Shelter NSW hosted meeting on NSW Government's Social Housing Discussion Paper

Shelter NSW hosted meeting on NSW Government’s Social Housing
Discussion Paper
Notes by Sally Trevena

Overarching issues
The government has been changing the social housing policy over recent years including the
previous governments “Reshaping Public Housing". The current government wants to deal with
social housing only as welfare. The Minister wants to know what else she should be considering
beyond the welfare portfolio. The focus is on not losing current stock rather than increasing supply,
asset realignment such as focusing on housing on valuable land.

What is the purpose of the discussion paper?
Participants identified three major themes emerging through the paper:
     supply issues
     a pathway concept generally assessed as unrealistic
     the political context and communicating a message re deserving and underserving clients /
        tenants

Pillar 1: A social housing system that provides opportunity and pathways
for clients’ independence
Benefits and disadvantages of this proposal
Benefits included:
     Explicitly asks what programs are needed to overcome entrenched social disadvantage /
        exclusion and identifies areas that these would be needed - education, engagement,
        employment programs (including generation) and community building
     Increased support for clients with mental health problems
     Focus on support services for high needs people placed into housing to address complex
        needs
Disadvantages included:
     Government estimates 12,000 of 290,000 people may benefit from 'pathway to
        independence'
     Proposal flounders on the lack of housing supply, the capacity of the private rental market
        and lack of alternate destinations including affordable housing and home ownership
        programs
     The assumption that the transition pathway to private rental is feasible for social housing
        tenants
Ideas for products and services that might help
     Policy for new supply of affordable housing to attract private investment and leverage
        resources of CHPs and churches
     Pathway to independence may provide some new products such as children of single
        parents, single homeless, etc.
What is not there?
     Availability of affordable housing

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 1 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015

Pillar 2: A social housing system that is fair
Is it fair?
Main points raised under fairness were:
      Not fair as it is limited to social housing, provides an inadequate comparison of social hosing
         and private housing and doesn’t deal with the major issue of the shortage of housing stock
         in both public and private markets
      Current rental and eligibility policies are not fair and need review
      Fairness presented in terms of ‘deserving’ and ‘underserving’ without definition

What are the critical elements of fairness?
A consensus view:
     A fair system provides for everyone to have access to safe, secure and well maintained
       affordable housing. This requires sufficient housing availability.

Pillar 3: A social housing system that is sustainable
Absence of a Portfolio strategy
Main points that could be included in a portfolio strategy:
    Social and affordable housing treated as infrastructure which triggers sector investment and
       opening up the diversity of the system – bonds. loan guarantees, transfers to CHPs, shared
       equity schemes, home ownership
    Removal of the large subsidies for home owners and reinvest in social housing

What measures are required for sustainability?
Suggestions included:
    Mixed income levels provide a feasible way of achieving sustainability
    Long term investment and planning of housing stock
    Greater involvement of tenants in management and maintenance
    Maintenance provided by local maintenance crews

What are your views or ideas on potential for growth of the portfolio?
Proposals included:
    Advocate for innovative investment in new social and affordable housing that attracts
       private sector investment
    Better leveraging of assets
    Public conversation about public housing as essential infrastructure
    Tax reform to apply negative gearing only to new housing
    Develop strategies with local government for increasing affordable housing
    Investment options for superannuation funds

Conclusion
The overwhelming view was that the paper does not present a fair policy and needs further
discussion. The paper is looking for innovative ideas and the participants discussed how we need to
engage in a constructive vision that provides a system for government to follow. The proposal needs
to make explicit who needs a subsidy and examine other ways to cost shift e.g. NDIS, indexing and
compensation.

The objectives in the first two pillars pull against the third pillar. A lateral solution is needed and
sources of funding need to be identified.

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 2 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015

The paper is also seen to be punitive on tenants and constructs a type of person in social housing so
that it can be seen as not fair to keep them in social housing.

Shelter will be preparing a submission and taking up the Ministers request for other matters that
need to be included.

Shelter will organize a follow up meeting on Monday 2nd February 2015.

