Housing is a human right
It has baffled and frustrated me for a long time that housing issues get so little focus in political and public debate – unless you count interest rates and the fate of the housing market, which is a very narrow part of the issue.
Report after report shows growing problems with the lack of affordable housing, for rental as well as purchase. If individuals and families can’t access affordable, secure and appropriate housing, it makes it much much harder for other social needs like health, eduction and employment to be adequately addressed.
Housing affordability problems are also linked directly to the incidence of homelessness. A report in today’s Age newspaper by Chris Middendorp from Hanover welfare services details some research that has just been done into public attitudes which may give a key reason why many in politics and the media don’t focus on this issue.
In short, the research shows that “74 per cent of those surveyed believed that homeless people had only themselves to blame for their plight”. It also found that many people believed “that once a person becomes homeless they are stuck there”.
If people believe a problem is irreversible, and the fault of the people caught up in it, it is no wonder they don’t believe it’s an issue worth their politicians putting much energy to.
The figures suggest that more than 100 000 are homeless at any one time, which is around 1 in every 200 people. This makes it a minority issue in a political sense. But there are far more than this who have to pay high or very high proportions of their weekly income just to keep a roof over their heads.
The fact that so many people are having to pay more and more – in some cases for less and less adequate housing – should be ringing major alarm bells with politicians at all levels, but for some reason it is still treated as an issue on the margins.
This is one area where the market alone has been shown to be unable to deliver adequate social outcomes, and even dry economic bodies like the Productivity Commission and its predecessor the Industry Commission have recognised that publicly funded housing is an efficient way to deliver a housing option.
As The Age article notes, even critical reports from independent bodies don’t seem to make an impact.
In August this year, Miloon Kothari from the United Nations visited Australia in his capacity as Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing. He toured capital cities and rural communities to assess how adequately the Australian citizen’s right to housing was being fulfilled.
Kothari was shocked by the lack of affordable housing options in our cities and appalled by the poor standard of housing in indigenous communities. In his preliminary report, the Special Rapporteur swiftly identified that this conspicuously prosperous land had failed to build sufficient housing options for the most vulnerable in our community.
He pointed to overcrowding, unaffordable private rentals, inadequate public housing stock and the lack of emergency housing, including women’s refuges.
Yet this critical report was given very short shrift, despite the factual basis of its findings.
Despite all the evidence, there seems to be little attention and fewer solutions being proposed by governments (apart from the time honoured ‘solution’ of the federal government blaming the state governments and vice-versa). It has been left to industry, unions and the community sector and some local governments to do the heavy lifting here. A National Summit on Housing Affordability was held earlier this year which built on past efforts to develop some good solutions. At least if governments ever decide to seriously commit to tackling this issue, there will be no shortage of effective ideas on ways they can genuinely assist.
57 Comments, Comment or Ping
Graham Bell
Andrew Bartlett:
Thank you for keeping this much-ignored issue above the horizon.
We can forget the convenient media stereotype of the homeless being drunks, druggies and dropkicks.
ALL the homeless people I have met in the past year are ones who could not afford the rent or get a housing loan and who came to Central Queensland looking for all those mythical high-paying jobs they had been told about.
[1] Following the Second World War, the Queensland Government took over several military barracks as temporary Housing Camps until the Housing Commission could get hundreds of new low-cost houses built.
A similar sort of thing cannot happen today because decision makers in both the public service and the private sector, who themselves live in splendid luxury, have been allowed to dream up all sorts of unnecessary regulations, whims and laws to outlaw such cheap and workable solutions to the tragedy of homelessness.
So, it’s time to make these decision makers face up to the human costs of their irresponsibility.
[2] We have all been entertained by the federal government’s ratbag approach to the threat of terrorism …. so exactly why, in allowing homelessness to become an epidemic (possibly 1 in 200, with far worse to come in 2007), is the federal government striving to help any terrorist groups that may be in Australia gain so many willing home-grown recruits from among the homeless?
They are ideal recruits for any terrorist: they have had their aspirations built up and then destroyed, they have been encouraged to go into debt for specific reasons (house, car, lifestyle, etc.) and then lost everything, they have been betrayed and they will need little encouragement to seek revenge.
So, if the federal government is fair dinkum about fighting terrorism, they had better start thinking about looking after their ruined Aspirational Voters.
Dec 16th, 2006
philip travers
I think this is a deeper issue than what all the major partiesan affilates want to attack.Even some farmers I have spoken to have compared their housing and,things like handing on the farm… as a housing issue ,,for them,amongst other matters of aging.This house I am living in needs a lot of work done on it so I am also essentially homeless.What i do think is needed is new players to the housing question,in terms of design and what is housing suppose to achieve.Seasonal disasters call for a rethink…could it be that truck tray body builders and truck builders should get into just improving the design of what they do now for road haulage and make these designs a formidable new approach to emergency housing,and the housing problem now!SOME of those trailers could house people now ,without any real functional change in what they are designed for.I would live on a truck trailer and think I was king of the road.And then ,I could be fully housed wherever the work is,and invite the Senator home, for a jam about smoking.
