Search

For more than two decades, Australia’s private rental sector (PRS) has seen rapid growth, as latterly replicated in most other anglophone nations. Commentary and scholarly attention have generally ...

Research on Australia’s private rental sector (PRS) has tended to focus on the demand side of the market. However, to properly comprehend how the sector functions an understanding of the landlord cohort, their motivations and behaviour, is also essential. This chapter therefore concentrates on the individuals and entities who provide private rental housing in Australia, on the sector’s evolving ownership structure, and on the market conditions and policy settings that have influenced this. To help frame and explain the changing nature and scale of private rental housing investment the chapter reviews key influencing developments in global financial markets, as well as Australia’s tax settings and regulatory levers that contribute towards shaping landlord behaviours. The chapter’s prime focus is the nation’s 2.2 million small-scale rental property owners who provide the vast bulk of Australia’s mainstream PRS housing stock. However, recognising the possibility that it might come to form a significant sector component in future, institutionally-financed and owned ‘build to rent’ housing is also discussed.

The chapter charts three main periods in the history of private renting since the end of WW1. In the first period (1919–1945), private renting was widespread in the working-class inner suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne but became deeply unpopular due to evictions and poor quality, badly maintained properties. In the second period (1946-mid-1980s), post-war reconstruction efforts supported mass home ownership and a fledgling public housing sector, and ignored the problems of private renting. Private renting declined in this new “home ownership society” until its mid-1960s nadir, attracting attention again only in the 1970s with the “rediscovery” of high levels of poverty among private renters. In the third period (mid-1980s to the present), private renting increased again due partly to tax and policy settings that stimulated investment in rental housing allied with greater demand from households unable to exit the PRS into home ownership (or public housing) as occurred in prior decades. The chapter concludes with a profile of private renting today outlining considerable diversity in the ages and household incomes of renters; long term as well as short/medium term renters; and considerable intra-city variation in rents with the lowest rents in outer suburbs.

This chapter examines the process of finding rented accommodation, whether tenants feel at home in their accommodation and what contributes or detracts from a sense of home. The capacity to secure a suitable rental property varies dramatically and is shaped fundamentally by a tenants’ financial resources. The massive shortage of affordable rentals for low-income households makes securing suitable accommodation for this group exceptionally difficult and extremely stressful. Single parents, people reliant on government benefits and older renters found securing suitable accommodation particularly hard. Often their only option was to accept rundown properties in the outer suburbs, in areas with few services or amenities. Some renters were forced to leave the metropolitan area so as to find affordable accommodation. Once accommodation was secured, most tenants were able to create a sense of home. The capacity to feel at home was shaped by the condition of the dwelling, the landlord’s willingness to do necessary repairs and the tenant–landlord/real estate agent relationship. When tenants had a sound relationship with their landlord or real estate agent they felt secure. The capacity to personalise the space was also an important contributor to feeling at home. For some tenants, the convenience of the neighbourhood and close social ties with neighbours played an important role in them feeling at home.

This chapter examines housing affordability in the PRS. We first discuss the concept of rental stress and its prevalence in Australia. The literature on housing affordability and wellbeing is then briefly reviewed. Drawing on our 2015 renters’ survey in Sydney and Melbourne, the financial hardship faced by tenants in different housing markets is assessed. What is evident is that renters in low-rent areas are far more likely to be reliant on government benefits for their income, have an unemployed household member and have three or more financial stress indicators. The interviews we conducted are then utilised to examine rental stress for tenants reliant on government benefits. It was apparent that most were battling to cope with everyday expenses and that the resultant stress was often severe. Older private renters dependent on the Age Pension, the next group focused on, were in similar circumstances. Their rent consumed a considerable proportion of their income and this was having a deleterious impact on their capacity to lead a decent life. We then focused on tenants who were employed. In some households where only one member was employed rental stress was still evident. However, rental stress was not evident for households with two members employed.

This chapter focuses on the body of regulation which sets the norms and expected behaviours involved in Australia’s landlord-tenant relations. It opens by exploring the rationale for private rental regulation, especially in terms of the prevailing neo-liberal governance philosophy. Next, we present a national overview of tenancy regulation across Australia highlighting, where appropriate, particularly notable features of systems in specific jurisdictions. Drawing on this overview the chapter then discusses three key aspects of landlord-tenant relations, namely rent regulation, security of tenure and landlord repairing obligations. After briefly reviewing the distinct regulatory approaches that relate to boarding houses, we next summarise recent PRS regulatory reform debates and, in conclusion, reflect on the overall picture and future prospects for change in the balance of power between landlords and tenants.

