Australia's 10 million spare bedrooms

This morning The Guardian published an article using recent data released from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It was a good piece, but it had a somewhat misleading headline. The Brown Couch's founder had this to say:

Badly misleading headline (on a decent article). Social housing vacancy rate is actually 3 per cent. https://t.co/01sVqLDDH7

— Chris Martin (@dr_chris_martin) July 20, 2017

If the vacancy rate in public housing is only 3% what was the headline trying to say? They were measuring the use of bedrooms in public housing and noting that one in six bedrooms is "under-utilised."

As it happens, this year the Census data introduced a specific measure of "Housing Suitability" which measures whether a household has spare bedrooms, or needs extra. Let's take a look at the state of bedroom use.

Not the typical use of a bed

The data shows about 75% of our spare bedrooms are in owner occupied housing. It isn't just that a majority of Australian homes are owner-occupied - 87% of homes owned outright have at least one spare bedroom, and almost 60% have two or more. Mortgaged homes are slightly better, as only 77% of these have a spare bedroom. 41% have two spare rooms or more.

Australia wide, the story is the same. There are more than 10 million spare bedrooms in Australia. Around two thirds of our mortgaged homes have spare rooms, as do 80% of homes that are owned outright.

Social housing looks very different. Not only do less than a third of tenanted social housing properties have a spare room, there are more in this tenure type that are mildly overcrowded. 2 in every 5 social housing dwellings are in need of at least one extra bedroom.


Renters both in the private rental market and social housing are much better at utilising their bedrooms than owner-occupiers. There are different reasons for this - where private renters are pushed to efficiency by price signals and competition (ie you generally only rent as many rooms as you need, unless you're either bonkers or rich), social housing renters are pushed by the allocation strategies of their landlords. Social housing tenants who do have a "spare" bedroom do so because they need it, and are entitled to it under the policies of their provider. For example, households may be given an additional room for a live-in carer, for family members who reside with them part-time, or for cultural reasons.

Of course, the other major reason we hear of social housing tenants ending up with a spare bedroom is that their allocation is not really suited to their needs, or their needs have changed since their allocation  made. You can't really blame a household for so-called "under utilising" if they're occupying the only property that is available to them - our failure to build enough social housing properties throughout the ages means many people have nowhere to downsize to as their needs change.

Despite this, social housing tenants are clearly putting their part of the nation's housing stock to the most efficient use, relative to the rest of the population.

Well done to you all!

Social housing and its bold new future

Today the NSW Liberal Government has announced a new 10 year social housing strategy, Future Directions for Social Housing. The Sydney Morning Herald has called it "an historic decision to privatise public housing in New South Wales". We call it an incentive to fix the Residential Tenancies Act 2010.

It's true that one of the main thrusts of the strategy will be the redevelopment of estates, with all the uncertainty and anxiety that brings for tenants who start to wonder whose homes will be next to go... But it will also place an ambitious degree of faith in the private rental market to more or less "rescue" tenants from social housing.

Like the discussion paper that came before it, the strategy is based around three key pillars -

• More social housing
• More opportunities, support and incentives to avoid and/or leave social housing
• A better social housing experience

Under each of these, the Land & Housing Corporation and FACS Housing will be given a series of tasks.

More social housing means:

• the Land & Housing Corporation will increase their estate renewal and redevelopment activities. This will be "in partnership with the private sector" through the Communities Plus program. We'll be keeping our ear to the ground for details as each new development is announced, and making notes on our Clearing House blog. The strategy says "FACS will work closely with communities to avoid unnecessary disruption to tenants' lives". We certainly hope so.
• ownership or management of more properties will be transferred to community housing landlords. The strategy aims to increase the proportion of social housing owned or managed by the non-government sector to 35%, and will require community housing landlords to assist with the Land & Housing Corporation's relocation needs when redeveloping estates. They'll also be required to report on tenant outcomes according to a set of targets - we'll be keeping an eye out for those.
• the Government will be relying on proposed new funding models, such as the Social and Affordable Housing Fund and Social Impact Bonds - which means attempting to bring private finance into the construction of new and renewed social housing.
• further attempts at tackling "under-occupancy".

