Policy Analysis Paper
Policy Analysis Paper
National Housing and Homelessness Agreement
1. Outline the way the social problem/problems are represented in the policy.
The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) represents a problem of lack of access to secure and affordable housing for Australians across the housing spectrum (Treasury Laws Amendment [NHHA] Bill 2017, p. 2). Effective as of 1 July 2018, the NHHA will provide $4.6 billion in Commonwealth funding to states and territories (states) over a three-year period, including $375 million for homelessness services which states are required to match (Department for Treasury [Treasury] 2019). The allocation of this funding to six priority policy areas indicates the dependence of the problem on affordable housing; social housing; growth and viability of the community housing sector; tenancy reform; planning and zoning reform; and home ownership (Thomas 2017; Department of Social Services [DSS] 2019).
The problem representation of a lack of access to affordable housing implies a temporary crisis with easily identifiable solutions (Madden & Marcuse 2016, p. 2). This conception of Australias housing crisis as temporary and practicable neglects to consider the Australian housing market as among the most expensive in the world, with housing price affordability declining continually over the last 30 years (Australian Council of Social Services [ACOSS] 2019, p. 1; Pawson, Yates & Milligan 2020a). Further, the development of six priority policy areas suggests that a lack of access to affordable housing can be addressed through targeted, isolated measures to be incorporated by states in respective housing and homelessness strategies (Marcuse & Madden 2016, p. 2; Treasury Laws Amendment [NHHA] Bill 2017). Ultimately conceived as a technical problem with technocratic solutions, this problem representation privileging a narrow view of housing and homelessness in Australia is inaccurate at best, and destructive at worst (Marcuse & Madden 2016, p. 2).
For the purpose of this text one can consider the popular priority policy area of home ownership. Access to home ownership is presented as an antidote for the lack of access to affordable housing as presented in the NHHA policy framework (Pawson et al. 2020a). As data suggests, home ownership has become an increasingly remote prospect for many aspirant first home buyers with property prices situated well above average wages (ACOSS 2019, p. 1; Pawson, Yates & Milligan 2020b, p. 1). To this avail, policy response to a lack of access to affordable housing is designed to encourage and support home ownership. This results in initiatives including the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and First Home Super Saver Scheme (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] 2020). Importantly, the exclusion of first home buyers from the housing market has provoked widespread media and political concern often at the expense of other, more complex housing and homelessness issues (Pawson et al. 2020b, p. 2). Targeted policy response in the form of first home saving schemes and Government grants means that alternate, complex issues are ignored or sidelined. These issues include rising affordability stress among low-income private renters, and increasing rates of homelessness in Australia (Pawson et al. 2020b, p. 2).
2. What is/are the philosophy, values and assumptions of this policy?
The underlying philosophy, values and assumptions of the NHHA assist in explaining its narrow conception of housing and homelessness and blind subscription to targeted priority policy areas at the expense of other issues. The NHHA is located within an ideological framework of neoliberalism, supported and reinforced by the financialisation of housing (Pawson et al. 2020a; Farha 2017). The financialisation of housing refers to structural changes in housing and financial markets and global investment in which housing is conceived as a commodity and a means of accumulating wealth rather than a place for shelter (Farha 2017, p. 3). This effectively undermines access to adequate housing as a human right, conceived as essential for human survival with dignity (Sidoti 1996, p. 1). Housing is revered for its social function in providing shelter, and is internationally recognised as a human right (Farha 2017, p. 3; Sidoti 1996). The pervasiveness of neoliberal political orthodoxy and the ensuing conception of housing as a means for generating profit undermines any rights-based approach to housing and homelessness in Australia (Glynn 2009, pp. 1-3; Farha 2017).
Policy response has therefore been conceived within a market-centred framework, serving to fuel further marketisation, deregulation and privatisation of Australias housing system (Glynn 2009, pp. 1-3). The NHHA is no exception to this rule. Conceived as a commodity, the investment function of housing dominates political rhetoric and government response (Glynn 2009, p. 2; Rogers & Power 2017, p. 2). As Rogers and Power (2017, p. 2) assert, taxation incentives for home ownership including capital gains exceptions, exclusion of the primary home from pension calculations, negative gearing, tenancy policies favouring landlords, less restrictive mortgage financing arrangements and first home-owner grants effectively subsidise housing investment. This occurs against a backdrop of mortgage debt, underinvestment in social housing and tightening of eligibility criteria, rising financial stress among low-income private tenants and increasing numbers of homeless Australians (Glynn 2009, pp. 2-3; ACOSS 2019, p. 1).