This chapter summarises our main arguments and findings and reflects on the possible impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the private rental sector. We argue that the high cost of housing relative to incomes and the near stagnation in the building of social housing, has meant that for an increasing proportion of Australians private renting is their only option. Despite its ever-increasing importance, the sector remains lightly regulated. This is reflected most clearly in the capacity of landlords in most Australian states to terminate a tenancy without having to give a reason. A key contribution of the book is the in-depth exploration of tenants’ experiences and perspectives on private renting. The coverage of rental situations across low, medium and high-rent areas and on Age Pension-reliant tenants has highlighted the extreme diversity of the private renting experience. For middle and high income earners, private renting is often viewed favourably at least in the short-medium term. However, for low-income private renters, being a private renter can be extremely challenging due to the cost of the accommodation relative to income and the perpetual insecurity. The loss of employment and income related to the pandemic in areas such as hospitality and tourism has certainly accentuated the difficulties of many low-income renters. We conclude that a fundamental shift in the way housing is viewed is required if Australia’s housing system is to become more equitable and affordable. Rather than the maxim that market forces will provide, and people need to find their own way, affordable and secure housing must be reconceptualised as a human right.

The chapter, drawing on Clapham’s concept of housing pathways, examines why people find themselves reliant on the PRS, often for extended periods or even lifelong. Four groups are focused on—long-term renters (ten years or more) who are reliant on the PRS for their accommodation because they have no other option. They are primarily low-income households. The second focus is on older (aged 65 and older) private renters primarily or totally dependent solely on the Age Pension. We then investigate the circumstances of rentvestors. These are tenants who cannot afford to buy a home in the area they are currently renting in and have bought a property in a cheaper area. The final group are “choosers”; they have voluntarily decided that renting is a superior option to purchasing. What is apparent is that the primary reason why people find themselves in the PRS for extended periods is because they do not have the financial resources to purchase a home. This was most apparent in the case of tenants reliant on government benefits for their income. However, even households with employed members were locked out of home ownership. In the case of older renters, many had been home owners but primarily because of divorce they lost the family home and found themselves dependent on the PRS. The chapter illustrates that contingency often plays a major role in the housing pathways of individuals. Besides divorce, ill-health, business failure and death of partner can push people out of home ownership into the PRS or, in the case of younger renters, solidify their dependence on the PRS.

Light regulation of the PRS means that private renters on short fixed term leases or periodic tenancies can be required to leave their home at short notice, typically when the property is being sold or if the landlord or their family wants to live in the property. In most Australian states they can also be given notice to leave without any stated grounds. The law also allows for regular increases in rents to “market levels” without any cap on the increase. Landlord freedoms to end tenancies and/or raise rent can make continued tenancy difficult or impossible. The chapter investigates tenants’ experiences of insecurity in their housing situation as legal insecurity does not necessarily translate into de facto insecurity. It also examines perceptions of insecurity which can differ markedly. The chapter finds that while private renters develop some strategies to adapt to their situation on a daily basis such that insecurity is often only “at the back of the mind”, all perceive lack of control over their housing futures. The capacity of low-income tenants to deal with a rent increase or notice to vacate is often very different to the capacity of medium and higher income tenants.

This Collection offers insights from twenty of Australia’s leader academics and thinkers into the survey results of 15,000 Australian rental households. The Collection draws on data from The Australian Rental Housing Conditions Dataset funded by the Australian Research Council in partnership with six Australian universities as well an additional AHURI funded COVID-19 module.

This research examines possible cost-effective reforms of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) (demand-side housing assistance) that could improve housing outcomes for low-income renters.

As in many other nations, Australia's intensifying shortage of affordable housing represents one of the most pressing policy challenges for government. Against a backdrop of ongoing population grow...

Home ownership has been seen as a core aspiration and value for most, if not all, Australians from European settlement to the present. This chapter begins by examining Australia’s home ownership rate in a comparative context. Trends in this rate, changes in government support for home ownership and the reasons for emerging concerns about falling rates of home ownership, particularly among younger households, are covered next. The question of why home ownership has a dominant role in Australia and in countries with similar economic, institutional and cultural backgrounds is then addressed. Whether the support provided to this tenure, especially, the tax/subsidy concessions that accrue to homeowners, is an appropriate role for government is also considered.

Land use planning policies are a critical component of the institutional architecture that frames housing policy. Indeed a core goal of land use planning is to ensure an ‘adequate supply’ of housing. This chapter has three main components. Drawing on planning and land economics principles, it first examines the ways that land use planning measures, such as ‘inclusionary zoning’, can generate affordable housing and the generic arguments for such measures. Secondly it identifies features of Australia’s land use planning system that have direct implications for supporting affordable housing and discusses the various ways in, and extent to, which Australian governments have experimented with these. The chapter concludes by contesting popular claims that Australia’s land use planning regimes are a major cause of housing unaffordability.

This chapter examines government-led responses to the intensifying shortage of affordable housing. The emphasis is on endeavours to enable low cost (below-market) rental housing development using public subsidies and other incentives to leverage private investment, alongside adoption of new institutional and governance arrangements for affordable housing services. The chapter explains the operating principles of the affordable housing business model, including the role of public subsidy to meet the gap in funding between required investor returns and revenue based on affordable rents. International approaches to public–private co-financing are showcased, followed by an interpretation of potential lessons for Australia. The current status of Australian efforts to adopt new investment models and an analysis of the main domestic barriers to private institutional investment in affordable housing are also included.