More opportunities, support and incentives to avoid and/or leave social housing means:

• Family and Community Services will "remove work disincentives" for public housing tenants. This includes revising policies that create work disincentives, and reviewing the rent setting model and eligibility criteria. This is really the good news.
• trying to improve educational and employment opportunities for social housing tenants. They'll do this through the allocations system - providing houses for people who can work or study in areas with better access to jobs and schools. It sounds like a good idea, but it's just as likely to create further residualisation and stigma for those who miss out. They'll also try to create new employment opportunities for social housing tenants through new repairs and maintenance contracts.
• introducing "Personal Support Plans" - where a "client" agrees to "realistic goals" in exchange for tailored supports and services. The architects of the Housing First model must be scratching their heads in wonder, and we're concerned about how these plans will interact with a residential tenancy agreement. What will happen to tenants who fail to achieve their goals? Will they lose their housing, as well as their tailored supports and services?
• increasing the budget for Private Rental Assistance products, to try and convince more tenants to try and survive in the expensive and chronically insecure private rental market (which the government considers a form of "independence") where they will not need to rely on social housing assistance.
• collaboration across the Whole of Government to better coordinate assistance. The problem is, FACS have forgotten to include NSW Fair Trading in the list of agencies they'd like to work with - even though they are in the midst of a review of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 and could work towards giving tenants greater stability, liveability and affordability in the private rental market.

A better social housing experience means:

• improving customer service and using more methods of communicating with tenants.
• implementing new repairs and maintenance contracts.
• mandatory evictions for tenants who get caught up in criminal activity.

It's a big plan - it reflects a high degree of ambition, for better or worse. It will present new opportunities as well as risk - particularly for public housing tenants, who will start to wonder just how secure their current tenancy is. But unless changes are made to the Residential Tenancies Act to give greater stability to tenants in the private rental market, the answer remains "comparatively so". Decamping to the private rental market should remain an option of last resort.

Most of all, this new strategy comes with a great big list of things to do. We'll be keeping a close eye on how FACS and the Land & Housing Corporation begin to work through its implementation, and how it progresses from here.

Saving the day by paying more to stay...

It's been nearly six months since the vacant bedroom charge began to bite tenants across NSW public housing.

The idea was that charging extra rent for the spare room would 'encourage' tenants to downsize, allowing HNSW to give the roomier place to a more needy recipient. But from what we've heard, many tenants are paying more to stay put. Housing NSW won't be getting their hands on the lion's share of vacant bedrooms - but they do stand to make a few quid out of this caper, all the same...

Spare bedrooms - they always seem so roomy!

As soon as the vacant bedroom charge was launched, a handful of households - around a hundred of them - immediately put their hands up for relocation. Of these, just over a quarter have already been moved. Then there were the households who were already waiting to transfer to a smaller home. A 'small number' of these have now been moved, too. In fairness, we have to acknowledge this - it amounts to maybe 30 or 40 spare bedrooms being brought back into circulation...

But the big news is that of the 250 or so households that have actually been approached to relocate, only about 10% have agreed to consider it. The rest have decided to pay the extra $20 or $30 per week in order to stay where they live. We expect this was a tough choice for many - we can't help but wonder at the number of tenants now enduring incredible hardship in order to remain in their homes. How sustainable will their decision be?

Well, we hope they can hang in there, because they're doing us all a favour.

When it was first announced, Minister Goward said there were over 17,000 public housing households who were holding up the social housing waiting list by hanging onto a spare bedroom instead of moving to a smaller home. HNSW have since said they won't approach all of these households, and we know that some have already agreed to relocate... but let's imagine they've got in mind another 15,000 households to approach.

On their current rate of success, HNSW might end up unlocking as many as 1,500 larger homes with vacant bedrooms (pending somewhere to move the occupant/s to), and 13,500 households paying the extra charge. That would mean taking in an extra $270,000 in rent each week, if every household were paying the $20 weekly rate. It would be $405,000 per week at the $30 rate. Of course, the actual figure will be somewhere in between.