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 3 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015

Appendix
Discussion notes from participants

What is the purpose of the discussion paper?
   How do we appear to reduce the waiting list when we have entrenched disadvantage with
        those with increased incomes moved out and through strict eligibility only vulnerable are
        housed. Even with support unlikely to be able to exit social housing
   Give an appearance of addressing social housing waiting list
   Throughput – manage demand by pushing people through the system quicker
   Strategy only relevant to 20-30% of tenants
   Independence, fairness, sustainability
   Attempt to manage demand in order to reduce waiting list
   “Opportunity” for clients to include community mentoring and relationships in addition to
        services – but what does opportunity look like for someone on an aged or disability pension
   - 70% of clients on a pension
   Breaking the cycle of long term dependence on social housing
   Looking for innovative alternatives to traditional social housing practices
   Lack of trust in CHPs if title transferred
   Privatisation, user pays, small government policy
   Remove housing responsibility from government except for tiny safety net
   Theme of ‘deservingness’ – who deserves to live in social housing – welfare tenant, working
        class tenant
   Investment
   Demand management welfare reform agenda and erase issue of equity
   Query the objective of social housing system – to be a safety net for the most vulnerable
   How should we define “vulnerable” in the housing context
   How can we best ration and manage what we have
   Welfare focus and not holistic housing response
   How do you have a pathway for retirees that will not have a job sufficient to rent in the
        private rental market
   How can the demand for social housing be managed without increasing resources
   What does it take to enable people to exit
   What is the government’s role in meeting housing need affordability – the legislation

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 4 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015

Pillar 1: A social housing system that provides opportunity and pathways for clients’ independence

Benefits of this proposal
    Explicitly asks what programs are needed to overcome entrenched social disadvantage /
        exclusion and identifies areas that these would be needed – education engagement,
        employment programs (including generation) and community building
    Increased support for clients with mental health conditions
    Focus on support services for high needs people placed into housing to address complex
        needs
    Reduce the waiting list but at the expense of the people in the system
    The principle of pathways to independence is sound
    Room for new services providing housing in order to enable pursuit of education and
        training
    Good to expand opportunities and clear pathways for low income people to have access to
        opportunities.
    Govt figures 12,000 of 290,000 people may benefit from “pathway to independence”
    Wrap around services would be good but there is no evidence that Housing Dept. can work
        collaboratively
    Asks what is needed for social housing to be a pathway and not a destination
    Seeing housing as part of puzzle in disadvantage

Disadvantages of this proposal
     Definition of vulnerable not provided
     The assumption that transition pathway to private rental market is feasible for social
       housing tenants. Assumptions about the capacity of private rental market
     Missing context of high unemployment and cuts to TAFE outreach - impact on
       “independence”
     Assumptions about capacity of clients and availability of options to move to independence
     Identified increasing number of vulnerable people without consideration for many peoples
       lack of ability to ‘exit’ or become independent
     There are no pathways – it’s not systemic – people’s lives aren’t linear and most issues are
       about service.
     Challenge of choice and equity and fairness
     Language of ‘dependence’ is questionable
     Failure to address security
     Does not address importance of connection to the community – regards housing as static
       not living
     Without supply increase the proposal is impossible to achieve
     Breaking the cycle of dependence needs a change in the mindset and approach of Housing
       department
     Attempts to ‘transition’ will founder because of state and private rental and labour market –
       worsen with fewer exits, staying poor
     Bulk of social housing tenants are not able to work irrespective of support provided
     Existing eligibility requirements mean most residents are older or have substantial mental
       health or disability requirements needing ongoing support
     Why is it assumed that a person is dependent on government when the govt is the landlord
     Can a person achieve independence while renting a government owned flat?
     Needs other destinations in addition to private rental including affordable housing, home
       ownership – these options not canvassed
     Does it reward people for making themselves more vulnerable so they can stay housed!

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 5 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015

   High needs people get kicked out because service support not there and they are further
        demeaned as underserving or bludging
       Waiting list is a key KPI the government wants to stop rising and throughput is seen as the
        solution without new stock.

Ideas for products and services that might help
     Policy for new supply of affordable housing to attract private investment and leverage
        resources of CHPs and churches
     Pathway to independence may provide some new products – children of single parents,
        single homeless, etc.

