War Service Homes scheme and State Housing Authority mortgage finance.[2] State housing authorities began to sell large quantities of public housing to tenants, which left some with insufficient stock for meeting the needs of low income households. Rent Assistance for single aged, widows and invalid pensioners was introduced as part of the national social security system.

Third Phase

The third phase, from the late 1960s, was characterised by criticism that public housing was not being targeted to assist lowest income earners. Research in the early 1970s found just 28% of Housing Commission dwellings were rented to low income earners. The Whitlam Government subsequently required that CSHA funds be directly targeted to assisting those most in need of subsidised housing and support.

Fourth Phase

During the fourth phase in the 1990s, the Hawke/Keating Government sought a strategic approach for national housing policy, in response to significant economic and social trends and forecast demographic changes including an aging population and smaller households. The National Housing Strategy outlined a vision that linked housing policy with broader economic, social, environmental and planning objectives, to take Australia into the next century.?

This worthy goal was never fully realised. Professor Meredith Edwards, from University of Canberra, has suggested part of the problem was the lack of a shared agreement as to the nature of the housing problem and, hence, limited comprehension of why housing matters.[3]

Fifth Phase

A fifth phase since the 1990s has been characterised by several short-lived national initiatives and strategies, growth in Rent Assistance for renters in the private and community housing sectors and government retreat from social housing.

We are now at a hinge point for housing policy in Australia.

The Albanese Government has elevated housing on the national agenda, with a commitment to set up a National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to inform the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. There is a groundswell of voices from governments, industry and community peak bodies calling for a national housing strategy. Australians everywhere are recognising the increasing, and increasingly-visible, need for affordable housing.

A national integrated approach to housing is essential, and its success will rely on policies addressing the underlying issues including taxation, land use, supply of affordable housing and subsidies, in ways that are institutionalised and sustained over time. There will need to be recognition of housing as a system as opposed to compartmentalised activity or programs.

We have perhaps our best-ever opportunity for a shared vernacular on housing.

Sixth Phase

Our sixth phase of housing policy in Australia could become an exemplar for making housing policy an integral part of national economic and social policy objectives.

It is time to commit to housing policy that is embedded with the nation’s broad economic and social policies.

This will require the federal government, which largely controls housing demand levers, working alongside state and territory governments, which largely control the supply levers while partnering with industry and not-for-profit philanthropic bodies. These three elements will give us a more sustainable and effective national housing strategy for the long term.

Every Australian has a stake in housing and good housing policy.

It’s time for us to realise a seven-decade old vision of a national housing strategy. Time for us all to start speaking the same language.

[1] Apelt.L., Hall.G., Young.P., (2003, October). Housing at the Cross-Roads: the case for an integrated national housing policy for Australia. In Post Congress Report, cities and markets, shifts in urban development, world congress, Vienna 5-8 October 2003, 17-18. Vienna. 47th International Federation for Housing and Planning World Congress.

[2] “The Benefits of Owner Occupation”, Working Paper No.29, December 1991, Urban Research Program, Research School of social Sciences, ANU., Berry, “To Buy or Rent?”, p.100?

[3] Meredith Edwards, response to Brian Howe, “Housing for the Twenty-First Century: Building on Barnett”, Fourth F. Oswald Barnett Oration, St John’s Southgate, 13 November 1997, p.29