Housing strategies must take into account NHHA housing policies relevant to the state or territory. Priority housing policies include: Homelessness strategies must consider NHHA priority cohorts and describe reforms or initiatives that reduce the incidence of homelessness. Priority homeless cohorts include: The bill also does not guarantee the adequacy and security of funding, and there is a risk that funding will cease if the tight deadline for negotiating agreements with state and territory governments is not met. Australia`s social housing system is in crisis and major investments are crucial. However, the agreement does not take into account the actual costs of maintaining and operating the social housing system, let alone supporting the growth of social housing. This funding gap is exacerbated by the expanded scope of the agreement, which includes additional targets for affordable housing without new funding. But at a time of population growth and persistent housing shortages, the Commonwealth`s recent budget pledge to maintain its current financial contribution of A$1.3 billion to the housing deal means that real funding has not been increased. It is not enough to keep it as it was to cover the cost of current services, let alone to increase it. A third feature is the requirement for states and territories to publish housing strategies annually. Stakeholders will be able to assess and compare the merits of these published plans. These will come after a new set of high-level bilateral agreements negotiated between each State and Territory and the Commonwealth. First, the political magnitude. Unlike its predecessors, the new agreement aims to improve access to housing “across the housing spectrum.” This is the entire range of residential properties – from crisis housing construction to residential real estate.
Within this spectrum, the Commonwealth has set several immediate priorities: NHHA funding includes $129 million to be allocated to homeless services in 2020-2021, which must be doubled by states and territories. Bilateral agreements under the NHHA expire at the end of 2022/23, and further funding has yet to be negotiated. We support the development of a new agreement that provides the coordination, resources and political leadership urgently needed to address housing unaffordability and homelessness. However, we do not believe that the current bill forms the basis for this coordinated and coherent national approach. The proposed legal framework presents a number of risks and shortcomings and requires a significant revision. Despite these concerns, society continues to hope that a sustainable, comprehensive and coordinated national agreement can be developed. For too long, government action on housing and homelessness has been ad hoc and subject to constant blame between different levels of government. It cannot go on like this. The way in which this new national agreement is conceived is of the utmost importance, and it is imperative that we resolve the problems identified in the current bill and establish the right legislative basis.
The NHHA includes $125 million that will be allocated to homeless services in 2019-2020. States and territories will double this funding. Shelter WA aims to commission research to strengthen the knowledge base on the funding of homeless services in Western Australia, including funding sources for current specialist and non-specialist services and an estimate of unmet needs. Read more: We won`t close the gap if the Commonwealth cuts support for Indigenous housing It replaces the ten-year National Affordable Housing Accord and a number of partnerships since 2008 to address homelessness – the National Homelessness Partnership Agreement. The latest agreement includes more achievable performance indicators than its predecessors. It also requires states to report on their annual financial contributions – a step worthy of transparency. Read more: Australia must revive affordable housing financing, not remove it Read More: A national affordable housing strategy: necessary, achievable and perhaps on track The National Accord on Housing and Homelessness (NHHA) began on January 1. July 2018 and provides approximately $1.5 billion annually to states and territories to improve Australians` access to safe and affordable housing across the housing spectrum. Although the new agreement contains positive guidelines, the funding gap remains a problem.
Although the Commonwealth is not increasing its funding, it hopes that states and territories will increase theirs. This tabling examines the Treasury (National Housing and Homelessness Accord) Amendment Bill, 2017, which enacts the new National Accord. Compared to previous recent agreements, three themes stand out as new or updated. Housing and homelessness policies in Australia come at a critical juncture. Housing stress has reached historic highs, there is a severe shortage of social housing, and an increasing number of low-income households are excluded from the private rental market. With this in mind, the federal government is developing a new National Accord on Housing and Homelessness (NHHA) that will replace existing national agreements that provide funding to state and territory governments for housing and homelessness programs. While state and territory governments take primary responsibility for housing and homelessness, the Commonwealth provides funding for housing assistance and services for the homeless. These include the Commonwealth Rent Assistance to help eligible Australians cover their rental costs and the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA), which began on 1 July 2018. Under the NHHA, state and territory governments are responsible for setting priorities and the nature and location of funded services. State and territory governments also make decisions regarding social and municipal housing, including the construction, allocation and renovation of housing. As a result, there is now less federal funding for new social and affordable housing than at any time in the past decade. This expanded coverage is generally welcome, but it does not meet the demands of a national housing strategy.
This means that many domestic measures that have a significant impact on housing demand and costs – such as housing investment taxes, immigration levels and income support for tenants – remain outside the reach of the agreement. Such a policy also strongly influences the prospects for reducing housing stress. The bill introduces a trigger to withhold funding from state and territory governments if they do not meet vaguely defined criteria. While we support greater transparency and accountability, this punitive approach undermines a collaborative and cross-border approach and risks maintaining funding instability and political friction. It also threatens the sustainability of front-line services and housing programs. Nor does the bill provide for the necessary accountability and transparency mechanisms. We believe that an independent body should be established to monitor and evaluate performance, analyze data on housing supply and demand, and strengthen the evidence base for decision-making at all levels of government. This month, another political agreement on housing between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments came into effect.
The National Accord on Housing and Homelessness is the latest in a 73-year series of intergovernmental pacts to ensure affordable housing for low-income Australians and fund services for the homeless. So there is a disconnect between the noble goal of improving access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing and the financing it can support. Until this funding gap is closed, all new national agreements on housing and homelessness will differ significantly only in name. This highlights differences in housing conditions between jurisdictions and includes priorities at the state level in addition to those at the Commonwealth level. Those published so far differ considerably in terms of ambition and specificity. Given that so many people are described in detail about the apparent lack of funding needed to meet housing needs in Australia, we can unfortunately predict that the new agreement will not contribute much to an increased supply of social and affordable housing. In fact, this is tacitly acknowledged – the carefully crafted performance indicators of the agreement do not include such a measure. In particular, the bill is not linked to a national housing and homelessness strategy and plan, nor is it supported by the necessary governance and institutional arrangements. Housing construction is influenced by policy at all levels of government, with the federal government taking responsibility for some of the key factors (p.B .
. .