Dec 16th, 2006
Graham Bell
Philip Travers:
You are absolutely right about older farmers (younger farmers are an endangered species)living in houses that are falling down around them.
Dec 16th, 2006
red crab
i wonder if the ppl who are trying to service huge morgages thanks to the govt and greedy banks know just how close they are to being homeless themselves.
i think that there would be a lot of ppl who dont realise just how easy it can happen.
our perception of accseptable housing should be changed.
Dec 16th, 2006
Oz
I know Labor produced the discussion paper Future Cities that looked at housing along with urban planning and local government. It looked at some of the problems and issues related to housing and suggested some policy options. It’s an interesting read.
Dec 16th, 2006
Oz
Also I remember that when Mark Latham was Labor leader he proposed creating a federal Housing department with its own minister. Not sure if Labor still supports that.
Dec 16th, 2006
philip travers
SMH ON LINE has reported the problems tonight of S.E. Queensland.This is just one side of unpredictable events,where people automatically know their choices are being further reduced.There is more damage to peoples choices in these events than maybe actual damage..another unwanted insecurity.Whereas the upside is community in crises and by necessity work together.Honestly, I think people should be able to expect better than, plainly, ,accepting this as maybe a regularity from now on….Roofs have to go back on etc.Is the worker power there!Prediction and readiness need to improve, no place for just lousy plastic sheeting,perhaps linen canvas or something glued or melded by glue gun……Local government for other reasons may need to dig some underground emergency shelters…can anyone sane accept the nuke race between India,Pakistan,China,Indonesia.Homelessness amongst our neighbours, and yet simplicity of design hasnt been engineered out of Australia.Take any road tunnel it is a form, like any other.except to copy it we need to spray a materialising mix on a wire skeletal form inside the tunnel,in sections that can be joined simply.Mass produced sections along existing tunnel walls..the light concrete foam material just cannot be allowed to stick.The owner builder magazine has had handy fellows build stuff with styrofoam concrete mixes but I am suggesting using existing walls as form to place mesh as skeletal framing.
Dec 16th, 2006
Evil Pundit
I wonder how many of the homeless are victims of the Family Court?
Men lose their house, as well as part of their income and and superannuation savings due to the decisions of this sexist court, and quite a few of them are likely to be penniless on the streets as a result.
Dec 17th, 2006
philip travers
Strange reality the penniless men and homeless from a marriage,being single and 52 I have heard seen and read about this matter.If this country is going to not have civil wars between its sexes,the problem needs to be considered.But behind these failures of relationships and courts are the lawmakers themselves.To notice Paul Keating and then the men themselves could figure out that they are not so bad as human beings,then , that just means housing and money are the problem,after that then there are very few problems and being practical again,might mean being experimental even about housing and income.
Dec 17th, 2006
Megan Yarrow
The mainstream media don’t report on the housing crisis because this might impact upon their advertising dollars.
re: the Qld Government taking over military barracks following WW2 to provide public housing.
I was interviewing a man who grew up in Spring Hill during the war years. He and his family moved into the military barracks in Victoria Park when his father came back from the war. The government tried to evict all the folks who did that, but eventually had to let them stay because a lot of them were the the families of returned servicemen, and the police and soldiers refused to kick them out.
Dec 17th, 2006
Graham Bell
Evil Pundit [8]:
Yes, family break-ups too. So what can be done to stop the Family Court imposng what is, in essence, a double punishment? Lose your marriage and your family …. then lose your place of residence too. What can be done to prevent further injustices of that sort?
Megan Yarrow [10]:
Advertisers (such as in finance industry) certainly wouldn’t like news stories about their adverse impact on the lives of their customers.
It wasn’t just the government who wanted homeless war veterans and their families out of the Victoria Park army and RAAF huts; there were exclusive “sportsmen”(???) didn’t like all those hobos and swaggies in there either.
As for the housing crisis after the Second World War, there were anectdotes of landlords demanding of women – married or widowed – more than just the notorious “key money”.
Wonder how much of that sort of thing is happening today?
Philip Travers [2]:
How can we bypass those business people who have a vested interest in preventing innovative, low-cost housing solutions to homelessness?
Dec 17th, 2006
Donna
Graham Bell and EP
Women also lose their residence in marriage breakdowns.