What is not there?
   Availability of affordable housing for clients to move to

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 6 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015

Pillar 2: A social housing system that is fair

Is it fair?
       No – limited to social housing system – populist approach aimed at media management
       No mention of fairness between govt treatment of housing tenure forms
       No concept of need to have a ‘home’ which requires security, control and autonomy over
          dwelling
       Inadequate comparison of social housing and private housing market
       Different rent models and allocation (eg CBL) interesting and worth talking about
       Anti-social behaviour stuff is just dumb
       Preparing tenants for private market is so much work and understated
       ‘Social housing is difficult to access for those most in need’ – relative to what?
       Govt accepts some people will need safety net of social housing over longer term
       False assumption that SH supports people who cannot access low cost housing
       3 strikes discussion is about tenant management
       Reject position that there can be no more investment in new stock
       How do we link to interests of private renters as private rental costs increase
       Current rent policy is not working – need new policy
       Eligibility should only apply to people in crisis accommodation and not to people renting in
          the private market
       Eligibility and rent policies should encourage a mix of tenants working and not working
       Unacceptable to offer choice to groups who do not have financial and or other assets /
          abilities to make such choices
       Not fair to play one group against another
       2/3rds are on aged or DSP – consideration of impact on health and disability reform
       Without adequate supply and employment opportunities cannot be fixed – not fair option
       No as it assumes that some people get a really big (long term) benefit and others get nothing
          so take the benefit away from all!
       Not about fairness but about needing more options, support
       Fairness presented in terms of ‘deserving’ tenants
       Takes focus of real issue of shortage of stock in both public and private market
       Deserving tenants creates stigma of undeserving tenants
       Choice presumes capacity
       What’s not fair?
                Earning a wage could see you lose your house
                Losing a parent or partner could see you lose your house
                Raising a family could see you lose your house or pay more to stay
       Social housing catch 22 – you deserve it when you are on the waiting list and you no longer
          deserve it when you are housed!
       Fair is a political wedge to play off against those in private rental market

What are the critical elements of fairness?
   How will government determine who qualifies?
   Who moves on?
   How will it structure conditions, rents to ‘incentivise’ people out?
   Investment in affordable housing options to create stepping stones
   Offer a positive view of fairness and what’s needed to fix the system – create an ‘aspirational
       vision’
   Measurement of fairness needs to be unpacked and challenged
   A fair and just housing system where everyone can live affordably

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 7 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015

Pillar 3: A social housing system that is sustainable
Absence of a Portfolio strategy
      Budget
               o $811m budget allocation for social housing including $500m from Commonwealth
               o $124m grants to LAHC
               o LALC Annual Report includes $160m in cash at bank
               o Where does the remainder go to?
      Self-imposed restraints on government
      Good policy would be to remove the heavy subsidies for home owners and reinvest in social
          housing
      Why should social housing be sustainable?
      Need to treat social and affordable housing as infrastructure which triggers private sector
          investment and opening up the diversity of the system – bonds, loan guarantees, transfers
          to CHP, shared equity schemes for moderate earners home ownership
      The portfolio strategy aims to release value in the portfolio and reinvest in removal of the
          stock but this can only be done once
What measures are required for sustainability?
      Should different parts of system cover some costs such as health and dsp
      Mixed income levels provide a feasible way of achieving sustainability
      Needs long term investment in stock and recognition social housing is not the last resort
      Resources need to be mobilised to meet need
      Old stock sold off and new stock purchased to reduce the maintenance costs
      Proper maintenance which is provided by local maintenance crews and apprenticeships for
          young people in social housing communities
      Economic and social sustainability
      Greater involvement of tenants in maintenance and management
      Acknowledge that rent will not meet operating costs
What are your views or ideas on potential for growth of the portfolio?
      CHP tend to do a much better job of engaging tenants and delivering effective wrap around
          services
      Advocate for innovative investment in new social and affordable housing that attracts
          private sector investment
      Need government funding as base to bring other contributors to participate
      Public conversation about the level of public subsidy for a range of housing options as
          essential infrastructure
      Better leveraging of assets
      Improved rental stream from larger social housing system is a viable option
      Develop strategies with local government for increasing affordable housing
      Tax reform to apply negative gearing only to new housing
      Incentives to build affordable housing - CHPs
Other
      Need to debunk myth that those on Centrelink are coping in private rental market so all
          social housing tenants can survive in private rental
      How do you make ‘opportunities’, ‘pathways’, ‘independence’ real – what resources, policy
          settings, portfolio size, rent models does it take to do it well?
      Anglicare snapshot highlighted unaffordability of rental market for 99% of people on
          Centrelink benefits
      Social housing history of public housing created in part to deal with public health issues
          arising from bad living conditions

C:\Users\faye.clark\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.Outlook\WVCY734I\rpt1412workshopon socialhousing discussionpaper meeting Dec2014-
final.docx | page 8 of 8 | printed 28/01/2015