How shall your houseless heads
and unfed sides
Your loop’d and window’d
raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O,
I have ta’en
Too little care of this!
King Lear Act three, Scene four.
This month, AHURI published a new paper titled ‘Indigenous
housing support in Australia, the lay of the land’ (link here). Authored
by a team led by Associate Professor Megan Moskos, the paper is one element in
a larger inquiry into developing a suggested architecture for a long-term
governance and resource framework for sustainable and effective Indigenous
housing in Australia (link
here). The research team has substantial expertise in research into Indigenous
housing issues.
This is an important research report as it lays the
foundations for the development of what is planned to be a comprehensive
proposal for a national policy reform agenda for Indigenous housing in
Australia. A second research paper will present evidence collected in eight
case studies of different elements of the Indigenous housing system, and a
third research paper is planned to combine reports one and two to present a
national Indigenous housing governance and resourcing framework. I strongly
recommend the report to readers, as it combines comprehensive analysis, builds
on and references a deeper literature related to Indigenous housing, and begins
the process of exploring potential policy and reform options.
However … the report and the larger inquiry are seriously
ambitious as they are seeking to develop an analytic framework that encompasses
a truly diverse and complex set of institutional and administrative
arrangements across eight jurisdictions, that are themselves confronting
rapidly changing demographic circumstances spanning major urban centres to very
remote communities and homelands.
Moreover, the public sector environment within which policies are
developed and implemented is itself facing significant change in the face of
societal level political pressures and ongoing social, economic and
technological change both nationally and globally. The report itself
acknowledges this when it refers to ‘a very dynamic policy and program
environment’ as the first key point of the Executive summary.
The report does an excellent job of summarising at a high
level the state of Indigenous housing governance, resourcing and regulation
across the nation. It avoids assessing the trajectory of the Closing the Gap
strategy in relation to both mainstream and community-controlled housing (I am not
optimistic). But it is more definite in pointing to the absence of a single
agency with overall responsibility for developing a strategic direction for Indigenous
housing policy and for comprehensive reporting on its outcomes. I would have
been more critical, as this is a role that a proactive Minister and NIAA could
and should run with. Their failure to do so is likely a reflection of more
systemic constraints. Instead — notwithstanding the Commonwealth’s powers
granted in the 1967 referendum — decisions on strategies and funding
allocations have in recent years increasingly been left to the states and
territories. The Commonwealth does retain some specific funding in the NT (and
thus concomitant influence over policy should it wish to exercise it) because at
the prescient insistence of the Land Councils, a substantial number of social
housing leases on Aboriginal land were granted to the Commonwealth and are
sub-leased to the NT Government.
The report argues that the tenure profile of Indigenous
households nationally differs fundamentally from that of mainstream households.
Over two thirds of Indigenous households live in private-sector tenure (home
ownership or private rental) and around one quarter of Indigenous households
are in social housing (in contrast to only 4 percent of mainstream households).
The report argues that high rates of homelessness, overcrowding and housing
affordability stress along with the distinctive distribution of the Indigenous
population necessitates a very different set of policy responses than those for
non-Indigenous households. This is a conclusion that warrants reconsideration in
my view.
A crucial element in the analytical edifice the report
constructs is an assessment of what is termed Unmet Core Housing Needs. Utilising an established methodology for
assessing housing needs, the report estimates that in 2021, some 47,700
Indigenous households had unmet core housing needs. This comprised three
elements: over 81% arose from rental stress (ie rent payments above 30 percent
of household income), 14% arose from severe overcrowding, and 4% arose from
inadequate housing. According to the report:
Areas with the greatest levels
of unmet need include many parts of New South Wales and Queensland, where
rental stress is concentrated, and remote Australia, where much of the unmet
need arises from overcrowding in social housing (page
4).
The report goes on to identify ‘a strong need’ for the
development of a national strategic framework underpinned by robust, needs
based, evidence and accompanied by state and territory strategies that set
clear targets. It also argues for a national body to be established by
legislation. Such a body, the report argues, should provide a mechanism for
local and regional housing interests to be represented and heard at the
national level. The policy frameworks established should be flexible and
responsive and adopt a ‘pathways approach’ from homelessness to social housing
and from private rental to home ownership.
