u/Impressive-Tree-5248

By Claudia Williams

Your Say

For more than a decade, finding a safe and affordable home has felt like a game of snakes and ladders for Meredith.

Securing her first social housing unit in her 50s felt like a major step up.

She stayed for three years, but living in a noisy environment, where drugs were sometimes visibly present, took its toll.

"I realised, even though I would have been beautifully housed for the rest of my life, I couldn't stay there," she said.

The search began for a new home, and she landed a winner — an affordable unit in a retirement village on the Sunshine Coast.

"I thought I was home and hosed," she said.

Six years later, the federal government's rental scheme ended, and Meredith could no longer afford her unit.

She slid back to square one.

To improve her chances of finding another home, she moved back to Brisbane.

While she now has a great place to live, she knows how quickly things can change.

"There is an element of insecurity and that scares the living daylights out of me because I have already lost two fantastic housing places," she said.

"I have never been on the streets, but the insecurity has been quite severe at times because there is no backup."

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 31,700 people aged 55 years and over received assistance from specialist homelessness services in 2024-25, 2,200 more than the previous year.

Of those, 54 per cent, almost 17,000, were women.

The availability of rentals in Brisbane's private market remains stubbornly tight at 1 per cent, according to the Real Estate Institute of Queensland.

The median cost of rent sits at about $700 per week.

Knowledge is power

Meredith, now in her 70s, chose not to marry and has never inherited any property. She doesn't have a car or friends with a spare room to call on.

But she is determined to keep a roof over her head.

In her bid to arm herself with information, she discovered the Housing Older Women's Support Service.

The Queensland government-funded program is dedicated to helping women over 50, and First Nations women over 45, navigate the system and move towards finding permanent housing.

"We're just another group in the housing crisis pool that's trying to swim, and we're drowning sadly."

The Queensland-based service is modelled on Home at Last in Victoria, run by Housing for the Age Action Group.

It is run by Footprints Community, a not-for-profit that offers a range of support for people covering aged care, mental health, homelessness and social isolation.

Two steps forward, one step back

Women who have lent on the Housing Older Women's Support Service have shared the ups and downs they have faced through poetry, photographs and art as part of an evaluation of the service by the Queensland University of Technology.

Their experiences inspired researchers to develop a board game based on the concept of snakes and ladders.

Get financial assistance to cover bond and rent arrears? Move forward six spaces. Feeling unsafe in emergency accommodation? Back you go.

Design psychology professor Evonne Miller said the idea was to use creativity to educate and inspire empathy.

"We don't realise how we are one misfortune away from this being our story," she said. "We can do better, we need to do better to support older women who are in this precarious situation."

During coffee catch-ups and workshops, Professor Miller said she was struck by the resilience the women showed and the support they gave each other.

"They are putting their lipstick on, putting their makeup on and doing their best," she said.

"They have got this public face of not wanting to share that because there is a lot of shame and fear and worry."

For Ms Shambrook and the Housing Older Women Movement, the focus is now on pushing for a more community-led response to housing with input from those being housed.

"We don't want to be living in shoeboxes with neighbours who don't know how to be neighbours, so we need to influence that change," she said.

"We need some oomph, we need some pressure, and we need visibility because we have got lost in the housing crisis."

Want to have your say? Go to www.abc.net.au/yoursay

​

By Isabella Ross

Topic:Domestic Violence

Posted Tue at 6:36amTuesday at 6:36am, updated Tue at 7:27am

In short:

Rising living costs and housing insecurity are reshaping the experience of leaving domestic violence.

New research from Anglicare Sydney says the immediate cost for people leaving domestic violence has risen by 71 per cent since 2016, from $4,098 to $7,017.

An advocate says the government needs to further address the financial cost for victim-survivors.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the process of leaving a violent relationship for the safety of herself and her infant child, Nicole Yade spent thousands of dollars to rebuild her life.

Ms Yade, who now works in the domestic and family violence services sector, said the physical assaults escalated when she was pregnant with her daughter.

Family and domestic violence support services:

NSW Domestic Violence Line on 1800 656 463

Lifeline on 131 114

Men's Referral Service on 1300 766 491

Mensline on 1300 789 978

Full Stop Australia on 1800 385 578

Emergency services on Triple Zero (000) if you need immediate care

"I grew up in domestic violence and ended up in a relationship with similar qualities when I was in my early 20s," she said.

"It just got worse and worse until I finally left when my daughter was about five or six months."

When Ms Yade ended the relationship, she left behind a house full of furniture, clothes and baby items.

"Immediately, I was homeless, couch surfing and over time I was able to get a little unit, but I didn't have any furniture when I first moved in; I had a mattress on the floor."

She credited the generosity of local charities for providing second-hand goods, as well as a "little toy for a Christmas present for my daughter".

"It is a patchwork of support services that come together to try and help victim-survivors navigate all the expenses they have."

Rising living costs and housing insecurity are reshaping the experience of leaving domestic violence.

New research has found the immediate cost for people leaving domestic violence has risen by 71 per cent since 2016, from $4,098 to $7,017, significantly outpacing inflation.

The research from Anglicare Sydney used publicly available Australian data to chart the difference of the immediate costs of leaving, including bond, transport, utilities, temporary accommodation and budget-level household set-up costs between 2016 and 2026.

The median weekly rent in NSW increased by 60 per cent over the past decade, according to Anglicare's report, from $450 to $720.

The report noted NSW's average bond costs also increased by 60 per cent, and the cost of hiring a moving truck also rose by 122 per cent over the same review period.

'Trapped between violence and financial insecurity'

Claire Dunlop runs Anglicare's New England North West support services in NSW, and she and her team see firsthand the obstacles victim-survivors face.

"Leaving already takes enormous courage. What this research shows is that financial barriers are becoming another obstacle to safety," she said.

"When they have housing costs, childcare, transport, pets and everyday essentials, all these things keep people feeling trapped between violence and financial insecurity."

Ms Dunlop, who is also the organisation's general manager of relationships and wellbeing services, said victim-survivors in the regions were struggling to stretch their dollar further.

"That $7,017 estimate is naturally going to be higher if they are in a very remote town because it's harder to have somewhere to go, or if they have children or are caring for elderly parents."

Previous research conducted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions estimated the average cost of leaving a violent relationship was $18,000.

The figure took into account legal costs, lost income, housing transitions and household re-establishment costs, not to mention the exhaustive costs of Family Court if applicable.

In comparison, the NSW government's Victim Support Scheme offers an immediate needs support package to primary victims of domestic violence who meet certain criteria. The maximum amount victim-survivors can claim for financial assistance for immediate needs is $5,000.

Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave also allows full-time, part-time and casual employees access to 10 days of paid leave each year.

Ms Dunlop said Anglicare's indicative estimate of $7,017 was intentionally lower to focus on "the conservative basket of immediate leaving and stabilisation costs".

Victim-survivors 'taking a stand'

Twenty-three years on from leaving the relationship, Ms Yade has created a safe and beautiful life for her family.

She is also the CEO of Women's and Girls' Emergency Centre (WAGEC).

It is a Sydney-based organisation that provides accommodation for more than 200 women and children each night, operates a drop-in centre, four crisis refuges and, on average, 45 transitional properties.

Ms Yade said her lived experience had informed her work and advocacy over time.

"A hard day here is really tough, because you see the real, deep impacts violence has on kids and mums, but the good days are pretty special — people with so much courage and resilience taking a stand," she said.

Ensuring all victim-survivors had the financial security to leave violent circumstances was crucial for government to explore, Ms Yade said, so that "women and children aren't the ones who carry that burden alone".

"My story isn't very special at all. It's really, really common for the women we serve and support. We see it all the time."

Ms Dunlop said it was high time to change the question so many victim-survivors were asked.

"The question we've been asking is the wrong question: 'Why doesn't she just leave?' The real question is: 'Why is it not possible to leave?'

"The further reflection is then, how can we make a difference so that people can leave dangerous situations."

1800 Respect national helpline:

1800 737 732

Women's Crisis Line:

1800 811 811

Men's Referral Service:

1300 766 491

Lifeline (24 hour crisis line):

131 114

Relationships Australia:

1300 364 277

NSW Domestic Violence Line:

1800 656 463

Qld DV Connect Womensline:

1800 811 811

Vic Safe Steps crisis response line:

1800 015 188

ACT 24/7 Crisis Line:

(02) 6280 0900

Tas Family Violence Counselling and Support Service:

1800 608 122

SA Domestic Violence Crisis Line:

1800 800 098

WA Women's Domestic Violence 24h Helpline:

1800 007 339

NT Domestic violence helpline:

1800 737 732

Published 21 July 2026 7:17pm

Source: AAP

Australia

Two years into the government's social housing push, a new report says it's well behind target

A new report from the Australian National Audit Office has cast doubt on the pace of the government's social housing builds.

