�鶹��madou

The case for change

Dr Martin, from �鶹��madou’s , says the current system is too narrowly focused on rationing a limited stock of social housing and fails to meet the needs of many vulnerable Australians.

“It is abundantly clear we need more social housing. Australian governments have started to try to grow the social housing stock again. But the system also needs to make stronger assurances of different kinds of housing assistance that reach beyond the constraints of unavailable social housing stock,” says Dr Martin.

“It needs to do more for the people who are waiting, as well as for those already in social housing.”

The report, Inquiry into socially supported housing pathways, recommends a more flexible and inclusive model of housing assistance—one that includes rent subsidies for very low-income households in the private rental market, temporary accommodation, bond assistance, and first home buyer support.

“The logic of rationing dominates policies for access to assistance. Social housing authorities should be engaging applicants and tenants in reimagining a system centred on people’s needs and life circumstances, not just the availability of housing stock,” says Dr Martin.

The system only makes ‘legally weak assurances of assistance’

The research also highlights the need for legislative reform to provide clearer entitlements and stronger legal foundations for housing assistance.

Australia’s housing assistance system is delivered by state and territory housing authorities and community housing providers. The federal government also provides support, such as Commonwealth Rent Assistance. Legislative changes could give greater clarity on eligibility and entitlements to social housing and rent assistance.

“Housing policy makers need to look at the sector’s legal foundations, which are surprisingly slender,” says Dr Martin.

“While state and territory governments have statutory authorities that own and manage public housing, their laws say little about how they are to operate and support people. Important issues such as eligibility are left to policies that can be changed with little oversight or don’t keep up with changes in housing costs and incomes,” he explains.

“These laws also don’t refer to other forms of housing assistance that may be offered by social housing providers. This means the system makes legally weak assurances of assistance,” says Dr Martin.

Dr Martin argues that housing legislation should enshrine the right to reasonable and necessary housing assistance and support a broader suite of options designed in collaboration with recipients.

Co-designing future social housing plans

The report recommends that state and territory housing authorities adopt co-design approaches – working with tenants, people with lived experience, frontline service providers and housing and homelessness sector representatives – to develop more responsive policies and individual housing plans.

Housing providers and applicants could also adopt co-design principles to develop targeted individual housing plans. These plans can benefit priority applicants – as a focus for support work – as well as non-priority applicants. This may create possibilities for alternative forms of housing assistance for applicants on waitlists for social housing.

“Such approaches could also improve trust in the system and ensure that housing assistance is more equitable, transparent, and accountable,” says Dr Martin.

The research was conducted by a team from �鶹��madou Sydney, RMIT University and Swinburne University of Technology.