Share |
Aug 15, 2013
joelpringle

Australians for Affordable Housing releases housing priorities for election

Housing costs are rising and the under-investment in affordable housing is impacting on families with young children, according to the election statement released by Australians for Affordable Housing today. The document coincided with the release of electorates ranked by housing stress.

‘The polls are saying that housing is a priority issue for voters, if not the number one issue. That’s no surprise given the recent research that a fulltime wage is often not enough to afford housing.  But the major parties have so far avoided offering solutions to the housing crisis.’

‘The Government has relied on promoting past programs, most of which have finished or are about to close. The Opposition has claimed that housing is a State issue, in spite of around $5 billion in direct expenditure and over $30 billion in tax expenditures on housing investment by the Commonwealth.’

‘The housing crisis is getting worse, rents rose by 8 per cent nationally in just the last two years. Much faster than incomes.’

‘We are calling on both the major parties to give everyone a fair go, and that starts with housing. They need to commit to these measures so that everyone can afford a place to live. That’s one of the minimum expectations that people have of Government.’

‘The measures that we are announcing deal with the tax distortions that affect first home buyers, the lack of affordable rental properties and a lack of transparency for Commonwealth spending.’

The Australians for Affordable Housing election statement was released alongside a ranking of electorates by housing stress.

‘Whilst housing stress is an issue across the country, these figures show which MPs are ignoring the financial distress in their own electorates. If you live in one of the electorates displaying high stress and your current MP is silent on the housing crisis, you’re right to be asking questions about their commitment to your local community.’

The report can be viewed at http://housingstressed.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DOC_130814_-AAH-election-statement.pdf

Australians for Affordable Housing is a coalition of national housing, welfare and community sector organisations to highlight the problem of housing affordability in Australia. For more information visit www.housingstressed.org.au

For enquiries, state breakdowns and interviews contact Joel Pringle, 0427 563 989