Dec 17th, 2006
philip travers
Response to Graham Bell. Understood Graham.and your question needs a thorough and continuous investigation.The Finance sector,banks and other lenders are as probably interested in this as anyone else,after all it is not always a happy result for lenders.I think however floating ideas and seeing if the professionals think its possible is another matter.Some would probably like to see employers involved etc.THEN there is the levels of government.But communities whereever you find them are also capable of the physical action of building,and the transfer of appropriate papers and sometimes ,money in the kitty.Concentrating on legal ownership papers could lift up a useful rock of possibility.Transfering homes to government control and then to private individuals and then to enterprise,back to government in a round robin of responsibility is worth investigating…service clubs sports and social and church and places where superannuation funds,know, someone or organisation will eventually takeover responsibility.That is,shared ownership over a longer period of time.Is it always the case that mortgages are useful all round/Could it be put to the lenders to investigate how reducing mortgages could advance new ownership.I was at the Brotherhood of St.Laurence in Melbourne and I devised a timetable and committee plan for low income people to establish a foothold in building, finance an support.All the rules and institutions have essentially changed.There is bound to be residual goodwill still existing amongst all possible players..finding the mix has got to show common sense,contemporary standards flexibility and maybe even accounting ways to shift the blame and still make economic sense.Where relationships are failing or failed maybe both banks and interested org.s should organise the outcome for the estranged so better outcomes co exist with legal ones. That isnt at all impossible.A short comment.
Dec 17th, 2006
John Tracey
Family breakdown and rural crisis are for sure factors in homelessness
However those most vulnerable to homelessness and those who are faced with few options for getting back on their feet after homelessness – and more likely to be permanently homeless rather than just going throuh a rough patch are those with mental and intelectual disabilities
The de-institutionalisation agendas of the past couple of decades has seen more and more people living on the street or in sub-standard accommodation without support – often being exploited by slumlords masquerading as carers
If a person freaks out and ends up on the street they are more than likely going to stay there for 3 reasons
1/A severe shortage of supported accomodation
2/A severe shortage of welfare workers to assist people get back into stable accomodation
3/Attitudes by welfare workers similar to those in the survey mentioned above by Andrew who see homelessness as a permanent state of an underclass rather than a rough stage that people are going through
The most common institutional response to homelessness is the provision of sandwiches and coffee r through homeless outreach services – often by christian organisations fulfilling their religious obligations to have some contact with the poor – a goal of edification of the christian worker and not healing the homeless person
But many people caught up in depression or other mental health disabilities do not seek assistance (except coffee and sandwiches) and maintain an essentially self-destructive lifestyle that goes with the flow in downward cycles until a predictably premature death
The provision of more public housing is a part of the solution and I agree with Phillip about alternative cheap building structures (which can be beautiful mansions)
However without health and support programs to get people out of hopeless depression and into healing and sustainable lifestyles no public housing program will work
cont
Dec 17th, 2006
John Tracey
cont
Many people end up on real estate agent internet blacklists or public housing debt lists which essentially means they cannot rent homes except for boarding houses and hostels
There is no forgiveness in private or public housing for people who stuffed up while they were freaking out but have since stabilised or got support
Dec 17th, 2006
Graham Bell
Donna:
Indeed, women too lose their homes in marriage breadowns …. what is needed is a shake-up of the Family Court so that there are more compassionate, more innovative and more responsible property settlements. Causing homelessness and then just dumping the problem onto the wider community is not the answer.
John Tracey :
Landlords do need to be protected from bad tenants but the incredibly cruel practice of allowing remote screen-jockeys to destroy families with a couple of keystrokes must be made illegal.
There must be tough jail sentences for anyone caught with an unregulated computer-generated “black list”.
Never ever forget that it’s the taxpayers who end up paying through the nose for the laziness of those estate agents who would rather glance at someone’s inaccurate and out-of-date “black list” on a computer screen than exercise professional judgement and work for a living.
What is needed is a properly supervised system of protecting landlords and tenants alike. Where there are potential problems with tenants – and with landlords too – there need to be creative and effective measures to stop the problems happening in the first place.
Dec 18th, 2006
ken
Yeah – Graham moer of those despised bureacrats!!
Dec 18th, 2006
Earth
It’s all about greed today. Even question today’s market, the policies, the excessive greed of the Baby Boomer’s who are alienating young families and leaving many on the streets and you face a barrage of anger. This generation has been about nothing but excessive greed since the day they were born and will remain so till the day they die.
There is an ever increasing rate of homelessness amongst young families which has also begun to hit the elderly but until majority of the people are hurt, nobody will care.
Dec 18th, 2006
Earth
All levels of government hold some responsibility for the current housing crises. Investors are a major cause as they buy up house after house after house.
I live in Central Queensland where just two years ago, investors in Sydney were buying houses with an offering of $50,000 plus on top of the going price which alienated local buyers and pushed up the price to ridiculous prices. Look around the nation and see real estate with over inflated prices and see that when the market collapses, it has a long way to fall.
What we are seeing now is Australia under John Howard, becoming a Theological Feudalist state. I emphasise ‘feudalist’ here since housing is now being owned by the few making the majority the tenants.
Either we are owned by the state or the market. We are nolonger owned by ourselves but enslaved by this government.