Reflect on that for a moment. Thousands of low income tenants, paying extra to stay in their homes, could see HNSW net somewhere between $14million and $21million per year in additional rent collections. We look forward to a run of articles in the tabloid papers expressing gratitude for this very generous contribution.

But what will HNSW do with all that spare money?

One thing they might consider is building a few larger properties to help house all those living in over-crowded conditions... and perhaps a couple of smaller ones, too, so those who have agreed to relocate can make the move and free up that vacant bedroom all the sooner. Because if the Minister really wants to get that waiting list moving, there's simply no better way than building more houses.

In any case, we should be clear - tenants opting to pay more to stay should be applauded for making this difficult choice. We live in hope that FACS and HNSW will find a use for their new pool of spare money that will be equally worthy of our admiration.

Fingers and toes crossed.

Waiting list numbers don't add up

We're not the biggest fans of the Daily Telegraph here and do not support the paper because of its ongoing demonisation of public housing tenants. For that reason, we won't be providing links to the original article discussed in this post. However, you can find the original story on their site if you wish. It is entitled 'Families in Sydney left waiting 10 years for housing'

Last night an article appeared online accompanying the updated waiting list times for social housing in NSW. It only took two paragraphs for the alarm bells to start ringing.

Before we have a look at the article itself, it is worth talking about the waiting list numbers a little. We don't believe waiting list numbers are a good indication of housing need, or measuring how many people are struggling. There are a few reasons for this. Public housing eligibility is increasingly restricted to those who have no other option, so there are plenty of people doing it tough who aren't eligible for social housing at all. For instance, according to the most recent ABS Survey on Housing Occupancy and Costs - 32.7% of private renters are paying more than 30% of their gross household income on rent. Many of those people would happily rent with a landlord who calculates rent on what they can pay, rather than what the market suggests someone else could. 180 000 low income private renting households in NSW are in housing stress- that only 57000 appear on the waiting list tells you that the waiting list is not the only indicator of need.

That said, let's have a look at a few particular passages from the article.

Community services minister Pru Goward will today release the details of the public housing wait list, showing that in the past year, 38 per cent of western sydney areas have seen an increase in more than five years in the amount of time it takes an applicant to be housed.
Among the worst affected suburbs are Mount Druitt and Camden, where the wait for one bedroom units increased from between two and five years to more than 10 years.

Hang on. Isn't Mt Druitt one of the areas tagged for moving people into one bedroom units? In one year the wait for one bedroom units has gone from 2-5 years to over 10. How will Housing NSW find places for all those people who are under-occupying?

Further down:

Ms Goward said that while she did not want to see the wait list increase, she was pleased it did not spike to the Auditor General’s prediction of more than 64,000 applicants vying for 35,000 vacant rooms.

This wasn't the Auditor-General's prediction for 64,000 applicants- it was Housing NSW's own modelling. More importantly, it is very misleading for the DT to state that either the Auditor-General, or anyone else, suggested 64000 applicants are vying for 35000 rooms. The big problem with this statement is that the 35000 rooms are supposedly vacant rooms- not homes. No one is yet suggesting that public housing tenants should be forced to share with complete strangers in human sardine boxes.

Last year, the social housing providers housed 8585 applicants from the waiting list. Unless things change, this is approximately the number of places people on the social housing waiting list will be able to access this year too. In fact, the pool of places is likely to get smaller, since Housing NSW is intending to sell off more properties than they will build.

‘’The fact that the number of people who have changed their application for housing has almost tripled since the publication of the housing waiting list shows the power of the transparency and the benefits that flow from it,’’ Ms Goward said.

Transparency can be a wonderful thing indeed, and we do give Minister Goward a lot of credit for bringing back the waiting list times. We wouldn't mind some more of transparency though. For instance, in the recent Budget Estimates FACS was asked to provide details of how many properties were sold in 2011-12 and in 2012-13.  They cited the Annual Reports for the Land & Housing Corporation as holding that information. Unfortunately, the 2011-12 Annual Report is the only one currently published, and it does not hold that information. You can check for yourself here.

“Unfortunately the evidence shows that tenants are staying in public housing for significantly longer periods, which means that they are not moving out of public housing and back into the private market.

