While housing & homelessness continues to be the most common issue of concern amongst youth interagencies in Queensland, readers may be interested in this comparison (below) of the housing policies of the major parties prepared by National Shelter.

National Shelter Commentary on Party Housing Policies

THE ALP:

The ALP has promised a significant increase to CSHA funds, as well as a new fund for affordable housing schemes. However, the CSHA increase is not sufficient to overcome the crisis in which the current government's policies have left public housing, and it is well below the amount sought by National Shelter of an increase to funding of $2b per year. The ALP has promised to reopen negotiations over the current CSHA, and it is to be hoped that this will result in changes and improvements, particularly in relation to the present government's threat to withhold five percent of funding against its demand for reduction of workplace disincentives and involvement of private finance.

The ALP has made no comment on the proposal for payment of the costs of public housing as a community service obligation. The ALP supports the creation of a National Housing Minister and Department, with a deadline for the production of a National Affordable Housing Strategy. The Labor Party has not indicated in any detail what its policy is in relation to Commonwealth Rental Assistance, except to say that it will ‘look into' it after the election. In the realm of tax, it has disappointingly said it has no intention of bringing in a low income housing tax credit. It does not refer to negative gearing or capital gains. If these are not addressed, house price inflation is likely to continue. At the point of going to press, we still do not know what Labour plans to do in regard to home ownership.

Overall, Labour presents a solid strategic framework for the development of low-income housing policy, but much will depend on negotiations if it comes to office. It would be improved by providing clearer funding guarantees for a better, more viable social housing system. Labour's announcements on Indigenous housing ($75m new spending including $20m for improving home ownership outcomes) are welcome but fall short of the level of need in Indigenous housing.

THE COALITION:

Effectively the Coalition is standing on its record, but under the Coalition, housing affordability has declined markedly, as has funding for the CSHA. The Coalition avoids directly responding to National Shelter's recommendations in many cases. They cite policy responses which either endorse a do-nothing approach (i.e. rejection of the Productivity Commission's findings, including its call for an inquiry into housing-related poverty) or ignore the issues altogether (for example, keeping interest rates down will not necessarily make housing more affordable if housing prices are going up). The Coalition cite current programs for which they have stewardship (CSHA, Rent Assistance), together with the increase in Rent Assistance spending currently standing at $1.9 billion a year: However, after the initial large-scale increase in Rent Assistance early in their period in office, it has not, in fact, kept pace with demand, and continues to leave a significant percentage of people in housing stress in high-demand areas. Most of the Coalition's responses do not present a policy for the future, but simply recite current spending, e.g., on the CSHA and Rental Assistance. The Coalition does not endorse NS's tax recommendations.

THE DEMOCRATS:

The Democrats directly answered the questions and responded with their own suggestions and views.

Whilst they supported most of National Shelter's recommendations, they also offered qualification on those recommendations that they had different ideas about, for example, the broadening of eligibility

for social housing and changes to Rent Assistance (suggesting raising the upper cap and payment as a better use of funds). Where they differed from

National Shelter's position they explained why. The Democrats clearly responded to the specific recommendations and have their own housing

agenda which is close to that of National Shelter.

They indicate support for the idea of stakeholder consultation, a National Housing Minister and Department. They support our suggestions on changes to tax arrangements. They are committed to triple-bottom-line sustainability. They did not however commit to the figure NS recommends for future CSHA funding.

THE GREENS:

The Greens position is close to that of National Shelter and in some cases they recommend more funding than National Shelter has asked for - for example, seeking about $3b a year for the CSHA. The Greens support the calls for a Housing Minister, Department and stakeholder-influenced National Housing Strategy. They also recommend a National Indigenous Housing

Strategy. They directly responded to all of National Shelter's recommendations. The only response short on detail was the question relating to minimum standards. The Greens state they will use public funds to fund housing programs, rather than public private partnerships, which the ALP appears to favour in relation to affordable housing; and they will make

significant changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax to fund this. They also bring in the need for ecologically sensitive are a little vague in some areas of detail, the Greens support all of National

Shelter's recommendations, and most significantly, the tax issues (negative gearing and capital gains) are dealt with definitively.

Source: Reprinted from www.shelter.org.au.  Thanks to the Darling Downs Community Housing Newsletter for bringing this to our attention.