Dec 18th, 2006
vivy
This is a key issue. People tolerate all sorts of hardships, in order to maintain accommodation. Lack of housing is often the reason why young people drop out of educational institutions, which then sets off a continuos cycle of poverty and further hardship. Parents who have a reasonable middle class incomes are expected to provide their children with free and safe accommodation until they complete their qualifications. For some this could mean staying home until the age of 24 – 26. But what if the parents are selfish and keen to see the back of their offspring’s? How will the government ensure that these types of families provide the resources necessary for completion of qualifications and professional pre-requisites, so that the young adult start off on the right economic foot towards a self sufficient adulthood? Should the government be forced to pick up the burden of parents who fail to fulfil their responsibilities,?
Dec 18th, 2006
Ken
When in doubt try some “actual” data is always a good effort, althouhgof course “crisis” and disaster always sounds better.
ABS Cat NO 4102.0 (Various) and
ABS Cat No 1320.0
Home Ownership Outright and Under Purchase
1947 – 54%
1966 – 70%
1986 – 66.7% (Impact of Whitlam and Fraser)
1992 – 69.2%
2004 – 70%
What exactly has chnaged? Sure affordability is a real issue, but to suggest some sort of 13th Centrury feudlaism is reemerging is eitehr deliberatrly a big con or stupidity.
John Tracey is closer to the mark, in my humble view, the great financial savings of deinstutionlaisastion of the 80’s drvein by human rights agenda, and some pretty horrible institutions, was never bacekd up by the second half od that policy, a balancing investmetn in public housing and site specific socila services.
Dec 18th, 2006
David
Andrew.
Whilst it is good to see the responses to this subject matter, the major parties must do more to take pressure off those who are seeking access to their first home and for those in private rental.
I agree with your comments and it isn’t fair that government continues to show its un-willingness to do more.
It will be interesting to see how the federal opposition addresses this and other issues in next year’s election.
There are too many that are enduring pain.
Dec 18th, 2006
Rob
As someone who rents out a property, I cannot have too much sympathy with hard-luck stories – been there been burnt more than once. If someone has failed to pay rent or be clean once, the chances are too great they will do it again. That leaves me vulnerable to vagarities of character and consequently the heartless bank. Every broken tile, window, etc. costs a lot in this labour-friendly country where i cannot find anyone to dig in the garden for under $20/hour. Having just returned from India where it is possible to hire someone for over a week for that, puts things in perspective.
I vote for kibbutz type communities that accept anyone in exchange for 20 hours work a week. This provides a safety net that can be moved in and out of and a support base while one finds ones feet. Good character/behaviour/work/skill references can also be built up.
Rules can be strict (no alcohol, drugs, only healthy food, compulsory school for kids). It is never too late to have an appropriate upbringing.
Give give give doesn’t achieve much for perpetual takers and should only be available in the short-term (to an even greater extent than now); which will benefit the temporarily incapacitated and weed out the bludgers and work-proud.
Dec 18th, 2006
Anne
I believe our country is in a sad & sorrowful state.We aren’t suppose to be a third world country so why are there so many living on the street and destitute,& don’t insult my intellegence by saying they won’t help themselves?Instead of being in your ivory towers,all politicians need to get out amongst the people & listen. We are continually told Australia is the land of oppertunity & how well off it is,so why are we in a state of crisis in so many areas?When is a political party going to step forward & really care & represent the people,instead of looking for who’s to blame.It’s time Australian’s in their own country came first instead of being placed on the back burner.
Dec 18th, 2006
philip travers
I have two objections.1 I am a baby boomer and for a long time just couldnt get into a position of home ownership.2.The houseowner who has travelled has confused his life and values with others, who, may not have a personal problem with him until the generalities about payment and work shy stuff come up,why owning a house allows someone to judge someone else or a number of someone elses has me beat…it is like his own house ownership isnt satisfying his criteria for superiority .He then has to exist in the comparative pay rates of non existent in his backyard.I think I have met enough people like that,to dismiss their insults of superiority and piousness of self achievement.They cannot seemingly exist without putting others down.
Dec 18th, 2006
Graham Bell
Ken (and Rob too):
Yes. More bureaucrats …. because relying on industry self-regulation and on the niceness of tenants alone are expensive failures and its us taxpayers who eventually end up paying for all this one way or another.
What is needed is a completely different approach to “bad” tenants. For a start, just who are “bad” tenants? (Don’t give me any stereotypes from “lower socioeconomic groups”!! Years ago, my wife and I rented out our house; the best tenant was a railway labourer and the worst, who wrecked the house and its furniture, were high-salaried “professionals”). Exactly why do they fail to pay rent and neglect or wreck houses and flats? What can be done to change their behavior? What is the role of landlords and estate agents in such behavior?
“Studies” of problems have a well-deserved bad reputation these days, given some of the outrageous rorts and handouts that have been thinly disguised as “studies” and “investigation”. Even so, there is a real need for a practical study of “bad” tenants and of “bad” landlords too.