The impetus for housing investment and home ownership is not only derived from an over-reliance on this market-centred understanding of Australias housing system. As Madden & Marcuse (2016, p. 40) explain, home ownership has long been presented as an automatic source of residential satisfaction and ontological security, grounded in the national myths of various Western nations. One only has to consider the American Dream of a white picket fence, or the Australian Dream of a large block in the suburbs to recognise the pervasiveness of this deeply held assumption. These cultural values, deeply ingrained and widely held, help to reinforce the marketisation of Australias housing system at the expense of low-income households and those living in poverty. These Australians are unable to imagine the possibility of owning their own home in a market boasting house prices 4-5 times that of the average households annual earnings (ACOSS 2019, p. 1). It seems this focus on investment as informed by a neoliberal reliance on the free-market, the financialisation of housing, and cultural understandings of home ownership reveal the underlying objective of the NHHA to encourage economic gain at the expense of housing as a human right.
3. How were/are the stakeholders consulted?
Initially proposed by the Turnbull Government as part of the 2017-2018 Budget, the NHHA was conceived as a comprehensive and targeted plan to reduce pressure on housing affordability (Commonwealth of Australia 2017, p. 2). This would be achieved through assistance for first home buyers, new programs to increase the supply of affordable housing and the reform of housing-related payments to the states (Commonwealth of Australia 2017, p. 2). The NHHA was designed to replace the existing National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) introduced by the Rudd Government in 2009. Having undergone extensive review by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and Council of Australian Governments (COAG), the NAHA lacked accountability and transparency in states provision of Commonwealth funds, exhibited difficulty in performance measurement, and failed to respond to rising numbers of social housing applicants and requests for specialist homelessness services across jurisdictions (Thomas 2018, pp. 5-6; COAG 2016, pp. 11-14).
Ultimately proposed in response to the identified failings of the NAHA, the Bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee (the Committee) for consideration (Thomas 2018, p. 6). This new national agreement boasted imperatives to link Commonwealth funding to specified priority policy areas, exhibit bilateral schedules with identifiable targets, improve transparency and reporting for states, and provide indexed funding for homelessness services to be matched by jurisdictions (Thomas 2018, p. 6; Treasury Laws Amendment [NHHA] Bill 2017). The Committee received 28 submissions from stakeholders, welcoming, and simultaneously challenging, the outline of the NHHA. However, this pre-existing outline, coupled with suggestions made in the initial 2017-2018 Budget Measures Report, allude to a consultation process with a pre-determined outcome (Pisarski 2015). Submissions from stakeholders including Homelessness Australia, National Shelter, Australian Women Against Violence Alliance, National Affordable Housing Consortium, Community Housing Industry Association, PowerHousing Australia, and St Vincent De Paul Society expressed four common concerns with the Bill and ensuing NHHA (Parliament of Australia 2018; Thomas 2018, p. 8). These can be summarised as a lack of consideration for federal involvement in areas impacting housing affordability outside of state responsibility, the continuation of existing funding amounts despite increased demands on states and the scope of policy, the conditionality of funding, and unclear expectations regarding state-specific housing and homelessness strategies (Thomas 2018, pp. 8-9).
Despite initial, albeit inconsequential, consultation with stakeholders more than two years ago in the early stages of the NHHAs conception, it seems ongoing discussion is confined to Commonwealth/state negotiations. Although this negotiation is essential in operationalising the provision of funding under the NHHA, the expert knowledge and frontline experience of stakeholders is crucial in developing an accurate response to Australias housing crisis. In 2015, National Shelters Executive Officer Adrian Pisarski alluded to a lack of stakeholder involvement in relation to the previous policy framework, the NAHA. One can deduce this legacy remains, with the replicate narrow view of housing perpetuated by the new and improved NHHA privileging federal/state relations, roles and responsibilities in the resolution of a temporary and technical problem (Pisarski 2015; Madden & Marcuse 2016, p. 2). This over-reliance on bilateral agreements with pre-determined target areas overlooks the importance of stakeholder engagement in developing a policy response to reflect the reality of the problem.
4. What are the silences in this policy? That is, who are not being heard?
To build on the previous discussion of a lack of meaningful, ongoing stakeholder consultation, one can deduce the population groups these stakeholders seek to represent are also overlooked by the NHHA. These populations can be most clearly identified as low-income private renters and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Pawson et al. 2020b, p. 2). These groups are silenced by the overwhelming reliance of the NHHA on targeted, market-based measures to solve the problem of a lack of access to affordable housing. This includes emphasis on home ownership and housing investment as discussed. What is doubly concerning is the associated divergence from housing as a human right (Sidoti 1996; Farha 2017). This means that housing as a commodity and a means for generating wealth is left unproblematised by the NHHA (Farha 2017).
