Chapter 2Views on the bill
1.1This chapter considers inquiry participants’ evidence on the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 (No. 2) (bill). Firstly, the chapter considers evidence on the objects of the bill. Secondly, the chapter considers the bill’s provisions to establish a National Housing and Homelessness Plan. Thirdly, the chapter examines the proposed establishment of the National Housing and Consumer Council and the National Housing and Homelessness Advocate.
1.2The chapter concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations.
Overview
1.3In general, inquiry participants expressed support for the bill. Inquiry participants emphasised the importance of housing access and raised concerns about the increasing number of Australians unable to afford housing. As such, inquiry participants welcomed the bill’s provisions to establish, implement and maintain a ten-year National Housing and Homelessness Plan (NHHP) to coordinate a national response to the complex problems in Australia’s housing system. For instance, the Salvation Army told the committee that:
…the development of a plan to address and respond to housing inequity under the Bill sets a solid foundation to address systemic and pervasive housing and homelessness issues across Australia.
1.4Inquiry participants expressed strong support for the bill’s objects, particularly to recognise housing as a human right. Further, inquiry participants welcomed the proposed National Housing and Consumer Council (Consumer Council), to advise the Minister on housing matters, and welcomed the proposed National Housing and Homelessness Advocate (HousingAdvocate) to monitor the NHHP and to conduct reviews into systemic housing issues.
1.5However, some inquiry participants recommended amendments to the bill. For instance, participants recommended expanding the scope of the membership of the Consumer Council. Some participants also recommended that the bill include provisions directed at improving housing outcomes for specific cohorts, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and young people. Additionally, inquiry participants noted that the bill must form a part of a broader suite of tools to effectively deal with Australia’s housing and homelessness challenges.
Unmet housing need
1.6In supporting the bill, many inquiry participants outlined the importance of affordable housing access and how Australians are increasingly adversely impacted when that need goes unmet. For example, PowerHousing Australia, a national network of community housing providers, submitted that:
Homes are a cornerstone of one’s dignity, providing stability and the opportunity to thrive and contribute to the community meaningfully. However, this reality is starting to slip away for many people in Australia, with many unable to secure a roof over their heads. Access to adequate housing is becoming more elusive due to policies not being targeted to ensure housing as a fundamental human right in this country.
1.7The Salvation Army Australia further emphasised the importance of housing:
Access to adequate housing is a basic human need and a fundamental human right. It is about more than just having a roof over one’s head; housing must be habitable, accessible, affordable, and culturally appropriate. When this need is not met, it becomes difficult or untenable for community members to pursue and realise other needs, goals, or aspirations.
1.8Several other inquiry participants commented on the relationship between housing access and Australians’ economic, social and health outcomes. For example, the Western Homelessness Network, a network of 24 specialist homelessness services in Melbourne’s, submitted that ‘[s]afe and stable housing is absolutely key to an individual’s health, mental health, wellbeing and capacity to participate in work, caring and education’. Further, Mayor Matt Burnett, President, Local Government Association of Australia told the committee that Australia’s shortage of housing:
...affects the social and economic fabric of communities in many ways, from the inability to attract key workers, displacement and stress on low-income households to the increase of people experiencing homelessness.
1.9The Centre for Research Excellence in Healthy Housing (Healthy Housing CRE) outlined the significant health impacts associated with poor quality housing and homelessness. For instance, the Healthy Housing CRE submitted that:
Indoor exposure to high/low temperatures, damp, mould and poor indoor air quality are linked to negative cardiovascular, respiratory and mental health outcomes. Poor housing quality increases risks to the health impacts of climate change and disasters. Energy hardship results in worse physical and mental health outcomes and leaves households with fewer resources for essentials that support health, such as nutritious food or medications.
1.10Similarly, the Women’s Health Goulburn North East submitted that ‘[s]ubstandard and insecure housing is strongly associated with poor health and wellbeing’ and that climate change is exacerbating housing issues and associated health outcomes. For example, one individual submitter to the inquiry, who lives in a rental property without heating installed, said that they experienced household temperatures that were not safe and suggested this had significantly increased their frequency of illness.
1.11Moreover, the Centre for Research Excellence in Healthy Housing (Healthy Housing CRE) submitted the ‘[h]ealth harms to people with nowhere safe and secure to live are so great that their life expectancy is, on average, around 20-30 years less than people who are housed’. The Healthy Housing CRE added:
Homelessness leads to poor nutrition, increased exposure to the elements and to violence and injury, including types of ‘hidden homelessness’ like living in makeshift accommodation or cars. Preventive and primary health care are often out of reach to those without a permanent address as people become disconnected from health services. Mental illhealth and substance abuse can both lead to homelessness and be exacerbated by it Severe overcrowding – a type of homelessness – can mean inadequate or unhygienic facilities for preparing food or washing and can make people more vulnerable to infectious diseases.
1.12The impacts of housing accessing where also noted by the University of Sydney housing researcher who submitted that ‘well-built, safe, and secure housing is crucial for the future health, and mental health, of our nation’. The researchers submitted that housing which ‘provides access to natural light, temperature control, is well-maintained, and located near public green spaces, reduces the risk of anxiety, depression and loneliness for residents’.
1.13Submitters also noted the economic implications of housing access. For instance, the Healthy Housing CRE that ‘…safe, secure, affordable and appropriate housing…reduces health service costs by billions of dollars and increases household productivity’. The Healthy Housing CRE also outlined that housing for people experiencing homelessness ‘creates myriad cost benefits, mostly in reduced costs related to health and crime, and better employment and education outcomes’. Further, the University of Sydney housing researchers outlined the importance of having affordable housing proximate to places of employment:
Housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income workers, and is well located relative to jobs, is also critical for the economy and for the functioning of key public services. Research shows that in major cities, as well as regional areas, lack of appropriate and affordable housing is impacting the recruitment and retention of essential workers in high-cost areas (Gilbert et al 2021; 2023). This presents significant risks for the functioning of critical services including healthcare, emergency services, policing, education, childcare, and community welfare support (including specialist homelessness services) (Gilbert et al 2021; James et al 2023).
1.14Further, University of Sydney housing researchers submitted that recent research suggests that ‘Australia needs approximately 750,000 social dwellings and 250,000 affordable dwellings over the next 20 years to meet the current and projected need’. These dwellings, they argued, ‘cannot be delivered without government support and subsidy and without action the need will only continue to grow’.The researchers concluded:
Australia’s housing system needs urgent and fundamental reform to address the current crisis and establish ongoing system improvement beyond the short-term political cycle. We believe the proposed National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 establishes a sound framework for this reform to begin.
