SUBMISSION TO THE FEDERAL MINISTER FOR HOUSING

 


CONTEXT 

Against the background that the City of Launceston’s Council (CoL) apparently has great difficulty in regard identifying the expertise required to meets the actual requirements of the Local Govt. Act namely (See below) in dealing with contemporaneous placemaking and planning determinations something of a crisis has evolved. 

As the situation grows more urgent by the day the shortcomings seemingly grow accordingly. Consequently, the case for a Council – operating as a governance body –initiating a Citizen’s Assembly/Jury or Community Housing Form, likewise becomes more compelling by the day.

“To comply with section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas): 

1. A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation. 

2. A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless - 

(a) the general manager certifies, in writing - 

(i) that such advice was obtained; and 

(ii) the general manager took the advice into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee; and 

(b) a copy of that advice or, if the advice was given orally, a written transcript or summary of that advice is provided to the council or council committee with the general manager's certificate. 

Certification 

I certify that: 

(i) the advice of a qualified person has been sought where required; 

(ii) this advice was taken into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee; and 

(iii) a copy of the advice, or a written transcript or summary of advice provided orally, is included with the agenda item. 

 

In attempt to explain the ‘for why’ it would be useful to pay attention to the following:

  • The requisite ‘expertise actually exists’ in the community to the extent that it demonstrably does not in governance and by extension locally, the CoL’s administration; and
  • The facts are that effectively, Councils (CoL in particular) only rarely have elected representatives nor ‘executive staff’ with the direct professional ‘placemaking’ [LINK] qualifications and experience relative to so many matters Council makes strategic determinations about; and
  •  The fact is that on the evidence CoL is not apparently functionally  in compliance with SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act the GM (aka CEO) arguably is not delivering on the Act and/or its intent; and 
  • The fact is that reportedly Tasmania’s Govt. Housing Department does not apparently directly employ qualified architects, housing designers, and as a consequence, it delivers what is understood to be common denominator one-size-fits-all housing that clearly does not meet the 21ST C NEEDS of a great many people experiencing ‘housing stress’. Consequently, this in turn compromises its Development Applications to Council relative to current social housing needs where there is an imperative to deliver 'change' relative to current social and fiscal circumstances; and
  • The fact is that Tasmania’s Planning Regulations are no longer ‘fit-for-purpose’ and thus better fit the housing circumstance of the kind that is the lived experience of elected representatives, the regulators, the public servant planners, and administrators, employed to oversight them and who are all too often under qualified to hold the positions they hold; and

To the extent that these observations need to be tested the ideal opportunity for that would be under the aegis of an independent Citizen’s Assembly/Jury or Community Housing Form conducted at arm’s length from governant. In order for any ‘forum’ to be unconstrained by any political and/or administrative agendas and to be reflective of the constituency’s lived experiences it needs to seen to be independent.

In the absence of of anything representing the political will on the part of Local and State Governance – with CoL as an exemplar along the State Govt. – a growing cohort of people are looking to the Federal Govt to provide the required leadership.  The tools are in evidence albeit that their employment is of concern since the will to put them to work is apparently absent.


THE ROLE OF MUNICIPAL ARCHITECTS, SOCIAL SCIENTISTS ET AL

Against the background that the effective implementation of governance's planning procedures relative to 21st C circumstances, arguably, they are being seriously compromised due to the lack of appropriate and pertinently qualified professional advice typically provided by civil architects, academics, independent planners with social science qualifications and experience. Moreover, it is increasingly the case that in this space, inadequate and incongruous advice is privileged over alternative substantial and verifiable professional concerns and considerations.

Largely, this can be attributed to local governance not retaining the services of certified practicing architect with direct professional experience who is indemnified and qualified to practice by the Australian Institute of Architects. By extension it is apparent that in local governance does not – in general and in reference to elected representatives and staff – perceive  the need to engage with 'social science professionals' against the background that individually and personally they do not value such advice. Thus the stalemate persist to the detriment of those the status quo fails.

