Success or failure : the NRAS

Many Australian families are unable to access homeownership. This is because house prices are very high to the severely or seriously unaffordable level. Therefore, many low income families will need to rely on affordable rental housing supply. The Australian governments introduced National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) in July 2008. The scheme aims to increase the supply of affordable rental housing by 50,000 dwellings across Australia by June 2014. It provides financial incentive for investors to purchase new affordable housing that must be rented at a minimum of 20% below the market rent. The scheme has been in place for four years to June 2012. There are debates on the success or failure of the scheme. One argues that the scheme is more successful in Queensland but it failed to meet its aims in NSW. This paper examines NRAS incentive designed to encourage affordable housing supply in Australia and demonstrates reasons for developing properties that are crowded in areas where the land prices are relatively lower in the NSW using a discounted cash flow analysis in a hypothetical case study. The findings suggest that the high land values and the increasing cost of development were the main constraints of implementing the scheme in the NSW and government should not provide a flat rate subsidy which is inadequate to ensure that affordable housing projects in high cost areas.

Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership

This paper empirically examines the effect of current tax policy on home ownership, specifically looking at how developer contributions impact house prices. Developer contributions are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new urban infrastructure. This research applies a hedonic house price model to 4,699 new and 25,053 existing house sales in Brisbane from 2005 to 2011. The findings of is research are consistent with international studies that support the proposition that developer contributions are over passed. This study has provided evidence that suggest developer contributions are over passed to both new and existing homes in the order of around 400%. These findings suggest that developer contributions are thus a significant contributor to increasing house prices, reduced housing supply and are thus an inefficient and inequitable tax. By testing this effect on both new and existing homes, this research provides evidence in support of the proposition that not only are developer contributions over passed to new home buyers but also to buyers of existing homes. Thus the price inflationary effect of these developer contributions are being felt by all home buyers across the community, resulting in increased mortgage repayments of close to $1,000 per month in Australia. This is the first study to empirically examine the impact of developer contributions on house prices in Australia. These results are important as they inform governments on the outcomes of current tax policy on home ownership, providing the first evidence of its kind in Australia. This is an important contribution to the tax reform agenda in Australia.

Can Risk Management boost the supply of Affordable Housing Development and Management?

A shortage of affordable housing is a major problem in Australia today. This is mainly due to the limited supply of affordable housing that is provided by the non-government housing sector. Some private housing developers see the provision of affordable housing for lower income people as a high risk investment which offers a lower return than broader market-based housing. The scarcity of suitable land, a limited government ‘subsidy’, and increasing housing costs have not provided sufficient development incentives to encourage their investment despite the existing high demand for affordable housing. This study analyses the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit housing providers in South East Queensland, and draws conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences. In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment/response in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. These developers use an informal risk management process as part of their normal business process in accordance with industry standards. A simple qualitative matrix has been used to analyse probability and impacts using a qualitative scale - low, medium and high. For housing providers who have considered investing in affordable housing but have not yet implemented any such projects, affordable housing development is seen as an opportunity that needs to be approached with caution. The risks associated with such projects and the levels of acceptance of these are not consistently identified by current housing providers. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. This study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.

Can risk management boost the supply of affordable housing development and management?

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the risk management process conducted by some private and not-for-profit affordable housing providers in South East Queensland, and draw conclusions about the relationship between risk assessments/responses and past experiences.----- Design/methodology/approach: In-depth interviews of selected non-government housing providers have been conducted to facilitate an understanding of their approach to risk assessment in developing and in managing affordable housing projects. Qualitative data are analysed using thematic analysis to find emerging themes suggested by interview participants.----- Findings: The paper finds that informal risk management process is used as part of normal business process in accordance with industry standards. Many interviewees agree that the recognition of financial risk and the fear of community rejection of such housing projects have restrained them from committing to such investment projects. The levels of acceptance of risk are not always consistent across housing providers which create opportunities to conduct multi-stakeholder partnership to reduce overall risk.----- Research limitations/implications: The paper has implications for developers or investors who seek to include affordable housing as part of their portfolio. However, data collected in the study are a cross-section of interviews that will not include the impact on recent tax incentives offers by the Australian Commonwealth Government.----- Practical implications: The study suggests that implementing improvements to the risk mitigation and management framework may assist in promoting the supply of affordable housing by non-government providers.----- Originality/value: The focus of the study is the interaction between partnerships and risk management in development and management of affordable rental housing.

