Impact of Australian Social Housing Policies on Community Welfare

This report analyzes Australian housing policies, focusing on the government's initiatives to address housing affordability and homelessness. It examines the National Housing Infrastructure Facility (NHIF), the National Housing Homelessness Agreement (NHHA), and other social policies implemented to improve housing outcomes. The report discusses the impact of these policies on social work practices and the welfare of the Australian population, considering criticisms related to housing inequality and rising costs. It highlights the controversies and debates surrounding these policies, referencing various studies and reports to provide a comprehensive overview of the current housing situation and the government's efforts to mitigate the challenges faced by low and middle-income households. The analysis concludes that while these policies aim to benefit the community, there are underlying issues and criticisms that warrant further discussion and engagement.

Running head: SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL WORK
Social Policy and Social Work
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL WORK
The social policies that are meant to be implemented for the welfare of the people,
should be analysed. The meeting has been called in order to discuss the impacts of these
social policies over the practices of the people. The policy meeting that needs to be held
would be attended by the social welfare service providers of Australia, as well as the non-
governmental organisations that deal with the welfare of the society. The meeting should also
be attended by the health departmental representatives, as well as the social work department
activists. The housing policies refer to the governmental actions and the legislative policies
which are meant to have a direct impact over the availability of the housing, the urban
planning and the standards of living.
The current housing policy of Australia is a housing affordability plan on the part of
the Australian Government’s 2017-18 Budget. This social policy of housing involves the
measures for the affordability of the housing for the people who are in need of them. The
Australian Government provides $1 billion through the policy of National Housing
Infrastructure Facility, which aimed at the release of the Commonwealth land for the
development of houses for the homeless (Treasury.gov.au 2019). There are also reforms that
aim at improving the outcomes in the social housing. There have been a provision of $375
million, in order to fund the homeless people and also providing assurance to the people who
provide homelessness services under the National Housing Finance and Investment
Corporation (NHFIC). This policy has been implemented by the Government in the year
2018. The main purpose of this social policy is to operate an affordable and cost-friendly
housing bond aggregator that provides low cost finance and long term benefits for the
housing providers. This thus aims to provide support to the greater institutional and private
investment in order to increase the housing sector of the community and provide the people
of Australia with affordable access to rental housing. There is also another facility that has
been provided by the NHFIC, which includes National Housing Infrastructure Facility

2SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL WORK
(Wilson, et.al. 2010). According to this policy it has become easier for the local government
to fund the high costs of the critical infrastructures and for building the roads and water
system for the housing needs. As stated by Randolph and Tice (2014), the $1 billion NHIF
will be provided and the local governments will have the opportunity to have an access to
$600 million in concessional loans; $225 million in equity investments; and $175 million in
grants. The State and the Territory government will pay the local governments. There has
been another implementation on the behalf of the Australian government. This social policy
is that of National Housing Homelessness Agreement (NHHA). This has been implemented
in the States and Territories of Australia. The main purpose of this service policy is to
increase the supply of new homes for the homeless people and for the people who need them
the most. It thus improves the outcomes and acts for the welfare of all the Australians. Under
this agreement, the Government of Australia is supposed to maintain the Commonwealth’s
current funding of over $1.3 billion a year provided under the National Affordable Housing
Specific Purpose Payment (Baker et.al., 2016). This demands and requires a requirement for
proper and effective outcomes to build more homes which would involve the best outcomes
across the housing range. This policy thus works for the benefit of the people since it helps
the Australians who are homeless and prevents the further risk of them to leave their homes.
Gurran and Phibbs (2015), has criticized these policies of housing in Australia and
according to him, the greatest problem compared to the rest of the world is the problem of
housing inequality. There is a rise in the inequality of wealth due to the rise in the prices of
the houses (Forrest and Murie 2013). Rising housing costs have dramatically widened the gap
between high and low disposable incomes. The suburbanisation of the socially disadvantaged
people has been a trend that has grown internationally which had been first highlighted in
Australia. It has also begun to be recognized in the continents of North America and Europe.
Gurran and Phibbs 2015) again argues that however, by comparison with the UK and the US,

3SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL WORK
it is in Australia’s major cities where the process has impacted most decisively. As stated by
Yates (2013), the growth of the house prices in Australia has exceeded the growth of the
income to the point where the more than one million people who have households with low
and middle income are at present experiencing stress due to their houses. Moreover, the
provision for social housing has been gradually turned back in Australia since the 1980s in
favour of a remaining model which was based on tax concerns and grants that have
aggravated the problem (Yates 2013). However there have been introduction of innovative
policies recently by the Government of Australian in response to the global economic crisis.
It is implemented for the benefit of the people. It is suggestive of a change in direction that
might offer new, affordable social housing in a difficult economic climate. However, as
criticized by Gurran and Phibbs (2015), the new initiatives and the social policies of the
Australian Government ultimately do not negate the pressure on the land prices presented by
the growth of the urban boundaries. The National Affordable Housing Agreement, the
National Partnerships in Social Housing and similar agreements have the potential to improve
housing affordability. In addition, the NAHA establishes a national framework for reform in
areas such as coordinating responses to homelessness, reducing the concentration of
disadvantage and planning reform. An example can be taken from a relative who is a resident
in Australia and he had been suffering from homelessness because his low income. He had
been benefitted by the NAHA policy of the Australian Government which has given him an
affordable home and has sustained his family and the basic needs (Baker et.al, 2016).
Thus from the above discussion it can be concluded that the housing policies of
Australia are implemented by the government for the welfare of the nation and the people
who are homeless. However there are a numerous controversies that lie beneath this and the
criticisms have the base that could have the potential to attract and engage the interests of the
people in the meeting.

4SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL WORK

5SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL WORK
Reference:
Baker, E., Bentley, R., Lester, L. and Beer, A., 2016. Housing affordability and residential
mobility as drivers of locational inequality. Applied geography, 72, pp.65-75.
Forrest, R. and Murie, A., 2013. Housing and family wealth in comparative perspective.
In Housing & Family Wealth (pp. 10-16). Routledge.
Gurran, N. and Phibbs, P., 2013. Housing supply and urban planning reform: The recent
Australian experience, 2003–2012. International journal of housing policy, 13(4), pp.381-
407.
Gurran, N. and Phibbs, P., 2015. Are governments really interested in fixing the housing
problem? Policy capture and busy work in Australia. Housing studies, 30(5), pp.711-729.
Randolph, B. and Tice, A., 2014. Suburbanizing disadvantage in Australian cities:
sociospatial change in an era of neoliberalism. Journal of urban affairs, 36(sup1), pp.384-
399.
Treasury.gov.au (2019). Housing policy | Treasury.gov.au. [online] Treasury.gov.au.
Available at: https://treasury.gov.au/housing-policy/ [Accessed 20 Sep. 2019].
Wilson, L., Arman, M., Zillante, G. and Pullen, S. (2010). National Housing Policy in
Australia: Are New Initiatives in Affordable Housing Sustainable?. [ebook] Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262838025_National_Housing_Policy_in_Australia
_Are_New_Initiatives_in_Affordable_Housing_Sustainable [Accessed 20 Sep. 2019].
Yates, J., 2013. Evaluating social and affordable housing reform in Australia: lessons to be
learned from history. International Journal of Housing Policy, 13(2), pp.111-133.