By extension this seems to mean:

  • The CoL's,  and local governance generally's, compliance with the Local Govt. Act the GM arguably is, relative to ‘planning processes’, at best unable to adequately meet the intention of the Act’s SECTION 65; if appropriate 'professionals' have not been and or are not being appropriately engaged with: and
  • Given that Tasmania’s Planning Regulations, by-and-large are framed for a past era, and are thus no longer ‘fit-for-purpose’ and better fit the planning circumstance of that past era and thus, planning and placemaking determinations are fundamentally compromised, distorted and unsound relative to contemporaneous circumstances; and 
  • Given that elected representatives, the regulators, the public servant planners, and administrators, employed to oversight the State’s planning scheme are all too often under qualified to hold the positions they hold and furthermore, 'their lived experiences' are typically far removed from the lived experiences of a large percentage of those they make ‘representational’ determinations for, and are thus relatively irrelevant to the constituency they are not engaged with; and
  • Given that elected representatives can be shown to have made  ‘poorly planned’ determinations, determinations acted upon without the appropriate requisite professional advice of an indemnified professional, compromised outcomes, in time, become evident. It turns out that the advice would have, indeed it may already have had, avoidable and expensive consequences. Arguably all this in case after case is the outcome of a poorly prepared brief prepared in isolation from, and all too often insulated against, the likes of a Municipal Architect, thus there is a lesson to be learned – albeit no hint of that being the case.

That all this is not a part of the 'public discourse' is lamentable. Moreover, that it is apparent that the press is disinclined to engage in this space this in turn is indicative of all that is currently invested in the status quo with its inherent shortfalls and all too often diabolical outcomes.

In so many ways Lewis Carroll articulated the circumstance in operation now, back in in 1865 ″‘You couldn’t have it if you did want it,’ the Queen said. ‘The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day.’ ‘It must come sometimes to ‘jam to-day,″ Alice objected. ‘No, it can’t,’ said the Queen. ‘It’s jam every other day: to-day isn’t any other day, you know.‘”

Essentially what is being laid out here is an overview of the prevailing 'status quo' and it's consequences – arguably hellish for a very large cohort of people. Albeit something of a cliche by now, President Ronald Reagan called out the status quo in saying "the status quo, you know, is Latin for the mess we are in". For whatever reason it is something to be mindful of and especially in regard to Indirect Representational Democracy.

SOME BACKGROUNDING

So much for indirect representative democracy! And, so much for effective, accountable, and transparent, governance and especially so in regard to local governance. Arguably, it is both broken and redundant! Moreover, on the evidence, political investment in the status quo is enormous.

 

Whatever, what is needed here on the housing front is effective community engagement. That is direct deliberation with those with all the expertise and lived experiences –those experiencing housing stress, et al. 


Citizen’s Juries/Assemblies hold considerable promise and they have demonstrably delivered on that promise. However, jurisdictions such as in play at Launceston Town Hall it is demonstrably disinclined to go down that path as it requires managerial and representational accountability. Likewise the State Govt is also disinclined apparently!

 

As a case study, Launceston has within the city an abandoned Nurses Home in the precinct of the Launceston General  Hospital. It is speculated that refurbished it has the potential to provide appropriate housing for something in the order of 100 people. Nonetheless, there is an apparent disinclination on the part of CoL to engage in this space. Moreover, the Tasmanian Govt. is apparently disinclined as well.




In any event, on the evidence what we have here in the abandoned LGH Nurse’s Home is:

  • A community asset, owned by the community, paid for by the community; and
  • An asset that is no longer fit-for-purpose as it once was; and
  • An asset that has considerable potential to alleviate the stress of a considerable number of people suffering the consequences ‘governance’s’ failures over time; and
  • An asset currently managed by a department – the Health Dept – that no longer has a purposeful use for the community asset; and
  • An asset that another department – the Housing Dept – has expressed an interest in resting it from its current management;
  • An asset that the Housing Dept. has no demonstrated capacity to manage all the ‘values’ in it –heritage, 21st architectural, etc; and
  • An asset that is capable of being refurbished in such a way as to make a considerable contribution to the wellbeing of the community who in fact ’own’ it and have invested in it over time; and
  • An asset that needs ‘outside the box thinking’ with nobody inclined to be innovative let alone be audacious.

All that said, the ‘political will’ to be proactive is not in evidence but speculatively it seems that for whatever might pass for ‘rationalism’ with opportunist developers inevitably lurking on the ready to profit from using this ‘community asset’ is palpable. Given that it is highly unlikely to be for the 'purpose' of housing people in affordable and much needed 'home places' the disconnect is more than lamentable. 


The fact that this opportunity has been drawn to a Councillor's attention and that apparently they see no 'strategic purpose' in exploring the options and opportunities in any kind of open, transparent , and accountable way that seems to represent a failure of indirect representational democracy.