Around one in every four Australians rent their home from a private landlord. The past two decades have seen strong growth in the private rental sector and a rising incidence of long-term (perhaps perpetual) renting, especially among younger and less affluent Australians. This chapter first describes the structure and institutions of Australia’s rental market, the private rental dwelling stock, and the sector’s residents. Tax and other policy settings affecting the form and level of private rental property investment are then explained. The focus then shifts to regulatory policy affecting the consumer experience of private rental and forms of government financial support to low-income renters. In view of the sector’s evolving significance, options for reform of present tax and regulatory policy settings are debated throughout.

Concerns surrounding affordability have become central to Australian housing debates. This chapter begins by describing the housing affordability issues that have been the focal point of what is popularly seen as Australia’s housing crisis, i.e. the growing hurdles faced by many would-be first home buyers, a trend generally attributed to house price inflation outstripping income growth and borrowing capacity. It then reviews the conceptual and practical issues of defining housing affordability and examines affordability outcomes across all tenures using a range of measures. That analysis helps shift the spotlight from home buyers to the intensifying rental affordability pressures affecting lower-income tenants. To conclude, the chapter discusses the underlying structural causes of Australia’s housing affordability problems and their potential consequences.

Indigenous peoples remain among the most disadvantaged Australians in terms of their housing needs. This chapter begins by discussing the historical and cultural factors and past policy approaches that helped to shape the specific housing needs of Indigenous Australians in both urban and remote geographic settings. The chapter continues by critically examining contemporary policy approaches to addressing Indigenous disadvantage and the barriers to achieving better housing outcomes. Policy responses are shown to have been complex and highly volatile, characterised by frequent changes in direction and shifting responsibilities across governments. Key challenges in the social housing, home ownership and private rental service systems are described. A central theme is consideration of how housing policies could be better aligned with cultural values and Indigenous aspirations.

Considering social housing as infrastructure may improve investment in the sector, as well as increase transparency and efficiency in project appraisal and funding prioritisation. It explored different methods of calculating the benefits of social housing relative to cost, including the savings that might accrue in other areas of government expenditure. The research also modelled ways to best finance and fund social housing, revealing that a capital investment strategy supplemented by efficient financing is substantially more cost-effective than a commercially financed model reliant on an operating subsidy.

Ensuring necessary and appropriate levels of social housing investment begins with a well-evidenced understanding of the scale, type and location of need and secondly, an accurate understanding of the cost of procuring appropriate dwellings in the right locations. The design of an investment pathway, and the use of public or private equity and debt, also significantly influences the cost to government and the wider community. Our research builds a customised method for establishing both current unmet need (the backlog) for social housing and future projected need, based on a proportionate share of expected future household growth. It also provides evidence for the diverse geography of land and construction costs based on industry and project level data. Five alternative pathways involving a range of debt, efficient financing and capital grant strategies have been modelled to assess their relative costs to government. The research shows the capital grant model, supplemented by efficient financing, provides the most cost effective pathway for Australiain preference to the no capital grant, commercial financing operating subsidy model. Over the next 20 years, it has been estimated that 727,300 additional social dwellings will be required, with current price procurement costs varying from $146,000 to $614,000, depending on local land values, building types and construction costs in different regions. This report provides extensive data on needs and costs for 88 statistical areas (SA4 level). Where rents are set at levels affordable to low-income households, revenues can only support modest levels of debt financing and thus co-investment is also required. International experience on infrastructure investment pathways cautions that, while off balance sheet Public Private Partnerships and Private Finance Initiatives (PPP/PFI) have been widely utilised in comparable countries (as well as in Australia), th

© 2018, © 2018 IBF, The Institute for Housing and Urban Research. The rise in private renting in home ownership societies has been variously interpreted as increasing risk and insecurity and providing more flexible housing options for an increasingly diverse resident cohort. Drawing on an original survey and in-depth interviews with private renters in two cities in a classic home ownership society (Australia), there is clear support for the “disaster” interpretation in respect of low-income households renting in outer urban areas, with financial stress and insecurity reflecting and compounding disadvantage. For many others, private renting can be interpreted as a “constructive coping” strategy in the context of urban housing market restructuring. A sizeable cohort of private renters explicitly prioritises living in a desired inner/middle city location over owning. One–albeit relatively small group–appears “deviant” from the home ownership norm in associating private renting with greater lifestyle freedom. The paper contributes an understanding that location and lifestyle are of paramount importance to many private renters rather than housing tenure per se.

Historically, social housing in Australia operated as a springboard for social mobility. For many working families, public housing tenancy was an opportunity to save for a house purchase deposit. Latterly, tenant exits from public to private housing have declined to very low levels. This has raised concerns about systemic barriers to residential and social mobility for social renters, and about the consequent longer waiting times for applicants in need of social housing. Drawing on administrative data collected by social housing providers in NSW and Victoria, and in‑depth interviews with 95 former and current social housing tenants in both states, this paper examines tenant attitudes, intentions and motivations as regards future house‑moves. We argue that the primary disincentives to exit relate to affordability and security of tenure in private rental, rather than factors related to the social housing system itself.

