Australian
Governments of all political persuasion need to improve policy responses to the
issue of homelessness. After all public housing stock did not diminish by
accident.
The
reduction of social housing was deliberate decision by orthodox economic policy
minds who took the view that private rental offered a better solution for most
people. Two decades and half down the track it is evident it has not worked for
certain sections.
But
it is not a secret that some people with complex needs struggle to access or
maintain private rental. There are complex factors at play including psychosocial
challenges and long-time unemployment. These barriers may also limit the rate
of access to generous Government homeownership schemes.
 |
Bentley 360 public housing development - Source: WA Government Housing
A bit of understanding of policies that encouraged reduction in
social housing can help us in re-thinking policy decisions and strategies in
dealing with where we find ourselves today.
The
mid-1990s saw Labor and Liberal States and Federal Governments move towards
implementation of the National Competition Policy and neo-liberal strategies.
The public housing stock came under scrutiny as neo-liberal thinkers set out to
instil market discipline in the public sector.
State
Governments moved towards commercialisation and corporatisation – that means
acting more like businesses. They applied new notions of Competitive Neutrality – apparently to ensure Government housing
provision did not get in the way of private businesses.
In
practice this meant States privatising significant housing stock and
proportionately reduced development of new housing stock.
What
for? Well, using neo-liberal filters they held the view that their approach
ensured more efficiency so that private rental could compete freely and not be
‘crowded-out’. And certainly it seemed an attractive proposition for
Governments committed to reducing expenditure.
This
also meant Federal Government policy calculations preferred to see use of
rental vouchers (rental assistance through Centrelink) instead of increase in
public housing investment.
All
States and the Feds are signatory to State-Fed Agreements that require them to
stick to Competitive Neutrality. Federal-State funding arrangements also
embed how such things are to be done.
As
such, in my view it is not easy for individual State Governments to change the
system because they are all tied to notions of corporatisation and
commercialisation. Adherence to these arrangements is regarded as part of good governance.
Mind
you there are also enough indications that sometimes competition policy
strategies get implemented in spheres of human services contrary to the initial
intention of the reform.
There
isn’t a lot in Australia’s National Competition Policy texts to support the
idea that people with complex psychosocial needs were ever going to be
adequately supported in the private housing rental market.
Until
current policy makers and advocates start scrutinising workings of Competitive
Neutrality and commercialisation practices for at-risk groups in the housing
sphere, any solution will be at best patchy.
That
all said I am also a great supporter of homeownership policies implemented by
the Feds and States in recent times and way back. After all without existing
homeownership schemes the ranks of the homeless will be worse. But this success
should not take away our collective responsibility to voice our support for people
with complex needs that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. To this end,
the National Cabinet (Former COAG) needs to look again at impacts of
Competitive Neutrality for at-risk groups.
