WHY is there an under-supply of Public and/or Social Housing? Despite the housing boom of the past six years …
PERHAPS the sell-off of large Public Housing Estates exacerbated this?
AND the need will grow not only because Australians are subject to the lowest wages growth but due to the high influx of Visa holders … some 2.2 Million currently in Australia competing for housing and jobs …
A COST OF LIVING RALLY is to be held tonight 14 March 2019 at Sydney Town Hall 6.30 to 8.40 p.m.
-to call for at least 5000 new social housing homes to be built across NSW each year
-2400 community leaders and members will call for government action on housing insecurity, rental affordability and energy costs
Sydney has a huge backlog in social and affordable housing thanks to decades of undersupply, researchers have found. Photo: Wayne Taylor
Sydney faces shortfall of more than 200,000 homes for low to moderate-income earners, report shows
Sydney needs to find room for 200,000 more homes to help low to moderate-income earners who face chronic rental stress, new research has found.
The biggest area of need is the inner south-west, according to University of New South Wales researchers, where 33,600 homes are needed within the next two decades just to keep up with demand at that income level.
Sydney has a huge backlog in social and affordable housing thanks to decades of undersupply, said research fellow Laurence Troy from the university’s City Futures Research Centre, ahead of the release of the research on Thursday.
The Parramatta region and the south-west also have a lack of appropriate housing and face a shortfall of 28,000 and 23,000, respectively.
“Social housing doesn’t currently deliver enough to even maintain the same share [of the market] and while affordable housing is being built by the community sector, it’s not enough to meet the current unmet backlog,” Dr Troy said.
A further 117,000 properties are needed across the rest of the state, which Community Housing Industry Association chief executive Wendy Hayhurst said indicated the urgent need for government action.
ADDITIONAL SOCIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDED BY 2036
Source: City Futures Research Centre.
Inner South West
City and Inner South
Outer West and Blue Mountains
North Sydney and Hornsby
Outer South West
Baulkham Hills and Hawkesbury
“It’s a huge total, but if we turn our back on it, all it will do is get bigger and bigger, and more difficult and more difficult to solve … it won’t go away,” she said.
Ms Hayhurst, whose organisation commissioned the research, said demand for social and affordable housing was greatest in the city’s outer regions because lower income earners had already been pushed to live there. But, she noted, this did not mean this was where the most new housing should be built.
Dr Troy added while it was more affordable to build fringe estates where land was cheaper, this would not have the same benefit as having a spread of social and affordable housing across the city.
Delivering such a huge amount of social and affordable housing would cost billions, with the report indicating government would need to chip in $3.3 billion a year under the preferred funding model to meet demand. More than $1.2 billion would be needed for housing in Sydney alone.
Dr Troy said a capital grant, combined with money available though the federal government’s bond aggregator, would be the most efficient way to fund supply long-term.
He said if combined with any private housing development that in turn raised capital for social and affordable housing, annual funding needed for Sydney properties could drop to $345 million.
He said while an ongoing subsidy was often more appealing to governmentsthan an upfront payment, it could be more costly in the long term.
Along with picking the right funding model, Ms Hayhurst said the delivery of social and affordable housing could be greatly affected by affordably housing targets, such as those put forward by Labor and the Greens, as well as by government giving up land – which could make up between 40 and 60 per cent of development costs – for redevelopment.
The findings come ahead of a cost of living rally to be held Thursday night, which will call for at least 5000 new social housing homes to be built across the state each year. The rally at Sydney Town Hall, expected to draw about 2400 community leaders and members, will also call for government action on housing insecurity, rental affordability and energy costs.
A spokeswoman for Social Housing Minister Pru Goward said the government was on track to deliver 23,500 new and replacement social and affordable housing dwellings over 10 years. An extra 3400 homes were expected to be delivered by community providers under an affordable housing fund.
The Tasmanian Government will host an emergency housing summit next week, as families continue to struggle to find shelter in the state’s capital.
Premier Will Hodgman is promising to consult experts to find an “immediate solution” to the crisis.
Families have been camped out at the Hobart Showgrounds, with welfare groups admitting they are at a loss to find a solution.
Mr Hodgman said the summit would be held in Hobart next week to bring together experts from across the state.