This study investigated the private rental sector policy settings and institutions relevant to Australia in 10 countries in Australasia, Europe and North America, with a detailed review of the sectors in Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom and United States. The research investigated the international experience of housing and impact of broader economic systems, financial settings, landlord and tenancy structures and regulation in the reference countries.

Key findings This is the Final Report of an AHURI Inquiry into the capacity of Australia's affordable housing industry. Earlier reports from the Inquiry have focussed on the current state of the industry, the capacity impacts of transfers of public housing to non-government providers, and international experience of capacity issues pertaining to provision of affordable housing. Informed by these reports, and by an in-depth study of industry stakeholders' views, this report considers capacity constraints that need to be addressed in order to realise the industry's potential to help expand the nation's affordable housing supply and transform Australia's neglected public housing. Australia's affordable housing industry is a nascent but growing sector, largely involving not-for-profit providers subject to government regulation. With the nation's public housing system lacking the means to properly maintain its portfolio, let alone to expand provision, the affordable housing industry's future is critical to address the rising housing need experienced by low-income Australians. An estimated minimum of 200,000 additional affordable housing dwellings will be required over the next 20 years. Over three decades, the provider part of the industry has built a strong reputation for effective affordable housing management and, more recently, development, and has potential for further expansion. While a pre-eminent cohort of large, professionalised providers has emerged over the past decade, the industry retains considerable diversity including many providers serving specialist groups or rural and remote locations. An Inquiry research report (Milligan, Martin et al. 2016) provides a profile of registered providers. The following key findings draw on the informed perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders about perceived capacity issues within the industry and their ideas of possible ways to address these. • The existing policy and public subsidy framework is not fit-for-purpose. Stakeholders representing all main constituencies see the lack of an appropriate policy and resourcing framework for affordable housing as the single biggest constraint on the industry's capacity to supply more affordable housing. • A stable and supportive policy context is essential. Organisational scale and capacity has developed strongly during periods of growth, but retention of provider capacity has been undermined by volatile policy settings, and piecemeal and stop-start patterns of growth opportunities, experienced in recent years. •The industry is committed to, and ready for, expansion. Having invested heavily in their organisational capabilities, many existing large providers have under-utilised capacity. Further capacity building among providers can be stimulated via a planned and predictable approach to growth. • Governments should help providers achieve a stable financial footing. The goal to increase private financing of affordable housing calls for provider organisations to have larger balance sheets, and predictable and secure cash flows. Thus, governments have a key role in ensuring that providers have effective control over their assets and resources (many of which currently remain government owned) and that tenant rent subsidies (mainly paid via Commonwealth Rent Assistance) are secure and continuous. • There is scope to generate further provider economies of scale. Lenders and other industry experts argue that building the business scale of providers is crucial to enable them to shoulder greater financial risk and deliver larger-scale projects. However, this impetus must be balanced with preservation of industry diversity and the contribution of specialist providers. • Supporting institutions and frameworks lack necessary capacity. A web of supporting institutions and frameworks is crucial in maximising industry effectiveness. Industry-wide, there is general agreement about the following key capacity shortcomings: • Industry regulation needs a major overhaul to complete national coverage, refine the regulatory framework, enhance regulatory capacity, curb regulatory burden (e.g. duplicate contractual regulation) and align regulatory effort with a new policy direction. • A lack of political leadership and dismantling of housing policy-making capacity in government agencies in recent years has hindered industry development. This has contributed to a lack of mutual understanding about affordable housing operations between key government and industry players. Governments must invest in their capacity to fulfil their leadership, policy-making and regulatory roles. • A major overhaul of industry data and analytical capacity is required to identify the costs of affordable housing provision, improve accountability for tenant outcomes, inform resource allocations and improve services. Optimising publicly available information about the industry (e.g. publishing more regulator-collected data) will raise the industry's profile, facilitate identification of capacity deficiencies and help secure public and private financing. • Professional development requirements need to be enhanced. Employee development within the industry needs more attention. Industry-specific competencies required include: specialist property development and development finance ability; long-term asset management and asset-management planning; complex tenancy management; culturally-adapted housing services; and contract management. Priorities also include safeguarding the industry's ethos and core social values, and embedding in future leaders a balance of commercial skills and dedication to affordable housing and community development. • Industry leadership representing provider interests must be strengthened. To foster its development and represent its interests, the provider part of the industry will need to fortify its leadership and network more effectively with governments and other stakeholders. Presently, affordable housing providers have a low profile and peak bodies and peer networks are small and under-resourced. The recent absence of an effective national industry peak combined with diverse state-level approaches to industry development has contributed to fragmentation and duplication of effort and resources. • Industry development frameworks need to be explicitly linked to growth plans and targets. Past funding for capacity-building activities by governments and the industry has had mixed results (Milligan, Martin et al. 2016: Chapter 4). State and territory government efforts have been inhibited by the absence of a national framework for industry growth to which their capacity-building strategies could be aligned. • Industry re-engagement with the National Community Housing Standards (NCHS) is desirable. Review and revision of the existing 2010 standards could be a useful vehicle for reinvigoration of industry values and aspirations. Application of revised standards could help reinforce organisational missions and reputations, drive service improvements and help identify areas for training and industry development. • The future of the Indigenous housing sector is precarious. Indigenous housing providers have an important and culturally unique role in housing Indigenous tenants and supporting their diverse needs. Partly because recent policy reforms have dealt major blows to their viability, their place within the industry has diminished and the future for many is uncertain. Indigenous housing leaders participating in this study were deeply concerned about the recent lack of policy attention to their part of the industry in most jurisdictions. Commensurate with the findings from our extensive stakeholder consultations, our investigations into the development pathways of other industries undergoing growth and reform and national affordable housing systems elsewhere showed: • the paramount importance of policy continuity and directional clarity • industry stability and growth relies on government subsidies being adequate, appropriate and assured • the potential contribution of specialist institutions that can support key industry requirements-for example a custom-designed financial intermediary to facilitate provider access to low-cost funds (i.e. under consideration by the Australian Government and the Council of Federal Financial Relations) ? the significance of fit-for-purpose and responsive regulatory frameworks • the critical role for agencies within government to steward and champion the industry in its emerging phase. Policy development implications: a road map for the industry Industry vision The vision for the future of Australia's affordable housing system is one of a vibrant and sustainable industry that: • Mobilises efforts across the policy, financing, development and management fields of housing to create innovative ways to meet the housing needs of low and middle income Australians. • Can address relevant government priorities, including attracting cost-effective private financing, supporting successful city renewal, and creating economic opportunity and socially diverse communities. • Offers a continuum of affordable rental and ownership products that complement market-provided housing. • Sets best practice in tenant support and referral, responsive service provision, responsible asset management, socially integrated housing development and place-making.