In brief

A new report has suggested that the government is well behind its social housing targets.

The government is now two years into a five-year target period.

Less than four per cent of the social homes promised by the Albanese government's signature social housing fund have been delivered, two years into a five-year target period.

As of May 2026, 1432 of the Housing Australia Future Fund's target of 40,000 new social and affordable homes had been delivered, the Australian National Audit Office found in a report released on Tuesday.

The $10 billion fund's forecast to hit its target by mid-2029 faced "considerable uncertainty" as of June, the auditor-general found.

It's another setback for the government's broader housing supply agenda, with the construction industry about a year behind on its target to deliver 1.2 million new homes in the five years to June 2029.

Meanwhile, the social housing waitlist has grown from 155,000 to 169,000 in the 10 years to June 2024.

While Treasury was largely effective in designing the fund, the department had failed to take clear responsibility for delivering the program and provided little transparency about how it was progressing, the audit found.

Although funding applications opened in January 2024, Treasury had not finalised delivery arrangements until May 2026.

"The delayed finalisation of most governance and oversight arrangements has limited the ability of Treasury to systematically monitor and manage program risks and performance over time," the auditor-general said.

"Once finalised, Treasury has not always implemented governance and oversight arrangements as intended, with sometimes out-of-date and inconsistent arrangements.

"Risk management arrangements are insufficient, including for shared risks."

The fund works by giving money to providers to either build new homes or purchase newly constructed homes from developers.

Once built, homes are subsidised by the government to provide tenants below-market rates for 25 years, at a cost of about $393,000 per dwelling in today's money.

Of the 1432 homes delivered by the fund, 762 were new homes constructed by housing providers, and 670 were newly built by private developers and purchased by a housing provider before, during or immediately after development.

The audit made five recommendations to improve governance, risk management, performance review and transparency of the program.

Housing Minister Clare O'Neil welcomed the report findings and accepted all recommendations.

"Importantly, the report found Treasury's design of the Housing Australia Future Fund was largely effective and supported by largely sound policy advice," she said.

"This program is being delivered in one of the toughest construction markets in decades.

"As building and financing costs increased, Treasury identified those pressures early, and the government acted to protect our commitment to deliver more social and affordable homes."

Opposition housing spokesman Andrew Bragg said the report laid bare how the fund failed to deliver.

"Only a handful of houses have been built, and just under half are not new," he said.

"Buying homes is not building homes. It does nothing to fix Australia's housing supply crisis."

By Leanne Wong and Costa Haritos

In short:

150 Victoria Avenue in Albert Park is one of seven public housing towers earmarked for demolition by the state government.

It is the third tranche of a program to demolish and rebuild all 44 of Melbourne's public housing towers by 2051.

What's next?

Homes Victoria is meeting with residents in the towers to begin the relocation process.

Edwina Dawn Horwath's top-floor apartment is filled with her framed drawings, stacked books, and glass decorations that hang in the window and reflect rays of winter sun.

Like many residents, the 82-year-old has lived in the Victoria Avenue public housing tower in Albert Park, just south of Melbourne CBD, for decades.

So the prospect of having to place her treasured belongings into boxes and move elsewhere is almost impossible to accept.

"I've been really, really depressed about the whole thing. I feel betrayed," Ms Horwath said.

"It just doesn't make sense to me."

The public housing building at 150 Victoria Avenue is one of seven such towers earmarked for demolition under the third tranche of the Victorian government's program to demolish and rebuild all 44 of Melbourne's public housing towers by 2051.

Built under the decades-old Older Persons High Rise Program, the seven towers — in Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne, Prahran, St Kilda and Albert Park — provide dedicated housing for vulnerable Victorians aged over 55.

Ms Horwath, who suffers from emphysema, relies on an oxygen tank to help her breathe.

"For me personally, I wouldn't be able to move," Ms Horwath said. "I can't do six paces without getting breathless.

"I'd like for them to stop it. Think it through. Think about the people that live here. We're all elderly."

Homes Victoria last week began meeting with residents in the towers to begin the relocation process.

Several apartments in 150 Victoria Ave have now been affixed with signs declaring the residents' refusal to leave or speak with the body's representatives.

"For me personally, I wouldn't be able to move," Ms Horwath said. "I can't do six paces without getting breathless.

"I'd like for them to stop it. Think it through. Think about the people that live here. We're all elderly."

Homes Victoria last week began meeting with residents in the towers to begin the relocation process.

Several apartments in 150 Victoria Ave have now been affixed with signs declaring the residents' refusal to leave or speak with the body's representatives.

Of the 600 residents who live across the seven older persons towers, so far 4 per cent have already moved out.

Several residents of the Albert Park tower have been told they will be moved to Barak Beacon estate in Port Melbourne, but the government has been unable to say where the remainder will go.

Ms Tran says no information has been provided about suitable, alternative housing that would meet the residents' complex health needs — with many relying on medical assistance close to home — nor what the site will look like if they choose to return.

"We do not get answers," Ms Tran said. "We don't know what the future plan is."

"They can't tell us — even the basic question of 'what's wrong with this exact building?' 'Why can't the issues be repaired?'"

In June, the Victorian government flatly rejected a parliamentary inquiry's recommendation that it halt the redevelopment of Melbourne's public housing towers until it provides a cost-benefit analysis for each site demonstrating that demolition was the best option.

Previous studies published by not-for-profit design firm OFFICE and RMIT have argued that refurbishment could deliver far better outcomes for residents, and taxpayers, with researchers calling for the towers to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

'Campaign of bad faith run around this issue'

The Victorian government has repeatedly rejected the argument, with Housing Minister Nick Staikos asserting the towers were coming to an end of their "useful life".

"These towers were built in the 1960s and 1970s, and they weren't built to last forever," Mr Staikos told the ABC.

"To meet with contemporary building codes, we'd actually end up with less homes than we do now."

Following a parliamentary referral, the Victorian Ombudsman announced in June it would investigate the experience of public housing residents required to move due to the demolition of the towers.

The referral requires the ombudsman to examine several areas, including the move from public housing to community housing, residents' mental, social and physical wellbeing, and whether the Victorian government's approach was compatible with residents' human rights.

Mr Staikos has dismissed the referral as "politics", taking aim at what he described as "scaremongering" about the relocation.

"There's a campaign of bad faith that has been run around this issue," Mr Staikos said.

"There's been a lot of scaremongering, and I'm happy to call out the scaremongering.

"I think it's disgraceful that there's been scaremongering of vulnerable people."

"I don't understand how anyone could visit the towers and then visit where we've relocated tenants to and could say we're not doing right by tenants."

The referral requires the ombudsman to examine several areas, including the move from public housing to community housing, residents' mental, social and physical wellbeing, and whether the Victorian government's approach was compatible with residents' human rights.

Mr Staikos has dismissed the referral as "politics", taking aim at what he described as "scaremongering" about the relocation.

"There's a campaign of bad faith that has been run around this issue," Mr Staikos said.

"There's been a lot of scaremongering, and I'm happy to call out the scaremongering.

"I think it's disgraceful that there's been scaremongering of vulnerable people."

"I don't understand how anyone could visit the towers and then visit where we've relocated tenants to and could say we're not doing right by tenants."

For decades, the Victorian government has provided dedicated older persons public housing, with 13 towers built across Melbourne.

Non-profit organisation Housing for the Aged Action Group (HAAG) says it fears the government's demolition plan could now signal the end of the program.

"What that could mean for older people in their 60s, 70s, 80s, is that they're unable to put down roots in an area, they can't receive aged care in the home," executive officer Fiona York said.

"And we hear from older people every day who are struggling in the private rental market, facing eviction, facing homelessness."

The Victorian government says there are no funding changes to the Department of Health's Low-Cost Accommodation program, which includes the Older Persons High Rise Program. But it did not elaborate on what the scheme would look like going forward.

The government has committed that the sites once redeveloped will see 10 per cent more social housing, an umbrella term that refers to both community and public housing.