Increases in housing insecurity and homelessness
1.15Despite the importance of Australians being able to access affordable housing, the committee received evidence regarding the significant, and increasing, number of Australians experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness. For example, the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre submitted that:
It is clear that housing affordability within Australia has become increasingly problematic over the last two decades, arguably reaching crisis point within the last few years. As things now stand the ‘Australian dream’ of owning your own home is effectively now out of reach for the majority of young Australian adults who cannot call on significant parental wealth to provide a deposit and act as security for a loan. Furthermore, the median house price is now out of reach of the median household income, making their ability to service such a loan increasingly challenging.
1.16Furthermore, Ms Kylea Tink MP, who sponsored a near-identical bill in the House of Representatives submitted:
Australia's housing crisis is a complex issue with diverse causes and effects that cross over different policy areas and levels of government. Despite disparate funding agreements, policies and programs that have been put in place by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to date, the situation has only worsened. Housing affordability is now at its lowest level in 30 years, and the social housing system is ill-equipped to meet growing need, with over 122,000 people experiencing homelessness, including 25,000 children under the age of 18.
1.17Several other submitters also described Australia’s housing system as being at crisis point. For instance, the Hon Rose Jackson MLC, New South Wales Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, submitted:
NSW is in a housing and rental crisis, and we recognise that drastic and urgent solutions are needed.
We acknowledge that the current cost-of-living pressures and housing crisis are impacting many people and families across NSW. Conditions in the private rental market are increasing homelessness and applications for social housing.
Groups particularly vulnerable to housing stress, insecurity and homelessness
1.18Worsening housing affordability particularly impacts people who are vulnerable to housing stress, insecurity and homelessness, including ‘low-income households, single parents, young people, single pensioners, those fleeing domestic or family violence, people with disability, and First Nations Australians’.
1.19Indeed, inquiry participants gave significant evidence on the disproportionate rates of housing stress, insecurity and homelessness experienced by vulnerable groups. For example, Amnesty Internation submitted that:
Marginalised groups including refugees, migrants, children, people with disabilities, elderly people, and Indigenous people are particularly impacted by this crisis. The 2021 census revealed that; 14.4% of homeless people were children under 12, 15.8% of homeless people were over the age of 55 and 1 out of 5 were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Women are the majority of newly homeless.
1.20For instance, submitters noted that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples experience disproportionately high rates of homelessness; making up one in five homeless people, despite only representing 3.8 per cent of Australia’s total population. Further, the Aboriginal Community Housing Industry Association NSW noted that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households, compared with other Australians:
half as likely to own their own home (with or without a mortgage);
six times more likely to live in social housing; and
three times more likely to live in overcrowded dwellings.
1.21The committee received evidence on the unique housing challenges and requirements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Indeed, the committee heard that the disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians have not been resolved by traditional housing policies and that there is a significant case for a housing strategy that is specifically tailored to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
1.22For instance, Mr Darren Smith, Chair, Aboriginal Housing and Homelessness Forum, told the committee that:
…the national housing crisis is much better described as a state of emergency for Aboriginal people. The number of Aboriginal Victorians at risk of homelessness has increased by 29 per cent over the past four years. The level of homelessness and unmet social housing demand is at least 10 times greater for Aboriginal people compared to the general population across Australia. The failure of existing policy and the absence of a strategy or national housing plan has led to the current housing and homelessness challenges we face. It is essential there be greater accountability to Aboriginal communities from government as a plan and a way forward are mapped out.
1.23The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association (NATSIHA) submitted that:
…‘[f]or over 65 years, conventional policies and administrative frameworks have failed to close the housing gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The persistent disparities in housing outcomes reflect deep-seated systemic issues that can no longer be ignored. Our communities deserve a strategy that prioritises their unique needs and rights, and that is driven by those who possess the cultural understanding and community trust necessary to effect meaningful change.
1.24People from multicultural communities are also disproportionately impacted, as the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia suggesting the housing crisis was:
…impactingsome multicultural communities worse than the rest of the population, especially those from newand emerging migrant communities, those with poor English language proficiency and those fleeingdomestic violence. Housing is a fundamental building block to leading a life of security and dignitythat all Australians deserve, irrespective of their background, or how long they have been here.
1.25WYCA Australia, a national not-for-profit organisation supporting women, submitted that ‘Australia’s housing crisis is a gendered one’ with women and gender diverse people encountering ‘significant barriers to accessing affordable housing’ and experiencing ‘elevated rates of homelessness’. WYCA Australia noted that Census data showed the number of homeless women ‘has continued to rise, from 49,017 in 2016 to 53,974 in 2021 (a 10 per cent increase compared to the 2 per cent increase in the number of homeless men).’ Over the same period, there was a nearly 18 per cent increase in homelessness for girls aged 12 to 18-years-old. WYCA Australia noted that domestic and family violence is the ‘leading cause of homelessness for women and children’, with 45 per cent of all women and girls seeking homelessness assistance identifying family and domestic violence as a cause.
1.26The Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC) told the committee that, based on survey results from 2022, the risk of ‘single mothers and their children being homeless is over three times the national average’. Applying the survey results to the broader population, the CSMC said:
…single mother respondents’ experience of homelessness or marginal housing sits close to four times the national average, which equates to around 12,500 mothers with 22,500 children (based on 1.8 children per respondent) who are homeless or marginally housed.
1.27The committee heard that youth homelessness is at crisis levels in Australia, with nearly a quarter of all people experiencing homelessness aged from 12 to 24 years, amounting to 28 204 young people. Further, 14 per cent of homeless people in Australia were aged under 12. One submitter, who had first experienced homelessness as a 17-year-old, set out what homelessness could mean for young people:
Sleeping in cars. Couch surfing. Rough sleeping. Living in overcrowded dwellings. Staying in environments that are unsafe and puts young people at risk of exploitation and abuse. This is the reality for Australia’s most vulnerable children and young people. Children and young people experiencing homelessness have barriers to accessing basic needs such as food, hygiene, healthcare, education, community and cultural connection, safety and comfort which further disadvantages them.
The cost of homelessness and the impact it has on tens of thousands of young Australians– the future of this nation– is devastating and can be resolved by legislative reform that protects their rights to housing.