“Today, we will be extending an invitation to peak bodies like TasCOSS and Shelter Tasmania, as well as key stakeholders from the housing, building and construction, property, real estate, local government, non-government and university sectors,” Mr Hodgman said.
“By working together, I am confident we can identify practical actions that provide immediate assistance to Tasmanians in need.
“It is not acceptable for Tasmanians to live in tents because they cannot find an affordable home.”
The Government has committed to building 1,500 more affordable homes, but concedes immediate action was needed.
Glenorchy Mayor Kristie Johnston told ABC Radio Hobart affordable housing had been a key focus for the council.
Alderman Johnston said the council had been working with the Hobart City Council on long-term plans to unlock unused land for affordable housing to be built.
“Right now we are seeing a crisis and that needs an immediate response, especially as we’re approaching winter where it’s unacceptable to have people sleeping in tents,” she said.
She said it was “heartbreaking” to see families camped at the showgrounds.
Labor housing spokesman Josh Willie said the summit was overdue.
“Labor has a constructive role to play when it comes to housing and therefore would like a seat at the table at next week’s summit,” Mr Willie said.
“A bipartisan approach to the housing crisis is in Tasmania’s best interests.
“Everything needs to be put on the table before we can establish a consensus on the best way forward.”
The Greens’ Cassy O’Connor welcomed the summit and wants to be included.
“To ensure the path ahead is collaborative and solutions focused, and [this summit] doesn’t become a political football, we encourage the Premier to include the Greens and Labor in the conversation,” she said.
“We also strongly urge the Liberals to commit to substantial investment in quality social housing and be open to innovative housing solutions.”
Ms O’Connor said there were about 1,000 liveable spaces above shops in the CBD that could be converted to housing.
*Campaign spokeswoman Kate Colvin said western Sydney electorates had absorbed a disproportionate share of Sydney’s population growth, which had helped drive demand for rental properties.
-in Fowler, rents increased by nearly 30 per cent between 2011 and 2016
-incomes for the lowest income household increased by just 5 per cent
-rental stress was also driving a rise in homelessness
WITH NSW INC selling off much of Our Public Housing Estates, the Federal LNP government high immigration, Visa manipulation policies this comes as no surprise …
AND a fix through Government involvement in re-building Public Housing, quality affordable rental accommodation that allows tenants to save a home deposit, and homes for First Home Buyers would create jobs and improve our economy!
Western Sydney’s rental stress is nation’s worst, new report warns
Western Sydney has been revealed as Australia’s epicentre of rental stress — home to four of the country’s top six property pressure points, according to a new report.
The Federal electorate of Fowler is the nation’s worst for rental stress, while McMahon (third), Blaxland (fifth) and Watson (sixth) are also near the top of the list.
NSW electorates took 11 of the top 20 places on the national rental stress table, with the seats held by Labor or National Party MPs.
Rental stress occurs when a person in the bottom percent of earners pays more than a third of their income on rent.
The Everybody’s Home Campaign, a coalition of not-for-profits seeking to end homelessness, commissioned the report from the University of New South Wales.
They said the analysis busts the myth that housing affordability is an inner-city issue.
*Campaign spokeswoman Kate Colvin said western Sydney electorates had absorbed a disproportionate share of Sydney’s population growth, which had helped drive demand for rental properties.
“In Fowler, rents increased by nearly 30 per cent between 2011 and 2016 and incomes for the lowest income household increased by just 5 per cent,” she said.
“It means a growing number of people are being stretched to the limits of what they can pay for rents and are often doing without meals and other essential items.”
Fowler’s population grew by over 15,000 people between 2011 and 2016, Blaxland by 16,000, McMahon by 22,000 people and Watson by 13,000 — compared to Warringah with an increase of just 534 people or Hughes with an increase of 2,600 people.
Rental stress was also driving a rise in homelessness.
In south western Sydney for example, homelessness increased by 61 per cent over a five year period.
The CEO of Shelter NSW, Karen Walsh, said low income households were vulnerable to homelessness because of a shortage of low-cost housing.
“They just need something to go wrong in their life, their working hours might be reduced, they might lose their job, if their car breaks down or they’ve got a particular expense to pay, that actually puts them backwards,” Ms Walsh said.
