Most of the post-CAOG coverage, as was the case leading up to COAG, was focused on health and education. However, there have been some outcomes in the fundamental area of housing which deserve closer attention. A National Affordable Housing Agreement has been adopted by all the federal, state and territory governments with National Partnership areas of homelessness, social housing and remote indigenous housing.
The arm of the housing agreement directed at homelessness seems to be the most positive. An extra $800 million over four years (half coming from the States), combined with a focus on prevention and early intervention, will go a long way towards meeting the stated goals of “a 50 per cent reduction in homelessness, an end to rough sleeping by 2020, and implementing a policy of ‘no exits into homelessness’ from statutory or custodial care for those at risk of homelessness.”
I have to say I am a bit disappointed at the relatively small amounts of extra money provided for social housing (usually defined as public and community housing). The federal government is providing $400 million over the next two years, which is meant “increase the supply of social housing through new construction, providing approximately 1600 to 2100 additional dwellings by 2009-10.” Any increase in this area is welcome, but it really isn’t enough to address the shortfall.
The same can be said for remote Indigenous housing. Around $167 million a year is being provided by the Commonwealth over the next ten years, which is meant to provide up to 4,200 new houses in remote Indigenous communities and upgrades and repairs to around 4,800 existing houses.
The agreement also clarifies that the States have responsibility as “the main deliverer of housing in remote Indigenous communities, providing standardised tenancy management and support consistent with public housing tenancy management.”
Again any increase is welcome, but it is not really enough over a ten year period. Having said that, adding all the different measures addressing Indigenous issues does provide a good overall boost in redressing the historical imbalance in this area.
The federal government was recently able to find $1.5 billion to be spent in one year on tripling the first home owners grant. It is a shame that that sort of money was not able to be channelled into these other areas instead. It would have had just as much of an effect as an economic stimulus, gone much more towards those most in need and not served to pump air into real estate prices.