Dec 19th, 2006
ken
Graham – sadly, particularyl for the centralist planners on this blog the issue is ownership, and the concomitant behaviour that follows.
Dec 19th, 2006
philip travers
The issue isnt home ownership, it is the attitude to home ownership,all and every attitude to others in the community thus follows..Building skills are not that difficult to learn,but land and materials and meeting the requirements are.Owner builders out of desire rather than training have established this,with houses that meet all the standards of value.I cannot understand how our society has allowed through government policy bankers and lenders etc.almost an exclusive right to how our lives are determined..bankers etc… do not seem that bright .that well possessed of reasoning nor any other quality found out in the community.Dare to be great therefore and develop some sound wisdom rather than reliance on ones own expertise or sad observation..Do not clamour at the door of conventional thinking.Conventional thinking on this matter is simply not doing enough Ther are hardly any mysteries in all the building related matters,accept the pontification of long years of servicing debt is an ennobling right.The reason why there isnt universal demand for all in this country is the ballyhooing roles of self importance and accompanying …professionalism….The homeless could easily be housed in all sorts of buildings and other storage places, safely conveniently, and worthily with minimal costs and legality,but for a prioritised ultimate right extended above and over other legal considerations.I look at major sports complexes and places equipped with hygiene ,study capacity,and safe open spaces..in the summer months ..close to cities, beaches education traing and jobs.Single mothers and fathers could seek some sort of trade off and live in places like that,until better options,if there are any are built or become available…I dont know whose pride would be hurt…and these sports complexes are now well and truly established.Attitude and money is the subject matter..
Dec 19th, 2006
Rob
Philip, I actually agree with you that a housing safety net is a government responsibility. I also believe that using the net constructively should then be a personal responsibility. Those who don’t use it to gain control of their live’s should still be supported but with the diminished freedoms that come from being prodigal ie. strong community rules. By not moving ahead they are blocking the facility to others who may need it more – funding comes from taxpayers and is not infinite.
Graham, no rules on who is a good tenant. One of the last 5 we checked up on to rent 2 months ago looked spic and span and were sweet and professional but all references said “late payment; dirty etc, couldn’t wait to get rid of them.” We ended up choosing 2 people on minimum wages sharing the house – because their work and tenancy references were good. For the record the outgoing tenants were also ‘battlers’ who failed to pay (even though they could still hold huge parties and drove late model vehicles) and broke things. We came down hard and they found the money eventually and then wanted to stay on for a new lease!!! No way, go ruin someone else’s life. Owning a live-in/rental property or business is a risk, and asset management is hard work and takes a lot of sacrifice. Life is about choices and choosing to rent larger and smarter rather than buy smaller and run-down has short-term gains in lifestyle but long-term consequences.
Dec 19th, 2006
Megan Yarrow
Looks like the only paper in town has finally decided to cover this problem (see ‘Rent Spike Hits Families’):
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20947777-3102,00.html
Wonder when they’ll have the guts to report on the struggles cleaners in the Myer Centre are having with their working conditions?
Dec 19th, 2006
philip travers
I think landlords have more options,if their tenants are tending to be party makers or have alcoholic tendencies they never admit to.It is also true people with real problems do not expect palaces of fine housing…we have a few like that around here,and, they arent that bad as people,although poverty means laws maybe being broken.Horses for courses seems the go…..it may also help if landlords and tenants knew each other a bit,so when there are are foul ups ,common sense and respect both ways are not in short supply.If landlords are genuine people,a,test, for their tenants maybe to work on a community problem together.OR government sets up a working model.If Rob is genuine but he thinks his tennants wont meet the standards,if a gov. run thing could suggest other options that have legal empowerment to do so,and some social worker type of assistance.Rob would conclude,if he saw me living here that I am to rough on housing,but, wether it is believable or not, this is a real disadvantaged location,and I am also,but, until I can find a compatible option,it looks like I here to stay a bit longer.Prospective tennants may need to be more exact in their descriptions of themselves,if the fundamental relationship is to sustain.Protected by law, that is,because if you are blowing your money on household cleaners ,there would seem little point in living in those conditions.
Dec 19th, 2006
Graham Bell
Ken:
You can dislike “central planners” as much as you like but it is us taxpayers who have to carry the cost of the lack of public housing which, in turn, has removed the major competitive factor from the rental housing market, a factor that kept some sort of control on outrageous rent increases. The thousands and thousands of private landlords are competing with each other for the maximum rents they can get for their properties and as such represent only a part of the market …. it was public housing that used to add real competition into the whole market, not just one end of it.
Rob:
This is why I suggested a good hard look at the whole business of tenancy; a completely fresh look at what actually happens, at what works and what doesn’t …. and why …. and at what practical measure can be taken to prevent problems..
Dec 20th, 2006
ken
Graham – go and look at the ABS (perhasp they arent trustworthy being anohter group of your despised bureacrats such as Vets Affairs and legislation drafteres or like the housing polcie is this grioup not despised), and see the proportion of the community in public housnig hasn’t chanegd much in 30 years. Nor private renting for that matter.