THE IMPACTS OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOUSING STRESS


Back in November the ABC reported 640,000 Australian households in housing stress, in an analysis using census data. It is ever likely that the numbers have grown and significantly. Moreover, a good many of these people are 'collateral damage' relative to the rising interest rates and a long list of fiscal consequences.


Relative to local governance, this is where 'the rubber hits the road', and politically, this is less so when it comes to regional cum state governance. While there may well be elected representatives who, at a relatively safe distance, have some exposure to the issue. However, when it it charactorised as 'homelessness' it represents a serious disconnect in that immediately all those experiencing housing stress are considered 'charity cases' and the disconnect rolls on from there.


This is more than unfortunate in that for a large cohort of people expressing their distress they are not, or should not be, charity cases. Many hold down relatively good jobs and it is just the case that they are unable to pay the rents being asked. Certainly, that is not the case across the full spectrum of people suffering housing stress but it needs very careful consideration.



It is more than concerning when a politician asserts that, paraphrased, "housing" is a political issue that can only be dealt with politically. I submit that this is the status quo overtly expressing itself. Nonetheless, 'anthropologically' politics are the least of it in that it seems that a political disconnect has evolved and that fundament social and cultural imperatives have been lost sight of. 

Furthermore, I submit that housing stress is a social matter deeply rooted in humanity's fundamental state of being in that there are just four fundamental imperatives that impact upon everything we all do all the time, everywhere, and all the time as humans just being in the world:

  • Firstly, there is what we all need to sustain life – sufficient oxygen, food, water and shelter. 
  • Secondly, there is the imperative to identify within the group one identifies with and within – the family, tribe, community, nation. 
  • Thirdly, there is the imperative to procreate – both genetically and ideologically. 
  • Fourthly, there is the imperative to establish a HOMEplace  – somewhere that provides safe shelter, somewhere to fulfil the first three imperatives, somewhere where one is welcome and welcomed.
That political processes that go on with such fundamental understandings are out of sight, and largely out of mind, 'politics' is ever likely to fundamentally fail a constituency that subliminally at least expects this class of thinking to be there in the ways they are being 'represented'.

LOOKING FOR OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

If against the backgrounding presented here it turns out that the Federal Government is disinclined to proactively engage with the wider community in an attempt to find a socially and culturally inclusive way to address housing stress in a 21st C context it will be a sorry day for all concerned.

One option being canvassed in recent times is the possibility of a 21st C community housing cooperative. In floating the concept of a 21st C cooperative that is a self-sustaining community enterprise, its worthwhileness on one hand seems obvious. However, on the other hand the fact such a thing is not already in place that is also something worthy of consideration. 

Whatever, there is a job to be done, and that is to create more 'homes' – and that more so than more houses in some version of common denominator one-size-fits-all cultural landscape. Not without relevance such 'landscapes' have been charactorised as "MacBurbia" in a cultural landscape devised for a reality that is just not there in way it is imagined in a political context.

Of particular interest is that in the Nordic countries there is a wide range of housing policies and the prominence of housing cooperatives, which assist both renters and those wanting to own a secure, high-quality home. 

With these ‘policies’ and the resulting ‘enterprises’ the processes via which they come to be can be problematic as might be those that sustain them. Nonetheless, clearly what is important is the socio-political imperatives that provide for them and that sustain them. 

Interestingly, Sweden’s cooperative sector amounts to 22% of total housing stock. Norway’s represent 15% nationwide, and 40% in the capital, Oslo. In Denmark, more than 20% of the population live in cooperative housing. 

Also, the Finnish government has a “Housing First” principle, adopted in 2007, which says people have ‘a right to' decent housing and along with it, 'a right to' useful social services. 

By comparison, cooperative housing in Australia comprises less than 1% of the Australian housing sector, with about 200 housing cooperatives mostly focused on providing affordable rental housing. 

Establishing a body to manage funds contributed to a cooperative of the kind flagged here is non-trivial. Launceston and the kanamalukaTAMAR/Esk region like communities everywhere have organisations, some being charities, with the wherewithal and the administrative infrastructure, and arguably the expertise as well, to: 
  • Muster resources in ‘the community’; 
  • Undertake the publicity such as that which can be reliably found in communities worldwide; and 
  • Hold the credibility and trust worthiness important to be there in order to develop crowd funding initiatives etc. 
There can be little doubt that within ‘the community’ many, if not most, of these organisations, many operating as charities, whatever, would see themselves as being up to the task of actually handling a housing cooperative if it was part of their raison d'etre. Arguably, for a range of reasons it is just the case that they are not and it appear that they are disinclined to envisage themselves that way.