Finally the report argues that:
Any policy development should
also account for the geographical and demographic diversity of Indigenous
populations… flexible strategies are required that provide for representation
and responsiveness to local contexts and needs. … Most importantly, it means
the focus on remote housing does not come at the expense of urban housing but
remains [focussed] on the distinctive needs of Indigenous people in both urban
and remote areas (page 5).
As one would expect, the report’s data analysis is rigorous
and perceptive. Where I diverge from the perspective of the report’s authors is in the normative assumptions that are
embedded within the report’s vision for the future.
My high-level critique of what is proposed is
as follows:
First, the proposed architecture
for the Indigenous housing strategic framework essentially mirrors the closing
the Gap architecture put in place in 2020, where in effect the NIAA vacated the
field and rather than playing the role of ringmaster, adopts a more passive
role of being just one jurisdiction among nine. This is not what the electorate
voted for in 1967, and it has led to a leadership vacuum in the closing the gap
process, with the Coalition of Peaks trying to push the unresponsive Commonwealth
and the other jurisdictions as if they were pushing lengths of rope. Moreover,
there is not one system, but nine separate administrative, programmatic and
political systems. We currently have that in the Indigenous housing sector too,
but maintaining it is not reform. While a legislated body could theoretically
create an effective leadership framework with the Commonwealth in partnership
with Indigenous interests in the driver’s seat, the political will to implement
such legislation does not exist at present. In my view, setting out to
establish a separate policy framework for Indigenous housing will inevitably
end up in the same swamp the Closing the Gap process is bogged down in.
Second, while I understand the
desire to create a unified Indigenous housing framework that somehow removes
the structural tensions that exist between remote and non-remote Indigenous
populations, the implicit assumption that rental stress is on par with overcrowding
and inadequate housing as the third element of unmet core housing needs is in
my view counterproductive. Rental stress is as much an outcome of poverty as of
housing policy deficiencies. While I accept unreservedly that non-remote
Indigenous populations have significant socio-economic disadvantages to
overcome, hyper-incarceration being perhaps the most egregious and obvious
example (link
here), the elevation of rental stress to a statistical equivalence with the
consequences of overcrowding and inadequate housing as currently experienced in
many remote communities is high risk and thus a policy mistake.
In my view, the policy priority ought to be unequivocally
built on removing all overcrowding and inadequate assets in the social housing
system. The inevitable outcome of not doing so would be that more numerous
non-remote Indigenous interests would incentivise government to redirect
urgently required resources for new housing and infrastructure towards urban
and regional populations that are already the beneficiary of basic essential
services. I will happily admit that my views here reflect my own normative
value framework that sees the circumstances of remote Australia as being a
national disgrace and therefore an overarching priority. In defence of those
views however, I would argue that housing is crucial, and the appalling state
of remote housing is (along with low employment, declining education outcomes
and ongoing health issues) a core driver of the rock bottom socio-economic
status of a substantial cohort of remote citizens and a key driver of the
social crisis that currently envelops many remote communities (link
here).
Third, given recent shifts in
public opinion post referendum, and indeed recent shifts in global politics
which will inevitably place extraordinary pressure on national budgets whatever
the partisan makeup of the government in office, there is in my view a very
strong argument for rethinking any strategy based on establishing a separate Indigenous
housing system. Instead, I am inclined to a view I have heard articulated more
generally by the Shadow Indigenous Australians Minister, Senator Price, namely,
to shift to a mainstream model built around social housing provision, scope for
community housing solutions to complement the social housing asset base, and
broad access to Rent Assistance, with a robust needs-based criterion for the
allocation of funding resources at its core.
Such a model if implemented effectively would maximise the
chances of new and ongoing social housing funding being allocated by governments
over the coming decades. Indigenous citizens are over-represented in the social
housing cohort, so would be significant beneficiaries while not having the
burden of arguing for specific indigenous based funding allocations.