Ms Walsh said the NSW Government needed to increase the supply of social housing by at least 5,000 homes a year for next 10 years to help take pressure off.
The Everybody’s Home Campaign has also called on State and Federal governments to increase the supply of social housing.
AS spelt out previously … the calls from the NSW Premier and the PM to cut migration are nothing but a charade … a reduction of 30 thousand permanent migrants is three fifths of nothing!
-with 2.2 MILLION Visa Holders in Australia including1.6 Million Visa workers
–160,000 migrants to Australia this year
Of course the greedy developer lobby, the Property Council of Australia, deny the impact of their high growth agenda, and want more!
WHY is it that since 2011 to date having prospered from the overseas sell-off, the developer lobby could not see their way to developing public housing and deliver beyond 5,000 dwellings per year for the next 10 years?
HOW can a mere 3,400 new dwellings funded by the government solve the issue with a Sydney shortage of 80,000 social/public housing properties and 56,000 shortage across NSW?
WHY cannot the charities/social housing groups look beyond the developer driven model of adding on a small quantity of public come social housing/affordable housing onto their massive Precinct developments?
IT is the high population growth of both permanent migration and VISA MANIPULATION that has displaced the incumbents from housing!
VIEW CAAN’s WEBSITE TO FIND OUT MORE!!
‘Sydney’s not full’: Alliance formed to combat anti-population push
Recent calls by Gladys Berejiklian and Scott Morrison to slow the migration intake into Sydney and NSW have prompted a coalition of housing groups – from welfare agencies to the developer lobby – to hit back, claiming that focusing on migration rates deflects from what governments should be doing.
The so-called Good Growth Alliance will push for a housing summit to be held within 100 days of the March election to help re-set the state’s policies on housing and planning, which the Alliance claims has been derailed into a discussion about whether or not Sydney is full.
“A – Sydney’s not full,” said Jane Fitzgerald, the executive director of the Property Council NSW.
“B – if we say that it is, we won’t plan for growth, and that will be a disaster.”
Wendy Hayhurst, the chief executive of the Community Housing Industry Association, said in the past her group would probably not have joined forces with the range of other entities in the Alliance.
“We would have ploughed our own furrows,” said Ms Hayhurst.
However the organisations have been drawn together in response to suggestions made recently by both the Premier and the Prime Minister that one solution to Sydney’s congestion growing pains would be to slow migration rates.
“What I’m looking at is who is winning in this argument – it’s not you, and it’s not me,” said Ms Hayhurst. “Thegovernment is actually abrogating its responsibilities to plan Sydney properly.”
The proposal for a post-election summit is one of 10 points agreed upon by Alliance members, who also include Shelter NSW, Homelessness NSW, the Committee for Sydney and the Sydney Business Chamber.
*Other points agreed on by the groups include the need to deliver at least 5000 extra social housing dwellings per year for the next 10 years, establishing a goal of ending homelessness in NSW by 2028, and conducting an inquiry into funding for community infrastructure, including developer contributions.
‘The roads are clogged, the buses and the trains are full’ says Prime Minister Scott Morrison, supporting cuts to Australia’s immigration intake.
*In relation to social or public housing for low-income tenants, the government’s Social and Affordable Housing Fund aims to create about 3400 new dwellings, with a seed-funding of $1.1 billion.
But group members said the size of the problem outweighed the program.
*For instance, a recent study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute found that there is a shortage in Sydney of 80,000 social housing properties, and 56,000 shortage across the rest of the state.
Ms Fitzgerald said a “large-scale social housing program” would be useful during a period in which the residential property market has hit the wall in Sydney.
“Now is the right time to make decisions about how are we going to keep housing being delivered through the downturn,” said Ms Fitzgerald.
Ms Hayhurst said the government’s existing program was “nowhere near enough” for the size of the social housing need.
*For the housing groups that have joined the Alliance, one of the problems with the recent rhetoric about slowing population growth is that it obscures the need for state and council politicians and public servants to talk to communities about where extra housing in Sydney should be delivered.
Mr Morrison has said he would cut the migration intake, partly on the basis that Sydney’s roads, buses and trains are “clogged” or “full”. Ms Berejiklian has said population growth in NSW should “take a breather”.