1.28The Housing for the Aged Action Group Inc. noted the importance of access to safe, affordable, accessible and long-term housing to the health and wellbeing of older people. It noted the growing housing pressures faced by many older people, particularly those on low incomes in the rental market:
According to census data, about 700,000 people aged 55 and older rented from a private landlord, a 73% increase in ten years. There are at least 220,000 older people over 55 renting privately in the lowest two income quintiles. Since the census, there was an ‘unusually strong pace of growth in rent values nationally, where the estimated median weekly rent value across Australian dwellings increased by $115 through to the end of April 2023’.5 Therefore, the majority of the older renters are now likely to be in severe rental stress, experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
1.29Other submitters also noted the unique housing needs of older Australians. For example, the Salvation Army noted that women aged 55 and over now are the ‘fastest growing cohort experiencing homelessness’. COTA Australia noted research projections ‘indicate that about 440,000 households, aged 55 years and over, will need affordable housing by 2031, a 78 percent increase in unmet demand from 2016’.
1.30Additionally, the Salvation Army cited research findings that ‘LGBTQIA+ people experience higher rates of homelessness compared to heterosexual peers due to discrimination and lack of acceptance within their families and communities’.
Objects of the bill
1.31Several inquiry participants expressed support for the objects of the bill, and in particular the proposed recognition in government policy of housing as a human right. For instance, Uniting NSW.ACT submitted:
We support a right to housing as part of the more general right to adequate standards of living, as stated in article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). As a signatory to this convention since 1973 and having ratified it without reservations in 1975, Australia has already recognised that everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their family, and this includes adequate food, housing and clothing. Implementing the human right to housing through appropriate government policy, national housing strategies and other programs is key to ensuring adequate housing for all.
1.32Dr Chris Martin and Professor Hal Pawson, housing academics from the City Futures Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, considered that the bill’s objects ‘are the most important provisions of the bill’, noting the objects:
…recognise the right to adequate housing affirmed in international law, including the [ICESCR], and the principal of Indigenous self-determination in housing policy per the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
1.33Dr Martin and Professor Pawson explained that they considered the bill’s objects to be important for two reasons:
(i)they place the bill within the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth; and
(ii)the human right to adequate housing sets an appropriately ambitious mission for the NHHP, and serves as a useful starting point or common ground on which to engage the diverse agencies and stakeholders involved in housing and homelessness policy.
1.34Juno, a support and advocacy organisation, similarly wrote that recognising housing as a human right in Commonwealth legislation:
… would start the process of much-needed change, providing the enablers for ending homelessness in Australia.The shift of mindset from housing as a commodity to housing as a right is fundamentally needed if we are to truly address the inadequacies and inequality of Australia’s housing system.
1.35Housing researchers from the University of Sydney argued that while Australia had ratified the notion of housing as a human right in 1973, it had not taken the necessary subsequent steps to give effect to the commitment:
Enshrining the right to adequate housing in national legislation gives effect to our international obligations and provides a basis for implementation across Commonwealth, State, and local policies, law, and programs.
1.36The St Vincent De Paul Society also suggested that government action on housing would help Australia give effect to its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child:
We know that a secure and stable home is essential to a child’s health, learning, development and wellbeing. Indeed, it is a core element of childhood. Lack of stable housing is a key risk factor in keeping children safe and well. The time to act is now.
1.37Submitters noted that there is considerable international precedent for human-rights based national housing plans. Per Capita Australia’s submission cited research which suggests that a rights-based approach to housing has been adopted in over 50 nations to pursue ‘goals of homelessness elimination, social housing access and mandatory provision of affordable housing’.
1.38The Southern Homelessness Services Network suggested that recognising housing as a human right in legislation would drive a fundamental change in how Australia viewed housing.
Traditionally housing in Australia has been treated as a commodity and an investment. It is a competitive market good, not a public good or a human right.This perspective on housing contrasts with other more progressive countries where housing is more commonly provided by governments as a fundamental service or social infrastructure essential to a functioning economy and society.The Australian view of housing is difficult to change given our history.It is a large part of the reason for the current housing emergency at all levels – home ownership, private rental and social housing.Recognising housing as a human right in Federal legislation would start this process of change, providing the enablers for ending homelessness in Australia.
1.39Some submitters also considered that there is an existing domestic precedent for a human rights-based approach to housing. As YWCA Australia explained:
[The] National Housing Finance and InvestmentCorporation Act 2018(section 10) specified that one of the constitutional limits ofthe Corporation was to perform its functions for purposes related to externalaffairs. That included to give effect to the ICESCR, particularly to the right to anadequate standard of living, including housing (Article 11). Ultimately, there isproven success and sense in adopting a human rights-based approach to anational housing policy to unify diverse stakeholders to achieve meaningfulreform.
1.40Professor Kevin Bell AO KC, an adjunct professor in international human rights law at Monash University and former justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, explained that while the bill was an important and indeed ‘indispensable’ way through which housing as a human right could be recognised, he also supported a parallel recognition in a Commonwealth human rights act:
That is what the Australian Human Rights Commission have proposed. That recommendation has been considered in detail by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and it has recommended that the right to housing be included in a federal human rights act.
1.41The Human Rights Act campaign also submitted in support of federal human rights act and provided examples of cases where the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) had been used to protect Australians’ access to housing.
1.42In its submission, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) pointed to various treaties to which Australia is a signatory and international declarations in which the right to housing is recognised. In addition to writing in support of its abovementioned proposal for a Commonwealth Human Rights Act, the AHRC suggested that the bill was ‘an important mechanism which would complement a Human Rights Act and other measures in a National Human Rights Framework’. Writing in support of the principles of the bill, the AHRC suggested that the bill’s proposed measures would:
… drive the progressive realisation of the human right to adequate housing, and approaches such as the formalisation of a pathway to creation of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan (Part 2 of the Bill) … contribute to the establishment of meaningful benchmarks by which housing policy and delivery can be measured.
1.43The AHRC noted that the bill would not entitle individuals to take legal action if their human right to housing had been breached by government action or inaction. Rather, the bill:
…seeks to embed a human rights-based approach to housing across Australia’s housing system and within the National Housing and Homelessness Plan and establish independent monitoring and accountability bodies.
1.44While supportive of the bill, the AHRC suggested some amendments, which it characterised as nonetheless being ‘within the spirit’ of the current drafting. It summarised these proposed amendments as follows:
A clear definition of ‘adequacy of housing’ that is aligned to the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and United Nations guidance and commentary should be provided.
The Plan should explicitly address the full Housing Continuum, involve the right voices in its development and implementation and be assessed against human rights standards to identify and acknowledge the progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing.
The [National Housing Supply and Affordability] Council needs to be reoriented to consider housing impacts across the Housing Continuum, all elements of adequacy, and from an intersectional perspective.
The Plan should also adopt key principles of proportionality, non-regression of rights and intersectionality of needs. This will ensure that the initiatives reflect what is achievable and to aspire to ensure that nobody in Australia suffers any erosion to their housing status.