My perspective on this issue is reinforced by the reality that
the nascent Indigenous advocacy capabilities across the Indigenous housing
policy domain are comparatively weak and are no match for competing interest
groups who will want to get access to any available funding. While mainstream social
housing advocacy capability found primarily in NGOs is also comparatively weak
vis a vis corporate interests, it is more robust than the Indigenous advocacy
capability. I am confident that the extent of Indigenous housing needs across
the board are such that Indigenous interests would inevitably obtain a
substantial proportion of available resources providing a robust needs-based
system applied. I might note in this context that the AHURI report tiptoes
around the issue of Indigenous advocacy capabilities. Yet any realistic
assessment of the scope for building greater self-determination throughout the
Indigenous housing policy system must address this issue.
I should note that accepting a mainstream needs-based
funding model does not mean that there is no scope for community-controlled
entities to pay a significant role in program delivery in particular locations
or regions and even in devising more innovative policy arrangements such as greater
use of community housing organisations. It is worth remembering in this context
that the most successful community-controlled organisations in the country are
the medical services that are built on the foundation of access to a mainstream
needs-based funding model, namely Medicare.
Finally, given I have been relatively freewheeling in my
critique, it is incumbent on me to outline at least in brief my own vision
for a future housing policy framework:
Some of it I have mentioned already. A needs-based
mainstream policy framework for allocating resources for social housing. A
stronger Commonwealth role in shaping the national social housing policy
system. A mainstream policy focus addressing rental stress as part of a wider
strategy to address economic exclusion and inequality in society generally. Prioritising
addressing overcrowding and inadequate housing over rental stress. Prioritising
the needs of disabled citizens in both social housing design and management. A
push to considerably expand the use of community housing organisations (whether
Indigenous controlled or not) which both own and manage housing stock across
both remote and non-remote Australia at a scale that makes them commercially
viable. A recognition that there is market failure present in the provision of
private housing in remote communities and this requires the use of innovative
leasing solutions and/or community trusts which sit between the private and
public systems. The AHURI website includes some research papers by Louise
Crabtree and others on Community Trusts as a policy solution for remote
communities (link
here). A renewed focus on
infrastructure provision in remote contexts, including by expanding the remit
of the NAIF in financing social infrastructure (link
here). A much stronger focus on equitable access to renewable sourced power
in remote communities (link
here). A stronger role for strengthened Indigenous advocacy within high
level mainstream policy forums for the housing system (noting that part of the
process of strengthening capability is to strengthen internal transparency and governance).
Such a broad model would not remove the ongoing challenges.
It would however avoid fracturing the social housing system into artificial
silos, such as for Indigenous citizens, for disabled citizens, for recent
immigrants, for mainstream citizens…instead it argues for a single overarching model
with robust needs-based systems driven by evidence. The advantages of such a
model are more than ideological unity; they include minimising the risk of
multiple queues based on differing criteria and thus moving at different speeds
in terms of waiting times for access to housing, waiting times for repairs and
maintenance, waiting times for ancillary support, and maximise choice while
reducing risk of governance failure. These risks are not trivial; the history
of Australia is that when the nation has a choice, it chooses to prioritise the
non-Indigenous queues.
The bottom line is that reform of the national housing
system for Indigenous people is desperately overdue. But so too is the
mainstream social housing system in need of fundamental reform. Whatever the
design of the new model, it will require more than additional funding. It
requires the Commonwealth Government to step up. It will require innovative
thinking and focussed perseverance at all levels. It will require leadership
and deep consultation. Yet it is almost impossible to get wider community engagement
on the issues involved. This report (and hopefully the follow up reports)
provide a platform for wider discussion of these issues. AHURI and the report
authors deserve congratulation for their efforts. While they have deepened the
community’s knowledge base on these issues, I hope that over the coming months
they and the various peak Indigenous housing bodies can also communicate their
ideas to the wider community and broaden our knowledge base as well as taking the
first steps in building the case for real housing reform.
27 February 2025