If tenants are staying in public housing longer this wouldn't be surprising as HNSW is aimed at housing people who can't house themselves in the private market. After all, the inability to house one's self in the private market is one of the main criteria for being placed on the priority housing waiting list.
Once you're in public housing there are policy decisions made by previous governments, though continued by the current one, that make it very difficult to get out again.

“There are over 35,000 vacant bedrooms in public housing. Until we better utilise our existing stock of public housing, I can’t look the taxpayer in the eye and ask for more money,’’ she said.

We're not sure where this figure of 35,000 vacant bedrooms comes from. Certainly, the Auditor-General only found 17389 'vacant' bedrooms. In the interest of better utilising the existing stock, perhaps Housing NSW could also have a look at the 19224 people crammed in to bedrooms they shouldn't have to be sharing.

We're also not sure the taxpayers, which can include public housing tenants and people on the waiting list, would terribly mind cutting down the waiting list. Social housing is one of the most cost-effective housing solutions available in terms of cost to the taxpayer- certainly cheaper than the taxpayer paying for people to stay in hotels/motels, hospitals, or prisons.

Ms Goward should have complete confidence in making the case for more social housing places to her colleagues in Treasury. The Auditor-General made the point several times that many of public housing's woes are as a result of a lack of spending. Selling off current housing in order to raise the money to carry out maintenance is just one example. We'd certainly support a move to increase the supply of social housing, and we suspect the families on the waiting list, and those off it, would too.

UK v NSW: across the seas, we've boundless rooms to spare...

You might have noticed the UK's new 'under-occupancy rules' (coined the 'spare bedroom tax' by the Labour Party in opposition) have attracted the attention of the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, Ms Raquel Rolnik.

Ms Rolnik has recently visited the UK to investigate the situation there, and if recent reports are much to go by, she hasn't been impressed with what she's found. Then again, the designers and supporters of those rules aren't terribly taken with what she's had to say either.

A quick search of your favourite UK based news sites will give you hours and hours of reading material on the topic. We don't propose to comment on that story, because we're no experts on tenancy law and policy in the UK. But it does prompt a quick review of the UK's under-occupancy measures, so that we may compare them to what's currently being loosed upon New South Wales in the form of the 'vacant bedroom charge'.

We should note, and be very clear, that our understanding of the UK 'spare bedroom tax' is limited. We can read the same news articles, press releases and fact sheets as anyone, and that's exactly what we've done here. We do not profess to be across the situation in the UK.

But we have had a good look at the information provided by the UK housing and homelessness advocacy group Shelter, among a couple of other things. We reckon we've got enough to go on to be able to spot a few key differences between what's happening there, and what has just been written into policy in New South Wales.

With this in mind, let's take a look at some key similarities and differences between each of these responses to 'under-occupancy':

What's the same?

Each scheme will result in higher costs for tenants that are caught by it, through a reduction in a benefit to those affected. In the UK, that is a reduction in a targeted welfare payment known as the 'housing benefit'. In NSW it is a reduction in the rental rebate or subsidy that results in a reduced rent for low income tenants in social housing.

In other words, affected UK tenants will get less in their pockets, but will have to pay the same rent, and in NSW those affected will get the same in their pockets, but will have to pay more rent. The net effect will be the same - affected tenants will have less in their pockets once the rent is paid. Tenants who are faced with the charge will be worse off financially, unless they move from their homes, resulting in either a financial cost or a social cost.

What's not the same?

1. In the UK, every under-occupant in social housing is affected, while in NSW only under-occupants in public housing will be asked to pay more if they:

a) refuse to consider offers of alternative housing, in a general sense; or

b) refuse to accept one of two specific offers of alternative housing once they've agreed to consider offers in general.

In a way, every over-occupant is affected in NSW because they will all be asked to make this choice. In the UK there is no choice - the only way to avoid the payment is to not be an under-occupant.

2. The manner in which a tenant might move from a situation of under-occupation to some kind of form-fit-occupation (or whatever the term might be...) is quite different in the UK, as there is no single waiting list for transfer applicants. Each housing provider may have a different way of going about managing transfers - for example they might apply different guidelines as to how and when a transfer will be approved, and at what level of priority a new property will be allocated (see the Shelter UK website again for more information). But - in either case - that's before we even start to consider the likely availability of form-fit properties for under-occupants to move into.