While often conflated with public housing – which is owned and run by the state government with rent capped at 25 per cent of gross household income – community housing is owned and managed by not-for-profit community housing organisations. Each has different policies, financing models and funding agreements.

"Although we think there's a place for community housing, it shouldn't be at the expense of public housing," Ms York said.

"At the moment, what we're seeing is only a 10 per cent minimum increase in the amount of social housing, with no commitment to any public housing."

In May, the High Court agreed to hear an appeal by residents against the demolition of Victoria's public housing towers.

The class action was thrown out by Victoria's Supreme Court in May last year. A subsequent appeal was struck down by the state's Court of Appeal in December.

The High Court appeal means Homes Victoria is blocked from evicting the remaining residents at public housing towers in North Melbourne and Flemington, while the case is heard.

About 30 households are thought to remain at the towers, with about 95 per cent of residents now relocated.

The cost of moving residents from 120 Racecourse Road, 12 Holland Court Flemington, and 33 Alfred St North Melbourne has reached $150 million, including moving costs, lease costs, property acquisitions and staff costs.

But for Edwina Horwath, losing her community will be the greatest cost.

"I don't see having to move as aiding my quality of life," Ms Horwath said.

"Some people have places to go … but for people like me, no chance."

Property developers are benefitting from eased planning rules targeting 'affordable' housing

By Pat McGrath, Kate Ashton, Daryna Zadvirna and Samantha Dick

Four Corners

Topic:Rental Housing

Tue 14 Jul

In short:

Australians are being priced out of the rental market, and politicians are turning to property developers to be part of the solution.

Government schemes aimed at providing cheaper rentals are speeding up developments, but often these "affordable homes" are temporary and sometimes not built at all.

What's next?

Federal Housing Minister Clare O'Neil defended the government's affordable housing measures, but welcomed a debate about price setting for discounted homes.

Australia is trying to build its way out of a rental crisis, but developers, not tenants, could be emerging as the ultimate winners.

In the race to boost affordable housing supply, governments are rewriting planning rules and handing out billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies to property developers working with community housing providers.

It is all part of an effort to fix an important problem: too many Australians are struggling to pay their rising rents.

Nearly a third of Australians rent, and with house prices remaining out of reach for many, that is predicted to increase.

But critics say the model is failing to deliver on genuine affordability, while allowing developers to potentially cash in.

A pathway to build luxury apartments

In New South Wales, the system is so potentially lucrative it has caught the eye of billionaire James Packer.

Mr Packer's real estate investment firm, NPACT, and developer Time & Place have submitted a planning application to redevelop a 1960s 12-storey apartment block in Potts Point, known as The Chimes.

They want to replace the building's 80 one-bedroom and studio units, which the state government's own analysis says are cheap for the area, with 21 luxury homes and 23 affordable apartments.

The state government has already approved the concept design and early demolition works, and is now assessing the detailed proposal.

The developers are utilising a bonus scheme NSW introduced in 2023, which lets them build up to 20 to 30 per cent above local height and density restrictions in exchange for devoting 10 to 15 per cent of the building's floor space to affordable units for at least 15 years.

Opponents say there will be a net loss of affordable homes at The Chimes if the project goes ahead.

However, Time & Place said any suggestion its redevelopment would reduce overall housing available in the area was "false".

"The Chimes redevelopment will replace a building affected by serious structural deterioration, including concrete cancer, with a new development that includes 23 affordable homes for frontline and essential workers such as nurses, teachers, police and paramedics," the company said in a statement.

"Those homes will provide secure, high-quality accommodation in an area where many essential workers are increasingly being priced out."

Plans show the project's affordable housing units will be located on the lower floors with no access to the building's swimming pool.

The affordable units will have a separate entrance to the luxury apartments, sometimes described by critics as a "poor door".

Time & Place said having separate entrances would "help keep the ongoing costs of the affordable housing" down for occupants because the two sections would have separate strata arrangements.

Anastasia Moesses had owned a unit in The Chimes for 44 years before she was evicted in January.

The now 80-year-old did not want to leave.

But after years of rejecting Time & Place's offers, the owners corporation — controlled by the developers — went to court to force her and other remaining owners to sell.

"I lost everything," Ms Moesses said.

"I lost my home, myself, my dignity."

The NSW Land and Environment Court found the sale of Ms Moesses's home for $1.4 million was "just and equitable", but she still refused to leave.

Legal fees and the cost of an administrator, who was appointed to conduct the sale of her unit, swallowed around $200,000 from the proceeds.

The developer helped cover her moving costs and she is now living in a hotel up the road.

"The trauma was so severe that I became paralysed," Ms Moesses said.

"I couldn't think. I couldn't do anything."

Four Corners asked University of Sydney emeritus professor of planning Peter Phibbs to calculate the potential value of the increased height and density at the project.

His analysis found the bonus scheme could add an extra $31.9 million to the value of the project, while he estimated that discounting the 23 units for 15 years would cost the developer about $2 million.

Time & Place told the ABC it strongly supported the NSW government's efforts to boost the supply of housing, including affordable homes, in well-located parts of Sydney.

"We reject the suggestion that entrenched and predictable local opposition magnified by usual suspects in politics and media should outweigh the broader public interest in creating more housing," the company said in a statement.

Mr Packer's company did not respond to a request for an interview and did not respond to questions.

The first stage of the developer's planning application received more than 180 objections, and four submissions supporting the project.

Independent state member for Sydney Alex Greenwich said The Chimes development highlighted flaws in the NSW government's changes to planning system designed to stimulate development.

"Property developers are using the government's planning reforms to take advantage of a vulnerable situation that the state is in," he said.

There is no suggestion the developers are acting in breach of any rules or guidelines.

NSW Planning Minister Paul Scully defended the government's approach, saying the reforms would ultimately deliver more affordable housing than ever before.

"I appreciate some people might not like the fact that there's a couple of extra floors being added on some developments in order to integrate affordable housing," he said.

"But I think that is a better outcome overall when we're adding affordable housing than not adding in affordable housing at all."

The NSW government has approved 3,515 affordable homes since the state in-fill bonus scheme was introduced.

Projects incorporating another 5,798 affordable units are currently being assessed under that pipeline.

The government has committed to building 3,100 affordable homes by 2029 as part of the National Housing Accord.

All the other states and territories have agreed to affordable housing targets under the accord, including 2,546 in Victoria and 2,049 in Queensland.

Affordable housing tenants face sudden rent hikes

Rents for affordable units are normally set at a discount to market rates, or as a portion of a tenant's income.

But depending on the state and the relevant affordable housing scheme, these discounts can expire after 10, 15 or 25 years.

After that, developers can sell off the units, repurpose them or hike up the rent.

It is something Marco Rinaldi experienced when he had to leave his one-bedroom Sydney apartment after its affordable housing scheme lapsed in 2022.

"I'm grateful for the time that I got in the apartment, but if there isn't a long-term solution to these things, what's the point?" he said.

"It's like these [are] temporary solutions for people and then we're just continually pushed out and moved onto other spaces."

Now, a powerful industry voice is calling for a different approach to affordable housing in Australia.

Former Mirvac chief executive Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, who chairs the federal government's National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, said new affordable units should remain discounted permanently.

Ms Lloyd-Hurwitz said relying on the private sector and charities to increase social and affordable housing stock was not enough.

She has called for a debate about governments becoming more directly involved in building homes.

"While major developers and community housing providers definitely have a role, it's not enough," she said.

"We need to think of new and creative ways to be bringing stock to market; and having government directly build them and fund them, not just subsidise them, is something that really needs serious consideration.

"I think there's a debate that we probably need to have as a society."

Urban Development Institute of Australia national president Oscar Stanley defended the industry's role in delivering affordable housing and warned that changing the current model could affect the feasibility of some projects.

"Industry is up for delivering social and affordable housing and there's capacity in the system to build more houses, but it has to be viable," he said.

"Making a margin on doing a job is not something that's uncommon, it's what everyone does in business. They don't do things for free."

Ms O'Neil defended the government's strategy of building more affordable housing through the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which is investing billions into projects by community housing providers and their developer partners.

"The fastest and most efficient way for us to build more social and affordable homes in Australia is to partner with the people who already do home building best, and that is our nation's builders," she said.

Additional reporting and production by Kirsten Robb.

Walk in Her Shoes shines light on Australian women without housing

In short:

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that women and girls make up 60 per cent of the people seeking assistance from homelessness services.

