Submarines or social housing?

housing-crisis-homelessness
Image by Jon Tyson www.unsplash.,com

One of our readers commented that on the same day the media were banging on about the Federal Government’s $368 billion submarine plan, a lone SBS panel programme focused on the national housing crisis.

It is tempting to compare spending on affordable housing with the capital cost of up to five nuclear-powered submarines. The Federal Government’s (annual) commitment to affordable housing (currently $1.6 billion), equates to about 13% of its annual submarine budget (ie if the $368 billion is spread equally over 30 years). This assumes that successive governments will continue to spend that much on affordable housing (and submarines).

While housing is the responsibility of individual States and Territories, the Federal Government develops national policy and funds it with grants to the States and Territories.

That’s the theory, but in reality the critical shortage of housing, the cost of housing and the rising tally of homelessness is a clear and present danger to Australia’s social stability. Just this week the 2021 Census data on homelessness was released – what kept them, you might ask?

More than 122,000 people in Australia experienced homelessness on Census night, an increase of 5.2% from 2016, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

The ABS interpreted the numbers as representing 48 people for every 10,000 people, compared with 50 people for every 10,000 in 2016.

While that is a reduction, the historical snapshot would seem to be an unreliable statistic, given that measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 throughout 2021 contributed to some of the changes in the data.

“During the 2021 Census, we saw fewer people ‘sleeping rough’ in improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out, and fewer people in living in ‘severely’ crowded dwellings and staying temporarily with other households,” ABS spokesperson Georgia Chapman said.

The affordable housing issue is not just about people sleeping in doorways. A new report produced by the Queensland Council of Social Services (QCOSS) clearly shows that working families are among those falling prey to the acute rental housing market shortage. It’s worse in some States than in others.

The report from QCOSS and The Town of Nowhere campaign is sobering reading. It predicts more than 220,000 households in the State will not have affordable housing within 20 years.

The report was prepared by national housing expert, University of New South Wales Professor Hal Pawson, and UNSW colleagues.

The tough conclusions include that there are around 150,000 households across Queensland with unmet housing needs. This includes 100,000 households who would typically be eligible for social housing. These households are either experiencing homelessness, or are low-income households in private rentals, paying more than 30% of household income in rent.

The figure is more than twice the official indicator of 47,306 households on the Queensland social housing waiting list. The latter has grown by 70% over the past three years.

Un-met housing needs are highest in satellite cities south of Brisbane. Pawson’s study shows that 10% of all households in Logan, Beaudesert and Gold Coast are homeless or living in unaffordable housing.

Professor Pawson said Queensland would need 11,000 affordable and social homes each year for the next 20 years, about 2,700 of which would need to be social housing.

He told the ABC the government had promised to build 13,000 social and affordable homes by 2027. But the QCOSS report found that the number of people with “very high need” for social housing was 37% higher than the system could accommodate.

In the decade leading up to 2017, there was “minimal” investment by State and Federal governments in affordable and social housing, Professor Pawson said.

“Unless they can get a grip on the situation, it’s a problem that over the next generation will continue to become more stressed and more pressurised.”

Much of the blame for the current problem is laid at the feet of private landlords. Private rentals in Queensland have risen as much as 33% since 2020. The sharpest increases, however, have been in regional markets. For example, over the past five years median rents rose by 80% per cent in the industrial town of Gladstone, by 51% in the tourist town of Noosa and 33% in the Gold Coast area. Nearly 60% of low-income households in the private rental market are facing unaffordable housing costs, with 15% in extreme housing affordability stress (rent accounting for more than half of total income).

While rentals have risen steeply, the bigger problem is a lack of rental accommodation. Rental vacancies are close to zero not only in Brisbane and the Gold Coast but also in regional towns.

The report states: “Queensland’s private rental housing has seen several years of declining vacancy levels and rent inflation rates far above the national norm. More generally, the sector remains entirely dominated by small-scale investor landlords whose usual prioritisation of capital growth over rental revenue inherently compromises tenant security.”
The upshot of this is that landlords are selling on the rising market, resulting in fewer houses for rental. Coupled with this is the inadequacy of tenant rights on rents, security and conditions. The Queensland Government enacted significant rental regulation reforms in 2022, but these fell far short of the changes advocated by tenants’ rights campaigners.

The Productivity Commission reported last year on the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement framed by the Albanese Government.

The agreement provides $1.6 billion a year in federal funding to the States and Territories, with the aim of improving access to affordable and secure housing.

However, the Commission judged the programme 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. One in four households have less than $36 a day left for other essentials, the Commission said.