Dec 20th, 2006
Rob
Philip/Graham. We seem to all agree. There should be more public housing as it exempts the really vulnerable people from the supply-demand vagarities of the market. Predatory landlords on the genuine strugglers will always exist, as happens in any aspect of society. Consider the lending market!
I’d probably get shot down for this by the secular majority but the biblical principle of no person being able to sell their land but only lease it out for 7 years is a good principle to build on. It means that prodigals cannot sell assets for short-term gain and predators won’t overlend as there is a limit to the collateral they can gain. Land resources in the end underpin wealth and the sale of land (of infinite value) for short-term relief/gain/trivia makes the poor poorer and the rich richer.
Renters in good areas though should still have to pay according to the market. There is a partial myth to massive profits in housing although this last boost world-wide definitley debunked that a bit – we missed it by the way. Maintenance, vacancy periods, non payment and improvements are seldom considered in property investment return figures given out by agents. The truth is that the quality of houses and community facilities has improved dramatically as well which is often a good part of the value increase. This also adds to the net worth of the country as a whole, and make the country attractive for migrants and tourists etc.
Dec 20th, 2006
Graham Bell
Ken:
[1] ABS Housing figures would be quite reliable IF there was differentiation between houses/flats being purchased by means of traditional mortgages and other regular form of borrowing AND some of the delightfully creative housing rip-offs that started way back when Keating was Prime Minister. Have you forgotten that the three letters in fine print – t.a.p. – were what drove hordes of traditional Labor voters – ones who were n.a.p. (not approved purchasers) – to vote for Howard?
[2] Funny you should mention Dept. of Veterans’ Affairs. That was the department responsible for the War Service Homes Scheme.
In theory, a war veteran could apply for a long-term low-interest loan for a very modest but properly-built house; this was to redress much of the unfairness arising from the disruptions to the normal pattern of home acquisition caused by war service.
In reality, by 1974 this excellent and very effective scheme had been nobbled and DVA reneged on their duties at every opportunity ((there a couple of PhDs in that just waiting to be grabbed by keen post-grad students)); the relic of the scheme, such as it is, has gone to Westpac Bank.
Now Ken, tell us all about veterans (who had Returned from Active Service) and their families living in caravan parks and in public housing. Perhaps you would like to comment too on marital break-ups caused by these same people being unable to get their war service home loan entitlement.
Rob:
Yes.
And thanks for that mention of biblical restrictions …. which I don’t recall from my study of land reform but it’s probably somewhere in my old notes :-)
Everyone:
In today’s “The Morning Bulletin” (Rockhampton, Queensland)
If you hurry, you might be able to move in …..
Dec 20th, 2006
ken
Graham I’m not sure about all that stuff and that wasn;t the point of my comment.
The point I was making was that you cant pick and choose your public serverants as you and otehrs have on other parts of this site. Either villifyign them (remeber the dog catcehr and DVA) or wnating mroe of them as in this case.
In the main publci serveants all do the best job they can, working often in a politically volatile environement wiht endless policy shifts and program rule changes (thasnk often to the good works? of Senators adn the like, media reaction)and a largely critical and thankless general public.
Who like you and oethrs whose expectatiopns as “taxpayers” as if this somehow makes them payibng cusonmteres are unreal and unsustainable.
So there, me defedngin publci serveants, not really theres too many and they get invovled in totally unnecessary thigns, but thats the system not their fault so I will defend the individuals.
However its consistnecy I object to, if I ever hear somenone whinging sbout red tape and then demanidng the government “do somehting” about a problem I try not to strangle them.
Dec 21st, 2006
Rob
Wow, those rents are high and Sydney-like…. Brisbane is far cheaper.
For the record our other house is in Adelaide, much larger, with 2 seperate self-contained halves and half the price and took a ton of work! Maybe we are not capitalists but philanthropists after all …. especially given the maintenance costs and headaches our tenants give us.
Dec 21st, 2006
John Tracey
Sorry Rob but being a landlord does not make you a philanthropist
Despite the relationship between rent and maintenance costs the basis of the property market is rising property values and capital gain
rent is just a subsidy to ongoing costs while the value of the assetts escalate
Dec 21st, 2006
Rob
Not….?!
Philanthropist “one who engages in acts of practical benevolence”. More research needed…. Benevolence “desirous of doing good; kind and helpful”.
The exchange is fair and I undertake to not sell it from under them so as to give their daughter an opportunity to attend the very good schools zoned for the house. This against my temptation to sell and move the cash into stocks with no worries at all and no work needed from me and less risk. They thanked me (couldn’t get anything for that quality at that price) and I them for alleviating a portion of my ever-rising interest costs and (fingers crossed) not trashing the place.
Mutual Philanthropy: the best sort and what has kept society going forever: an exchange of services to others!