Nonetheless, the question hanging, if such an initiative is seen as ‘worthy’, why up to now haven’t any of these ‘operations’ been ’up for it’. Why might that be the case? 

A sense of comfort with the status quo might well be a factor given all that is invested in their 'reasons for being' relative to all that.  

Whoever it is, or whatever body it might be that comes about, or is enlisted to, manage funds invested in a social community enterprise such as a ‘social housing cooperative’ would have administrative overheads that would need to be factored into such a cooperative cum enterprise’s strategic planning. 

Standing charities might turn out as being not a realistic driving force, thus this ‘recurrent administrative funding/support’ might well be provided to some extent by ‘government at all levels’ on the basis of delivery on competitive key performance indicators – social dividends in lieu of fiscal dividends especially. 

However, there are three 'models' for cooperatives in Tasmania the model rules being:


Too often it said, "It can't be done." Every community has its naysayers – many in abundance. When an idea stretches beyond the reach of an operation or a jurisdiction, or a 'management' and an official says, "It can't be done," it usually means: "We've never done things that way before" and the prospect of doing so is just too daunting.

Then the way ahead is to identify the thinkers and the doers in the community, precinct, district who share a vision, who have like needs, who see value in a space and who hold a wish for it to be a 'purposeful place'. 

In the context of indirect representational democracy, in order to effect change, it is said that we need to talk to representative members of a local government. That is, the people who are there and elected/tasked to represent individual's and a community's aspirations in the context of a place, a precinct, a district, whatever. 

Currently, these representatives have all too often delegated their strategic policy making authority to management. Consequently, it turns out that the unrepresentative management virtually usurps the elected representatives policy making authority.

To the extent that some form cooperative endeavour might assist in breaking the nexus that currently sustains the status quo, the risk can be mitigated cooperatively and collaboratively. Accordingly, the British mathematician and philosopher,  Bertrand Russell he said that "the only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation." 

Largely, the loss of agency, the loss of a sense of moral equality and the apparent loss of political equality comes about for people experiencing housing stress. On the evidence this is due to a class of ideologically driven political imperatives is intensified currently by entrenched status quoism. It also turns out that this loss of agency and equality all too quickly manifests itself in mental distress and a sense of personal humiliation with a trickle down effect that impacts on the sustainability of an economy.

It seems that increasingly community cooperative and collaborative efforts are being canvassed more and more towards achieving specific outcomes. It also seems that the initiatives are locally driven and independent of globalised marketing imperatives. These 'cooperatives' came in to being for a myriad of reasons, one being local food security.

For instance, Fightback Farmers: A Feeding Australia Together cooperative initiative is the subject of an ABC documentary featuring local heroes showing why cooperative farming could be a solution for modern agriculture and its communities – available on ABC iview.

Similarly, recently on the ABC's Gardening Australia a segment entitled School of Harcourt  explored the possibilities available towards local food security via diversifying 'farming practices' on a family orchard in Victoria – click here to view the segment. Again the ABC's Country Breakfast program regularly explores cooperative and collaborative effort relative to effective food production in agriculture.

Against this backgrounding it can be expected that inclusive conversations with communities, layers of communities, holds not insignificant prospects of there being innovative and more inclusive ways forward in regard to providing access to 21st C relevant housing infrastructure. The notion that a local governance management regime can effectively override the elected representatives' deliberation is more than lamentable. 

So, to say that the community lacks the appetite to meet its housing  needs differently  seems  to  a be  notion embedded in the an ideological imperative to do with maintaining  the now outmoded indirect representational democracy model.  That the wisdom assumed to be in that  model is increasingly being contested and likewise cooperative governance models are being tested in real time.  

INTERROGATING 21ST C HOUSING OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES


The reports that census data alerts us to unacceptable numbers of Australians are experiencing housing stress are alarming. Indeed, they point to an ongoing and possibly an intractable problem if left to current political mindsets. When Albert Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" he was talking about situations like this where people become 'collateral damage' in the wake status quoism.