1.45Notwithstanding the amendments recommended, the AHRC submitted that:
At its core, the Commission commends the systematic approach applied in this Bill to the right to adequate housing: enabling everyone in Australia to access housing that meets their basic needs and preferences, including minimum standards in security of tenure, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location, access to core services and infrastructure and cultural adequacy. The housing system should enable the empowerment and participation of all people and communities in the decision-making and management of their housing.
Right to housing for people with disability
1.46Associate Professor Iian Wiesel, a disability researcher at the University of Melbourne, considered that by ‘recognising and protecting every Australian’s right to adequate housing, the proposed Bill aligns with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), on which it is a signatory’.
1.47However, Associate Professor Wiesel argued that ‘[d]espite these obligations, evidence collected over the last few decades by housing and disability researchers…demonstrates that our housing system is failing Australians with disabilities’. Associate Professor Wiesel wrote that ‘[u]nmet need for affordable housing is at the heart of the housing disadvantage experienced by people with disability’.
Provisions relating to the National Housing and Homelessness Plan
1.48In general, inquiry participants welcomed the bill’s proposed framework for establishing an NHHP.
1.49While inquiry participants recognised that housing matters are largely within the remit of the states and territories, inquiry participants considered that an NHHP would be an important coordination mechanism for addressing the scale and complexity of Australia’s housing challenge. For instance, the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre submitted that while significant investment and reform would be required to address rising housing prices, a national housing strategy was also necessary:
Asustained and coordinated long-term strategy is needed to tackle these challenges across federal,state, territory and local government jurisdictions. A legislated national commitment to deliver a ten-year plan, with clear institutional roles and responsibilities for policy and program development,oversight and reporting may be the best way to ensure delivery of this outcome. The proposed Act iscurrently the only option on the table to deliver the scale of change and investment required, butultimately government commitment will be required to deliver safe and affordable housing for allAustralians into the future.
1.50Professor Hal Pawson explained that an NHHP was an important mechanism to respond to the complex jurisdictional arrangements impacting housing policy. Australia’s federal system, he argued, made addressing complex and interconnected housing and homelessness problems particularly challenging:
Housing policy challenges and powers and responsibilities are fragmented across both the two levels of government and across departments within governments. So, for a policy area like this, we think there's a very strong case for policies and programs to be designed to function in a coherent and integrated way. In advocating a national housing and homeless plan—or strategy, if you want to call it that—we argue that the value of a strategy is the beneficial role it can have in clarifying the purpose of action for everyone involved.
1.51Several other submitters also emphasised the importance of an NHHP plan to coordinate the range different policy areas which housing matters interact with. For example, COTA submitted that:
Housing as a human right is also an important starting place for an effective national plan that works across different policy areas and enables a range of institutions to work together. Currently, responsibility for housing policy and service provision is spread across jurisdictions and Commonwealth portfolios. Only a plan, led and owned by the Australian Government, with its control over key housing-related powers including tax, social security and migration, can co-ordinate nationally consistent approaches to housing provision.
1.52Many inquiry participants expressed strong support for establishing a legislative requirement for the Australian Government to develop, implement and maintain an NHHP. Indeed, submitters considered that a legislative requirement would provide an overarching governance and accountability mechanism to ensure that an NHHP is maintained over the long-term. For example, Mission Australia submitted that:
… legislating a statutory basis for the Plan would be an effective mechanism for establishing governance and accountability structures that would contribute to ending homelessness and ensuring that all Australians have access to a safe, secure and affordable home.
The Government of the day would remain responsible for setting direction and developing the Plan, but this proposed legislation would provide the framework in which the Plan would be designed and governed. Importantly, it would mandate the development and renewal of a Plan, the absence of which has contributed to Australia’s current housing and homelessness emergency.
1.53Submitters also welcomed legislating a requirement for an NHHP to provide greater certainty in relation to the federal government’s engagement with housing policy. As the Victorian Public Tenants’ Association’s submission outlined:
We welcome the proposal to enshrine these requirements in legislation as it provides an additional layer of security so that Australians can have confidence that future governments will also be required to consider and respond to the issues of housing and homelessness.
This is particularly important, as the role of the Federal Government in this area is far from settled. While the current Federal Government has taken action in these policy areas, predecessors have regarded these issues as being the sole domain of States and Territories. Legislation which requires the Federal Minister to formulate a national plan, and to do this in response to meaningful consultation and expert advice therefore has strong potential to drive improvements in outcomes by ensuring the consistency of attention over time.
1.54Ms Wendy Hayhurst, Chief Executive Officer of the Community Housing Industry Association expressed a similar view in evidence to the committee:
In recent decades, the approach to housing strategy and policy at the federal level has been periodic initiatives responding to particular circumstances and opportunities. However, the extent and complexity of housing and homelessness problems and the fact that these cross over different levels of government and also involve 'non-housing' areas of government mean there is a need for a concerted, strategic and nationally led approach. Given the history, we believe legislating a requirement to produce a plan is essential. Transforming the housing market is a long-term proposition, and the institutions that support it need to be designed to survive beyond the current electoral cycle. We recognise that governments may choose to modify actions in a plan, but an ongoing national leadership on ensuring adequate housing for all is essential.
1.55Furthermore, some submitters noted that federal housing and homelessness policies had not been updated in many years. Some submitters also argued that the lack of a proactive approach to developing and maintaining housing and homelessness policies has exacerbated Australia’s housing challenges. As such, submitters expressed support for the bill’s proposed requirement for the NHHP to be produced on a recurring 10-year basis. For example, Mission Australia submitted that:
It has been more than 15 years since Australia last developed a comprehensive national policy on homelessness, and over 30 years since a national housing policy was released. In the years since, the housing and homelessness systems have largely been left on ‘set and forget’; unresponsive to a brewing housing and homelessness crisis which has now grown into a chronic and compounding emergency.
In our view, mandating the Federal Government to develop and maintain a 10-year Plan, to report regularly on progress against the Plan and to review it at timely intervals would be an effective way of ensuring a coordinated, well-resourced and responsive approach to ensuring adequate housing for all Australians.
1.56Several other submitters highlighted the policy co-ordination rationale for pursuing a long-term NHHP. For example, the Central Queensland Housing and Homelessness Alliance considered that legislating a 10-year NHHP would provide the ‘opportunity for overarching policy decisions that will effectively address housing issues and reduce homelessness rates and move away from short-term, band aid solutions’. The Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council expressed a similar view:
We view the proposed legislation as an important mechanism to ensuring consistent policies that support the ambitions of a secure and sustainable housing future for all Australians and to ensure consistency of response and accountability for implementation. We agree with the proponents of this legislation that enshrining the Plan in law will enhance its standing and durability.