For those who might argue against more investment in social housing, there are success stories. The Queensland Government has funded a small number of permanent supportive housing (PSH) tenancies for people who have experienced long-term homelessness. PSH combines subsidised long-term housing with access to intensive but voluntary support services. One PSH programme, Brisbane Common Ground (BCG), established in 2012, is a 146-unit apartment block with 24/7 on-site support. Studies reported high tenancy sustainment rates and tenant satisfaction levels. It also produced significant savings via reduced use of emergency services and crisis accommodation. (QCOSS Report).

Despite the success of projects like BCG, there are many examples of State governments backing away from the commitment to social housing. For example, the New South Wales government is reportedly preparing to sell its Waterloo social housing complex in Sydney. The ABC reported that Waterloo Estate, the biggest social housing estate in Australia, houses almost 2,500 people.

The 18ha site will be redeveloped under a NSW government strategy called Communities Plus, where public land is offered to developers on the proviso 30% of what they build is dedicated social housing. This is clearly a retrograde move away from a project that is 100% dedicated to social housing. Meanwhile, more than 51,000 hard-pressed households are waiting for a home in NSW.

In an even more backward step, Darwin’s local Council has reportedly been issuing $162 fines to ‘rough sleepers’. The latter may or may not be indigenous people known as ‘longgrassers.’ (see link below)

Darwin Council issued a statement saying it had been subject to significant pressure from some current Northern Territory government MLAs. The MPs wanted to increase the number of infringements (and the size of fines), issued to vulnerable people who are sleeping rough in public places. (And what happens when these people cannot pay the fines? Imprisonment for non-payment? I guess that’s one way of getting people off the streets..Ed)

In its defence Council said council rangers issued fines as a “last resort”.

“We do not consider the fining of vulnerable people the solution to complex issues such as homelessness.”

More reading

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/12/queenslanders-miss-out-on-social-housing-due-to-failures-to-build-homes-and-inaccurate-waiting-lists

https://www.drbilldayanthropologist.com/resources/Longgrass%20people%20of%20Darwin%202012.pdf

 

 

Rental crisis raises risk of homelessness

rental-crisis-homelessness
A roof over your head (eventually). Image by www.pixabay.com,

This topic was sparked by news from a near-neighbour who had received the dreaded ‘landlord requires vacant possession’ letter.

All tenants go into a lease today knowing that the landlord can decide to sell the property, at which point they will be evicted. A lot of landlords have been doing that over the last two years, taking a profit as property prices spiralled.

The rental vacancy figures in this town and just about everywhere else would suggest that once a rental property is sold, it disappears from the rental pool – at least for a while. The national rental vacancy is 1.2% – at a time when analysis of Census housing data suggests that 700,000 private dwellings are locked up and uninhabited. More on that later.

We all know people who are renting and finding it increasingly difficult to feed their families. In recent months, there have been many stories in the media about families struggling to find a place to live. Those who find themselves at the end of a lease with no new home in the pipeline are at risk of becoming homeless.

Even when we are told the reasons for the shortage of housing, solutions are less obvious. Mostly due to self-belief and a strong self-image, some people caught between a lapsing rental and a tight vacancy rate will find their way round it.

It isn’t hard to find caravan parks, farm-stays and outback tourism ventures that need residential caretakers. The successful candidates get to park their vans for free and quite possibly pick up a small stipend as well.

People in these circumstances (a) do not regard themselves as homeless and (b) they can enjoy the luxuries afforded by a 22 ft caravan and an annexe.

June quarter data from CoreLogic shows that Australia’s rental market continues to tighten as low supply levels cause national vacancy rates to dive. Rents continued to rise across all capital cities and property types over the past three months.

Dwelling rents in the June quarter were 9.1% higher across the capital cities and up 10.8% in regional areas, compared to June 2021.

CoreLogic report author Kaytlin Ezzy said the recent upwards trend in rents has occurred mostly in the absence of overseas migration.

“This sustained period of strong rental growth has seen national dwellings record the highest annual growth in rental values since December 2008, when rental demand was supported by record levels of international migration,” Ms Ezzy said.

Vacancy rates across national dwellings fell to a record low of 1.2%, down from 2.2% this time last year.

In March, CoreLogic contributed to a report in The Guardian that found rents in Queensland had risen by as much as $200 a week over the previous two years.

The report found that steep rent rises in parts of Queensland forced people into caravans, sheds and poverty – even before widespread flooding displaced thousands more people.

While the ABS has released 2021 Census housing data, it will be “early to mid-2023” until we see the homelessness data. The most recent official data was collected in 2016 and released a year later. The homeless tally then was 116,427.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) estimates that in 2020–21, around 278,300 people received assistance from Specialised Homelessness Services (SHS). Around 111,100 clients were homeless when they first began support.