Selected elements of housing affordability impacting otherwise potentially sustainable communities

It is widely held that strong relationships exist between housing, economic status, and well being. Therefore, recent events emerging from the United States, culminating in widespread housing stock surpluses in that country and others, threaten to destabilise many aspects related to individuals and community. However, despite global impact, the position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian position provides a strong contrast whereby continued strong housing demand generally remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by strong levels of immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand ensures elements related to housing affordability continue to gain prominence. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability – particularly new housing development – relates to holding costs. These costs are in many ways “hidden” and cannot always be easily identified. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires elucidation. In its simplest form, it commences with a calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. However, there is significantly more complexity for major new developments - particularly greenfield development. Analysis suggests that even small shifts in primary factors impacting holding costs can appreciably affect housing affordability. Those factors of greatest significance not only include interest rates and the rate of inflation, but even less apparent factors such as the regulatory assessment period. These are not just theoretical concepts but real, measurable price drivers. Ultimately, the real impact is felt by the one market segment whom can typically least afford it – new home, first home buyers. They can be easily pushed out of affordability. This paper suggests the stability and sustainability of growing, new communities require this problem to be acknowledged and accurately identified if the well being of such communities is to be achieved.

The conceptualisation, sensitivity and measurement of holding costs and other selected elements impacting housing affordability (Literature review and research methodology for confirmation of PhD candidature)

It is widely held that strong relationships exist between housing, economic status, and well being. This is exemplified by widespread housing stock surpluses in many countries which threaten to destabilise numerous aspects related to individuals and community. However, the position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian position provides a distinct contrast whereby seemingly inexorable housing demand generally remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by high levels of immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand ensures elements related to housing affordability continue to gain prominence. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability – particularly new housing development – relates to holding costs. These costs are in many ways “hidden” and cannot always be easily identified. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires elucidation. In its simplest form, it commences with a calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. However, there is significantly more complexity for major new developments - particularly greenfield property development. Preliminary analysis conducted by the author suggests that even small shifts in primary factors impacting holding costs can appreciably affect housing affordability – and notably, to a greater extent than commonly held. Even so, their importance and perceived high level impact can be gauged from the unprecedented level of attention policy makers have given them over recent years. This may be evidenced by the embedding of specific strategies to address burgeoning holding costs (and particularly those cost savings associated with streamlining regulatory assessment) within statutory instruments such as the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy, and the South East Queensland Regional Plan. However, several key issues require investigation. Firstly, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely. In fact, it is not only variable, but in some instances completely ignored. Secondly, some ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements of holding costs, thereby affecting the assessment of their relative contribution. Perhaps this may in part be explained by their nature: such costs are not always immediately apparent. Some forms of holding costs are not as visible as the more tangible cost items associated with greenfield development such as regulatory fees, government taxes, acquisition costs, selling fees, commissions and others. Holding costs are also more difficult to evaluate since for the most part they must be ultimately assessed over time in an ever-changing environment, based on their strong relationship with opportunity cost which is in turn dependant, inter alia, upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates. By extending research in the general area of housing affordability, this thesis seeks to provide a more detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs, and in so doing determine the size of their impact specifically on the end user. This will involve the development of soundly based economic and econometric models which seek to clarify the componentry impacts of holding costs. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications in relation to the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that promote, retain, or otherwise maximise, the opportunities for affordable housing.