Legislating a National Housing and Homelessness Plan will provide more clarity about what the Plan is attempting to achieve and how it will be monitored and evaluated. Legislation will streamline and better coordinate Commonwealth housing policy development and delivery which is currently fragmented across Treasury, the Department of Social Services, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council and Housing Australia.
1.57Ms Kylea Tink MP noted the Australian Government’s commitment to developing a 10-year NHHP. However, Ms Tink highlighted concerns that a ‘one-off strategy will not be enough’ and argued that Australia’s complex housing crisis necessitates an authoritative framework for policy development and accountability – a national plan with a statutory basis’.
1.58In their submission, Dr Martin and Professor Pawson observed that it is ‘possible, if not likely, that the Government will publish its DSS-developed NHHP in the absence of the statutory framework provided by the Bill’. In that event, Dr Martin and Professor Pawson recommended that the DSS-developed plan be made as a provision plan, ‘pending the enactment of a statutory scheme for the Plan, such as that of the Bill, and the making of a Plan according to that statutory scheme’.
Content of the NHHP
1.59As noted in Chapter 1, the bill does not prescribe the content of the NHHP. Rather, subclause 8(1) of the bill provides for high-level areas that the plan must be ‘directed towards’.
While the Bill is not prescriptive about the contents of the national plan, the legislative basis for its preparation and regular reporting will ensure that it carries the weight and legitimacy needed to truly integrate the different policy portfolios which are integral to a well-functioning housing system.
1.60In general, submitters supported the areas to which the NHHP would be directed. For example, the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition (AYAC) particularly commended paragraph 8(1)(b) on preventing and ending homelessness. AYAC submitted that it, and other homelessness and youth-focused organisations, support increasing focus on homelessness prevention, noting this needs to driven by ‘genuine action’ and understanding the unique pathways to youth homelessness. AYAC also supported paragraph 8(1)(d) on improving choice in the housing system, noting that while many young people aspire to own a home the ‘majority believe that this will not be within their reach’. Additionally, AYAC expressed support for paragraph 8(1)(i) on improving the ability of people with disability to live in the community, and paragraph 8(1)(i), on involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in developing, determining and administering housing program’s affecting them.
1.61The Aboriginal Housing and Homelessness Forum (AHHF) also supported the bill’s provision to involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in developing, determining and administering housing program’s affecting them under paragraph8(1)(j). While the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) acknowledged the ‘good intentions’ of paragraph8(1)(j), how these intentions were achieved would be ‘critical’:
To overcome the inequality experienced by Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander people and to support them to achieve life outcomes equal to all Australians, theNational Housing and Homelessness Plan Billmustalign with Priority Reforms One and Two of theNational Agreement. The Bill must ensure that governments recognise that Aboriginal communitycontrolled organisationsare the experts in knowing what works in their respective local communitiesand commit tocodesigning and sharing decision making about housing programswith them, ratherthan just ‘involving’ them. Moreover, for the community controlled sector to be successful andprovide sustainable services, capacity building is critical.
1.62The Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS) welcomed subclause 8(j), in addition to the bill’s provision on improving the ability for people with disability to live in the community. Further, QCOSS recommended that bill’s provisions for the areas that the NHPP is directed towards (Clause 8) be amended to include two additional requirements to ‘ensure that the voices and specific support requirements of young people and people experiencing domestic and family violence are incorporated into the NHHP’.
1.63While the Council to Homeless Persons (CHP) expressed broad support for the NHHP’s proposed contents, the CHP considered that Clause 8 could be ‘strengthened with a commitment to expand the availability of social housing’. The CHP noted that while social housing is already featured as an area which the NHHP must be directed, the provision should seek to expand the availability of social housing, noting that some ‘60,000 new social properties need to be delivered in Victoria alone to meet the current waitlist—this does not necessarily meet demand’.
1.64In advocating for the Australian Government to develop a standalone National Child and Youth Homelessness and Housing Plan, YFoundations’ recommended:
Part 8 of the Act ‘Content of National Housing and Homelessness Plan’ be expanded to include the National Child and Youth Homelessness and Housing Plan and a focus on connections with the broader service systems relevant to addressing homelessness including, but not limited to, health and mental health, personal safety/child protection, education and employment, exiting care institutions and social security.
1.65A range of other submitters proposed expanding the scope ofClause8. For example, submitters recommended that the NHHP should also be directed towards:
improving gender equality in housing outcomes;
improving health outcomes that are associated with housing conditions; and
improving access to healthy, renewable energy sources.
1.66Additionally, the Institute of Public Affairs submitted that while it considered an NHHP to be ‘necessary step in the right direction, the framework laid out in the bill fails to take into proper consideration the role that the federal government’s unplanned immigration program and the role that government regulation has in excaberbating [sic] housing supply shortages’.
10-year plan length
1.67Several submitters welcomed the bill’s proposed requirement for the NHHP to be made on a 10-year timeframe.
1.68The AHRC submitted that it ‘strongly supports the requirement to establish a 10-year plan for housing initiatives as it introduces an appropriate longevity in the approach to policymaking’. The AHRC said that the bill’s ‘approach to codify development of housing strategy via legislation addresses a key issue in realising the right to adequate housing, being the lack of a long-term approach’. In particular, the AHRC maintained that the proposed 10-year timeframe for the NHHP would better align political cycles with housing development timeframes:
Direct and indirect housing policy frequently reflects the position of the government of the day, which in turn means that its development mirrors the usual 3-4 year political cycle. However, the timescale of housing outcomes extends beyond this – the property development cycle is a minimum of 7-10 years, the typical timeframe to refurbishment of tenanted buildings is anywhere between 10-20 years and public housing is typically designed with a lifespan of 50 years.
1.69Dr Martin and Professor Pawson submitted that the proposed 10-year NHHP:
…accords with the period indicated by the Albanese Government for its NHHP, and other international comparators (e.g. both the Canadian National Housing Strategy and Ireland’s ‘Homes for All’ plan are for 10 years). This timeframe is appropriate because it would require the Government to think about action on housing and homelessness beyond the current electoral cycle.
1.70Further, Dr Martin and Professor Pawson noted that the bill would not prevent the Australian Government from amending or making a new NHHP ‘before the end of the 10-year period (for example, after a change in government)’ if the changes being made meet the bill’s other proposed requirements.
1.71Other inquiry participants also highlighted the potential for the 10-year plan length to assist in overcoming the challenges of shorter election cycles. Further, Mission Australia considered that the proposed 10-year plan length and review intervals would be an ‘an effective way of ensuring a coordinated, well-resourced and responsive approach to ensuring adequate housing for all Australians’.