3. In the UK, the adjustment to the housing benefit is applied based on the number of spare bedrooms - it's a loss of 14% for one spare bedroom, or 25% for two or more. In NSW, the subsidy adjustment is applied depending on the under-occupant household composition - singles will pay around $20 per week more, while households of two or more occupants over the age of 16 will pay $30 per week, regardless of how many spare rooms each household may have to which they are 'unentitled'.

4. In the UK, the bedroom 'entitlement' appears to be affected by these new rules. Tenants stand to lose the benefit if there is at least one spare bedroom in their house. In NSW, the charge is applied based on your 'required number of bedrooms', which is set out in the eligibility and allocations policy. This means that a household might have a spare bedroom that they will not be charged for, but two spare bedrooms will generally always attract the charge.

So, where does that leave us?

We can see from that quick overview that tenants in New South Wales will not be as immediately or severely impacted by our under-occupancy measures, as those experienced by our counterparts in the United Kingdom. Limited though this is, we might even convince ourselves that public housing tenants in New South Wales will at least be offered something of a choice. The option of relocation is available, if only in theory, for tenants who would prefer to pay the same for less.

But let's not let ourselves off the hook that easily. The simple fact is that for the time being, tenants will be able to avoid the vacant bedroom charge by agreeing to consider offers. This will be an effective cost saving measure for tenants, at least until those offers do start coming through. But sooner or later, for one tenant after another, those offers will start to materialise. The choice to be made will come into crisp focus, for one tenant after another...

Will you allow yourself to sink further into poverty, or will you move away?

We've just had a federal election that was largely fought and won on a 'cost of living' platform. If you want to find out what real cost of living pressure is, head out into the towns and suburbs of New South Wales, and talk to low-income tenants in public housing. Ask them how they're planning to meet a $20 per week rise in the cost of living.

To add to the frustration, Housing NSW says they'd rather have your spare room than your extra $20 per week. It's a real shame that they haven't worked out a scheme that actually rewards tenants who want to move to a smaller property, rather than penalise those who can't afford to stay where they are.

The same for less, or more to stay the same?

Not to take your mind off the Federal Election that's to be held tomorrow, but if you are a tenant in NSW Public Housing there is another important date that is fast approaching - on Monday, September 9th, HNSW will flick the switch on the new 'better approach to filling vacant bedrooms' policy. We expect to see the full details of this policy on Monday.

UPDATE (9/9/13): HNSW has now produced a 'vacant bedroom charge' factsheet - find it at this link.

This policy has been referred to as a new 'vacant bedroom charge', but you might have also heard it mentioned as the spare bedroom tax. Essentially, it will require tenants with more bedrooms than allowed by their entitlement to make a choice: pay the same for less, or pay more to stay the same.

We've already spoken about this a couple of times on the Brown Couch, and it is worth revisiting those discussions for a refresher about what we already know. You can find these posts here, here and here.

But to summarise, briefly: tenants who have more bedrooms than they're entitled to (based on the policy at this link) may be asked to relocate to smaller premises. If they are asked, and they decline, their rent subsidy will be adjusted so that they pay more. For singles, this will mean a rent increase of about $20 per week; for couples, it will mean a rise of about $30 per week.

If, on the other hand, the tenant chooses to relocate to a smaller premises, they will be placed on the waiting list for a transfer, and will be considered a priority applicant.

Since writing those earlier posts, we have had some further discussions with Housing NSW about how this policy will be implemented. Here's what we have been lead to understand:

1. HNSW has said that it will not be approaching every tenant with spare bedrooms to discuss relocation. There are some tenants who, for one reason or another, will be left alone. HNSW has not given us anything concrete to go on as to who will be exempt and why - other than to say the decision to approach or not approach a tenant will be made on its merits, in each particular case.

2. HNSW has said that it will take a 'measured approach' to contacting tenants whom they would like to consider relocation. As far as we can tell, this means that they will not be sending letters out en masse, but will make an approach to affected tenants in person. They have said that this will be done by workers who have had some previous experience in assisting tenants through the process of relocation...