There are different categories of homelessness, apart from those who literally have nowhere to go and end up sleeping rough or in a charitable shelter. Then there are people living in sheds, garages and other unconventional buildings, couch surfing (staying with friends), hostels and unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Since late 2019, the onset of the Covid pandemic, the escalating price of real estate and an ever-increasing scarcity of rental properties has unquestionably added more individuals and families to the homeless tally. There is an increasing cohort of ‘hidden homeless’, that is people who are either not eligible to apply for support or feel they do not need it.

In Australia, some of these people head for the great outdoors. Accommodation demand driven by ‘Grey Nomads’ has produced hundreds of free camps and low-priced camp-grounds run by local show societies. The free roadside reserves, which may nor may not have a toilet/and or shower, usually have rules about how long you can stay. In Tasmania, many free camps allow you to stay for up to a month.

.Everyone’s circumstances are different, but we have met many people who had sold their house and bought a road rig. Many of the so-called Grey Nomads are retired tradies and public servants who can afford a $200,000 self-contained rig and go on the road for months at a time.

But if you travel the country and stay in free camps, you are just as likely to see a couple living in a 30-year-old caravan towed by an equally ancient car.

The big problem waiting for Australia’s new Prime Minister to tackle (after he has settled down our Pacific neighbours), is the housing crisis.

Believe me – it is a crisis. There are simply not enough houses to go around. This is particularly so in Queensland, where interstate migration has put the housing sector under massive strain.

There are reasons for the dire shortage of housing and they include delays in building new homes amid adverse weather in 2022. Then there are homes destroyed by floods or bushfires.

But as residential property analyst Michael Matusik discovered, the housing shortage is in part due to some 700,000 private dwellings that are “deliberately left vacant”.

Matusik reached this conclusion after analysing 2021 Census housing data, which showed there were one million unoccupied dwellings in Australia (about 10% of the country’s private residential accommodation).

The ABS defines unoccupied dwellings as: holiday homes (for owner’s use or rented out); investment properties without a tenant; newly built but vacant dwellings; habitable dwellings being renovated and/or vacant dwellings for sale or lease.

Matusik wrestled with those categories and calculated that after discounting the latter, 700,000 unoccupied dwellings were investment properties that were locked up rather than tenanted.

“Many of the unoccupied dwellings are in capital cities, especially Sydney and Melbourne where more apartments are in the dwelling mix,” Matusik wrote in his regular subscriber bulletin, Matusik Missive. “In these cities the proportion of overseas buyers, especially from Asia, and particularly from China, is the highest in the country.

“It is somewhat safe to say that something like 70% of the unoccupied dwellings across Australia are deliberately locked up.

“Assuming past immigration levels return, then there is a need to build some 150,000 new dwellings across Australia each year.

“If we could unlock these 700,000 empty homes, we would not need to build a new home for 4.5 years.

While admitting this is ‘fantasy land’, Matusik says that any move to open up these dwellings would go a long way to improving short-term dwelling supply.

As we approach National Homelessness Week (August 1-7), some agencies will no doubt be calling for an earlier release of Census data on the homeless.

I asked the peak body, Homelessness Australia, for a comment; but remembered it was de-funded by the Federal Government in 2014. When one of their volunteers gets back to me, I’ll include their comment.

For now I’ll say that however bad the news is, it is better that we know sooner than later.

 

Affordable housing – a key election issue

affordable-housing-election
A roof over your head – image by Capri23 at Pixabay.com

Wherever you go in Australia to visit friends and family, the conversation very soon turns to the scarcity and high cost of rental housing. The topic will then quickly shift to the ever-rising cost of houses and why parents worry about their adult kids taking on seven-figure mortgages. As residential property analyst Michael Matusik recently said, it comes down to the Bank of Mum and Dad.

Few cities or towns have escaped the 20% rise in residential real estate prices (for the year to September) or the inevitable rental hikes that followed. Stories that circulate about landlords taking advantage and tenants deciding they’d be better off sleeping in their cars are not uncommon. Check in with any emergency housing agency and they will tell you things are as tough as they have ever been.

AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver says that while housing affordability has always been an issue in Australia, it has moved from a periodic cyclical concern to a chronic problem.

“The 20% rise in prices over the last year has put the spotlight on the issue again. With the surge in house prices since the 1990s has come a surge in debt which brings with it the risk of financial instability should something go wrong in the ability of borrowers to service that debt.” 

Oliver said the gains have been driven by record low mortgage rates, buyer incentives, a tight jobs market, a desire for more home space as a result of the pandemic and working from home, numerous government home buyer incentives, the “fear of missing out” and lower than normal listings. This has pushed average prices to record highs and real house prices to 23% above their long-term trend.