Collaborative approach to developing the NHHP
1.72Submitters expressed support for the bill’s proposed approach to develop the NHHP in consultation with key representative groups and people with lived experience of housing and homelessness.
1.73Dr Chris Martin and Professor Pawson outlined the bill’s collaboration provisions as follows:
The Bill would require the Minister to take a collaborative approach to the preparation of the Plan, which would include considering advice and reports from the NHSAC, the National Consumer Council and the National Housing and Homelessness Advocate (the latter two being established by the Bill), civil society organisations and persons with lived experience of housing need and homelessness. It may be noted that the states and territories are not referred to here. On the one hand, such a reference may be regarded as unnecessary, because so much housing and homelessness policy development and delivery is done by the states and territories that a national plan implicitly needs their collaboration. On the other hand, this implicit necessity could be made an express requirement by adding ‘states and territories’ to the list of collaborators.
1.74Some submitters considered that the bill should specify the role of state and territory governments. For example, the AHRC recommended that the NHHP could articulate the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government by:
amending clause 9 of the bill to ‘ensure that in the development, preparation and implementation of and reporting on the Plan, the Minister must actively seek and have regard to advice or contributions from State or Territory governments’; and
amending clause 10 to ‘include additional directions that ensure an all-of- government approach to improving the housing system and shared responsibility and coordination at federal, state and territory and local levels within the housing system, by clearly articulating the roles and responsibilities relating to housing policy and legislation across all levels of government’.
1.75Further, the Community Housing Industry Association, National Shelter and Homelessness Australia jointly submitted that:
In the bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, the role of state and territory governments to produce ‘complementary and necessarily more detailed and geographically specific strategies at the state/territory level to reflect the diversity of housing and homelessness policy challenges, circumstances and opportunities that exist across Australia’ is acknowledged. However, the bill could usefully make explicit acknowledgement of their proper role in Plan development as well as implementation. While recognising that Federal legislation cannot obligate state and territory governments to perform specific housing and homelessness actions, we believe it would strengthen the bill if their role was formally recognised.
1.76As such, the joint submission suggested that clauses 9 and 10 of the bill could be amended as follows:
that ‘state and territory governments’ are included as collaborators in subclause 9(1);
that the Housing and Homelessness Ministers meeting is acknowledged as a source of advice under subclause 9(2);
that the roles of states, territories and the Housing and Homelessness Ministers meeting in Plan implementation is specified in clause 10.
1.77The City of Greater Bendigo also submitted that it ‘would encourage the inclusion of local governments as collaborators’ when preparing the NHHP under subclause 9(1). The City of Greater Bendigo added:
Local government are at the front line of understanding and responding to community needs. Clear guidance from the commonwealth government to local government will assist with national consistency to provide safe housing as a human right.
1.78A number of other submitters called for the bill’s collaborative approach provisions to be expanded to specify additional groups, including:
student representative organisations and experts with lived experience on the housing needs of students in higher education;
students with disability, students from low SES groups, international students, LGBTQIA+ and First Nations students;
public health organisations; and
young people and people experiencing domestic and family violence;
1.79Further, the YWCA recommended that, under the bill’s provisions establishing a collaboration requirement with civil society organisations, the ‘Minister and relevant agency consult closely with YWCA as the only national housing provider for women and gender diverse people in Australia providing safe, secure, and affordable housing solutions to those that need it most’. YWCA added:
Whether specifically specified in this part or implemented as a matter of practice, women and gender diverse people must recognised as “members of groups who face special disadvantage in the housing system” under sub-sections 9(1)(b) and 10(b). Women and gender diverse people must be consulted and engaged in the process of preparing and implementing the National Housing and Homelessness Plan.
First Nations housing considerations
1.80While National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association (NATSIHA) considered the bill to be a ‘crucial opportunity to reshape the future of housing policy in Australia’, it also argued for a housing and homelessness plan specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:
There is a critical and urgent need for a distinct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing and Homelessness Plan. The ongoing housing and homelessness crisis among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is a deeply rooted issue, entrenched in decades of systemic inequality and policy failures. To effectively address these substantial disparities, it is imperative that a dedicated, Indigenous-specific plan is developed and endorsed. Such a plan must transcend the limitations of existing frameworks, recognising the unique cultural, social, and economic contexts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
1.81NATSIHA recommended that that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be adopted in the NHHP. Further, NATSIHA recommended that it be commissioned to ‘to develop a comprehensive National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing and Homelessness Plan in collaboration with communities nationwide’.
Worsening affordability is contributing to poorer housing outcomes for First Nations Australians. FirstNations households are half as likely to own their home, 6-times more likely to live in social housing,3-times more likely to live in overcrowded dwellings and almost 9-times more likely to experiencehomelessness compared to non-Indigenous Australians. These poor housing outcomes impact onhealth and wellbeing, access to education and employment, and connection to community. Without targeted measures, undertaken in partnership with First Nations people, housing outcomes under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap are unlikely to be met.
1.82Mr Smith, Chair, Aboriginal Housing and Homelessness Forum,, emphasised the need for the NHHP to adopt a principle of Aboriginal self-determination:
A national plan should preference approaches which put ownership, control and funding for housing and homelessness into the hands of the Aboriginal community through community-controlled organisations. It is fundamentally important that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have direct input into all housing programs that will affect communities. The AHHF also would expect the plan will ensure that mainstream providers will address and meet the unique needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the provision of housing and homelessness services to Aboriginal communities.
Renewing and review of the plan
1.83Several submitters supported the bill’s proposed triennial review of the NHHP. For example, the Salvation Army submitted that the review provisions would ‘ensure continuous evaluation and improvement’ and provide an accountability mechanism ‘crucial in adapting to changing and evolving housing needs’.
1.84Mission Australia’s suggested that the review processes in the bill would help embed accountability in a policy area historically characterised by a lack of clear accountability structures and inadequate reporting requirements.
Provisions relating to the National Housing Consumer Council
1.85Submitters expressed broad support for co-design principles proposed by the establishment of the National Housing Consumer Council (Consumer Council).
1.86As noted in the previous chapter, the bill requires that the Consumer Council must include an Indigenous person and people that have lived experience of housing need, homelessness or disability. A number of inquiry participants noted the value in having diverse voices represented on the Consumer Council. For example, the B Miles Women’s Foundation submitted:
Incorporating lived experiences into the development and implementation of the National Plan is crucial. Those directly affected by homelessness can provide valuable insights that enhance the relevance and impact of policies and services. We advocate for a national approach that leverages diverse perspectives and fosters high-level coordination across sectors to create a unified and effective strategy to prevent and address homelessness.