An exhibition organised by the Council to Homeless Persons aims to raise awareness of the number of women experiencing homelessness, especially those aged over 55.

What's next?

Advocates say Victoria remains 80,000 social housing properties short of the national average.

During long, bitter winter nights, Vanessa Heart would hide under the front hedges of homes in Melbourne's outer west to protect herself against the "monsters".

"If the predators got a hold of you, they'd beat the crap out of you and they'd take whatever little you had," she said.

"It was very hard because at 60 years old, you're old and your bones are really hurting and it's cold. I didn't have any blankets, I didn't even have proper coats or anything."

But Ms Heart said she had no choice but to sleep rough.

"I was married to a man who was abusive and if I didn't leave, he would kill me," she said.

Her experience of homelessness is all too common.

Family and domestic violence is a major driver of homelessness, accounting for more than 40 per cent of those who access specialist services to find a place to live, according to the latest statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Women and girls make up 60 per cent of the estimated 289,000 people who seek help.

And the number of homeless women aged over 55 has surged, with earlier census data pointing to an approximately 40 per cent increase over the decade from 2011.

But safe housing advocate Diana Connell wants to be known as more than just a number.

After fleeing from an abusive husband, she had to live in her car while dealing with lung cancer, as her teenage son lived and studied for his year 12 exams in the back seat.

"I parked in the McDonald's car park and used their power points to charge up my feeding machine, so I could hang it up to get my feeds overnight in my car because my stomach had stopped working," she said.

"It was terrible, but what gets me is that my situation is not unique.

"I always say to people, imagine if this was your mother or your sister … we need more compassion and we need more money from the government as well."

Among other advocacy work, Ms Connell has co-designed Safe at Home — a program that aims to keep victim survivors of family violence safely housed — but she's accepted her dream of owning her own home will never become reality.

"Every time I pack up to shift to a different rental because it's so insecure, I get panic attacks because packing boxes is a sign we could be homeless again any day," she said.

"When you turn 55 … I'm in that cohort now of women who've come through domestic violence and ended up with no superannuation, no savings, everything's been spent on the children."

Walk in Her Shoes

The two women's stories are featured in an exhibition presented by the Council to Homeless Persons at the Box Hill Community Arts Centre.

Four Corners analysed 'affordable' rental listings. We found a reality that didn't match the promise

By Pat McGrath, Madi Chwasta, Kate Ashton and Kirsten Robb

Four Corners

A Four Corners investigation has discovered serious deficiencies in the nation's housing affordability schemes, with an analysis finding rentals in Australia's most populous states too expensive for people who need them most.

The analysis of about two months of affordable rental listings in New South Wales and Victoria also found some properties on offer were actually being advertised above median market rates.

Just over 30 per cent of Australians rent, according to the latest ABS data, and with house prices remaining out of reach for many, that is predicted to increase.

But the cost of rent has risen so much that there is a growing cohort of people for whom rent is unaffordable.

Since 2025, more than 33 per cent of Australia's median household income has been required to service the median rent, the worst result on record.

Governments across Australia are spending billions, up-ending city planning laws and partnering with big investors and private developers to boost the number of rentals available to people on low and middle incomes.

The aim is to build at least 30,000 of these homes by 2029.

Under most affordable housing schemes, rents are supposed to be set at a discount to market rate. Ideally, they should not cost tenants more than 30 per cent of their pre-tax income, the commonly accepted threshold for housing stress.

This is a different type of rental home to public or social housing, where rents are set only according to residents' incomes.

Four Corners analysed listings for rental properties offered under NSW and Victorian affordability guidelines between April 13 and June 11.

Read more about how we reported this story

Our analysis found few of these homes could be affordable for lower-income households, especially those on single incomes.

To help illustrate the problem, let's take a single parent with one child who lives in Sydney.

This person earns $74,000 before tax, which under the NSW affordability guidelines, puts them in a low-income bracket.

For a rental to be "affordable" for this family, it must cost less than 30 per cent of their total pre-tax income, according to the guidelines.

That means the weekly rent needs to be below $427.

But looking at rental listings over a two-month period, there are only four two-bedroom properties within their price range.

What about a single person in Sydney on a low income, earning $57,000?

This person could only afford properties with a weekly rent up to $329, but there are only three rentals available that fit that criteria.

They were all studio apartments in Kingswood, about 52 kilometres west of Sydney's CBD.

And remember: these low incomes are on the higher end of the range, so there would be even fewer affordable options for those earning less.

Let's look at a couple earning $129,000, near the top end of the moderate range.

Under the 30 per cent rule, they can afford rent of up to $744 per week.

There are 93 properties in NSW that they're eligible for, much more than singles on lower incomes.

Why is this a problem?

The NSW affordability guidelines say affordable homes should be allocated to a mix of households within the eligibility range, which spans very low, low and moderate incomes.

The government even said it was seeking to "increasingly benefit" lower-income households, "since they are the most vulnerable to housing stress".

But our analysis of 127 rentals advertised under the NSW affordability guidelines suggests this is not happening.

We took the income ranges for very low, low and moderate households, and assessed whether a suitable affordable rental would cost less than 30 per cent of total income for the highest earner in each bracket.

The chart below shows that there are generally more affordable rental options for larger households, which have higher income limits under the guidelines.

For example, a couple on a low income could afford 40 properties, while a single person could only afford three.

A low-income single adult with one child has four options, while a couple with a child has 30.

In Victoria, the situation is similar.

Of the 53 rentals we found under Victorian affordability schemes, there were none that were affordable for very low or low-income singles.

However, there were 21 options for couples and 40 for families on lower incomes.

'Bull**** affordable housing'

While our analysis reflects a small sample size, multiple experts who reviewed these figures suggested it highlighted a genuine problem.

Macquarie University research fellow Alistair Sisson said the ABC's analysis was "sound" and offered a snapshot of the "marketised" part of the affordable housing sector.

He said it was possible this data excluded some lower-cost properties that might be owned by charities and not advertised.

University of Sydney emeritus professor Peter Phibbs said while some affordable housing was better than nothing, linking prices to market rents meant many properties were not cheap enough to target those in housing need.

"Affordable housing is being defined as affordable because it's 20 per cent cheaper … than the market rent, but in many places for many households in New South Wales, that's still very unaffordable," he said.

"I think the real thing you'd say is it's bullshit affordable housing."

Some 'affordable' rentals priced above median market rates

Our analysis suggested that many "affordable" properties were not offered at a discount of "at least" 20 per cent from median market rent, as recommended by NSW government guidelines.

Almost half of the listings we analysed in NSW did not cost 20 per cent less than the median for that property type in the local area.

In fact, some of these properties, shown in dark red below, were more expensive than median rentals in their area.

That included a one-bedroom unit in Bondi Beach initially advertised for $925 per week, and a two-bedroom unit in the same suburb initially advertised for $1,400 per week.

Neither property costs less than 30 per cent of any eligible household's income.

But the thing is, the NSW rules are vague enough that providers can essentially calculate their own market rent figure.

A real estate photo shows a modern galley kitchen opening on to a vacant living area.

A one-bedroom apartment in Bondi Beach that was initially advertised for $925 per week. (realestate.com.au)

A spokesperson for the agent for both properties, HomeGround Real Estate Sydney, said it set rent in line with NSW guidelines, with market rents based on properties "of a comparable size, age, location and with similar amenities or features".

"All properties are advertised at a 20 per cent discount to local market rent, which may be further reduced to ensure affordability for the successful applicant based on their household income," the spokesperson said. The spokesperson said the two-bedroom property, which had been advertised for $1,400 per week, was leased for $1,150 per week.

Macquarie University's Alistair Sisson said the providers were not doing anything wrong "in a legal or regulatory sense". He said the NSW guidelines were "loose" and that when new properties were being taken up in expensive areas like the eastern suburbs, providers could "go with the market rent estimate that suits them best".

A real estate listings photo shows the kitchen of a new luxury apartment.

A two-bedroom apartment in Bondi Beach that was initially advertised for $1,400 per week. (Tenant App)

While those Bondi properties were among the most expensive outliers, they speak to a broader problem.

Ryan van den Nouwelant, a senior lecturer at the School of Built Environment at UNSW, said the ABC's findings on how "affordable" rents were set reflected a need for clearer regulations, now that governments were increasingly relying on the private sector to develop and own affordable housing.

"Relying on market mechanisms to provide housing options at a range of price points below market rents was always going to fail: the market will only ever offer products at the highest possible rent," he said.