Alarmingly, four out of five private renters on the lowest 20% of incomes spend more than 30% of their income on rent (ACOSS 2019, p. 1). This occurs against a backdrop of underinvestment in social and affordable housing, with an estimated shortage of over 500,000 rental dwellings for lowest-income households in Australia (ACOSS 2019, p. 1). As Eslake (2013, pp. 5-6) explains, public sector agencies built fewer than 4,000 new dwellings on average, per annum, between 1999 and 2009. Additionally, state and local government policy has made it increasingly difficult for the private sector to supply new housing, especially at the more affordable end of the spectrum (Eslake 2013, p. 5). Rising affordability stress coupled with an extreme shortage of affordable housing means that low-income private renters are being pushed into poverty (Pawson et al. 2020a). The proposed safety net of social/public housing cannot rescue these private renters from poverty, as waiting lists continue to surpass 187,000 households (ACOSS 2019, p. 2).
Additionally, homeless Australians and those at risk of homelessness are sidelined by the NHHA. As alluded to above, low-income households experiencing affordability stress can be considered at risk of homelessness. As Pawson et al. (2020a) assert, this issue affects well over a million Australians many more than the marginal first-home buyer cohort. However, the NHHA neglects to reflect this in its conception of national priority homelessness cohorts, with low-income households notably absent from the list (Treasury Laws Amendment [NHHA] Bill 2017, p. 17). Furthermore, the dominant notion of housing as a market commodity fundamentally undermines the issue of homelessness as a human right for shelter (Clapham 2018, p. 159; Sidoti 1996; Farha 2017). In a neoliberal environment characterised by individual self-reliance, autonomy and choice, in conjunction with the financialisation of housing in which investment, wealth generation and ownership are paramount, the NHHA fails to consider structural, systemic determinants of homelessness (Glynn 2009, pp. 1-3).
Important to note is the absence of a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing strategy for urban, regional and remote areas. Despite the inclusion of Indigenous Australians as a priority homelessness cohort, there exists no dedicated Commonwealth funding under the NHHA for this population group outside of remote areas (Treasury Laws Amendment [NHHA] 2017, p. 17; ACOSS 2019, p. 3). This persists despite the critical importance of culturally appropriate housing, the increased likelihood that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will experience rental stress, and data suggesting 79% of the population group reside in urban centres (ACOSS 2019, p. 3; Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] 2016; Tenants Union of New South Wales [TUNSW] 2020, p. 4).
5. Critically review any evaluations of this policy.
Evaluations of the NHHA can be characterised by concerns with the state of funding arrangements and bilateral agreements, as well as broader imperatives to encourage a paradigm shift away from housing as a commodity, towards shelter as a human right. In realising this objective, a national housing strategy can be implemented to ensure a whole-of-system approach (Pawson et al. 2020a; Rogers & Power 2017).
Stakeholders have criticised bilateral funding agreements between the Commonwealth and states since the initial proposal of the NHHA Bill in 2017 (National Shelter 2017; Homelessness Australia 2017). The conditionality of funding, in which Federal Government has the ability to withhold grants to states if they fail to meet the stipulated terms and conditions is one such concern (Thomas 2018, p. 9). Critics argue these stipulated terms and conditions are ambiguous, given the scope provided to states in developing individual housing and homelessness strategies (Homelessness Australia 2017, p. 4). Therefore, the Commonwealths ability to confiscate funding based on state under-performance has potentially devastating impacts for housing and homelessness service providers. Additionally, the allocation of funding to states based on population size, and the overall amount of Commonwealth funding provided under the NHHA have been disputed. Jurisdictions such as the Northern Territory [NT], with a comparatively small population size, receive the least amount of Commonwealth funding (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute [AHURI] 2019). However, with the highest rate of homelessness of any Australian state, front-line service providers in the NT were forced to turn away almost 4,500 people between 2017-2018 (AIHW 2019; Hanifie 2019). Further, as Milligan (2018) argues, the Federal Governments promise to maintain pre-existing levels of funding means there will be no change in the current status of Australias unaffordable housing market. Significant investment is required to tackle issues of rising affordability stress among low income households, at risk of homelessness due to the absence of affordable housing alternatives.
Furthermore, Pawson et al. (2020a), Rogers & Power (2017), and Farha (2017) call for a reconceptualisation of housing, in which housing policy is much more broadly conceived, and shelter regarded as a human right rather than a means for economic advancement. In reality this may involve the development and implementation of a national housing strategy, in which a long-term, integrated and coherent plan with consistent policy governing a national approach to housing is needed (Senate Economics Reference Committee 2015 in Adamson 2016, p. 2). What matters however, is the way in which Australias housing crisis is problematised, not from a market-based perspective as a failure of the economy, but as a failure of society to uphold the right of every human being to an adequate standard of living (Sidoti 1996, p. 2). This sentiment must be reflected in a national housing strategy, designed to realise the human right to shelter by increasing public and social housing stock, eliminating no grounds eviction across the country, investing in affordable and low-cost social rentals in which housing costs match income, and implementing a long-term plan to overhaul the taxation system geared to benefit wealthy investors (Madden & Marcuse 2016; Rogers & Power 2017).