3. Tenants who agree to relocate, and are placed on the waiting list for a 'priority' transfer, may still have a lengthy wait for their new home. This will vary depending on the nature of the property required, and on other demand for properties in their area. In particular, a tenant who has agreed to relocate in order to free up a property they have been 'under-occupying' will not be housed before an applicant for housing who has been assessed as 'at risk' (according to the eligibility criteria - and unless the under-occupying tenant is also assessed as being 'at risk' in addition to being an under-occupant).

4. A tenant who does not agree to relocate will have their rent subsidy adjusted immediately. A tenant who does agree to relocate will continue to pay according to their current rent. At some time, these agreeable under-occupants will be offered new properties and asked to move. If they do not then accept one of two offers (assuming the offers are 'reasonable', which means they will be subject to the usual processes of review and appeal), their rent subsidy will be adjusted to include the 'vacant bedroom charge'. They will also be removed from the transfer list.

We look forward to seeing this policy in full.

Please contact your local Tenants Advice & Advocacy Service if you are approached about the vacant bedroom charge, and would like to discuss the matter with an advocate.

An Over Occupation with Under Occupancy

We wrote recently regarding the Auditor-General's Report "Making the best use of public housing". One of the elements the Audit spent a bit of time considering was the 'efficiency' of allocating tenants with houses that fit their needs. The particular statement that caught our eye was that "only 67.6 per cent of public housing households match the size of the dwelling."

The figure of 16180 properties that have 2 or more spare bedrooms keeps coming up- it came up again in the Family and Community Services budget estimates recently.

What isn't mentioned, and doesn't seem concerning to the auditor or the government is that of the 32.4% of public housing households that do not match the size of the dwelling, more than half, or 16641 dwellings, are actually over-occupied. This includes 2482 properties that are chronically over-occupied (they require at least 2 more bedrooms than they currently have).
HNSW estimates in the Audit that under-occupancy costs the government about $25million in lost revenue a year,  but fails to mention it is currently collecting roughly the same from people who are paying to stay in premises that are less than their requirements, as determined by HNSW. 

Of course, the government might argue, we must move those people who are under-occupying into the smaller places so that those who are over-occupying can move in. This might be sound accounting practice, but the focus on under-occupying misses a key point- these figures show they do not have somewhere for the over-occupying to move to.

If we were to assume a zealously efficient overlord position and move people around in a state-wide game of human Tetris, we might try to make a straight swap between the 6230 people currently living in 1-2 bedrooms who require a 3 bedroom property, and 6230 of those living in 3 bedrooms who only require one or two (and hope that those who actually require two get two and not one), then we are still short 7230 places for those in under-occupied 3 bedroom premises. Those in 3 bedrooms who require 4 outnumber those in 4 bedrooms who require 3 more than four to one.

Let's move everyone around, trying to house those over occupying in the premises that are under-occupied, and vice versa. Using Housing NSW's numbers we end up with 13661 households who don't fit the dwellings. There are lots of 3 bedroom places that people could be moved into. However, 7593 actually only require two bedroom places, and 6068 require four or more bedroom dwellings that don't exist. So we would still both have under-occupation, and over-occupation.

Another way of looking at Exhibition 6 above

This is a best case scenario for our efficient overlord, and it ignores things like ensuring tenants are moved within localities. What we are left with is that all this talk of under-occupation will only deal with anyone on the waiting list if we continue to leave people cramped and squashed into premises that are too small- by Housing NSW's own standards.

We're for the efficient use of public housing, but becoming overly occupied with the amount of under occupation distracts government from its real issue- supplying adequate housing for the people who truly need it.

Auditor-General reports on public housing

The NSW Audit Office has today released the Auditor-General's report 'Making the best use of public housing'.

(Auditor-General Peter Achterstraat)

There's a lot in the report – more than we can cover this afternoon – but its essential message to the State Government is something low-income households and the people who work with them have known for years: there's just not enough social housing, particularly public housing. As the Auditor-General puts it:

The constraints in the current portfolio and funding arrangements do not enable HNSW [Housing NSW] and LAHC [Land and Housing Corporation] to meet the changing public housing need. 