Asked on Sunday what she would say to critics concerned that blaming population growth for problems in Sydney deflected attention from what her government should be doing, Ms Berejiklian said: “I would be irresponsible if I did not identify the issues that matter to our communities.
“People are concerned about the character of their environments, people are concerned about their quality of life moving forward, and so am I,” she said.
(After the fact of the demolition and destruction with the loss of our quality of life
A spokesman for Planning and Housing Minister Anthony Roberts said the minister would be keen to hear from and talk to the Good Growth Alliance.
Was this pulled off by a Lobbyist Group expanding a campaign to unite Sydneysiders to oppose the growth lobby?
By meeting with MPs, and Shadow Ministers and with the “Social Housing” Sector?
Is a uniting of the developer lobby with charities credible?
When the Property Council of Australia and the Urban Taskforce have pulled off the biggest STING of selling Australian Housing overseas, locking out a Whole Cohort of Australians from the Housing Market, whereby the NSW Government has sold off much of its Public Housing; to palm off tenants to the “Social Housing” Sector of charities, with 190,000 people on the Public Housing Waiting List and more than half of the 116,000 Homeless People in NSW.
Developers want A Global Sydney by 2050 … isn’t this more about expanding their development opportunities with avenues of social, affordable, key worker and Build-to-Rent?
This has all the hallmarks of the Greater Sydney Con “speak” with 30 minute cities, but now they want more new station precincts and public transport corridors …for the development of compact residential, commercial, community, education and health hubs by enforceable key performance indicators for development approvals.
The “bottom line” being “better growth” … with questions to be addressed by The Property Council of Australia …
More of the same!
GOOD GROWTH ALLIANCE
26 NOV 2018 PROPERTY COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA
The Property Council has partnered with five other organisations to form the Good Growth Alliance
The Alliance will advocate for better growth for Sydney and NSW
The Alliance has ten proposals that it is asking the NSW Government and Opposition to consider.
Sydney’s peak industry bodies and NGO leaders have joined forces to promote the benefits of well-planned growth in Sydney and wider NSW.
The Property Council, the Committee for Sydney and the Sydney Business Chamber together with the Community Housing Industry Association of NSW, Homelessness NSW and Shelter NSW have formed the Good Growth Alliance.
The Good Growth Alliance has ten proposals for the NSW Government, which it believes, will create a better Sydney and a stronger NSW.
This includes holding a Good Growth Summit within 100 days of the 2019 NSW Election, so communities, industry and government can collaborate more strongly on making Sydney a sustainable, liveable global city by 2050.
The nine other points include:
Boosting housing and driving a renewed policy focus by developing an evidence-based NSW Housing Strategy and funded action plan to increase the supply of social, affordable, key worker and ‘at market’ housingincluding build-to-rent.
Taking the lead on housing issues by appointing a Minister for Housing to deliver the NSW Housing Strategy and establish a multi-sector advisory council.
Delivering at least 5000 additional social housing dwellings per year for the next 10 years by introducing a Capital Growth Fund to increase the supply of social and affordable housing.
Reducing homelessness by committing to an action plan that addresses the key causes of homelessness with the goal of ending homelessness in NSW by 2028.
Planning for growth and equity by ensuring new communities have the same access to public transport, employment, education and community infrastructure as established communities.
Supporting better innovation and design in housing by establishing a housing innovation fund and investigate regulatory barriers to delivering innovative models and design options that improve energy efficiency and reduce the cost of living.
Delivering a 30-minute city by identifying existing and new public transport corridors and station precincts that can accommodate the needs and aspirations of existing communities and support the development of compact residential, commercial, community, education and health hubs.
Inspiring community and industry confidence in the planning system by introducing enforceable key performance indicators for Development Approvals at a local and state level.
Conducting an inquiry into the current funding for social and economic infrastructure in growing communities, including developer contributions, with the aim of providing industry and community greater certainty and consistency.
The ten points seek to support the good work already underway through the Greater Sydney Commission in Metropolitan Sydney.
As Sydney and wider NSW continues to change and grow, it is critical that we show leadership on the key issues that will ensure we achieve good growth; growth that is equitable, sustainable and liveable.
WHY and how did this need come about to triple Social Housing by 2036?