Constraints to cost effective land supply

The ready availability of suitably zoned and serviced land is one of the key factors in the timely and cost effective provision of new land for development. Unfortunately, in many high population growth areas, land that may be available does not have ready access to infrastructure, or the appropriate designation/s (zoning) in place. The corresponding lag in supply frequently bears the blame for the resultant disequilibrium in the market and affordability pressures on the end product. Government has the capacity to respond to the issue of land supply in a number of ways. Proactive measures define longer term goals and set the ground rules moving forwards. Reactive policy decisions are made in an often hostile environment where stakeholder interests conflict. With a trend to increased regulation, government risks further constraining the viability of land development in high growth areas, without full consideration of all the supply side variables. This preliminary paper will identify a number of the variables which may be constraining the supply of land for residential development in South East Queensland given the current regulatory environment. It will examine the interrelationship between these supply side constraints, a full understanding of which is required by government in order for its policies to stimulate, rather than restrict the supply of land in this high growth region.

Affordable housing solutions : affordable housing providers’ perspective

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has experienced a severe decline since 2002. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite strong demand for affordable housing, limited supply has been generated by non-government housing providers. This paper identifies and discusses some current affordable housing solutions which have been developed by non-government housing providers to ameliorate the problem. This study utilises case studies generated from nineteen housing providers during in-depth interviews in South East Queensland in 2007-2008. The case studies are classified into four categories which relate to the nature of their product: affordable rental housing, mixed housing, affordable housing for people with special needs and low cost home ownership. Each category is discussed on the basis of the characteristics typical of that organisation of housing provider, their partnership arrangements and main target market. In addition, the special design and facilities required for people with special needs which include high care accommodation and aged care are highlighted. Finally, this study recommends offering a continuum of solutions to affordable housing for low income people by means of a rent-to-buy scheme.

Affordable housing solutions : affordable housing providers’ perspective

Accessibility to housing for low to moderate income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline since 2002. On the supply side, the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing. Despite strong demand for affordable housing, limited supply has been generated by nongovernment housing providers. This paper identifies and discusses some current affordable housing solutions to ameliorate the problem which have been developed by non-government housing providers. This study utilises case studies generated from nineteen housing providers during indepth interviews in South East Queensland in 2007-2008. The case studies are classified into four categories which relate to the nature of their product: affordable rental housing, mixed housing, affordable housing for people with special needs and low cost home ownership. Each category is discussed on the basis of the characteristics typical of that organisation of housing provider, their partnership arrangements and main target market. In addition, the special design and facilities required for people with special needs which include high care accommodation and aged care are highlighted. Finally, this study recommends offering a continuum of solutions to affordable housing for low income people by means of a rent-to-buy scheme.

Included by design : a case for regulation for accessible housing in Australia

Accessible housing is a scarce yet much needed commodity in Australia. A national agreement between industry and advocacy groups to a voluntary approach, called the Livable Design program, aims to provide access features in all new housing by 2020. Through a range of awareness raising initiatives, the program is anticipating increased supply by builders and increased demand by home-buyers. However the people who need accessible housing are the least likely and least able to buy it at the point of new sale and average homebuyers do not consider access features as a priority. This approach has not been successful overseas or in Australia in the past. Regulation with incentives supported by education and awareness has provided the best results, yet, regulation typically comes with controversy and resistance from the housing industry. A study is planned to identify how effective the Livable Design program is likely to be, what is likely to hinder it and why regulation is likely to be needed.

The impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs : an international comparison

Sourcing funding for the provision of new urban infrastructure has been a policy dilemma for governments around the world for decades. This is particularly relevant in high growth areas where new services are required to support swelling populations. Existing communities resist the introduction of new taxes to fund such infrastructure, hence the introduction of charges to the developer has flourished. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters to some extent in the United Kingdom, and to a greater extent the United States of America. In these countries, infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1940’s and 1970’s respectively. There is an extensive body of theoretical and empirical literature that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) or passing back (to the englobo land seller) of these increased infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing cost and supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the international evidence that suggests infrastructure charges contribute to increased house prices as well as reduced land supply. The paper concludes that whilst the theoretical work is largely consistent, the empirical research to date is inconclusive and further research is required into these impacts in Australia.