Public housing is ageing and increasingly not fit for purpose. It is declining as a proportion of overall New South Wales housing. 

There is an increasing shortfall between the supply of and demand for public housing.

This is the essential problem from which so many other problems in public housing follow – and compound that essential problem. Not enough public housing means targeting allocations to the most poor and crisis-afflicted applicants. This in turn means higher costs to Housing NSW, and less rental revenue. This in turn means yet fewer funds for new stock, and for maintenance. This means greater resort to asset sales, to avoid maintenance liabilities of the stock that's sold, and to pay for some maintenance on the stock that's left. This means fewer dwellings, and a further increase in the shortfall between supply or and demand for public housing. It's a vicious circle, and it's unsustainable.

Appropriately, the Auditor-General locates the problem of 'under-occupancy' of public housing within this context. To the extent to which it is a problem – and as we've previously noted, under-occupancy is less common in public housing than private rental or owner-occupation, where it is not seen as a problem at all – under-occupancy happens largely because the old public housing stock profile does not match the new public housing clientele profile, and Housing NSW's ability to do anything about it is constrained by the pressures of not enough dwellings and too many poor and crisis-afflicted applicants.

It would be a mistake, and a serious injustice to all the households whose needs are not being met by our diminished public housing system, if the State Government was to merely tweak Housing NSW's policies around the allocation of bedrooms and transfers, and not face up to the essential challenge of growing public housing. Tweaking allocations and transfers really is just shifting the deckchairs.

That's not to say that there are no changes that can be made at the operational policy level to address the vicious circle of public housing's decline. Housing NSW could change now its wretched policy of offering fixed term tenancies and reviewing eligibility to remain in public housing. According to the Auditor-General, this policy has 'had little impact on people moving on from public housing'. We'd go further: we suspect it has induced tenants to stay sick and stay poor in order to stay housed, where otherwise they might have taken work opportunities that lead, eventually, to their moving on from public housing. The declining number of exits from public housing, illustrated in the report, is consistent with our view. 

Likewise Housing NSW's 'moderate income' rents policy, under which Housing NSW takes 50 cents in each additional dollar earned by tenants foolhardy enough to get a job that pays a 'moderate income' – with the Centrelink and the Tax Office getting most or all of the other 50 cents. Scrap this policy and see if the increased incentive to work doesn't eventually free up some space in public housing too.

The Auditor-General makes a number of recommendations for higher-level work by Housing NSW and the Land and Housing Corporation, in terms of strategy and planning. But these mustn't be strategies or plans merely for managing the decline of the social housing sector. Social housing must grow to meet community needs.

Choose your poison...

Yesterday we were hit with the news that the NSW State Government will start imposing an additional charge on 'under-occupying' tenants in public housing who refuse to relocate to a smaller home.  Essentially, the government is asking tenants to make a choice: pay more to stay, or move away and pay the same.

No matter how you look at it, both of these cups have clearly been poisoned. If you choose the cup on the left, you'll pay a financial cost. If you choose the cup on the right, you'll pay a social cost.

As we discussed yesterday, opting to stay and pay could leave you on as little as $21 a day after rent. For many people, this is no choice at all. They will be moved out of established homes, and into new neighbourhoods. Some will adapt better than others.

A large number of affected tenants are likely to be older, having taken up a tenancy in a large family home many years ago. Now that the children have grown up and moved out, they might find themselves described as "under-occupying". They might have a sentimental attachment to their home that makes it difficult to let go. They might have relationships within the locale that will be difficult to live without. Or they might have particular medical or care needs that they can only access because of their current proximity to the service providers they use.

It's important that we understand just how this change in policy will be applied, and who it will be applied to. To that end, Housing NSW has produced a factsheet, which is as good a place as any to start - but it still leaves a couple of questions unanswered. The Tenants' Union of NSW, along with a number of other non-government organisations, attended a briefing yesterday at the offices of Housing NSW where some of those questions were addressed.