It would appear to date back to 1996 with the Election of the LNP Howard Government which is so frequently revered by Liberal Party supporters. Was it in 1996 that there was a government move away from funding Public Housing to grant public funds to charities and others to build “Social Housing”?
With cuts to government departments, functions and redundancies for “small government”.
Followed by enhancement of these policies during the terms of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison … the foreign sell-off of “new homes”, high immigration, visa manipulation to gain permanent residency through real estate purchase, and no legislation to prevent money laundering in Australian Real Estate!
The consequences from these and the lowest wages growth, insecure work, underemployment have robbed Australians of home ownership, affordable rentals, the loss of public housing and many joining the list of Homeless!
Australia needs to triple its social housing by 2036. This is the best way to do it
November 15, 2018
The current social housing construction rate – barely 3,000 dwellings a year – does not even keep pace with rising need, let alone make inroads into today’s backlog. Joel Carrett/AAP
Julie Lawson Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Hal Pawson Associate Director – City Futures – Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW
Laurence Troy Research Fellow, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW
Ryan van den Nouwelant Lecturer in Urban Management and Planning, Western Sydney University
That is the central finding of our new research report on the housing infrastructure needs of low-income earners, published by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).
By our reckoning, 25 years of inadequate investment has left Australia facing a shortfall of 433,000 social housing dwellings. The current construction rate – little more than 3,000 dwellings a year – does not even keep pace with rising need, let alone make inroads into today’s backlog.
The report also shows that Australia needs to avoid overly complex private financing “innovations”. These have proven ineffective elsewhere and were recently abolished by the UK Treasury.
Our modelling of household need and procurement costs shows that direct public investment, coupled with more efficient financing through the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, is the best way to tackle this policy challenge.
Compared with subsidising the operating income of a commercially financed program, the lifetime cost of the first year of house building is A$1.6 billion less. That’s a 24% saving to the public purse.
From 1945, state and territory governments, financially supported by Canberra, maintained public programs that built 8,000-14,000 dwellings a year for half a century.
*From 1996, however, social housing largely slipped from the Australian government agenda. Dedicated ongoing funding to states and territories was at “starvation levels”. Public house building plunged to today’s residual output, except for a short-lived GFC-stimulus-funded recovery from 2008-11.
Our analysis quantifies both Australia’s housing need “backlog” and the “newly emerging” need from population growth over the next 20 years. It conservatively calculates backlog need as comprising two elements.
First, it considers those who are homeless now. The 2016 census counted 116,000 homeless people across Australia. Recognising that some would choose not to live alone, we estimate that our homeless population implies a need for about 47,000 extra dwellings.
Second, our analysis considers the group whose housing needs are not being met by the market. These households are on very low incomes (excluding student households), in private rental housing, and in rental stress – where rent is more than 30% of their earnings. If you are on a very low income, housing costs of this order mean going without other essentials.
Collectively, these components imply a current backlog of 433,000 social housing dwellings.
Newly emerging need will expand the shortfall to 727,000 dwellings by 2036. This factors in expected population growth and the current share of social housing. It assumes no improvement in private rental housing affordability.
How achievable is a building program of this scale?
Fixing this problem – both the backlog and newly emerging need – calls for a major program of social housing construction. This is needed to expand the national social housing stock to nearly three times its 2016 size by 2036.
Simply preventing the existing problem from getting worse calls for nearly 15,000 extra dwellings a year to be built. That’s a little over 290,000 homes over the next 20 years.
To eliminate the backlog as well would require an annual program averaging 36,000 units. This would need to begin gradually to build capacity and avoid inflating costs.
This would represent around a tenfold increase in current social housing construction rates. The output would be similar to the 14% public housing share of Australia’s total house building in the decade to 1955.
For comparison, housing providers with a social purpose today account for 20-31% of all house building in the UK, Finland, France and Austria, and much more in some Asian countries such as Singapore. England’s not-for-profit housing associations, for example, completed some 42,000 homes in 2017-18, out of 161,000 homes built in total.
What will this cost the government?
What would be the price tag for such a program? And what’s the best way for government to provide the necessary support?
To answer the first question, we identified both the social housing need, described above, and the land and construction costs across 88 regions of Australia. Different regions have different land costs and building forms, such as detached, medium and high-rise dwellings. Not surprisingly, the modelled unit procurement costs vary substantially, from A$146,000 in remote South Australia to A$614,000 in parts of Sydney. We then calculated the price tag across the country.