The notion that there is a common denominator solution that once applied to the housing of people is sheer folly. That there might be such a 'thing' , that adequately and in a diverse range of socio-geographic circumstances, actually fails the credibility test. While it may be something that public servants tasked by the political classes may believe, the one-size-fits all mindset must fail to deliver in spectacular ways – and unsurprisingly this has already happened in post WW2 reconstruction projects.


As Indirect Representational Democracy (IRD) faces new and more demanding challenges. That in is, challenges brought on by evolving technologies that place increasing demands for Participatory Democracy and Participatory Governance it become increasingly evident that it is so. 


The evolution of Citizen's Juries and Assemblies are very much a part this community thrust towards 21st C political transparency and accountability. Citizen's deliberation demonstrably makes for better democratic outcomes.

LINK
It is becoming increasing evident that top down legislation within the IRD model is failing to adequately address the outcomes of its own making. When it comes to the increasingly evident failures to meet the legitimate constituency expectations relative to diverse social cum cultural realities the defectiveness is easily seen. Also, in regard to the provision of housing opportunities clearly there are shortfalls. Moreover, they are not only statistically measurable but in terms of 'placemaking' they are something more than desolating for a large cohort of 'homemakers'.

The assumption that the 'status quo mindset' in governance – local governance in particular – can sustain its relevance in 21st C cultural landscape that is changing significantly is an absurdity. It should be no surprise that dispossessed, disaffected, and sometimes alienated cohorts of people would be looking for a 'voice' in governance. It is more than concerning that 'people' get to be effectively locked out of any discourse that might take place – often in camera and in the dark.

A system of governance that does not pay attention to the totality of its constituency's moral, cultural and emotional needs is one that aspires to walk all over the dispossessed, the disaffected along with the wellbeing and the interests of some assumed minority, is untoward.  It is a circumstance that lacks the moral authority and social licence to govern given that it ultimately it must mask its own cruelty – and is all too often driven by bureaucracy's self-interests and convenience.

Good governance should never aim tell its constituency what to do. Rather it should be accountable and provide its constituents with the knowledge with which networks of people can decide what would be best for them to do – and when possible and required, the means to do it.

Against this background it should be no surprise to anyone who pays attention to current socio-political cum cultural circumstances that governance – particularly so in the Western world – is being exposed to changed and ever changing social and cultural realities. Much of this can be attributed to the impacts of postcolonial sensibilities and the aftermath of 19th C colonialism and ongoing devastating conflicts.

Likewise, it should not be surprising that the 'deliberative decision making' to be found in precolonial social and cultural circumstances are now being given some currency as the dispossessed and disaffected look for an effective 'voice' that fits their circumstance and their aspirations. In a nutshell, the voiceless are increasingly giving 'voice' to their voicelessness.

And, against this backgrounding it is unsurprising that the beneficiaries of  top down, authoritarian, and absolutism might be defending 'status quoism' . Likewise, that they should be seen to be fortifying cherished positions given that they have 'skin in the game' that too is foreseeable – in local governance what is 'personally invested' – fiscally and otherwise – tends to be something a lot more than remarkable.

In turn, that the demand for, and the acceptability of, Citizen's Assemblies/Juries grows, resisting what they have to offer will no doubt diminish. The resistance to the inevitability of increasing demands for participatory and deliberative democratic outcomes is ever likely to be futile.

Here there is the story of King Canute and the tide which has become an apocryphal anecdote that illustrates the piety and humility of a good King. For those unfamiliar with the story, Canute demonstrated to his flattering courtiers that he had no control whatsoever over the elements – the incoming tide by way of example – explaining that secular power is helpless compared to the supreme power of GOD and the laws of nature. Canute demonstrated the futility of "trying to turn back the tide". Status quoist, politicians, bureaucrats et al might well take note of this anecdote.

Under current circumstance – as they currently present themselves – the case for top-down indirect representational democracy diminishes somewhat disruptively in much the same way as the forces of nature are intransigent. The lot of all those experiencing 'housing stress' must not be left to the fecklessness of, and the all too often whim driven, governance archetype to be found in status quoism. 

Therefore, with the latent expertise in the wider community in mind, the case for Citizen's Assemblies/Juries becomes increasingly compelling. For governance at any level not to acknowledge this is to deny the likely opportunities available via collaboration, cooperation and inclusive discourses.