Here's what we know:

- Tenants who ask or agree to transfer to a smaller property will have their transfer considered as a 'priority'. This means they'll be in competition for properties with other priority applicants for housing, rather than waiting until there are no priority applicants in front of them on the waiting list.

- Tenants who ask or agree to transfer to a smaller property will be given two offers of alternative housing. If they refuse both, they will have their rental subsidy recalculated and will end up paying more in order to stay where they are. (The 'reasonableness' of these offers will be subject to appeal.)

- Tenants who had already applied to transfer to a smaller property before June 25th 2013 will not have their rental subsidies recalculated if they refuse two offers of alternative housing.

- Tenants who refuse to go onto the waiting list to transfer to a smaller property, when asked, will have their rental subsidy recalculated and will end up paying more to stay where they are.

- Tenants should not be asked to transfer to a smaller property before September 2013.

- Tenants should only be asked to transfer to a smaller property if they are under-occupying according to their entitlement. This means that if you have been approved to rent a three bedroom dwelling because you have part-time custody of children, but for some of the time you live alone, you should not be asked to give up your home. If you are not sure what your current entitlement is, you should contact your local Housing NSW office to discuss.

- Tenants should only be asked to transfer to a smaller property within the allocation zone for which they were originally approved. Tenants may elect to transfer to another allocation zone, but their request will be considered against the level of demand for social housing in the allocation zone they wish to transfer into.

- These changes only apply to tenants in properties owned by the Land & Housing Corporation, and managed by Housing NSW. They do not apply to tenancies in Aboriginal Housing Office properties, or tenancies managed by a Community Housing landlord.

No doubt there will be more questions, as news and discussion about this policy change makes its way through various networks. We encourage anyone with questions or concerns about this policy change to contact us for further discussion - we might not be able to give an immediate response, but we can take your questions directly to Housing NSW and seek their answers.

There are several ways that you can contact us:

1. Leave a comment on this blog

2. Find us on Facebook or Twitter

2. Send us an email or give us a call - find our contact details here.

Taxing times for public housing tenants

This morning the Minister for Families and Community Services announced NSW's own version of a 'bedroom tax' for public housing tenants.

We'll look more closely at the proposed policy changes when they become available. For now, we just have a few observations on what we do know.

First, a little perspective. 17000 public housing dwellings have spare bedrooms, the media release states. It is not clear how this number is reached- the ABS put the number in 2011 closer to 11000. We've written about this before, but note that the ABS also shows there were at least 375000 vacant bedrooms in owner-occupied dwellings (ABS: 2011 Census of Population and Housing). Perhaps revenue could be raised by placing a $20 per week charge on each of those bedrooms- that $390m a year could build a lot of houses for the people on the waiting list!

Speaking of the waiting list, Housing NSW updated the social housing waiting list timeframes one year ago- we're not sure where the figures stand now, but at the time even the waiting list for bedsits and 1 bedrooms in the 'targeted areas' were very long indeed. Liverpool (2-5 years for bedsits, 5-10 for one bedrooms), Shellharbour (no bedsits in the area, 10+ years for one bedrooms) and Mt Druitt (2-5years for both bedsits and one bedrooms). We're not sure where these smaller properties that people are to be moved to is going to come from- we certainly hope that there aren't families squished into bedsits who will be able to move out!

We are also concerned about the rate of the tax. The pensioner who uses the spare room for when the daughter and her grandkids come to stay now faces an effective rent hike of 20%- catapulting them past the housing stress line of 30%, to now spend over 35% of their income on housing costs. This pensioner will now be left with almost the same amount to live on per day (about $36) that a person on the Newstart Allowance currently has.

As for people actually on Newstart - they will be left with just $21 a day to pay for food, transport, medical bills, etc.

The final impact is on the people who fall into rent arrears due to the added stress of the bedroom tax. If a person is terminated due to the arrears they may find themselves ineligible for public housing again until they pay off the debt- not an easy thing for someone already doing it tough, and now doing it from a position of homelessness.

It's unavoidable to draw comparisons to the recent introduction of a very similar bedroom tax in the UK- the lack of 'smaller properties', the negative impact on the ability to afford to live with losing $20 per week are all ringing true. We hope that the NSW government will learn from the UK's experience