If I could find more good tenants I’d buy/build more houses for more practical mutual benevolence. Well not yet… not ready for the bank’s type of win-win (they win twice) mutual benevolence at this stage of negative gearing.
Dec 21st, 2006
ken
I dont have anythign to rent for anyone. Rob – a chardonnay capitalist…wow
Dec 21st, 2006
Rob
Maybe tax breaks (100%) on extra voluntary supers investment in state-owned housing. Special land could be released for it, taxes could be exempt including rates and bulk contracts drawn up under tender working backwards from a fair solid unspectacular return for investors. In exchange for subsidised rent, some form of community service to the local council/community could be done by the tenants in lieu of rates and taxes – thus balancing out service…. It is good for those who receive to give in any way they can. Kibbutz principles in the city/town.
Dec 21st, 2006
Graham Bell
Ken:
Absolutely no inconsistency at all.
There is nothing wrong at all in wanting enforcable – and enforced – laws and regulations that protect vulnerable people from blatant exploitation. Nor is there anything wrong with wanting the people we pay to carry out laws, policies and regulations to do the job they are paid to do fairly (hence my comments about Veterans’Affairs).
I have met a lot of decent and dedicated public servants who do their job under very difficult circumstances and then have to put up with befuddled policy shifts and counterproductive laws ….. unfortunately there are a minority of arrogant, callous and lazy public servants who do cause a lot of harm to the people they are supposed to be helping.
Now, let’s get back to the issues reducing homelessness, protecting the vulnerable and then to changing the expectations and behavior of “bad” tenants.
Dec 22nd, 2006
Rob
As per my previous post I am for private and not public sector investment in this. Australians need to invest and not consume more and we need to be taxed less. By encouraging tax efficient super contributions into housing trust accommodation, it increases super savings; provides housing and reduces consumption of imports which has put pressure on interest rates. Everyone would be a winner. The private sector will also police the housing itself.
Dec 22nd, 2006
Graham Bell
Everyone:
More bad news. Rockhampton, Queensland’s “The Morning Bulletin” today carried a story “Shops to replace van park” …. so it looks like another dozen permanent (???) residents will join the Australia’s growing legion of the impermanent.
Look. It’s Christmas. If you get a new fridge or d\ishwasger, please hang onto the robust cardboard box it came in …. and donate it to any homeless/transient/wayfaring/unaccommodated people you come across. I was very impressed at the way these boxes were recycled by the homeless each night after 10pm on Osaka Railway Station; we can learn a lot from traditional Japanese frugality here in the new wealthy and compassionate Australia, the land of the Fair Go..
Dec 22nd, 2006
John Tracey
Rob
Do not confuse philanthropy with commercial good will and customer service
The point is your interests as landlord/invester are diametrically opposed to the tenant/home resident except for how nice or nasty the customer service is
It is indeed mutually beneficial to treat each other with respect – but this is common courtesy not philanthropy
The inherent conflicts of interest between tenant and landlord is is a big part of the reason why the market of itself cannot accomodate social housing objectives
Instead of rejigging the system to encourage housing investors it should be re-jigged to provide low cost and accessible private home ownership as an alternative to welfare housing or private slums
Also property developers responsible for escalating housing prices should be taxed over and above ordinary taxation to fund public low cost housing for those squeezed out by escalating home prices and rents
The Brisbane City council tried to do this a few years ago – even passed a law for it – But Peter Beattie over-ruled the council and the scheme got scrapped
Dec 22nd, 2006
red crab
give me a breake rob
its the private sector thats to blame for most of the problem .
i will some it up for you in two words .
greed and corruption!!.
it was not the govt that made houses a commodity it was private investors after the crash in the 80s. and how about greedy realty ppl the more they sell for the bigger the cut.
what happend to a set fee.
if the govt of the day in the 80s had of had any guts at all they would have made capital gains tax 98% then housing would still be affordable to most ppl at a reasnable price now.
as ive sead before on another subject when it all crashes then ppl of true worth will step up and sole the problem.
Dec 22nd, 2006
John Tracey
Private investment to provide appropriate low cost housing is indeed possible and has been done by those of a philanthropic disposition
However the profit is considerably lower than market standards and there is significantly higher risk than market standards
Without philanthopic intent such models defy market and business logic and therefore do not provide an ongoing or expansive proposition as the weight and momentum of natural market force runs against it
I believe the answer is creative tax dodges to provide capital within the now trendy micro-economic frameworks to provide cheap owner buider options as well as cheap kits on communal title land – or govt land
The rest is the natural process of market forces if it provides viable tax minimisation or asset diversion such as negative gearing
just needs a stroke of a pen from the govt to make it happen
If it is an attractive proposition it will be naturally expansive – theoretically growng through Market forces until there are no more homeless Australians
A model to consider is the tax dodges that foreign mining companies use to avoid tax by tax deductable financing of infrastructure that they would have to pay for anyway such as roads water and electricity and houses
Investors – rich and poor – could invest in their own real estate as a tax dodge making low prices and private ownership security possible – not just houses but commercial industrial and agricultural real estate too
would facilitate rural revival
The rich do stuff like this all the time but it is a game that the poor are excluded from
even welfare recipients and the working poor can turn rent (which has to be paid anyway) into a tax deductable investment in their own housing
Dec 22nd, 2006
John Tracey
Something like this – which regulars may have seen before
http://www.kalkadoon.org/index.php/out-of-the-box-housing-vision/
Housing as a lifestyle, not a building.