Oliver says the average capital city dwelling price rose 200% over the past 20 years, compared to an 82% rise in wages. The disparity has become more telling in the last 10 years with dwelling prices increasing by 58% and wages rising by only 26%.

The popular wisdom, if your parents taught you such things, was to spend no more than a quarter of your gross household income on housing. Over the decades, this figure has risen to 33% and in the major cities has peaked at 50%.

As we are now in pre-election mode, it’s appropriate to mention the Affordable Housing Party, a single-issue party which is on a membership drive to avert the risk of de-registration. Led by Andrew Potts, the party had its first tilt at Federal politics in 2017, fielding a candidate in the Bennelong By-Election.

The party’s policies include phasing out negative gearing, ending the capital gains discount on investment properties, stopping foreign investment in Australian property, taxing investment properties which are left empty and cracking down on full-time AirBnB operators.

Radical? Yes, but the problem needs some radical thinking before we end up with 200,000 people couch surfing and sleeping in their cars.

The AHP’s research on the housing sector focuses on negative gearing, which means the cost of owning an asset exceeds profits, resulting in  investors claiming this loss to reduce other taxable income.

As the research suggests, one ought not to expect the Federal Government (or any government), to shut the scheme down. As of April 2017, Federal MPs and Senators owned a total of 289 investment properties.

This could be a good time to bust a few myths about negative gearing, Tax Office statistics from 2017 show that 64% of the 2.2 million people who own investment housing have an annual income of less than $80,000. This seems to scuttle the argument that only the wealthy benefit from investment housing. Less than 10% of Australia’s 2.2 million property investors earn more than $180,000 a year. Likewise, 71% of investors own only one home, with 19% owning two and 10% owning three or more houses.

Labor Leader Anthony Albanese upset some of the affordable housing campaigners in July when he abandoned pledges to impose restrictions on negative gearing. The opposition went to the 2016 and 2019 elections promising to halve the 50% deduction on capital gains and limit negative gearing to new properties only.

National Shelter chief executive Adrian Pisarski said by ditching its commitment to reforming negative gearing, Labor had “abandoned” would-be home-owners and low-income households wanting to buy homes.

“It took 15 years of campaigning by many to get the ALP to find a spine on CGT and negative gearing and commit to helping reduce house price inflation,” Mr Pisarski told the SMH at the time. “This is a sad day for affordable housing.”

In May Mr Albanese launched the Opposition’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. The fund would build social and affordable housing and create thousands of jobs now and in the long term, he said.

Annual investment returns from the Housing Australia Future Fund will be transferred to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) to pay for social and affordable housing projects.

Over the first five years, the investment returns would allow the building of 20,000 social housing properties, 4,000 of which would be allocated for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and older women facing homelessness.

Residential property analyst Michael Matusik has a few ideas to fix housing affordability. He says part of the problem is the focus on new builds rather than the existing market.

Matusik-style reforms would include removing negative gearing (a policy set when interest rates were sky high) and charging stamp duties at a flat $2,000 per transaction.

Matusik suggests a 20% tax on all property transactions – including owner stock if sold within, say, three years. This would stop ‘flipping’ (buying a house, renovating it and selling again within a short period of time) which is a major driver of prices. The government should limit foreign buyers to new dwellings and they must also have a 50% Australian business partner who pays 20% tax. These new rules would also include measures to stop developers land-banking.

“If they don’t start building the project within five years, they lose development approval. After 10 years, if there is no action the site is sold underneath them. In short, you cannot buy a home (new or existing) unless you have an Australian passport and pay 20% tax. No Passport no buy.”

As for new housing, Matusik says all housing related incentives should be removed because they distort the housing/building cycle. He also suggests that greenfield developments be required to provide minimum levels of community infrastructure set as targets. No doubt he will extrapolate on these ideas in a future Matusik Missive.

More radical ideas from Gwyn Hooper, writing for a Byron Bay newspaper (the median house price in Byron is $2.8 million (units $1m):

Under Hooper’s affordable development plan, the Federal and State governments would provide finance and free land. Local Government’s role would be to manage the buildings and tenants and waive its usual development fees.

The tenants would have a secure tenancy, pay an affordable rent (based on income), and would importantly be able to live and bring up their families without financial stress – an issue that can cause family breakdowns that only compound these issues.

As these examples suggest, this issue needs to be de-politicised and brought out into the sunlight with an ‘open to new ideas’ sign attached.

Written in the comfort of my freehold home, ameliorating some of my baby boomer guilt, I think.

Last week: People who lived in the UK for more than six months between 1980 and 1996 are prohibited from donating blood because of Mad Cow disease.

More reading