Search

The pandemic had many immediate policy responses in terms of housing and homelessness. The world realised that there were major implications of the pandemic for housing systems, as staying at home became the most important defence against COVID. Housing and homelessness policies were changed, and changed quickly, in order to ensure that people had a safe and reliable place in which to stay. Simultaneously, economic disruption as a result of the pandemic meant the risk of devastating consequences to these policy responses. This presentation draws on three reports to outline the impact of the pandemic on housing and homelessness in Australia during 2020 and 2021 and evaluate the effectiveness of Australia’s policy responses.

This research investigates the rationale for an Australian Housing and Homelessness Strategy. Applying contemporary thinking about the role of governments in complex problem-solving, and lessons from other ‘national approaches’ here and internationally, it sets out options for achieving cohesive, co-ordinated action on housing and homelessness in the Australian federation. The landmark UN project Housing2030 conceives of good housing policy governance deriving from clear strategic frameworks, mission-focused institutions, capable stakeholders, long-term leadership and commitment. It typically requires multi-level governance, based on long-term agreements. It is also open to monitoring and critique, strengthens the voice of marginalised groups, learns from mistakes and adapts when necessary. In this way a national housing strategy can be market-shaping and transformative, addressing causes of well understood challenges, designing relevant policies and programs to ensure adequate housing for all. Australia’s primary housing and homelessness mission should be that everyone in Australia has adequate housing. Australian legislation should place an obligation on the Housing Minister to make an Australian Housing and Homelessness Strategy, as well as obligations to regularly report on progress and periodically evaluate and review the strategy. International experience shows the vital role played by dedicated housing agencies co-ordinating the development and implementation of strategies, and, with development, Housing Australia is well placed to be Australia’s lead housing agency and to present the public face of the Strategy as it progresses.

This research reviewed first homebuyer (FHB) assistance programs in Australia and seven comparator countries: Canada, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Singapore and the UK. It considered to what degree such assistance are effective in expanding access to home ownership to those whose entry would be otherwise delayed or impossible, or in making more affordable and less risky the cost of home ownership. Current Australian first homebuyer assistance measures primarily act to bring forward first home purchase for households already close to doing so, rather than opening home-ownership access to households otherwise excluded. In doing so, these measures add to demand and hence to house prices. An ‘effective’ FHB-assistance mechanism or instrument is one that can be credited with ‘additionality’, as it makes first home ownership possible for people who would be otherwise excluded or—in fact far more likely—significantly accelerates access to owner-occupation. An ‘efficient’ initiative is one that is effective at an acceptably modest unit cost and with minimum administrative complexity. FHB interventions can be demand-side or supply side measures. A demand-side intervention involves a benefit directly received by the consumer, effectively boosting FHB-purchasing power, and include homebuyer grants and tax concessions, low-deposit mortgage products and shared equity arrangements). Supply-side interventions directly relate to the provision or use of housing; this covers the disposal of government-owned assets, funding channelled through property developers or suppliers, and regulatory instruments that affect housing production or use of housing assets. The eight countries assessed have substantial diversity in terms of policy approaches to supporting home ownership; supply-side approaches are more common in a number of comparator countries. Australia stands out as it is overwhelmingly reliant on demand-side instruments and lacks a strategic framework.

Against a global backdrop of growing concerns on housing crises, Chinese megacities have earned unwelcome distinction as among the world's least affordable real estate. In the West, the alleged ‘over-restrictiveness’ of land-use planning has formed a focus of contestation on factors contributing to unduly expensive housing. In the Chinese context, however, it is unclear how spatial planning – arguably far more positively enabling of urban development and expansion – may have shaped housing market dynamics through its influence on city form. The concept of city form, as used here relates to three aspects, centricity, accessibility and development intensity (density). Focusing on Shanghai, the paper investigates city form impacts on residential property markets and explores the logic of plan-making that feeds into city form outcomes. We draw on a mixed-methods approach, including hedonic house price modelling, as well as qualitative interview and official document review. Analytical outcomes confirm the significant impact of city form on property values. However, planning rationales contributing to the outcome are problematic. Local plans are reinforcing Shanghai's mono-centric structure and having little impact in counteracting the residential attractiveness of the inner city when compared with suburban new towns. Moreover, the zoning restrictions of suburban areas are potentially problematic owing to an arguable over-emphasis on preservation of the natural environment. The failure to realise official poly-centricity aspirations and the enlarged gap in house prices between the inner city and suburbs can reinforce socio-spatial sifting and confine low-income people within disadvantaged locations.