When Mahatma Gandhi spoke of despair, he recalled that through history in the end the way of truth and love have always won out. He reminded his followers that there have been tyrants and murderers, and that for a time, they might seem invincible. However, in the end, they were always brought down. It is a thought to be held high in our collective imaginations – and always.

Similarly, and from the frontline Albert Camus noted that "the entire history of mankind is, in any case, nothing but a prolonged fight to the death for the conquest of universal prestige and absolute power."

Participatory Direct Deliberative Democracy offers more hope for those experiencing housing stress than anything that resembles the status quo as we have come to know it.

Winston Churchill famously said, ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’11 November 1947. That this quote can be used by those defending the status quo it is nothing short of a denunciation of 21st C critical thinking relative to a changing world. What is more, it fails to acknowledge the histories embedded within Churchill's thinking given the times in which he said it.




Labor welcomes plan to address housing shortage 18 June 2023

Tasmanian Labor welcomes the $50 million investment by the Albanese Government to build more social and affordable housing in Tasmania. ....................... With more than 4,500 Tasmanians waiting nearly 80 weeks on average for somewhere to call home, this funding will help to get more homes built for people in need – something the Liberal State Government has consistently failed to do. ....................... When the state Liberals first came to office 10 years ago in Tasmania, there were fewer than 2,200 people on the list for a home, waiting on average 21 weeks. Wait lists have since doubled, and wait times have quadrupled. ....................... It’s pretty clear that if the Liberals haven’t come up with solutions to Tasmania’s housing crisis by now, they never will. ....................... The Tasmanian Liberal Government will be expected to implement this funding and report regularly to the Federal Government. Tasmanian Labor will continue to hold them to account on this vital action. ....................... Coupled with the Albanese Government’s investment, a future Tasmanian Labor Government would also act to ease the rental crisis by incentivising the development of 1,000 new private rental homes over five years, in addition to existing social housing commitments. ....................... Labor would further increase the supply of social housing by urgently repairing 215 houses that remain untenantable and therefore unused across the state. ....................... We will also regulate the short stay market, starting with a pause on new whole-home short stay permits that will help prevent the loss of any more rental housing from the market. ....................... Labor would also expand the MyHome scheme to assist Tasmanians being able to get a foot in the door of home ownership, by enabling them to buy a home with a deposit of just 2 per cent. ....................... Tasmania needs solutions to the housing crisis and only Labor will help deliver them. ....................... Ella Haddad MP Shadow Minister for Housing


THE EXAMINER: Federal government pledges $50 million to ease Tasmanian housing pressure
Charmaine Manuel ... June 18 2023

The federal government has announced a $50 million infusion to boost social housing stock in Tasmania.

The funds are part of the $2 billion Social Housing Fund Accelerator payment being provided to all states and territories within the next two weeks.

"We know Tasmanians want practical solutions, and we'll work with the state government to get on with the job of delivering more social housing," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

Funding has been allocated on a per capita basis with a minimum of $50 million allocated to each state and territory.

States and territories will have flexibility in how they permanently boost social housing stock.

This could include new builds, expanding existing programs, or renovating existing but currently uninhabitable housing stock.

It's hoped that this will create thousands of homes for Australians on social housing waiting lists 

All funding is to be committed by states and territories within two years ending 30 June, 2025.

Federal Housing Minister Julie Collins said the funding would help build more rental homes in Tasmania.

"We could do even more if the Senate stopped blocking our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund," she said.

The state government welcomed the announcement, and said that it would spend $1.5 billion over 10 years to build 10,000 social and affordable homes.

The government plans to have 1500 of those homes built by the end of this month.

"I attended national cabinet on Friday and all state and territory leaders agreed with the Prime Minister that increasing supply was an imperative," Premier Jeremy Rockliff said.

"At national cabinet we were able to get our fair share of the new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator announced yesterday by the Prime Minister.

"In fact, Tasmania will receive $50 million over two years which is above a per capita proportion of funds, and will assist us to continue to increase supply and deliver homes for those who need them most."

State Housing Minister Guy Barnett said he would be working with Homes Tasmania to ensure additional funding that flows to Tasmania delivers homes for those most in need.

"Our top three priorities are supply, supply and supply and this funding will help Homes Tasmania deliver that," Minister Barnett said.

The state government said the Social Housing Accelerator funding in addition to the National Housing Accord would deliver a pipeline of housing supply to increase affordability.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)