1.87Housing researchers at the University of Sydney submitted that the proposed Consumer Council:
…enshrines key stakeholder voices in national housing policy and strengthens public accountability. The need for such a national voice was one of many recommendations to emerge from the recent People’s Commission on the Housing Crisis, chaired by the Hon Doug Cameron and Professor Nicole Gurran.
1.88Juno wrote that the creation of a Consumer Council, with appointments made on an independent, non-political basis, would:
…lead to a more grounded and responsive system that meets the needs of those experiencing homelessness or in housing insecurity.
1.89A joint submission from Associate Professor Karien Dekker, Dr Iris Levin and Professor Jago Dodson supported the co-design principles underpinning the Consumer Council, stating that:
…co-design in governance is a key success factor in delivering affordable housing for cohesive communities at scale. The collaborative design of policies including consumers, landowners, developers and builders, as well as finance providers, is essential to achieve the intended outcomes of housing for all.
1.90The Community Housing Industry Association, National Shelter and Homelessness Australia jointly submitted that:
…we support establishing the Council. However, consultation with our sector has indicated that by listing the potential interest groups, those groups not mentioned feel excluded. Further, it would be sensible to ensure the Council represents all parts of Australia. We note that in Section 20 (3) b the bill makes clear the Council has to be representative of the diversity of the population. Perhaps add ‘in terms of age, gender, race and location’. It is also important to recognise tenure experiences of the members of the Council.
The legitimacy and credibility of the Council will be enhanced if its selection is via a public and transparent process. This should be specified in the bill as part of clause 20.
Representation of consumer perspectives
1.91Many submitters called for a strengthening of the bill’s provisions on the representation of consumer perspectives on the Consumer Council (see section 17(1)(iii-x)), or otherwise stressed the importance of those perspectives being represented on the Consumer Council. As outlined below, submitters considered the bill should be expanded to include representatives of specific groups.
Age and gender diverse members
1.92Several submitters recommended that the Consumer Council include age and gender diverse representation given the impact those factors have on housing and homelessness outcomes. For example, the Salvation Army highlighted the specific challenges of women aged 55 and over, young people experiencing homelessness, people who identify as gender diverse and the LGBTQIA+ community, and submitted:
Different gender and age groups face unique housing challenges and needs. By including these diverse perspectives [in the Consumer Council membership], policy recommendations that address specific challenges become more comprehensive, meaningful, and effective.
1.93COTA wrote in support of the Consumer Council and a membership that would include people with relevant lived experience. However, COTA also submitted that it was important to ensure ‘older people experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness’ were also included as part of the Consumer Council.
1.94A joint submission from Associate Professor Karien Dekker, Dr Iris Levin, Professor Jago Dodson similarly recommended that the Consumer Council be expanded to include older people, particularly women over the age of 55.
1.95AYAC noted that while young people are referenced in relation to the Consumer Council, the bill does not guarantee their membership.
Given the council will play a key role in advising on the effectiveness of the plan, as well as on current issues relating to housing and homelessness, we believe that young people with diverse lived experience should have guaranteed positions.
1.96Yfoundations stressed the need for young people with lived experience of homelessness to be included in advisory groups. To ensure that inclusion was meaningful, Yfoundations recommended that in addition to the Consumer Council, a separate National Child and Youth Housing and Homelessness Council also be established, and tasked with providing advice on a standalone National Child and Youth Homelessness and Housing Plan.
Chronic and mental health perspectives
1.97Asthma Australia submitted that the functions of the Consumer Council should include advising the Minister on matters relating to ‘persons with lived experience of chronic health conditions’, and recommended the Consumer Council be required to include a person with a chronic health condition. This would:
…help ensure that issues relating to home health, and how homes can both support good health and contribute to poor health, are appropriately understood and reflected in the work of the Consumer Council from the perspective of someone with lived experience.
1.98Given the links between suicide, housing insecurity and homeless, Suicide Prevention Australia submitted that Consumer Council should ‘include the perspective of those with lived experience of suicide due to housing stress’.
First Nations representation
1.99The First Peoples Disability Network (FPDN) expressed support for the requirement in the bill for the Consumer Council to have an Indigenous member and a member with lived experience of disability. However, the FPDN recommended that the bill go further, and mandate:
…that the First Nations representative has lived experience of housing need, homelessness and/or disability. There is a critical need for that unique perspective to act as an accountability mechanism for housing and homelessness supports, this cohort is often overlooked as their needs fall between existing disability, NDIS and housing accountability and policy structures.
Higher education students
1.100The Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association (SUPRA) recommended that the Consumer Council should ‘include a higher education student representative who can speak to higher education housing issues’. In doing so, SUPRA noted that students face ‘significant barriers to accessing affordable housing’, which is exacerbated by a reduction in the amount of accommodation provided by universities in Sydney. Further, SUPRA submitted that ‘students in particular are at significant risk of homelessness, as well as associated vulnerabilities including overcrowding, hot-bedding, excessive rents, high bonds, and unauthorised additional charges, evictions, and contract conditions’.
Community Housing Providers
1.101PowerHousing Australia submitted that to ensure the policies under an NHHP were ‘grounded in practical experience’, the Consumer Council should have Community Housing Provider (CHP) representatives.
Rural and regional representation
1.102Mallee Family Care recommended a requirement for the Consumer Council to include rural and regional consumer representation alongside other identified groups.
Migrant and refugee representation
1.103The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA) submitted that it ‘strongly urges the Committee to include recent migrants and refugees to the Council membership’. FECCA explained:
Recent migrants and refugees are disproportionately impacted by the housing crisis. Their deliberate inclusion in the Council is one way to ensure their specific needs and often reinforcing vulnerabilities are represented in, understood and responded to, in the Plan.
Renter representation
1.104The Abundant Housing Network Australia (AHNA) submitted that a ‘representative from the National Association of Renters Organisations and a representative from the commons and cooperative housing sector be appointed ex officio as a full voting members of the Housing Consumers Council’. Further, AHNA suggested that the bill’s provision for the function of the Consumer Council (Subclause 17(1) be amended to include providing advice to the Minister in relation to ‘residents of commons and cooperative housing’.
1.105Submitters also considered that that the bill should be expanded to include representation of other specific groups, including people with lived experience of family and domestic violence.
Provisions relating to the National Housing Consumer Advocate
1.106Inquiry participants expressed broad support for the HousingAdvocate which is proposed to, among other things, monitor the progress of the implementation of the NHHP and conduct reviews of systemic housing issues.