Australian Homelessness Monitor 2022 presents an independent analysis of this important social problem. Its overarching purpose is to better inform housing and homelessness policymaking. To this end the report investigates the changing scale and nature of the problem and assesses recent policy and practice developments seen in response.

The Homelessness Monitor series is a longitudinal study providing an independent analysis of the homelessness impacts of recent economic and policy developments across Great Britain. With the Homelessness Monitor study now in its eleventh year, this comparative report takes stock of homelessness policies, trends and outcomes in England, Scotland and Wales in 2022, and analyses key developments in the five year period running up to 2022.

This research reviewed Australia’s COVID-19 housing policy responses to better understand their intervention approach, underlying logic, short and long term goals, target groups and level of success. It considered literature and policy from Australia and a small number of international comparator policies; conducted online surveys of landlords and of economists; and consulted key stake holders. Given Australia’s federated system of government, considerable differences quickly emerged between intervention approaches across states and territories. This was also driven by the extent to which different jurisdictions were impacted by the spread of the virus, the extent and frequency of lockdowns, and damage to state/local economies. The national and state policy measures implemented to support home ownership achieved the desired goal of providing short-term stimulus to the residential building sector and support to the broader economy. However, a range of anticipated and unforeseen consequences have precipitated as a result of concentrated demand-side subsidies, low interest rates and flexible lending conditions. The establishment of an agile infrastructure to support information sharing will support more effective and innovative housing policy development in the future. The state-to-state infrastructure and approaches that were developed rapidly and which supported jurisdictional responses to COVID-19 provide a template for a shelf-ready policy-sharing practice that warrants supported development across governments. This could usefully include local government as well as state and territory and national tiers of governance.

The homelessness monitor is a longitudinal study providing an independent analysis of the homelessness impacts of recent economic and policy developments across Great Britain. Separate reports are produced for England, Scotland and Wales. This tenth annual report updates our account of how homelessness stands in England in 2021, or as close to 2021 as data availability allows. It also highlights emerging trends and forecasts some of the likely future changes, identifying the developments likely to have the most significant impacts on homelessness.

As shown in this report, the past 30 years has seen Australia’s social housing sector capacity effectively cut by more than half. This at a time when the incidence of rental housing stress and homelessness has substantially increased. Largely drawing on existing published statistics and policy documents, this research investigates the resulting effects for low income earners seeking social housing. The report examines the ways that Australia’s state and territory governments have attempted to manage the growing pressures on social housing as an increasingly scarce resource. It reveals the ways that eligibility rules and allocations priorities shape applicants’ social housing prospects and the aggregate outcomes that result. In particular, it attempts to unravel the apparent paradox whereby the point-in-time number of social housing waiting list applications in 2021 remained little changed from 2006, in the face of growing need for such accommodation. The report also highlights gross inadequacies in Australia’s published official statistics on social housing supply and demand as a basis for effective policymaking. It also recommends some key priorities for statistical collection and publication reforms.

Two years after the outbreak of COVID-19, this report analyses pandemic impacts on housing systems across a range of high income countries during this period, and documents a range of policy responses relating to housing and homelessness. Our review arises from parallel studies initiated in mid-2020 by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE), focused on the UK, and by the University of New South Wales, covering Australia. Mainly undertaken in Q3/Q4 2021, the current study also encompassed six other developed countries: Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, and the US. Country selection was influenced by the need to include jurisdictions comparable with the UK and Australia, while also encompassing diversity in relation to housing regime type and national governance systems.