Mainly stimulated by concerns over inadequate housing supply, both the UK and Australia have recently seen renewed policy-maker interest in channelling ‘institutional investment’ into rental housebuilding. This has coincided with the recognition that – as seen in both countries – ongoing changes in the demographics of expanding private rental sectors reinforce the need for new forms of provision.Drawing on recent ‘informed stakeholder’ perspectives in both countries, we build on existing accounts through our analysis of barriers to institutional financing of rental housing and our investigation of what, if any, fundamental changes in market conditions and investor sentiment have recently occurred, so that such obstacles might potentially be overcome. Further developing this story, we compare and contrast recent ‘policy reform’ recommendations proposed in both countries with the aim of stimulating institutional investment in housebuilding.Although impediments to large-scale institutional funding for rental...

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. In liberal market Anglophone nations, where private rental housing is typically lightly regulated, little is known about the household-level drivers of recent private rental sector growth. In Australia, where long-term private renting (10 years plus) has doubled since the 1990s, growing numbers are thus exposed to risks of landlord-initiated moves and unpredictable rent rises for lengthy periods. Our research suggests that although long-term renting mainly reflects adaptation to increasingly unaffordable home ownership, lifestyle choices are also significant—at least in Australia’s major cities where renting in a ‘desirable’ area may be preferred to owning elsewhere. While many tenants appear sanguine about their housing security, this is highly problematic for lower income residents lacking other choices, many of whom appear likely to remain lifelong renters. The paper contributes an additional perspective to debates about the interplay between changing housing market dynamics, lifestyles and housing choices/constraints.