1.107The Salvation Army considered that the role of the Housing Advocate would create a central oversight mechanism, encourage transparency in government housing responses and increase the credibility of the NHHP. Further, the Salvation Army ‘encouraged’ the role of the Housing Advocate to take the form a ‘trusted friend’, rather than a ‘punitive regulator’ of the NHHP. While welcoming the proposed establishment of the Housing Advocate, the Salvation Army considered the following additional functions could help in achieving goals under the Housing Advocate’s remit:
Engaging with rights holders to prepare and communicate rights norms and government obligations under the legislation which will enhance the legislation’s community accessibility, and
Communicating systemic housing issue recommendations with state and territory governments to streamline information sharing, and to encourage proactive and tailored responses to housing need in different Australian jurisdictions.
1.108The role of the Housing Advocate is modelled on an equivalent position in Canada’s National Housing Strategy Act 2019.In its submission, Per Capita Australia noted that Canadian Federal Housing had used their position to:
…make recommendations to the Canadian Government, the Minister of Housing, and the provinces, territories and municipalities within Canada’s federated system of government. The Advocate also uses an online portal to receive public submissions from individuals with lived experiences of inadequate housing and homelessness, as well as community organisations working in front-line housing assistance. Reports prepared address systemic issues influencing housing outcomes in Canada, including housing financialisation, the right to housing for Indigenous peoples, and barriers to housing for two-spirit, trans and non-binary people.
1.109Per Capita Australia concluded that reporting on systemic housing issues in a similar manner in Australia would greatly strengthen policy making to address homelessness and housing insecurity.
1.110Several submitters expressed particular support for the Housing Advocate’s proposed function to report on systemic housing issues. For example, CHP said:
The role of the Advocate in conducting reviews of systemic housing issues, including those experienced bypeople with lived experience of homelessness, will play an important role on building the evidence base onstructural issues and will—if advice is acted upon by Government—be a new opportunity to implement astrategic approach to policy making to remedy the mistakes of previous decades.
1.111While supporting the role of the Housing Advocate, some submitters urged that consideration be given to the Housing Advocate’s resourcing. For example, Uniting NSW.ACT submitted that the Housing Advocate should be adequately resourced to carry out its proposed functions and that the responsibilities of the Housing Advocate and the Consumer Council be ‘clearly articulated’ to avoid any duplication in responsibilities. Further, the CHP suggested that consideration should be given to whether the Housing Advocate’s ‘annual reporting process will interface with the three-yearly reporting process identified in Division 1, Section 6’.
1.112Additionally, several submitters made recommendations on expanding the Housing Advocate’s remit in relation to groups particularly vulnerable to housing insecurity and homelessness. For example, while supporting the role of the Housing Advocate, NACCHO submitted that the Advocate:
…should also, in partnership with [the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association] andjurisdictional peak bodies, conduct reviews of systemic housing issues including barriers faced byAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly those in remote communities.
1.113The committee notes that several inquiry participants made other proposals related to expanding the Housing Advocate’s remit, or establishing additional specific-purpose advocates, including:
that the Housing Advocate be responsible for the facilitation of information sharing between states and territories to help minimise the jurisdictional barriers affecting border communities’;
that the Housing Advocate be ‘encouraged to prioritise barriers faced by young people, women and gender diverse people in its reviews of systemic housing issues’;
that consideration be given to ‘establishing a separate National Child and Youth Housing and Homelessness Advocate or a senior role within the Office of the National Housing and Homelessness Advocate to monitor implementation of the National Child and Youth Homelessness and Housing Plan’ (as proposed by YFoundations); and
a call from the Aboriginal Housing and Homeless Forum for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander National Housing and Homelessness Advocate.
Other issues
1.114Inquiry participants provided evidence on a range of other matters related to addressing Australia’s housing challenges, but not addressing specific provisions of the bill. These included:
the role of income support and rent assistance in housing affordability;
policies to strengthen rental market regulation and enhance renters’ rights;
the importance of supply side housing initiatives and housing targets;
aligning housing supply targets with population growth and immigration;
consolidation of federal housing and urban policies, and associated public service expertise, in a central agency;
strengthening Australia’s housing research and data capabilities;
tax reform, including reviewing negative gearing and the phasing out of capital gains tax discounts
Committee view
1.115The committee notes that housing affordability and security is a significant concern for Australians, and one which requires a combination of legislative, budgetary and other measures across the whole of government.
1.116The committee acknowledges the Australian Government’s significant housing legislative agenda, noting that the Parliament has already passed a number of measures including the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), increasing the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator cap by $1.9 billion and the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council.
1.117The committee notes that in addition to this significant legislative agenda, the Australia Government has funded in the budget an increase ofCommonwealth Rent Assistance by 45 per cent since coming to government, an additional $423 million for theNational Agreement on Housing and Homelessness, $1 billion through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for crisis and transitional accommodation for women feeling domestic violence, an additional $1.9 billion in concessional loans to community housing providers on top of the HAFF, and $88 millionfor20 000 new fee-free TAFE places relevant to the construction sector to support supply efforts.
1.118The committee recommends that the Parliament focus its remaining time in the legislative program on passing the Build to Rent bills which will address supply demands and includes a mandated proportion of affordable housing, and the Help to Buy bill which will support 40 000 first home buyers with a deposit as little as 2 per cent. Disappointingly, these supply, affordability and homeownership measures have been stalled and delayed in the Senate by the Greens and Coalition.
1.119In addition to this significant agenda, the Australian Government has been undertaking extensive work to develop its NHHP, including consultation with over 1000 Australians, receiving over 200 submissions.
1.120The Australian Government’s NHHP will set out a shared national vision on tackling the country’s housing challenges across the responsibilities of different levels of government, and how best to support those experiencing housing stress and homelessness.
1.121The committee would like to acknowledge the important work of housing stakeholders who participated in this inquiry, with many of them involved in the development of the Australian Government’s NHHP, and in particular their interest for the government’s NHHP to be progressed after a decade of inaction under the previous government.
1.122The committee is concerned that this bill will duplicate the government’s work to develop an NHHP, and by proposing the creation of new advisory bodies that reflect bodies already established and functioning under this government.
1.123In the context of current housing challenges, the committee does not believe the Senate’s time is best spent on duplicative measures such as those contained in this bill.
1.124The committee reiterates that while the Australian Government continues to work on the NHHP, the senate’s most important housing priority should be to pass Build to Rent and Help to Buy bills.
1.125The committee recommends that the bill not be passed.
Senator Jess Walsh
Chair
Labor Senator for Victoria