To work out the cost to government, and answer the second question, a couple of important assumptions are made.
The first is that social housing need should be met in (or near) the places where it arises. While skewing the building program towards less well-located places could accommodate the need more cheaply, it is in our view essential to avoid such a “ghettoisation” model.
No amount of “innovative” procurement or financing will yield a government “free lunch” as the UK’s National Audit Office evaluation of private infrastructure financing experiments demonstrates.
The five investment scenarios
We examined five contrasting “investment pathways” for delivering a program that builds social housing on the required scale. The basic choice is between a capital grant model (subsidy paid up front) and a revenue subsidy model (annual payments underpin debt repayments and operating costs).
We calculate that the cost of the first year of the program would total A$5 billion under a capital grant approach. A private debt-financed approach, with government support through revenue subsidies, would cost A$6.6 billion. This is after discounting costs incurred in later years.
Thus, direct investment would save Australian governments 24% on average.
So while governments tend to favour “financial innovation” options that push costs into the future, capital grant funding is the rational investment pathway.
Providing enough housing for low-income earners is a growing policy challenge. With rising homelessness and housing stress in recent years, this research quantifies the scale of that challenge and identifies the most cost-effective investment pathway to its resolution.
IT is a fair bet to have that no-one at the Grattan Institute:
.would be earning less than minimum weekly earnings for full time work .would be paid cash .would be missing out when it came to Super contributions .would have to wait a quarter or even longer to have their super entitlements paid into their account .would be denied access to salary sacrifice arrangements for additional Super contributions
INDEED how few at the Grattan Institute are living life in Struggle Street?
WITH such a wealthy Donor List perhaps this explains why they report in the way that they do!
Most Australians would think this is a very strange conclusion to reach when the average superannuation balance today for men is $112,000 and women $68,000 and only 20 per cent of current retirees are fully funded.
The situation is undoubtedly more desperate for the one quarter of women with super balances below $50,000, but even men’s retirement savings are not going to last long, especially with the rising cost of living.
It is those inadequate levels of retirement savings that led to the Rudd-Gillard Government promising to raise the compulsory superannuation guarantee from 9 per cent to 12. That was due to take effect in July next year until the Abbott Government put the brakes on, so we won’t see super at 12 per cent until 2025. Too late for many.
The increase to 12 per cent is far from radical policy — when super was first introduced under Paul Keating, it was intended to increase to 15 per cent over time.
That plan was skittled under the Howard Government, which left it at 9 per cent.
Seeing a pattern here?
Every time we’re on the verge of increasing super to a level that would provide Australians the dignity in retirement they deserve, it has been delayed and de-prioritised.
So how did the Grattan Institute get it so wrong in their report released this week? Their modelling has some deeply flawed and misguided assumptions about our universal superannuation system and, more importantly, about the workers who contribute to it.
For starters, they assumed everyone is in a position to make voluntary contributions on top of those made by their employer.
Ask the average aged care worker whether she has an extra $10,000 to throw into her super fund this year and watch the reaction.
For that matter, ask any Australian whether they have a spare $5,000 lying around when their wages have barely moved in the past decade in real terms. Economists make all sorts of assumptions when developing these papers, but the reality is that only 10 per cent of people in the workforce make top up contributions to their super.
The issue of homeownership and retirement is hard to downplay.
For starters, one in four current retirees are either renting or still paying off a mortgage.
Secondly, the rate of home ownership is dropping sharply. In fact, the Grattan Institute itself released a study last year that showed home ownership had been in decline for three decades.
At the time, they warned of a generation of permanent renters. Perhaps this report was put on the shelf at the Grattan Institute prematurely.
Super is far from guaranteed
They also miss a critical fact about superannuation payments. The truth for people working in Australia today is that superannuation payments are far from guaranteed.
Recent analysis from Industry Super Australia shows that 3 million working people — nearly a quarter of the labour force — are underpaid $5.9 billion in super payments each year. That’s an average of $2000 each.
The work of the Grattan Institute also assumes people working in physically demanding jobs can continue to do so until they’re 67 years old — that’s a big ask for a labourer, or a disability carer who must lift adults with physical limitations as a basic requirement of the job.