Key findings Public housing transfers and affordable housing industry development Since the mid-1990s, but especially since around 2007, property transfers by Australian state and territory housing authorities have added significantly to the housing stock and capacity of community housing providers (CHPs). Latterly, there has been increasing interest among housing policy-makers in the prospect of further transfers, at a larger scale, as reflected by the 2009 Housing Ministers Conference target of community housing achieving a 35 per cent share of the social housing sector. This interest has been particularly motivated by the increasingly financially stressed and physically run-down condition of public housing, and by the perceived benefits of 'contestability' arising from a multi-provider social housing system. Crucial here are the revenue advantages afforded CHPs under current subsidy settings-in particular, CHP tenant eligibility for Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) paid through the social security system, thus enabling CHPs to charge higher rents without reducing tenant net incomes. Until recently, however, public housing transfer programs have been relatively small in scale and experimental in nature (Pawson, Milligan et al. 2013). Public housing transfers post-2012 Since 2012, three Australian states with little prior experience of transfers have commenced ground-breaking new transfer programs. Tasmania's Better Housing Futures (BHF), South Australia's Better Places, Stronger Communities (BPSC) and Queensland's Logan Renewal Initiative (LRI) are considered here as case studies on contemporary public housing transfer policy and practice. BHF involved four parcels of properties (about 500-1,100 dwellings each, with some vacant land for development), representing, in total, 35 per cent of Tasmania's public housing stock; these were transferred to four CHPs, three based interstate. BPSC involved transfer of two parcels (about 500-600 properties each) to two SA-based CHPs. These two programs proceeded through to management handovers in 2014 and 2015, and the respective state governments are, at this writing, progressing further transfer initiatives with more ambitious objectives. By contrast, LRI, which would have been the largest and most far-reaching transfer program yet undertaken in Australia (about 5,000 properties to a partnership of two interstate CHPs), has recently been terminated, along with other planned Queensland transfers, after protracted preparations, political controversy and a change of government. Transfer objectives and models Relative to the objectives and models of transfers identified in our 2013 research (Pawson, Milligan et al. 2013), the case study transfers examined here consolidated, extended and innovated in various ways. All three programs embodied the objective of capturing CRA as the most important motivating factor. In South Australia (SA) and Tasmania, this enhanced revenue was directed to increased spending to address maintenance backlogs. More ambitiously, the Queensland Government aspired to leverage funding for large scale estate renewal and housing construction, which would have involved investment reportedly totalling $800 million. Building the capacity of the not-for-profit housing industry was an important secondary objective of each of the programs. Recognition of local industry capacity limitations was reflected in the initially modest objectives for renewal and growth adopted by the SA and Tasmanian governments. The case study transfers also consolidated the model of transferring property management rights by lease or agency agreement, rather than freehold title. However, they also extended the model by transferring for longer periods (terms of 10 years for Tasmania, and 20 years for SA and Queensland (as planned)). Competitive selection processes, without a role for tenants, also consolidated previous practice-although the openness to interstate providers represented a new development. Transfer processes, terms and tenant implications In all the case study states, the transfer selection, contracting and transition processes built capacity in government and housing providers, but were costly-most of all, of course, in Queensland, where the Logan transfer was aborted despite an extensive tendering process and a subsequent lengthy period of preparation for handover. In the two states where transfers progressed to completion, significant process issues were encountered-particularly in connection with Centrelink payments and the transfer of tenant credits and liabilities. The transfer contracts contain notable provisions relating to: • Government termination of contracts-raising questions of security. • Backlog maintenance liabilities-subject to spending caps that mitigate risk for CHPs. • CHP organisational management and tenancy management in accordance with social housing policies-raising questions as to the proper place for this level of regulation. Large-scale transfers raise questions around the employment of public housing staff; however, BHF and BPSC largely avoided the issue through prior recruitment freezes and internal redeployments within the public service-approaches that could not be replicated in a larger- scale transaction or program. LRI would have required the successor CHP to employ ex-public housing staff-but with the project's cancellation, the associated organisational challenges and opportunities were not seen through to implementation. None of the case study transfers sought to build the capacity or agency of tenants in the transfer process, but CHPs' post-transfer engagement with tenants and service improvement initiatives appear to have been well received. Transfer finances, accounting and CHP asset bases Financial modelling indicates that, through CRA-enhanced rent revenues, transfers of public housing to CHPs may be a viable way of achieving maintenance backlog reduction and, at the same time generating a modest revenue surplus to underpin other designated CHP activities. Employing social landlord income and expenditure assumptions derived from transfer tendering practice, this modelling focused on a number of '30-year business plan' scenarios for a notional 1,000 dwelling public housing transfer. These scenarios were compared with a 'continuing public housing management' base case. Allowing for the elimination of a maintenance backlog averaging $15,000 per dwelling, our transfer 'base case' generated an operational surplus over the business plan period sufficient to leverage construction of 113 new homes. Of these, 13 would be for market sale, 29 to replace obsolete transferred public housing, and 71 as additional affordable housing units. Alternatively, in the most favourable scenario-where strong government action facilitates access to cost-effective private finance (through a financial intermediary) and free land (through planning interventions)-it was estimated that leveraging could yield as many as 557 new homes. Of these, 77 would be for market sale, as well as 143 units to replace worn out public housing and 337 additional affordable dwellings. However, any transfer contract commitment for a recipient CHP to carry out larger scale catch-up repairs and/or to undertake non-landlord activities (e.g. place making, housing advice and support) would quickly erode and eliminate this development capacity. And, even in the most favourable circumstances imaginable, the social housing financial regime would (over 30 years) enable the successor landlord to replace only a very small proportion of the ageing transferred portfolio. The above objectives may be achieved where CHPs are granted a mere leasehold, as opposed to freehold, interest in transferred properties. This is because lenders consider 'long-lease' acquisitions of former public housing as potentially sufficient to underpin cash flow-based lending to reputable providers. For accounting purposes, 'long lease' is now being interpreted as including contracts of as little as 10-year duration. As confirmed through recent practice, proper accounting treatment of such transactions involves the asset concerned being recorded as a 'disposal' on the public accounts. It must be emphasized that significant questions linger as to what, under current policy settings, transfers may be reasonably expected to deliver. In particular, there is no validated information about the true scale of dwelling condition impairment in transferred property portfolios, nor on the time needed for 'catch-up repair' programs to eliminate such problems.