An analysis of holding cost impact on housing affordability in relation to midsized Greenfield residential property developments in South East Queensland

The position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian situation counters the experience demonstrated in many other parts of the world in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, with residential housing prices proving particularly resilient. A seemingly inexorable housing demand remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by high levels of population growth fuelled by immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand level ensures problems related to housing affordability continue almost unabated. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability relates to holding costs. Although only one contributor in the housing affordability matrix, the nature and extent of holding cost impact requires elucidation: for example, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely - and in some instances completely ignored. In addition, ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements that comprise holding costs, thereby affecting the assessment of their relative contribution. Such anomalies may be explained by considering that assessment is conducted over time in an ever-changing environment. A strong relationship with opportunity cost - in turn dependant inter alia upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates - adds further complexity. By extending research in the general area of housing affordability, this thesis seeks to provide a detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs specifically in the context of midsized (i.e. between 15-200 lots) greenfield residential property developments in South East Queensland. With the dimensions of holding costs and their influence over housing affordability determined, the null hypothesis H0 that holding costs are not passed on can be addressed. Arriving at these conclusions involves the development of robust economic and econometric models which seek to clarify the componentry impacts of holding cost elements. An explanatory sequential design research methodology has been adopted, whereby the compilation and analysis of quantitative data and the development of an economic model is informed by the subsequent collection and analysis of primarily qualitative data derived from surveying development related organisations. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications in relation to the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that promote, retain, or otherwise maximise, the opportunities for affordable housing.

The implementation of sustainable housing through mutual benefits to key stakeholders

Among the Australian general public, there are increasing concerns about environmental issues. Accordingly, sustainability in the housing industry is also becoming a priority on the development agenda. However, putting the principles of ecological sustainability into practice within social and economic development requires intensive involvement of major stakeholders such as governments, developers, builders, consumers and a range of other professionals. Establishing a sustainable value entails asymmetric life-cycle returns, making it important for major stakeholders to appreciate the benefits of this new agenda not only for the individual businesses but also for other supply chain partners. This context warrants the study to promote collective benefits for key stakeholders by establishing a mutual-benefit framework for sustainable housing implementation. A research was carried out in the hope to establish a mutual-benefit framework by investigating challenges of achieving benefits (CABs) from sustainable housing development in a multi-stakeholder context. In the research work reported in this article, a comparative questionnaire study was first conducted among seven stakeholder groups in the Australian housing industry, to examine the importance and inter-relationships of CABs. In-depth interviews then furthered the survey findings with a focus on stakeholder diversity. The synthesized findings of the survey and interview study lead to the identification of 12 critical mutual-benefit factors and their mutual influence. Based on such a platform, a systematic framework is developed with the aid of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), to identify the patterns of stakeholder benefit materialisation, suggest the priority of critical factors and provide related stakeholder-specific action guide for sustainable housing implementation.

Inclusive housing in Australia – a voluntary response

The lack of inclusive housing in Australia contributes to the marginalization and exclusion of people with disability and older people from family and community life. The Australian government has handed over the responsibility of increasing the supply of inclusive housing to the housing industry through an agreed national access standard and a voluntary strategy. Voluntary strategies have not been successful in other constituencies and little is known about what would work in Australia today. Findings from a research project into the voluntariness of the housing industry indicate that a reliable and consistent supply is unlikely without an equivalent increase in demand. The strategy has, however, an important role to play in the task of changing housing industry practices towards building more inclusive communities.

Getting in the door : the voluntary provision of accessible housing in Australia

This paper outlines the methodology used in a PhD qualitative research study on the agency of the housing industry in Australia in the provision of accessible housing. Previous studies have identified the need for an increased supply of accessible housing to optimise the inclusion and participation of all people, yet the demand for accessible housing by new home buyers is minimal and voluntary strategies to increase supply have typically failed. In 2010, housing industry leaders agreed to adopt a national voluntary access guideline for housing (Livable Housing Design) and a strategy to provide minimum access features in all new housing by 2020. This study explores the “escaped” phenomenon; how individual agents within the housing industry respond to such initiatives. As the paper is written mid-study it uses a preliminary theme in the findings, that is, minimal demand, to illustrate the methodology of the research.