Women already disadvantaged
In an environment like this, with women facing poverty in retirement, it is misguided, irresponsible and dangerous to suggest we scale back the planned increase to super.
Women retire with 47 per cent less superannuation than men, according to last year’s Not So Super For Women report.
“I expect to be poor. I may become functionally homeless,” one woman surveyed told the researchers.
Another spoke about living at home with her dog. “My dog is old and I probably won’t have her much longer. I would not be able to afford to keep another dog, so it will just be me, a very lonely life.”
A third put it bluntly — “I am stuffed if my partner decides to leave me”.
Let’s lift our ambitions instead
It’s time for Australia to be more ambitious.
Our retirement system is the envy of much of the world, but it is far from perfect and it was designed to increase to 12 per cent or more some decades ago.
We must fulfil the original promise of superannuation and ensure it is truly universal and provides for an adequate retirement.
Scott Connolly is the Australian Council of Trade Union’s assistant secretary.
Correction: An earlier version of this story said that the Grattan Institute assumed you could sell your home to fund your retirement, but the Grattan model does not take this factor into account.
Paul Keating says raising super to 12 per cent will ‘barely cut it’
Shut down the ‘fear factory’, expert says — most people will have enough money to retire on
Multiple super accounts and ‘zombie insurance’ are costing us billions — here’s how to fix it
Millennials face poverty in retirement without super overhaul, think tank warns
The National Rental Affordability Scheme implemented in 2008 by the Rudd Government was scrapped in 2014 by the LNP withOwner incentives on more than 36,000 properties that offer discounted rent are drying up as they hit their 10-year limit, with the first subsidies expiring this year.
-with more than 1400 properties to be affected next year!
PM Scott Morrison needs to restore this schemelike he reversed the Foodbank funding cut
-estimated 17,000 additional affordable homes already needed each year to meet the backlog of demand by 2026
-with NRAS properties returning to the private market would exacerbate the demand for affordable housing when social housing is also not keeping up with demand
More Australians at risk of homelessness as National Rental Affordability Scheme comes to an end
Thousands of Australians face homelessness, experts warn, as a key way for them to afford a home comes to an end.
Owner incentives on more than 36,000 properties that offer discounted rent are drying up as they hit their 10-year limit, with the first subsidies expiring this year.
“People are going to fall off a cliff, they’ll go into homelessness or housing stress in a massive way,” said Andrea Galloway, chief executive of community housing provider Evolve Housing.
Affordable housing — rental properties offering subsidised rent to lower income earners — has been supported by the National Rental Affordability Scheme since 2008,which gives annually indexed incentives to developers and investors who charge at least 20 per cent below market rate, for up to 10 years.
Only 198 properties across Australia will be affected this year, but this will markedly jump to more than 1400 next year, with incentives progressively ending until 2026.
With the scheme scrapped in 2014, due to administration concerns, and no substitute to replace it, some affordable properties are expected to return to the private market.
View graph: NRAS incentives remaining by end of calendar year
Community Housing Industry Association executive director Peta Winzar predicts only one-third of more than 17,000 NRAS properties owned by the for-profit sector would continue to offer below-market rent.
“It’s a huge worry for us,” added Ms Galloway, noting more than half of the 782 NRAS properties managed by Evolve were privately owned by developers and mum-and-dad investors.
“What we’re really worried about is that investors will look at the return they’ll be getting when the incentive is gone, and decide to sell the property … or raise the rents to full market rate.”
Medical student NethangieRanhotty, who lives in an Evolve Housing development in Penrith in Sydney’s west, is just one of thousands who could be affected.
She and her mother have spent years between women’s refuges, community housing and the private rental sector, after fleeing domestic violence in 2011. Now 20, she enjoys the security of a long-term affordable home.
“Almost every day we were going to apartment inspections to see what we could afford,” Ms Ranhotty said.
“Our last apartment didn’t have airconditioning, it was poorly insulated … and the rent was raised, and they were going to raise it even higher. If we didn’t have this, we could be going hungry to pay rent, and I could potentially not be going to university.”
Community housing providers collectively own about 40 per cent of all NRAS properties and Ms Winzar said while they would do their best to keep them all, some would be unable to.