"Larger households that are eligible for these rent-controlled products can pay more rent, so it is not surprising the available options skew to this group."

The NSW government is reviewing its affordability housing guidelines.

The state's Minister for Housing Rose Jackson said the government was making changes to strengthen the state's affordable housing system and would be "throwing the book at those not doing the right thing".

Affordable rental 'felt too good to be true'

When 30-year-old Sarah Hutt was offered an affordable rental owned by Mission Australia at the Midtown development at Macquarie Park, 13 kilometres north-west of Sydney's CBD, she thought she'd hit the jackpot.

When she moved in, in 2024, Sarah was told the rent for her studio apartment would be calculated as a proportion of her gross income, 30 per cent, or about $412 per week, which felt manageable for her wage (about $70,000 per year) as a social media manager.

"It felt too good to be true," she said.

In May this year, Mission Australia told her it was recalculating her rent.

Instead of tying it to her income, it would now be set at 75 per cent of the market rate.

She would have to pay about $80 more per week, meaning rent would eat up about 35 per cent of her pre-tax income. "It's been a bit of a shock," she said.

"I'm supposed to be here because I'm earning less than the average person … and now it's the same as renting anywhere else," she said.

The thing is, Mission Australia acted within the rules.

Sarah thought the apparent market rate of her apartment, $660 per week, seemed high.

The charity explained to her that it calculated the figure based on data for a one-bedroom in the same local government area, even though she lives in a studio.

A Mission Australia spokesperson told Four Corners that where a direct comparison for a particular type of housing was not available in the relevant data, the closest comparable property type was used as the benchmark to determine market rent.

There is nothing in the rules of the NSW scheme to prevent it from doing that.

The NSW government guidelines also state "greater flexibility in pricing" can be applied to middle-income earners, a clause at odds with a state law that defines an affordable household as one in which tenants pay no more than 30 per cent of their income in rent.

In a statement, Mission Australia confirmed it was switching all its tenants in Sarah's building to a discounted market-based rent model and had acted within the rules.

"Due to the high costs of delivering and managing affordable housing … Mission Australia has made the decision to set all Midtown affordable housing rents at 74.99 per cent of market rent to ensure the ongoing financial sustainability of this vital project," a spokesperson said.

'Goldilocks' and 'unicorn' tenants

Our investigation has also found cases of people being locked out of "affordable" rentals, seemingly because they did not earn enough.

Casual university tutor and rideshare driver Christopher Hewson applied for an affordable rental at a new Melbourne complex called Swift Walk, run by superfund-backed developer Assemble and its charity housing partner Housing Choices Australia.

"I emphasised in the documents I sent that I was paying more rent where I was currently living and I wanted to move to Assemble to save money," he said.

His application was rejected. Instead, he has ended up paying more for a rental in the private market.

We have done the maths on Assemble's pricing to try to work out why applicants we have spoken to, like Christopher, have been unsuccessful.

Our analysis shows that for some of the "affordable" properties, only a narrow band of middle-income earners would be eligible: those with incomes low enough to meet the income caps, but high enough to meet the company's commitment for tenants to pay no more than 30 per cent of their income in rent.

In the industry, people who qualify in a narrow band like this are sometimes called "Goldilocks" or "unicorn" tenants.

Seven months after its completion, we also found that some, about 18 of 181, of Swift Walk's affordable properties were sitting empty, including those that appeared to be priced above median market rents for the area.

Assemble told the ABC its market rents were set based on an independent valuation.

Swift Walk is the largest completed development supported by the federal government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which is subsidising thousands of social and affordable homes around the country.

It is one of the early examples where the government has managed to attract private sector investment, in this case superannuation firms AustralianSuper and Hesta, into the social and affordable housing space.

The federal government argues leveraging private sector investment helps more homes get built sooner.

RMIT economist and emeritus professor David Hayward said the needs of tenants, not investors, needed to remain at the centre of this system.

"I think what's happened is that we're seeing this bizarre situation of us developing a system where social and affordable housing becomes a vehicle for people to make money out of, not how do you meet the housing needs of the tenants," he said.

A walkway divides two large modern multi-storey apartment buildings.

The Swift Walk development in Kensington, in Melbourne's inner west. (Four Corners)

The Assemble model is set to be scaled up. Alongside its charity partner, it has been awarded nearly $2.5 billion in HAFF subsidies and loans over 25 years for 11 projects, including for social and affordable homes at Swift Walk.

Assemble's managing director Kris Daff said he was confident the vacant affordable homes would be occupied soon and stressed that more than 90 per cent of the affordable apartments had been leased.

"I don't think we're dealing with Goldilocks or unicorn tenants generally across all this housing that we've already leased out  because the reality is that's no good for the community housing sector. That's no good for Assemble either," he said.

Mr Daff said Assemble did not receive subsidies for the affordable homes so long as they remained empty.

He also acknowledged that after the 25-year subsidy period ended, the affordable homes would transition to market housing.

"We're really happy with the success of Swift Walk … I think these type of programs are exactly what Australians need in the face of a really difficult housing market."

Federal Housing Minister Claire O'Neil acknowledged that setting affordable rents at a 25 per cent discount to market rents, which HAFF mandates, could pose some challenges.

"I think it is generally a workable model, but I think when you're talking about building housing in areas where you've got extremely high market rents, it does create difficulties," she said.

"I'm sure you've got examples where, at the fringes, things aren't working as you would like them to [but] the fundamentals here are right, and that is lots more affordable housing for people who desperately need it," she said.

Additional reporting by Daryna Zadvirna.

Watch Four Corners's full investigation into Australia's housing crisis and the promise of affordable rentals at 8:30pm on ABC TV and ABC iview.

How we reported this story

We collected listings for a little over eight weeks, from April 13 to June 11 from realestate.com.au, Welcome Mat and Echo for NSW, and the Victorian Affordable Rentals Consortium (VARC) Snug platform for Victoria daily during the analysis period. We did not collect listings from Domain as there was no web feature to reliably separate out affordable properties.

Only properties offered under state-based affordability guidelines were included in the analysis.

A property was considered affordable for an income bracket (either very low, low and moderate incomes) if the advertised rent cost less than 30 per cent of the household's pre-tax income, the widely considered threshold for housing stress. We acknowledge some measures assume a medium-income household can afford up to 40 per cent of income, but the 30 per cent benchmark provides a strong indicator of affordability.

For the affordability measure, each household type (e.g. single, couple, family) was only considered eligible for a reasonably sized property. As NSW does not specify this, we used Homes Victoria household size guidelines.

Market rent was calculated from the median rent in the NSW Rental Report. As the guidelines are not specific in how to choose a market rent value, we looked at both LGA and postcode median rents for the specific property type and size and selected the highest of the two.

The ABC checked this methodology with multiple housing policy researchers.

AI was used to assist in writing code to perform the analysis, which was checked and corrected manually.

.

New investigation referred by Parliament: Public housing towers and the relocation of residents

Date posted:

19 Jun 2026

The Victorian Ombudsman will investigate the experience of residents who have been required to relocate due to the demolition of public housing towers, following a referral by the Legislative Council on 17 June 2026.

The referral focuses on the first three tranches of relocations affecting public housing in Carlton, Flemington and North Melbourne (tranche 1); South Yarra and Richmond (tranche 2); and Flemington, Kensington, North Melbourne, Prahran, St Kilda and Albert Park (tranche 3).

The referral requires the Ombudsman to examine the relocation of residents from public housing (owned by government) into community housing (managed by not-for-profit agencies), considering impacts on utilities, access to fair rental policies and security of tenure, as well as residents’ mental, social and physical wellbeing.

The referral also directs the Ombudsman's attention to the way the Victorian Government communicated with residents and whether its approach was compatible with residents' human rights.

When either house or a committee of the parliament refers any matter to the Ombudsman, she must investigate and report on it in accordance with the Ombudsman Act. Although Ombudsman investigations are conducted in private, there will be an opportunity for public submissions as part of the investigation.

Read the terms of the Parliament's referral to the Ombudsman – public housing investigation

Keki had worked and paid rent her whole life. A fire left her without a home at 72

Rachael Ward

June 28, 2026 — 9:00am

With her possessions destroyed by fire, living in community housing and no superannuation to fall back on, Keki, a former journalist and law student, never expected to find herself on the front line of the housing crisis at the age of 72.

