“People usually are the happiest at home.” William Shakespeare (Not. Actually it’s a lie misquoted in an Owen Wilson Ad)
This column focuses on the link between design and politics. Nowhere is the link more evident than in housing policy and nowhere is housing policy more evident than in the current federal election.
Despite many commentators saying this is a ‘policy free’ election, all you need to do is read the party platforms, which is what we are doing here, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Regulars will know that there are two sides to housing policy: ownership and rental. That is housing as property and assets; or (social) housing as a home. A recent ToT column on Scomo and Albo’s first digs highlighted the division, which extends into their policies.
Liberal Party
As expected, they’re in favor of home ownership, which is where they direct most of their efforts – it is the sole name of their whole housing plan. Their main claim is to support Australians into home ownership through a policy of a ‘Low Deposit Guarantee’ for first home buyers, but there are two big problems. Firstly, it only addresses the wealthier middle class, and secondly it has been a key driver of unaffordability.
Cashed up first home buyers, not needing a meaningful deposit, with very low interest rates and no price caps have helped fuel a massive rise in housing values. This emphasis on home buyers, and their malignant effect, also extends to the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which is to be continued. They claim both schemes have sponsored ownership of more than 330,000 houses.
They also spruik the Home Builder Application Scheme, claiming 137,000 applications generated $120bn of economic activity, but many economists regard that particular program as being one of the key drivers of the recent extensive rise in construction costs. More hi-vis and hard hats than social benefit.
For social housing the Liberals are intending to continue a program of low-cost loans to Community Housing Providers, for which they provided $2.9bn in the last three years. They are promising extra $2bn in low-cost financing through the Affordable Housing Bond in the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) to support to 27,500 dwellings, less than 10% of their support for first home buyers. For indigenous homes they are proposing a program at $7.7m, with an M when what's needed is a B. They definitely prefer home buyers.
The problem of a lack of supply, trumpeted in Jason Falinski’s fallacious report released just before the election is nowhere addressed in the policy. Sadly, they spend more time criticising Labor schemes than promoting their own. One page, comparing their policies, only highlights how much more effective the Labor program is in addressing more aspects of housing.
Nationals
Nada, nix, nothing from the Nationals. There’s mention that regional areas need more affordable housing but there is zero housing policy. They rely on the Liberals allocating 10,000 of their low deposit guarantees in regional areas. Barnaby Joyce is more homewrecker, than homemaker.
The Greens
In an inverse of the Liberal’s approach, the Greens are mostly focused on social housing. Over 10 pages of high quality graphics and text the Greens hammer the idea of ‘1 million homes’; three quarters would be public and community housing in attempt to reduce housing waiting lists and end homelessness. As if the mere act of building will solve problems without the wraparound services that ToT has discussed previously.
Part of the ‘1 million homes’ is setting aside 125,000 for a federal housing trust to be used in shared equity ownership where the government would provide 25% and equity in the house, and the owners buy up to 75%. Unlike Labor (below) the scheme requires that homes return to public hands. So-called watermelons: green exterior and pink socialist inside. And did we mention it’s ‘1 million homes’.
But it takes a keen eye to find in the small print that the ‘1 million homes’ are over 20 years, or 50,000 new dwellings every year. As previously noted in ToT 54 this would be one third of all houses being built. Even as benevolent dictators (a Green’s desire) it ain’t gonna happen. The Greens have the strongest housing policy, but fall victim to the adage that the impotent promise the best sex, but can’t deliver.
Teal Independents
Whilst not a party, the so-called Teal independents do have many policies in common, but social housing is not one of them. Unsurprising really, given they want to be ‘voices of, or representative of their electorates’, which are all wealthy areas, rich in multiple home ownership. In a comparison undertaken by the editors of the Fifth Estate they found the Teals were pale in comparison to the Greens. It’s worth reading the comments BTL where Rod Simpson (architect and campaign manager for Kylea Tink) counters their conclusions.
Labor Party
Labor has three parts to housing policy. The first, announced some time ago, is a Housing Australia Future Fund, to build 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties over five years, or 6,000/year. The returns from this $10bn investment would be transferred to the existing NHFIC to pay for social and affordable housing projects.
The program is divided into two parts: 4,000/year are social housing properties, but less than 1,000/year are for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes at risk of homelessness. Secondly, 2000/year are affordable homes for ‘frontline workers like police nurses, and cleaners’. Strange that in an overarching ‘care’ vision, they don’t mention aged care and childcare workers.
The second Labor housing policy is one of five key promises made at the election launch. Alongside the proposals for health and medicines, electric vehicles, manufacturing and equality (and Uluru) unveiled by Albanese, is a government equity scheme called ‘Help to Buy’. It provides Commonwealth Government equity of 40% in a new home or 30% in an existing dwelling.
The scheme is not new or original. It is widely used overseas and is already run by several state and territory governments in Australia, including Victoria's ‘Homebuyer Fund’ (based on 25% with more generous income thresholds) and the ‘Keystart Program’ in WA (with tighter income thresholds). Similarly, the Labor scheme has caps on the total value of houses which can be purchased, ranging from $950,000 in Sydney Metro to half that value in regional areas. So, contrary to many comments, it will be more price control than inflatory.
The scheme allows owners to buy out the federal government stake or to pay the government back when they sell but there are some minor issues, such as what happens to improvements made by the owners. But overall, the most disappointing part of the program is that it is only for 10,000 dwellings over an unspecified period (assumed to be three years of their first term).
Liberals were quick out of the blocks with three curious comments: Scott Morrison criticised the scheme, but he had formerly endorsed a similar one; it only provided for 10,000 houses - as if it's good, but not good enough; a weirdly he said that people wouldn’t want Albo at their breakfast table, as if having one of the big four banks in bed with you wasn’t an issue.
The third Labor policy on housing has all but disappeared. At the launch Albanese announced that Labor will establish a ‘National Housing Supply and Affordability Council’, presented as cooperative between the national, state and local governments in order to promote more land to be subdivided for housing, by cutting red tape. There is absolutely nothing online about this proposal to date, probably for good reason.
As described by in the launch it could be an utter disaster, allowing the unbridled rape of the ex-urban areas of our cities for continuous suburban sprawl. It's an idea in the Bob Hawke tradition of bringing people together, however, this could also be an environmental disaster. What is it about Labor boys from NSW that want to play in the developer’s sandpit? Oh well, I think I just lost all hope of being appointed to that council!
Summary
Whilst it's pleasing that housing policies are taking center stage at last, it is unremittingly disappointing that ALL fall short of addressing the problem. All policies stress the creation of jobs, as if that is a good thing in an over-heated construction industry. But not one policy seeks to be creative by connecting prefabrication as a solution to housing construction: an innovative way of solving both manufacturing and housing issues.
Bernard Keane in Crikey has pointed out the real solution to housing policies is one of tax reform, as discussed in ToT 112 and The Guardian several months ago. Given Labor is so shy about progressive policies on taxes, we will have to put up with their piecemeal, pretend policies whilst we wait for the inevitable increase in interest rates to cause housing values to plateau, or more likely, fall. Only then will an impending ‘catastrophe’ of the ‘property market’ bring real reform for homes.
Tone Wheeler is principal architect at Environa Studio, Adjunct Professor at UNSW and is President of the Australian Architecture Association. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and are not held or endorsed by A+D, the AAA or UNSW. Tone does not read Instagram, Facebook, Twitter or Linked In. Sanity is preserved by reading and replying only to comments addressed to [email protected]
