The 2019 Infrastructure Australia Audit: the spectre of remote housing

Oft have I seen a timely-parted ghost,
Of ashy semblance, meagre, pale and bloodless,…

King Henry VI, part 2, Act 3 scene 2

The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead

Did squeak and gibber in the … streets

Hamlet Act 1, scene 1

I previously posted about the 2017 Infrastructure Australia (IA) audit and the earlier 2015 audit of  Northern Australia infrastructure needs (link here, here and here) where I was critical of a range of shortcomings related to Indigenous related infrastructure.

In February 2019, IA released its 2019 Priority List (link here) which included a number of positive developments for remote Indigenous interests. The associated media release from IA (link here) notes:

With a record 121 nationally significant proposals and a $58 billion project pipeline, the Priority List will guide the next 15 years of Australian infrastructure investment,” said Infrastructure Australia Chair, Julieanne Alroe.

“The 2019 Priority List provides a credible pipeline of nationally significant proposals for governments at all levels to choose from. As an evidence-based list of opportunities to improve both our living standards and productivity, the Priority List reflects the diversity of Australia’s future infrastructure needs across transport, energy, water, communications, housing and education.”

It goes on to make the undoubtedly correct and welcome (if overdue) statement:

“An important challenge faced across the country, and requiring coordinated action by all levels of government, is the provision of quality housing for Australians living in remote areas. Overcrowding and poor-quality housing in remote communities impacts on health and safety, education and employment outcomes, and has been identified by Infrastructure Australia as an investment priority that should be progressed by governments in the near term.[1]

In recognition of the complexity and cross-sectional issues involved in virtually all major infrastructure priorities, IA make a further recommendation to governments relating to progressing infrastructure priorities:

“With the release of the 2019 Priority List, and our Infrastructure Decision-making Principles last year, Infrastructure Australia is urging decision-makers to commit to solving any emerging or growing problem by embarking on a feasibility study to identify potential options, rather than a pre-defined project that may not be the most effective solution.

The 2018  principles include strong backing for greater transparency, assessment of alternative approaches, and commitment to post-completion reviews. These principles deserve support not least because they have been largely absent in the remote infrastructure policy domain for the past decade.

The Priority List includes remote housing as an initiative, not a project, which essentially means that it has not undergone a full business case assessment by IA, but requires further development and assessment (see page 8 of the Report for a fuller description of the distinction). Importantly, the remote housing initiative, which is described more fully at page 49, has been included as ‘an Infrastructure Australia identified initiative’ and the next steps listed are to identify an actual proponent. In other words, neither the federal Government nor the states and territories have identified this as an initiative of national significance.

In describing the opportunity represented by the remote housing initiative, IA note that relieving overcrowding will significantly improve health, safety, education and employment outcomes. After citing relevant data, they state:

ongoing investment is necessary to ensure the gap continues to close, thereby reducing the high associated social and economic costs.

The 2019 Priority List was followed in August 2019 by the massive 640 page 2019 Infrastructure Audit, titled An Assessment of Australia’s Infrastructure Needs

This new assessment (link here), notwithstanding some persuasive criticism regarding the limitations of its metropolitan analyses (link here), has made a number of significant changes which go some way to addressing my earlier criticism. For the first time, social infrastructure, including social housing, was included in the audit.

In its media release accompanying the 2019 Infrastructure audit, IA commented:

Poorer access to infrastructure services in our remote communities is reinforcing disadvantage. In many parts of the country, service provision falls below what is acceptable for a highly developed nation, including remote communities experiencing social housing overcrowding, limited access to drinking water, inadequate transport and poor telecommunications, which in turn translates to poorer health standards and quality of life for their residents.

In just four years, IA has shifted from completely ignoring these issues to acknowledging their existence and salience. This is a major step forward, and deserves congratulations. That said, a number of issues remain in terms of the adequacy of the IA analysis.

The section on social housing included a revealing table/graph (refer page 455). Headed ‘Homelessness is increasing in major cities and decreasing in outer regional and remote areas’, the table presented graphic data indicating that homelessness[2] in very remote Australia had decreased by 225 per 10,000 between 2006 and 2016. In contrast, the rate in major cities had increased by 11 per 10,000 over the same period. On closer examination, the data disclose huge discrepancies in overcrowding between urban and very remote Australia, with major city rates increasing from 35.4 to 45.5 per 10,000, while very remote rates declined from 819 to 594 per 10,000.

The framing of this analysis emphasises the significant progress made over the past decade, but fails to focus on the extremely low base that it is coming off, and the continuing extreme levels of overcrowding that persist. Reinforcing this framing, the report noted (IA 2019: 455) that the high rates of homelessness in remote areas ‘can be linked to challenges in providing adequate housing for these communities’.

The report proceeds to specify the extent of the outstanding social infrastructure housing need in the following terms:

The 2019 Infrastructure Priority List estimates that the combined economic and social cost of overcrowding for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations is expected to exceed $100 million per annum over the next 15 years based on existing overcrowding rates. However, after accounting for population growth, an additional 5,500 homes are still expected to be required by 2028 to reduce levels of overcrowding in remote areas.

This is the key paragraph, but it is extremely problematic for two reasons. First, I could not track down the reference to the $100m per annum economic and social cost in the 2019 Priority List estimates. It is not clear how this figure was calculated and what it represents. How does one place a dollar value on the constrained life opportunities of a young person subjected to the adverse implications of overcrowding?

Second, the quantum of outstanding need used (5500 houses) was sourced from the 2017 PMC Remote Housing Review. That review made clear that the figure was only partial, as it was based on 2011 census figures and not 2016 figures, did not include replacement of expiring stock, and more importantly, was designed to meet an ‘acceptable’ level of need some 10 percent in excess of overcrowding levels in mainstream Australia. See Remote Housing Review (link here) pages 2 and 24-5. I have previously provided more comprehensive critiques of this figure here and here.

The bottom line is that in relation to this topic, the IA Infrastructure Audit’s reliance on the headline figure in the Government’s Remote Housing Review is extremely unfortunate. It promulgates an inaccurate and policy relevant under-estimation of outstanding need, and demonstrates how poor and inaccurate  analysis can continue to live on and influence policymakers, ghost like, notwithstanding demonstrable and egregious flaws.

For these reasons, it is beyond time that the Commonwealth and the states undertook a forward looking policy review aimed at assessing the true extent of remote housing need (both current and expected), and identifying potential alternative funding models that might begin the process of addressing the very significant needs which exist and that will only grow larger over time. I mentioned four innovative opportunities in my Inside Story article (linkhere).

Notwithstanding the shortcomings in the 2019 Infrastructure Audit, IA have done a substantial service in resurrecting the issue of remote housing from its recent burial chamber. Despite ongoing attempts by the Federal Government to avert its policy gaze, this policy ghost will continue to haunt and increasingly torment policymakers. Indeed, the longer it is left unattended, the more difficult and expensive it will be for both the nation and First Nations citizens.

---

[1] These words also appear in the Chair’s Foreword to the report.

[2] A person is defined as being Homeless by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (the source for the IA data) if she is living in either non-conventional accommodation or ‘sleeping rough’, or in short term or emergency accommodation due to the absence of other options (AIHW 2019). In very remote Australia, it is closely related to overcrowding in social housing.