“I never thought I’d have to do this. I thought I’d just be using private rentals forever,” Keki, who asked not to use her surname, said.

Before the blaze, she was focused on getting enough money together to buy an apartment or move to Bali, where living costs are cheaper.

But that all changed one night in February as she was lying in bed and flames took hold of her living room curtains. Any furniture or electronics untouched by fire in her granny flat were destroyed by smoke.

It was devastating. Afterwards, she had nowhere to go and little to fall back on, as she had used up her superannuation to care for her terminally ill siblings. She spent the next two weeks in hotels before landing in crisis accommodation.

“It was a pretty horrible time,” Keki said. “You can be on the straight and narrow and doing fine. The housing crisis is one of the reasons why this happened to me.”

Until this point, Keki had been able to find and afford new leases, but it was no longer so straightforward.

The median weekly rent has risen to $580 in Melbourne and $470 in regional Victoria, and fewer than one in six new lettings are “affordable” for low-income households, according to Homes Victoria’s most recent rental report.

About17,000 women in insecure housing were assisted by specialist homelessness services last financial year – about 46 a day on average, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data shows. About 14,700 men the same age also needed help.

More than 1 per cent of the Australian population – 289,000 people – were supported by these services over the 12-month period, with one in six aged under 10. People over 55 and those with First Nations backgrounds are the fastest growing client groups since 2019.

Helen* hit the road the moment her living situation became unsafe in late 2024.

Money was already tight after the then 60-year-old lost her job, but she never expected to spend the next 16 months alternating between house sitting, pet sitting and sleeping in her car.

Sometimes, she would drive to camping grounds in regional Victoria or pay for a night at an unpowered caravan park site to just use public showers and laundry. Feeling vulnerable at night, she learnt to rely on a yoghurt tub as her toilet after dark. Winter was particularly challenging.

“You lie awake at night, and you think, ‘Oh, I just want a home, I want a toilet, I want a shower’, and then you think, ‘Oh my god, then I’m going to have to pay minimum $350 a week,’” she said.

Few friends or family knew of her situation, mainly because she didn’t want to be a burden.

“You’re too young and too fit to go into aged care, and you’re too old to compete with a lot of the rentals,” Helen said. “Most people live in denial; they think money equates to safety, but we’re so close to it. You could have a wonderful job, and then you come down with an illness that drains every resource you have and lose your house.”

Troy Martin, a community health nurse at Launch Housing’s Southbank crisis accommodation, said many older people he had met at the service hid their living situation from adult children.

Some clients are rough sleepers, while others who experience different forms of housing insecurity or homelessness may still be in paid work, but no matter their circumstances, their need for help often extends beyond just shelter.

Martin has encountered people with decades of inconsistent healthcare, as well as family violence victim-survivors stopped from attending appointment by their abusers or those who lost touch with GPs because they were too afraid to return to an area from which they escaped.

“We had someone who was from a very affluent Melbourne suburb that fled due to family violence and didn’t have anywhere to go [because] that family violence had leached so far into that person’s social supports and network that they felt like they had no one to turn to,” he said.

There has been a 33 per cent increase in women over 55 seeking help from Launch over the past five years, as well as a jump in pensioners and elderly people reaching out.

Chief executive Sherri Bruinhout attributes it partly to the aged pension or a person’s superannuation payments not keeping up with rising housing costs, while for women in particular it can be the cumulative effect of a lifetime in lower paying jobs, career breaks to care for others, low superannuation or violence.

“I met a woman in her late 70s applying for student housing – not that she was a student – but she was applying to rent in student housing because she couldn’t maintain her one-bedroom flat any more,” Bruinhout said.

“Women’s homelessness looks like couch-surfing, it looks like sleeping in cars, it looks like trading a night’s accommodation for an unsafe or unhealthy situation.”

More than 57,000 households made new applications for public (state-run) or community (not-for-profit) housing through the Victorian Housing Register as of March.

Bruinhout said that while more social housing was set to become available in the next few years after announcements from state and federal governments, an even greater pipeline was needed to counter decades of underinvestment.

La Trobe University social policy senior lecturer Jacqui Theobald said that while alarm bells had been ringing about the increasing number of older women plunged into housing insecurity, the lack of affordable rentals and placements in government housing was now dire, as demand outstripped supply.

She said stigma and safety concerns held many people back from asking for help, particularly after a lifetime in conventional housing.

“A lot of people tend to point the finger and think this must be something they’ve done wrong, their responsibility, their lack of preparation or planning, but actually, there are structural factors surrounding this,” she said. “For women, it can be a combination of things like a relationship breakdown, family violence or a lack of access to affordable and safe housing.”

Keki recently moved into a community housing development she adores after a two-month stay at Launch’s women-only supported crisis accommodation She-Oak Place, which finally gave her time to relax and recover after the fire.

She landed there after reaching out to her local council for help, and encouraged anyone else in housing stress to do the same.

Helen is also deeply relieved, securing a private rental with Launch’s help, where she treasures time tending to her garden and simple pleasures like buying fresh food to store in her own fridge.

But she will never take it for granted, recently cutting down on driving to save on fuel costs and eating plainly so she could afford to get ahead on her rent.

“People don’t want to know how close every one of us are to it,” she said.

* Helen is a pseudonym.

The Victorian Greens say Labor's so-called "affordable housing" system is broken and that if the Allan Labor Government is serious about making housing affordable it should cap rents and build more public housing.

It comes as the Allan Labor Government announced changes to its Affordable Housing Rental Scheme, including lowering rent thresholds and extending lease lengths only in government operated homes.

However, this only affects one affordable housing program and the Greens say it does nothing to force developers to adopt genuinely affordable definition of "affordable" or address the broader problem that much of Victoria's so-called "affordable housing" is still not genuinely affordable.

Across Victoria, developers and housing providers are delivering affordable housing through a range of different schemes, using different definitions of affordability and different methods of setting rent. In many cases, rents are not linked to what people actually earn, but instead to varying definitions of "market rent".

The Greens say that without a clear statewide definition for both government and private developments , affordable housing has become a catch-all label that can be applied to housing that remains unaffordable for many Victorian renters.

In 2024, the parliamentary inquiry into rental and housing affordability recommended the Victorian Government legislate a clear and consistent definition of affordable housing to be adopted across all government departments, policies and agreements with the private sector.

Nearly two years later, Labor has failed to implement the recommendation.

The Greens say the lack of a clear definition has created loopholes that allow private developers and housing providers to access government grants, taxpayer subsidies and public land while continuing to charge rents that many Victorians cannot afford.

The party says that if Labor genuinely wants to make housing affordable, it must stop outsourcing affordability to the private market, cap rents and invest in a major expansion of public housing, where rents are linked to income and people have genuine housing security.

As stated by Victorian Greens Housing spokesperson Gabrielle de Vietri:

"Victoria's affordable housing system is broken. Labor can't tell Victorians exactly what affordable housing even means because there is no consistent definition."

"So-called affordable housing has become a catch-all label that sounds good in a press release, but when developers put these homes on the market they don't pass the pub test of what most people would actually consider affordable."

"The only genuinely affordable homes are public homes, where all rents are linked to income rather than whatever version of market rent a developer decides to use."

"If Labor was serious about making housing affordable, they would cap rents, build public housing and stop relying on profit-driven developers to deliver affordability."

Victim blaming, demeaning or derogatory comments will be removed, and the poster permanently banned as this is a safe space to discuss public, affordable and social housing in Victoria, Australia.

‘Renters for life’: Co-operative to boost Geelong affordable housing

Victoria’s largest housing co-operative is looking to increase its stock of homes in Geelong provided at rents affordable to low to moderate income earners, as the market stares at a future reality where home ownership is out of reach for a growing number of people.

Common Equity Housing Limited (CEHL) managing director Liz Thomas said the organisation was looking at how to capitalise on its existing stock of ageing inner-city housing, and increase the number of properties managed by local housing co-operatives in Geelong through developments.

CEHL is the overarching body for housing co-operatives in Victoria, which provide homes for renter-members at 25 per cent of a tenant’s income, traditionally below market rents.

Ms Thomas said CEHL has a billion-dollar portfolio of more than 2000 properties across Victoria, including more than 200 in the Geelong region.

As members, tenants are required to participate in maintaining their property and running their co-operative, which holds regular board meetings, has a chair, secretary or treasurer, and rent and tenancy selection officers.