But just how large an impact will the end of the scheme have? It is hard to predict because, apart from NRAS properties, there is no measure of the number of affordable properties across Australia and there is broad uncertainty about what housing providers would do without a subsidy.
With an estimated 17,000 additional affordable homes already needed each year to meet the backlog of demand by 2026, according to University of Sydney research, any NRAS properties returning to the private market would exacerbate the situation at a time when social housing is also not keeping up with demand.
An incentive similar to the NRAS is needed to boost affordable housing supply and maintain existing numbers, according to Kate Raynor, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
But, she said, any new system would need to address the NRAS’ flaws, the most critical of which was that regardless of a property’s size and location, the same incentive was given. This meant many developers built studio and one-bedroom apartments, which were used for student accommodation.
The opposition spokesman for housing and homelessness, Doug Cameron, slammed the NRAS’ scrapping and said there were issues with any new policy that had to be addressed. He said Labor would announce more housing and homelessness policies prior to the election.
A spokesperson for Families and Social Services Minister Paul Fletcher said tenants, investors and approved applicants were all aware of the NRAS’ 10-year time frame, part of the Rudd government’s original design, when they entered the scheme.
The spokesperson added that the supply of affordable housing and regulation of the private rental market were primarily state government responsibilities.
Sydney’s rental market in the first half of 2018 was worst in the country with homelessness doubling in Parramatta.
IT appears this predicament for Tenants is a consequence of the Game of Mates!
Since 2011 the NSW LNP have sold off a large number of Public Housing Estates including that of The Rocks and Millers Point, the Northern Beaches, Glebe, Waterloo, Balmain, the Ivanhoe Estate at Macquarie Park where demolition has had to be stalled due to the need to re-house tenants!
In 2017 there were 195,000 people remaining on the Public Housing Wait List!
Here at Millers Point almost 600 tenants were forced out of their homes and moved to other parts of the city … breaking up communities … many elderly passed on due to the stress … for their community to be replaced by property investors, speculators and short-term lets. That’s NSW NOW Sellergate … no longer there to serve its Constituents!
Last Millers Point properties sell after four years and $608 million in sales
Mr Starr said the dilapidated homes attracted a range of buyers, and he expected Millers Point to become one of the premier communities in Australia.
But anger at the sell-off, which prompted years of campaigning by tenants and locals, was evident to the end, with a ”social cleansing” tag scrawled on one sale sign.
Family and Community Services has retained 28 Millers Point properties, but almost 600 tenants were forced out of their homes and moved to other parts of the city.
Independent member for Sydney Alex Greenwich said it was heartbreaking to see one of Sydney’s oldest and strongest communities torn apart.
It had been replaced with property investors and speculators, Mr Greenwich said, many of whom were interested in turning homes into short-term letting accommodation. He added the result was a more transient community that affected the soul and spirit of Millers Point.
But Mr Starr said the suburb’s sense of community would continue to develop as more renovations were completed and people moved in.
“There’s still at least two years’ worth of renovations to be done,” Mr Starr said. “Only about 30 per cent of people have probably moved in.”
Millers Point terraces that returned to the market after renovations have previously sold for significantly more than the purchase price, but windfalls have become smaller recently.
Last month a renovated terrace bought for $1.75 million in 2016 sold for $2.3 million, after more than four months on the market and a $450,000 price cut. Other un-renovated terraces, which have already changed hands twice, have sold at a loss.
“There have been a few resales, ” said Mr Starr. “If they’re not done really well the market won’t pay a whole lot for the renovation that’s been done … there have also been cooling market factors at play.”
With the sell-of Sirius yet to come, Mr Greenwich has written to the premier requesting that the sale includes a provision for social and affordable housing.
“In any global city we need a mix of housing,” he said “Just selling [social housing] off and moving it to outer areas does a huge disservice to … the vulnerable groups that need to be close to services and communities they rely on.”
A Property NSW spokesperson said the tender stage, which closed in September, had delivered local and international interest. With submissions to be assessed over the coming weeks the apartments are expected to sell before the end of the year.
Proceeds from the sale of Sirius and housing in Millers Point are expected to fund 1500 new social housing dwellings, with 1121 units already built and a further 260 under construction, in areas like Parramatta, Canterbury, Penrith and Peakhurst.