Australia's emerging affordable housing industry has considerable potential to expand housing options for lower income households. This study examines the industry's current profile and capacity. For the purposes of this study, the affordable housing industry comprises: ?Non-government (for-profit and not-for-profit) affordable housing providers. ?The institutions and individuals that enable, support and regulate their work. Capacity is the ability of the industry to perform its work. Capacity is multidimensional and includes having: ?The resources to do the work, appropriate organisational and workforce capacities, industry-specific skills, effective networks and political influence. The regulated industry comprises two main types of providers: A group of 40 commercially-oriented entities that raise private finance, procure housing and offer diversified housing services. Most in this group could accommodate further expansion and develop their own future capacity. A second group of 283 smaller organisations that mainly provide governmentcontracted tenancy and/or homelessness services. Many have growth potential but lack resources. Capacity-building could be targeted to assist this group. There is also a sizeable group of (both registered and unregistered) Indigenous-run community housing organisations (ICHOs). Limited operating scale, poor viability and recent policy disruptions have left many ICHOs vulnerable. An intentional tailored approach to building scale and capacity among this group is critical to ambitions to 'close the gap' in Indigenous disadvantage. Key gaps in industry infrastructure include the absence of: Clear and consistent government and industry leadership. A core industry data set. A financial intermediary to harness private investment. For the industry overall, the main capacity issues identified so far concern: ?The need for scaled-up and predictable growth opportunities to promote further capacity development and strategic investment. Shortcomings in policy-making capacities and regulation.

Since the 1980s there has been a growing emphasis on consumerizing welfare services as a form of provider accountability and as part of the commercialization of public agencies, which has formed part of the New Public Management reforms. Associated with this, the structured measurement of tenant satisfaction is well established in England's social housing sector and has become increasingly important in informing official assessments of social landlord effectiveness. This paper investigates whether published tenant satisfaction scores are sufficiently reliable and robust to serve as a pre-eminent and unambiguous service quality measure, examines the validity of comparing recorded satisfaction rates for social landlords operating in different social and demographic contexts, and looks into how raw survey results could be adjusted to take account of ‘context’ factors outside a landlord's direct control.

The private rental sectors (PRS) in Australia and the UK differ substantially in terms of size and composition, institutional settings, and historical role in their respective housing systems. However, governments in both countries envisage the PRS as playing an enhanced role in accommodating lower-income households, in part to offset declining opportunities to access social housing. In examining this development we ask how far contemporary housing policy objectives can be met within current institutional settings for the PRS. We examine the sector's role within the broader rental housing market and the institutional settings for the PRS in the two countries, which affect outcomes for lower-income private tenants. The paper argues that achieving policy objectives to house lower-income households in the PRS, as well as in social housing, will require attention to the institutional settings for the PRS in addition to the acknowledged need to nurture supply. We examine prospects for better coordinat...

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to re‐appraise the role of the private renting in the housing system drawing on a review of public policies toward the sector in six countries. It re‐examines the adequacy of explanations about tenurial “competition” and the dynamics of tenurial change using a cross disciplinary perspective.Design/methodology/approachThe paper critiques key explanations on the nature and type of competition between housing tenures, notably dual and unitary models, and the role of private renting in explanations of tenure dynamics. The paper also explores some of these ideas empirically by examining the changing role of the private renting relative to other tenures in a number of European countries and in Australia.FindingsThe paper expresses doubts about the potential for unitary markets to develop/continue as integrated markets because of the fundamental problems about ensuring continuing investment in the private rented sector and constraints on the maturation process, particularly where ownership of rental housing is diverse and small‐scale. The analysis suggests that housing tenures are quite fluid and with a general trend towards deregulation of private rents there is a blurring of the distinction between different types of rental systems.Practical implicationsThe analysis suggests that it is critical to understand changes in private renting taking into account broader economic conditions, trade‐offs about housing consumption and investment, and public policy settings.Originality/valueThe analysis draws out theoretically, and explores empirically, the process of change in tenure relations by for the first time focusing on the role of private renting in these dynamics.

In both Scotland and England, reducing anti-social behaviour (ASB) and building a culture of respect are key central government priorities. Accordingly, since 1997 both jurisdictions have seen the introduction of a raft of punitive legislation. Over recent years, however, there have been signs that the official ASB agenda has shifted away from a reliance on ‘enforcement measures’ towards a more balanced approach incorporating measures to address the underlying causes of problem behaviour. With their emphasis on ‘whole family’ approaches and parenting interventions, ASB family projects, pioneered by the Dundee Families Project (DFP), are seen to respond to official concerns about social exclusion and have been promoted as an effective and sustainable response to ASB. In both Scottish and English jurisdictions official endorsement of the DFP model has been marked by government-funded programmes to ‘roll out’ this concept more widely. Drawing on findings from a recent evaluation of ASB family projects operating in Scotland combined with scrutiny of evidence from a number of English studies, this article explores, in a comparative manner, the differences and similarities in the policy discourses and models of practice employed by Scottish and English projects. More specifically, we critically appraise the role played by sanctions in evoking service user engagement.