Follow AAH on Facebook and Twitter: @housingstressed

Australian electorates ranked by housing stress* 

Electorate

Percentage of households in housing stress

Electorate

Percentage of households in housing stress

146 Watson

27.31

205 Bruce

18.04

323 Moncrieff

26.65

208 Chisholm

17.98

308 Fadden

26.43

307 Dickson

17.84

105 Blaxland

26.21

125 Lyne

17.69

143 Sydney

25.81

603 Denison

17.64

322 Mcpherson

25.49

237 Wills

17.54

116 Fowler

24.93

507 Fremantle

17.49

136 Parramatta

24.54

225 La Trobe

17.47

138 Reid

24.42

132 Newcastle

17.46

231 Melbourne

24.37

328 Ryan

17.36

148 Werriwa

23.83

504 Curtin

17.32

123 Kingsford Smith

23.44

508 Hasluck

17.31

219 Holt

23.40

207 Casey

17.29

109 Chifley

23.31

315 Herbert

17.27

312 Forde

23.23

214 Gellibrand

17.12

129 McMahon

22.78

509 Moore

17.07

139 Richmond

22.72

220 Hotham

17.01

119 Greenway

22.54

319 Lilley

16.97

101 Banks

22.43

213 Flinders

16.97

327 Rankin

22.37

302 Bonner

16.88

147 Wentworth

22.35

117 Gilmore

16.79

217 Gorton

22.35

405 Hindmarsh

16.62

118 Grayndler

22.32

216 Goldstein

16.57

309 Fairfax

22.27

224 Kooyong

16.43

320 Longman

22.16

702 Solomon

16.39

310 Fisher

22.04

137 Paterson

16.38

102 Barton

21.87

228 Maribyrnong

16.31

145 Warringah

21.68

142 Shortland

16.31

103 Bennelong

21.06

210 Corio

16.25

124 Lindsay

21.00

601 Bass

16.19

226 Lalor

20.91

407 Makin

16.09

126 Macarthur

20.90

201 Aston

16.09

127 Mackellar

20.90

108 Charlton

16.05

330 Wright

20.88

314 Groom

16.02

133 North Sydney

20.78

506 Forrest

15.95

113 Dobell

20.43

211 Deakin

15.94

232 Melbourne Ports

20.41

410 Sturt

15.88

326 Petrie

20.32

104 Berowra

15.86

304 Brisbane

20.29

230 Mcmillan

15.86

325 Oxley

20.10

202 Ballarat

15.69

229 Mcewen

20.09

802 Fraser

15.63

206 Calwell

20.04

408 Mayo

15.41

409 Port Adelaide

19.65

114 Eden-Monaro

15.07

222 Isaacs

19.46

604 Franklin

14.90

303 Bowman

19.31

403 Boothby

14.73

324 Moreton

19.28

605 Lyons

14.73

406 Kingston

19.27

121 Hume

14.66

313 Griffith

19.25

131 New England

14.59

110 Cook

19.14

223 Jagajaga

14.55

329 Wide Bay

19.12

209 Corangamite

14.45

411 Wakefield

19.10

122 Hunter

14.36

301 Blair

19.06

221 Indi

14.31

120 Hughes

19.00

204 Bendigo

14.16

111 Cowper

18.99

306 Dawson

14.15

106 Bradfield

18.97

515 Tangney

13.92

128 Macquarie

18.93

602 Braddon

13.80

514 Swan

18.93

107 Calare

13.76

141 Robertson

18.91

234 Murray

13.71

218 Higgins

18.82

233 Menzies

13.64

134 Page

18.82

140 Riverina

13.39

401 Adelaide

18.78

215 Gippsland

13.16

112 Cunningham

18.71

801 Canberra

13.15

503 Cowan

18.66

402 Barker

12.61

502 Canning

18.62

115 Farrer

12.53

318 Leichhardt

18.46

305 Capricornia

12.32

512 Perth

18.44

321 Maranoa

12.15

316 Hinkler

18.37

317 Kennedy

11.95

513 Stirling

18.36

236 Wannon

11.70

235 Scullin

18.36

510 O’Connor

11.67

501 Brand

18.34

227 Mallee

11.43

144 Throsby

18.29

404 Grey

11.23

130 Mitchell

18.15

311 Flynn

10.75

511 Pearce

18.14

135 Parkes

10.74

212 Dunkley

18.12

505 Durack

9.30

203 Batman

18.04

701 Lingiari

8.62

*Housing stress defined as spending 30 per cent or more on housing costs

Source: ABS Census 2011

Note: This table updated 16 August to reflect 2011 Census data

  • Judy Harvey

    I was very pleased to hear Joel Pringle speaking on ABC this morning. As you say housing is the basis for our lives, a roof over our heads. All the problems of budgeting home finances spring from this expense. This should be the governments first consideration.
    I hope you will continue to put your case in the media, and get people to not accept the situation as it is now.
    Judy Harvey.

  • Fair Go

    A great issue to take on and could not come at a more critical period.
    In any capital city ” negative gearers” and non-residents are out buying average income earners just trying to buy a home close to their place of work.

    Local governments and so called Urban planners are continuing to only talk and not act on the so called urbanisation of inner city suburbs meaning there are no incentives for developing modern day apartments as there is too much redtap/zoning restrictions.

    If one can manage to pay $400 p/wk in rent with the option of stretching this to $500 for a modest mortgage you can only expect to afford a property on the outskirts of the city not the CBD!

    We should not need to rely on a property crash to bring the house prices back to affordable levels!

    • Andrew David Charles

      Bringing house prices back to affordable levels will unfortunately be a crash, no matter how it is done. No-one is prepared to do anything about it for that reason. Everyone is in favor of cheaper housing, only as long as it doesn’t mean THEIR home becomes cheaper. People imagine that if their home appreciates in value, they are wealthier, and if it falls in value they are poorer (reinforced by measures of household wealth that value the hoe at market prices, not relative value). Rising home valuations are only a measure of real wealth if they are based on improvements to the home (extensions and upgrades). While valuations rise even as a home ages and deteriorates (let’s be honest here, an aging home needs ever-increasing spending on maintenance and renovation to maintain its real value—new paint, new plumbing, new wiring, new kitchen, new bathroom, and eventually new windows, new floors and new roof) do not make people wealthier, they make people poorer. Who is really better off? The American whose 10-year old 5-bedroom 3-bathroom mansion has fallen in value to $60,000, or the Australian whose 40-year old un-renovated 1 bedroom studio is now valued at $750,000? After all unless you plan on selling up and moving to Greece, you can’t spend it—you just pay more in stamp duty and commissions when you move to an equally inflated new home. The only people who really benefit from rising housing costs are banks (at least until too many people default on their mortgages and the bubble bursts) and realtors. Speaking of whom, if a realtor manages properties for more than one landlord, and they raise rents, isn’t that automatically a conspiracy to raise rices, a case of market manipulation? The landlords don’t have to collude together, they are legally linked by the property manager. This is just one reason why restricting rent increases to “market prices” doesn’t work.

      Opponents of genuine rent controls or rent stabilization claim studies show it results in lower property valuations and reduced personal wealth (based on market valuations of properties) compared to other markets, but then isn’t that the point? Properly structured rent control policies can encourage development and allow good returns for investors, allowing more money to be spent on construction and less on the building site. But when first implemented voters and banks must be prepared for paper losses in asset values.

    Categories

    Stay informed