A vision of architecture and town planning to facilitate prosperity in remote Aboriginal communities.
Dec 22nd, 2006
Rob
Why not tax breaks on super investment? Instead of paying 15% tax on normal voluntary extra super investment, make it tax free for state housing. As mentioned previously, cost-benefit can be calculated back with a risk-free modest return linked to the set rental. Any voluntary excess payments could be placed in a tax-exempt savings plan which could develop into a sufficient deposit (and evidence of frugality for bank loans) to secure a purchase at a set price based on an legislated price increase linked to CPI.
Face it, in this country very few people who haven’t got it together to buy a house (and I admit to speaking broadly – there are many exceptions) are going to be able to build one and have the discipline to see the project through at enough a vaguely good enough standard. Building isn’t easy – it is a lot easier to start and run a small business and those that do that can afford to buy a house.
Dec 22nd, 2006
John Tracey
I wonder if there are any Democrats who read this blog?
They had a really good policy about this sort of stuff not too long ago
I couldn’t be bothered tracking down the link cause I’m not a democrat
Dec 22nd, 2006
John Tracey
Perhaps there are no Democrats who read this blog
http://www.qld.democrats.org.au/PublicHousingOpportunityScheme24%20TS.pdf
Dec 23rd, 2006
Ck
Well, that rather seals it: a post about the homeless (a serious and growing problem), and all the comments are about family courts or home ownership, or the problems of managing the tenants in one’s investment properties.
Could this possibly be any funnier?
BTW – the homeless, in general, have multiple problems, the very least of which of is merely being a divorced man or woman. Divorce has never been a causal factor in homelessness.
Nice shot at trying to bring attention to the wide spread attitudinal blockages that lead to housing and homelessness matters being ignorned Andrew. Try again next decade, perhaps, but, you know, I have an awful feeling people will care even less than they do now. What an indictment on us all.
Dec 23rd, 2006
John Tracey
Ck
not all – see comment 14
Dec 23rd, 2006
Ck
Indeed, sorry John, I missed that entirely.
I got all excited when I saw that there were more than 50 comments on this topic, and momentarily took some pleasure in the idea that people really did care about the homeless and the people in utterly sub-optimal accommodation (you wouldn’t call them homes), so I skimmed with decreasing expectations, as I read about all manner of personal agendas that have nothing to do with the homeless or those families struggling to barely survive. It was easy to miss your very lonely voice in the crowd.
I would add another point: governments no longer place any priority on housing for the disadvantaged, they have spent more than a decade running down housing stocks and cutting back, as if gov’t housing is a shameful and unnecessary thing in an affluent country. I find that quite disgraceful. That’s only part of the story though, as safe and affordable housing is only one aspect, crucial thought it may be. A much wider and robust infrastructure is needed for many of the groups, as you’ve mentioned.
Another random point: to this day I still shake my head in wonder at WHERE, exactly, gov’ts and advocates thought the chronically mentally ill and the disabled would end up when they were tossed out of gov’t run facilities. Yes it would have cost a great deal to “fix” all that was wrong, but hey, look at all the money that was saved by just giving up and abanding those in need, or pushing all care and econmic responsibility back onto aging parents and families, or out onto the streets, as the case may be.
Whatever the circumstances, a safe clean home, with basic facilities, is fundamental to helping people improve their health and circumstances, and to allow them to live with some dignity.
Dec 23rd, 2006
John Tracey
Here is part of the story of one homeless Aboriginal man in Brisbane
http://paradigmoz.wordpress.com/2006/12/24/give-the-man-a-life/
He has considerable assetts held by the Public Trustee and is eligible for the disability pension
Yet he is given an allowance of only $150 pw from his own assetts – $100 pw less than the disability pension with no discounts and entitlements that pensioners have
He has spent the last six weeks living on the streets with no access to money at all except what he can beg
Marley can afford to own his own home and be on the pension and live a comfortable life
Yet he is not allowed to do this and has been kept in a state of empoverishment by those agencies who are supposedly protecting his interests
Please read the link and send a message of concern to the email contacts on that link
thank you
Dec 24th, 2006
Graham Bell
CK:
I have no idea where on earth you got the idea that divorce is not a significant component in homelessness. Unless you are wealthy and have a very supportive social network that still stays intact after the divorce, it jolly well is. And it is too in precarious housing such as in caravan parks, etc.
Dec 26th, 2006