Domestic violence has been recognized as a major contributory factor to homelessness in the UK and elsewhere, with women more likely to be affected. In the UK and other countries undergoing welfare reform, moves toward 'active citizenship' increase the complexity of the relationship between states and citizens and open up new strategies for both. However, analysts have noted some strategies can create new forms of inequality, including gender-based ones. This article considers the impact of prevention-centred homelessness policy responses to domestic violence, with specific reference to the 'Sanctuary' model. Sanctuary schemes support women facing homelessness due to domestic violence to remain in their current residence, protected against attack from outside the home. Drawing on analysis of the literature and empirical work, we compare the experiences of women who have used traditional forms of support and Sanctuary services. We argue that while the model has the potential to provide greater autonomy to some women in these circumstances, it is not appropriate for all. Increased emphasis on Sanctuary schemes could make it more difficult for women who might prefer to move. We conclude that more attention needs to be paid to addressing the origin of women's homelessness due to domestic violence.

There has been in recent years considerable emphasis on market-oriented reforms and consumer empowerment measures within British social and housing policy. Underlying many such initiatives is a model of human action and motivation based on rational choice theory. Proposals for the introduction of ‘shopping incentives’ within Housing Benefit are a prominent current example of this trend. This paper reflects on these developments by examining evidence from an experiment undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions in three London boroughs to provide underoccupation incentive payments. The objective of this programme was to encourage ‘underoccupying’ council tenants receiving Housing Benefit to relocate to smaller properties. This was to be achieved by providing a financial incentive scaled to the net reduction in rent consequent upon the move. The analysis concludes that the relatively small financial inducements offered by this scheme had no impact on tenants’ housing consumption decisions. Indeed, t...

Morag McDermont, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010, 189 pp., £30.00 (pbk), ISBN 978 1 84113 0 989 0 With UK housing associations poised to assume the role of majority social rental provider, Morag McDe...

Before the introduction of the Right to Buy legislation there was concern about the potentially damaging effects the policy might have on rural communities. While early research confirmed these fears, a more comprehensive study by Twine and Williams (1993) found little evidence of the scheme exacerbating rural housing problems. Now, five years on, and after a period of sustained resale activity, we introduce new evidence which suggests that, the impact of resales in widening choice to would‐be first time buyers in rural areas may have been less than previously believed. On the other hand, the study seems to lend weight to the suggestion of earlier research that resales may have specific impacts in remoter areas of scenic beauty. In areas of this sort, the proportion of incomers within the cohort of resale purchasers may be particularly large by comparison with other rural areas.

The varying spatial and socio-economic impact of large-scale privatisation of the British housing system since 1980 is well documented. However, the effects of this policy extend beyond the initial privatisation of ownership. By 1995 over a fifth of the 300,000 public sector homes sold to sitting tenants in Scotland had been resold on the open market. In this paper, we show that the pace of commodification varies significantly between areas, and examine the factors that underlie this pattern. Our results suggest that significant influences include the characteristics of the initial purchasers, the nature of local housing markets and the vitality of the local economy, as well as the time series profile of initial sales. The process of commodification has the potential to make a major impact on the socio-economic character of former public sector estates, changes set in train by the slow-burning fuse of privatisation. It may also result in the restructuring of local housing markets. It is clear that the full effect of these changes will be felt in some areas before others.

By 1995, around one-third of Scotland's public sector housing stock (as at 1980) had been sold to sitting tenants under the 'Right to Buy'. An estimated 67 000 of these 300 000 dwellings have subsequently been resold on the open market. At the peak of the resale activity, in 1992, the volume of resales reached just under 14 000 transactions, accounting for 14 per cent of all 'second-hand' market activity in that year. There appears to be a substantial differential between the realised market values of former public sector homes as compared with other second-hand dwellings, characteristic of regions of England where demand for housing is less intense. There is also evidence of considerable variations in prices of former public sector properties within districts, depending on the reputation of the neighbourhood concerned. Survey evidence shows that the resale market is not predominantly a first-time-buyer market. Half of those who have purchased former public sector dwellings were already owner-occupiers at the time. For most of those concerned, buying an ex-RTB property presented an opportunity to trade up in the market in terms of size and type. Nevertheless, for a considerable proportion of first-time buyers, the availability of a former public sector property may have been crucial in facilitating access to home-ownership. Significantly, one-third of this group had previously contemplated social renting.

Since 2002 homelessness policy in Britain has shifted significantly towards a more prevention-focused approach on the part of local authorities, the bodies legally charged with tackling homelessness. A range of techniques and interventions have been developed to help ‘at-risk’ households in retaining their existing accommodation or in finding alternative homes. Associated with the implementation of these measures, officially recorded homelessness numbers have fallen substantially in England and Wales and modestly in Scotland. Further, English local authorities report having actively prevented homelessness for 130 000 households in 2008–09. Concerns nevertheless remain that, at least in some local authorities, ‘prevention’ may have been used to some extent as a cover for unacceptable (and dubiously legal) ‘gatekeeping’ practices.