Co-operative housing members who don’t meet that threshold become “direct tenants” with CEHL and pay a rent assessed at 30 per cent of their income.

Ms Thomas said profits on rental properties are reinvested to add to the stock of homes managed by housing co-operatives.

But even housing co-ops, which became widespread under the Hawke government in the 1980s, are being hit during the housing crisis, with a capped waiting list 1000 people waiting for housing.

Ms Thomas was in Geelong for a recent board meeting and to also check up on future housing developments that will bring more housing stock online for member co-ops, including one project the city’s eastern suburbs set to deliver 19 new dwellings.

Co-operative housing celebrated its 40th anniversary this year amid a growing realisation that government housing policies haven’t bought home ownership to many people, Ms Thomas said.

“As Australians, we are facing a new future where home ownership isn’t available to everybody and we have to envisage a future where people will be renters for life,” she said.

“No matter what 5 per cent deposit scheme, no matter what incentives the government can give by getting private investors out of the rental market, for people on limited income, when the average cost of a house is north of $500,000, and you’re earning the average wage of $85,000. Tell me a bank that’s going to lend you the other 95 per cent?” she added.

Co-operative housing tends to be single houses or small unit complexes, compared to the much larger community housing projects under development in suburbs such as Newtown, East Geelong and CBD.

“Some of the smaller developments we do ourselves, and we’ll engage builders and do those smaller development directly, and to be honest the majority of developments we do in Geelong are smaller,” Ms Thomas said.

Some older housing stock she characterised as inner city federation houses could be replaced with front-and-back units. But tenants would lose their homes in the process, Ms Thomas said.

“Together we need to work on what are we going to do with this ageing housing stock? What are the opportunities, and it’s not happening tomorrow, but it’ll happen over the next 5,10, 20 years. How do we keep people living in the centre of Geelong? We’ve got one of our development sites just near the footy ground there, a great site. So, how do we, rather than selling those back into the private market, how do we increase our capacity on great sites and keep people centrally located and in their communities?

“I spent some time walking around Geelong, looking at some of our sites. We’ve got a lot of older housing stock in Geelong – 85 per cent of our properties are in good or very good condition, which we’re very proud of, and that’s again because the people living in there are maintaining them.”

‘Classic Daniel’: How the ex-premier’s housing gambit created Labor schism

Andrews’ final promise was pitched as visionary urban renewal, but it’s left many Labor figures livid, deepening tensions over Victoria’s housing future.

Royce Millar and Rachael Dexter

February 17, 2025

It was Daniel Andrews’ final grand pronouncement as he exited Victoria’s political stage in September 2023 – that Melbourne’s famed public housing towers would be knocked down. That pronouncement was, in the words of a long-term cabinet colleague, “classic Daniel”.

Spruiked as “Australia’s biggest-ever urban renewal project”, the proposed tower redevelopment was part of Andrews’ controversial Housing Statement, a plan for 800,000 new homes across Victoria over a decade.

It was meant to reassure Victorians that Labor was doing something about the worsening housing crisis. Andrews retired from politics just days later.

Instead of reassurance, the government’s failure to notify the towers’ 10,000 residents before the announcement left many fearful for their future.

Flemington tower resident Beza Gizaw recalls the chaos of a meeting with government housing officers afterwards.

“There were these big arguments, and I’m just like, ‘Dear God, why are they moving us in the first place? What’s wrong with the building?’”

Architects, academics, lawyers and Coalition and Greens MPs have asked similar questions.

Less publicly known is the disquiet within Labor’s own ranks.

Architects, academics, lawyers and Coalition and Greens MPs have asked similar questions.

Current and former MPs are livid about the dearth of information and the uncertainty for the tower residents, especially with a federal election looming.

“It was a very bad decision,” says party elder Brian Howe, a former Hawke-Keating government deputy prime minister and housing minister, of the tower redevelopment.

“I think the premier on the way out the door basically had a look over the road and saw all this public housing occupying very valuable space and thought, ‘We can do much better than this.’

“I understand there was no proper cabinet submission, no proper inquiry or investigation; just a sloppy bit of politics.”

Within Labor and beyond, there is also concern that the redevelopment push sounds the death knell for the bold postwar, bipartisan public housing project in Victoria.

Critics from inside

State Labor MPs have told The Age of their frustration at not being consulted before the surprise announcement.

The Housing Statement was dealt with by a small cabinet subcommittee and went to the full cabinet for a last-minute tick-off before Andrews’ theatrical, high-vis announcement.

One minister present in the cabinet meeting, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says the demolition plan, while included in documents, was not specifically raised and, therefore, not debated. “There would have been a debate if it had been.”

Another minister, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, says there is a widespread view among Labor MPs that the towers should be assessed case by case; some may need to go, others may not.

A former minister insists the redevelopment was an Andrews thought bubble. “He woke up one day and said this is what we’re doing, and everyone else had to scramble.

“There is absolutely no justification [for the demolitions] apart from the [Carlton] red-brick towers.”

Andrews declined to comment.

More agitated still than his former colleagues are federal Labor MPs, particularly those representing inner-Melbourne electorates with towers. In these seats, Labor could traditionally rely on sizeable blocs of public tenant voters. Traditionally.

In mid-November, a group of sitting and aspiring MPs, including federal Housing Minister Clare O’Neil, met state Housing Minister Harriet Shing to discuss the redevelopment.

Among them was Josh Burns, whose Macnamara electorate takes in several estates including two in South Melbourne and is a target seat for the Greens.

Burns says the delegation wanted to encourage “visibility” around the demolitions, especially for tower residents. “Like all people, they deserve to be treated with respect,” he says.

Behind the scenes, he has asked questions about whether the towers really need to go, given the millions of dollars spent in recent upgrades.

“If there are changes to be made as the state continues to protect and provide homes, there must be plenty of consultation to ensure there is high-quality public housing,” says Burns.

But the most exercised of the federal MPs has been former Labor leader Bill Shorten, who recently retired from politics and whose seat of Maribyrnong takes in multiple housing estates, including two Flemington towers currently being emptied.

ALP sources, public tenants, architects, local councillors and even Greens say Shorten has been an outspoken critic of the redevelopment and the prospect of private and community housing replacing public stock.

However, he was not prepared to comment to this masthead.

Housing was topical at last year’s ALP state conference, with resolutions including a call by internal ginger group Labor for Housing that all public housing land be kept in government hands.

The problem

Redeveloping the towers is contentious for two key reasons.

First, it comes at a massive financial, human and environmental cost. Is it really cheaper to empty, raze and rebuild the towers, breaking up communities and relocating thousands, than to refurbish and/or build new infill towers on the estates? Critics say it’s hard to know because the government refuses to provide the evidence for its case.

The Allan government says a key reason for the redevelopment is the estimated $2.3 billion over 20 years – about $55 million for each tower – needed to maintain the buildings in their current condition. It refuses to provide a comparative figure for the cost of replacing them.

In an exclusive interview with The Age, Shing says that in the long term, redevelopment will be cheaper for taxpayers. But to date, the only cost made public is a $100 million contract with building company John Holland for the demolition of the first three towers – in Carlton, Flemington and North Melbourne.

Labor is fighting a lawsuit brought by tenants who claim their human rights were overridden by the surprise announcement. Last week, the Supreme Court confirmed the government’s right to withhold key documents that supposedly justify the redevelopment.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3DI8WgJIl4Eks%26t%3D162&ved=2ahUKEwji7IHyu7KUAxX6e2wGHf1tBhIQ1fkOegoIAggACAAILxAT&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw0pEutaU-UT\_HAzggni5IVN&ust=1778631254202000

“I said, you can do it. You’ve got a place. No one’s going to kick you out. You’re not going to be homeless.”

Gizaw now watches as her neighbours move out of the tower next door, making way for its demolition. She knows she, too, will get a relocation notice soon, a prospect she finds depressing. “I’ve created a sense of belonging here, a sense of community.” Now there is uncertainty.

To date, all we know is that by 2051, all 44 towers are to be replaced by a mix of private and social (an umbrella term for public and community housing) units. Currently, about 10,000 people live in almost 7000 public housing units.

The government boasts that 30,000 people will live on the completed estates – but there will only be a 10 per cent increase in social housing units from 6659 to 7336 (or 677 extra over 30 years). Two-thirds of the new housing will be a mix of “affordable” and market-price private housing.

It remains unclear whether the private housing will be rental only or for sale.