Reference List
Adamson, D 2016, Towards a National Housing Strategy, Compass Housing Australia, PDF Report, accessed 29th October 2020
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2016, Census of Population and Housing: Reflecting Australia Stories from the Census 2016, Cat. No. 2071.0, ABS, Canberra, ACT
Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) 2019, Policy priorities for the next Australian Government: Housing and Homelessness, ACOSS, PDF Report, accessed 25th October 2020
Australian Government 2017, Budget Strategy and Outlook: Budget Paper No. 1 2017-18, Commonwealth of Australia
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) 2019, What's in the 201920 Budget for housing and homelessness issues?, AHURI, accessed 11th October 2020, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/news/whats-in-the-201920-budget-for-housing-and-homelessnessAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2019, Specialist Homelessness Services annual report 201819, Cat. No. HOU 318, AIHW, Canberra, ACT
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2020, Housing Assistance in Australia 2020, Australian Government, accessed 24th October 2020, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/housing-assistance/housing-assistance-in-australia-2020/contents/housing-assistanceClapham, D 2018, Homelessness in D Clapham (ed), Remaking Housing Policy: An International Study, Routledge, London, pp. 159 178
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 2016, Report on Performance 2016, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Government, Canberra, ACT
Department of Social Services 2019, National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, Australian Government, accessed 25th October 2020, https://www.dss.gov.au/housing-support-programs-services-homelessness/national-housing-and-homelessness-agreementDepartment of the Treasury (Treasury) 2019, National Housing and Homelessness Agreement: Key Fact Sheet, Australian Government, accessed 23rd September 2020, https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/National-Housing-and-Homelessness-Agreement.pdfEslake, S 2013, Australian Housing Policy: 50 years of failure (Submission to the Senate Economics Reference Committee), PDF Report, accessed 27th October 2020
Farha, L 2017, Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, United Nations General Assembly, A/HRC/34/51, PDF Report, accessed 24th October 2020
Glynn, S 2009, Where the Other Half Lives: Lower Income Housing in a Neoliberal World, Pluto Press, London, UK
Hanifie, S 2019, Homeless people failed by the commonwealth funding model, experts nationally say, ABC News, 13 July 2019, accessed 27th October 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-13/advocates-say-homeless-people-failed-by-funding-model/11303512Homelessness Australia 2017, Submission to the Economics Legislation Committee Review of the Provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017, PDF Report, accessed 28th October 2020
Madden, DJ & Marcuse, P 2016, In Defence of Housing: The Politics of Crisis, Verso Books, London, UK
Milligan, V 2018, The new national housing agreement wont achieve its goals without enough funding, The Conversation, 17 July 2018, accessed 11th October 2020, https://theconversation.com/the-new-national-housing-agreement-wont-achieve-its-goals-without-enough-funding-99936National Shelter 2017, Submission to the Economics Legislation Committee Review of the Provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017, PDF Report, accessed 28th October 2020
Parliament of Australia 2018, Submissions received by the Committee, Australian Parliament House, accessed 26th October 2020, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/HomelessnessBill2017/SubmissionsPawson, H, Yates, J & Milligan, V 2020a, Australias housing system needs a big shake-up: heres how we can crack this, The Conversation, 17 February 2020, accessed 26th October 2020, https://theconversation.com/australias-housing-system-needs-a-big-shake-up-heres-how-we-can-crack-this-130291Pawson, H, Yates, J & Milligan, V 2020b, Introduction in H Pawson, J Yates & V Milligan (eds), Housing Policy in Australia: A Case for System Reform, Palgrave Macmillan, South Yarra, Victoria, pp. 1 29
Pisarski, A 2015, Reform of the federation housing, homelessness and the road to reform, National Shelter, accessed 22nd October 2020, https://shelter.org.au/reform-of-the-federation-housing-homelessness-and-the-road-to-reform/Rogers, D & Power, E 2017, Explainer: the financialisation of housing and what can be done about it, The Conversation, 23 March 2017, accessed 24th October 2020, https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-financialisation-of-housing-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-73767Sidoti, C 1996, Housing as a human right: National Conference on Homelessness, Council to Homeless Persons, Address by Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Commissioner, 4 September 1996, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Commonwealth of Australia
Tenants Union of New South Wales (TUNSW) 2020, Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs: Inquiry into Homelessness June 2020, TUNSW, PDF Report, accessed 29th October 2020
Thomas, M 2017, Social Housing and Homelessness: Budget Review 2017-2018 Index, Parliament of Australia, accessed 25th October 2020, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201718/Social_housing_and_homelessnessThomas, M 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017: Bills Digest, Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services, No. 83 2017-2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017