Only the future of the two, now vacant, red-brick towers in Elgin Street, Carlton, is clear: they are to be rebuilt as traditional public housing courtesy of a one-off federal grant.

There are no public plans for the other 42 towers, nor information about who will be the landlords at those sites. Shing says decisions will be made as projects progress and in partnership with the sector.

State opposition housing spokesman Richard Riordan says a lack of information has left Victorians unable to assess the merits of the redevelopment.

“I want to see the numbers,” he says. “I want to see the argument. We’ve never been given that.”

The Greens are working closely with anxious tower tenants, too close for Labor’s comfort.

Greens housing spokeswoman Gabrielle de Vietri says the redevelopment has exposed Labor’s ideological abandonment of public housing. “It’s a retreat from public housing as a principle, and it’s a mass privatisation.”

While such charges are vehemently rejected by Labor’s supporters – publicly at least – they touch a raw nerve, especially amid a housing crisis.

The rise and decline of Victoria’s public housing

Built by the Bolte Liberal government between 1958 and 1974, the towers were part of a wider Commonwealth-backed rollout of state housing for working families.

They were controversial, initially for their devastating impact on the inner- city working-class communities they supplanted, then in the ’70s and ’80s for their reputation as hotbeds of crime and social dysfunction.

Now, for young Melburnians who can only dream of living in Fitzroy near city jobs and cafes, never mind an affordable three-bedroom apartment, “the flats” have come to symbolise something quite different.Etched into the city skyline, they are a reminder that governments can, and did, house lots of people, mainly working families. By taking renters out of the market, government housing also helped reduce price pressure in the private market.

But back in the 1980s, public housing became politically unfashionable as governments moved away from postwar nation building and towards market-driven neo-liberal policies, with Labor under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in Canberra, and the Liberals under Jeff Kennett in Victoria.

Federal Housing Minister Clare O’Neil acknowledges that for a long time, the Commonwealth “basically washed its hands” of social housing. She blames the Coalition. In truth, both major parties withdrew commitment.

In the 1990s, public housing was reframed from worker to welfare housing for the most needy: people with disabilities, on pensions, others unable to work. The lower rents they pay has further reduced the diminishing pool of public housing funds. Federal housing funding was diverted from bricks and mortar to subsiding private renters.

Nationwide, the sector suffered, but this was the case in Victoria especially. The size of the state’s public housing stock has remained more or less stagnant since the 1990s. This is despite occasional spending bursts including Andrews’ $5.3 billion Big Housing Build from 2020. Victoria’s capital spending of $1.38 billion on social housing was the highest of the states and territories in the 2023-2024 financial year.

Etched into the city skyline, they are a reminder that governments can, and did, house lots of people, mainly working families. By taking renters out of the market, government housing also helped reduce price pressure in the private market.

But back in the 1980s, public housing became politically unfashionable as governments moved away from postwar nation building and towards market-driven neo-liberal policies, with Labor under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in Canberra, and the Liberals under Jeff Kennett in Victoria.

Federal Housing Minister Clare O’Neil acknowledges that for a long time, the Commonwealth “basically washed its hands” of social housing. She blames the Coalition. In truth, both major parties withdrew commitment.

In the 1990s, public housing was reframed from worker to welfare housing for the most needy: people with disabilities, on pensions, others unable to work. The lower rents they pay has further reduced the diminishing pool of public housing funds. Federal housing funding was diverted from bricks and mortar to subsiding private renters.

Nationwide, the sector suffered, but this was the case in Victoria especially. The size of the state’s public housing stock has remained more or less stagnant since the 1990s. This is despite occasional spending bursts including Andrews’ $5.3 billion Big Housing Build from 2020. Victoria’s capital spending of $1.38 billion on social housing was the highest of the states and territories in the 2023-2024 financial year.

Shing blames the former federal Coalition government and “nine years of inaction on social housing”. Other states, however, have fared better.

Victoria has the lowest level of social housing as a proportion of overall housing stock in Australia. Public housing has slumped from a high of almost 4 per cent in 1994 to a low of about 2.4 per cent. The figure is about 2.9 per cent when community housing is included.

The Allan government’s financial woes are certainly not due to lavish spending on public housing maintenance. New Productivity Commission data shows Victoria has the lowest recurrent spending – which excludes capital spending – per capita on social housing in the country.

RMIT lecturer and housing researcher Liam Davies has studied decades of state housing annual reports to find that rent income exceeded spending in the management of public housing for the vast majority of years since 1984.

Counter-intuitively, running public housing – excluding capital costs – delivers an operating surplus in most years.

Meanwhile, the value of the underlying public housing asset – inner-city land in particular – has skyrocketed and is now upwards of $37 billion.

Davies says this makes the estates increasingly attractive for private development, creating “perverse incentives” for the state to defer maintenance and let properties fall into disrepair, to justify redevelopment.

“Victoria finds itself in a position where public housing growth is predicated on redevelopment of estates, condemned to the same fate as the ‘slums’ they were built atop of,” he says.

Shing maintains that partnerships with the property sector are the only viable way to “meet the challenges of affordability and availability”.

Where to for the battlers?

Labor is not ruling out selling off some of the high-rise sites and will not confirm whether it will use its “ground lease model” that allows private housing development on the condition the land and housing are returned to the state after 40 years.

Labor for Housing convenor Julijana Todorovic says the sale of the land would herald the end of public housing in inner Melbourne; no government would buy back into the once dirt cheap but now coveted streets of Richmond and Fitzroy.

“That would be a statement of the government’s values that says Melbourne is not a place for public tenants and diversity; it’s only for private housing and people with money.”

She calls on Labor to hear the message of the Werribee byelection. “We cannot continue to prioritise the wealthy over the people Labor exists to support.”

Party elder Brian Howe is concerned that public tenants will be shunted out of inner Melbourne far from jobs and services. “I worry about that because you’re pushing low-income people out to the fringe and securing valuable sites for higher-income people. I think the politics of that is a bit sad.”

And if the plan is to replace public housing with community housing, Labor will come under fire, including internally, for selling out the lowest-income Victorians.

The community housing model, under which rental properties are owned, developed and maintained by not-for-profit organisations for people on low incomes, emerged in the 1980s, partly in reaction to the paternalism of the state housing bureaucracy.

It has come to enjoy advantages over public housing, including exemption from GST, and tenants being eligible for Commonwealth rent assistance. This makes it attractive to private investors, including super funds, and to governments that want housing off their own books.

Supporters say community housing is leaner and closer to clients’ needs. Public housing advocates insist it tends to be more expensive, less secure and targeted at higher-income tenants. They say it lacks the economies of scale of state housing agencies.

Shing rejects the notion that community housing is a form of privatisation and denies the government is moving wholesale out of public to community housing.

But Victorian Public Tenants Association chief executive Katelyn Butterss says most recent estate upgrades have seen public housing replaced by community housing. She fears this is the model being pursued for the remaining 42 tower sites.

“If we keep going on this trajectory, we could easily find ourselves in a situation where all of our urban social housing, well-located close to jobs and services, is community housing. That’s not fair; it’s not right,” says Butterss.

Does public housing have a future?

O’Neil is unusually frank about the demise of public housing in Australia. “What you’ve seen over a long period of time is that stock of public housing around the country diminished to really low levels,” she says.

“When we look at comparative countries overseas, we see that they’ve got quite significantly higher public housing than we do here in Australia.”

She was speaking at an event in Kensington to announce federal funding of social housing projects through the federal Housing Australia Future Fund Facility.

The first round of funding will help pay for social and “affordable” private housing around the country over a five-year period.

O’Neil insists there is a future for public housing, describing it as “a really important part of the overall housing mix”. She highlights that the second round of funding will go to state and territory governments, some for public housing.

Shing is less forthright than her federal counterpart. Asked three times whether there will be public housing built on the estates, she avoids the word “public”, saying “the plan is to build as much social housing as we possibly can”.

She also stresses that the bulk of federal housing funding is for community – not public – housing.

Where public housing was once supported across the political spectrum as a means of taking pressure off the private market, Shing seems to back a reverse strategy.

Back in Flemington, Beza Gizaw now has her son in childcare some days, allowing her to job hunt. Once he goes to school, she plans to return to nursing and pursue her dream of owning her own home.

Until then, she says, she will advocate for public housing as a safety net for people like her.

“I thought I’d done well, I’d worked my hardest, I’d graduated, got a proper job,” she says.

“Then I realised … anybody can fall apart.”