Stock Transfer, Is it the way forward for Social Housing ?

There is no consultation about whether a lease is to be transferred and often the first a tenant knows is when they receive the news in the mail. For better or worse once the Department has made its decision the tenant must accept the new provider, or transfer to other premises, if one is available, or leave the area.

In Redfern/Waterloo we know that once the Built Environment Plan Stage 2 (BEP2) is released there will be great changes for residents of the low rise buildings who could be moved to Community Housing Providers once the buildings have been redeveloped into the new social mix of public and affordable housing. No one knows at this stage whether tenants will be better off under the new system but some concerns need to be recognised at the start. Although some providers offer tenants the opportunity to be part of Boards or Committees of Management, these committees will be very different to the NABs and tenant groups that we currently understand.

Once on a community provider Committee of management the resident will find that their loyalty will no longer be to the tenant body but to the organisation itself. This will mean tenants will be faced with a conflict of interest over whose interests they really represent. There will be no guarantee that rents will be capped as they are with HSNW as the new housing providers will be under the pressure of market forces and may need to borrow against future rents to meet debts incurred and may have to raise rents accordingly.

Although the new organisations are responsible for “dealing with neighbour disputes” there must be strong concern over how this will be done in a way that will protect tenancies while defusing conflicts which may arise (often from ill health). If the government cannot handle these tenant issues with all its resources how will a community provider cope? Tenants will also lose an important power of redress because they will no longer be under the protection of the Ombudsman.

These are just a few of the issues that arise from this transfer of public owned stock to non government community housing providers. HNSW has made it well known that this will be the future of social housing when ultimately all public housing is transferred into the new system of community housing providers.

RWN team spoke to Housing Advocates on this subject who present the following arguments.

One National Housing expert that RWN spoke to said “It is not enough to expand one sector at the expense of another. When/if in the future politicians cite an increase in the community housing sector as a sign of govt's commitment and the social housing sector’s strength the question from advocates and annalists must always be the same - "how much have total social housing stocks grown since 2005 including public and community housing models?"

On the argument of the suggestion that community housing agencies are better placed to render local, more personal solutions – he said “this is only the case while they remain small. Once they become micro-bureaucracies, they will become just as "bottom line" oriented as any other as and more so than public housing is or will be in the future, because once they start borrowing off their balance sheets they will have creditors to please.”

When asked about the recent impact of stimulus spending, “it's all well and good to cite this bonus along with the state's increased funding, but the amount of homes money from stimulus will build is roughly equivalent to the amount that the NSW govt needs to build annually to nearly meet demand. As a one off splurge it's a pretty cynical gesture. The Rudd govt must be judged on its long term and enduring commitment to the social housing sector. Building 6000 units a year (NSW) will just about return us to the commitment of old....if it were an annual increase of that amount.”

Our local Redfern and Waterloo ‘Housing worker ‘had this to say on the subject.

My experience in UK stock transfers is that it was controversial (to say the least) and no doubt the same will be true here. A number of promises were made in relation to the benefits of stock transfer which failed to be delivered - that not to say that the same will happen in Australia. In some cases, transfers will be the right option for an area and in some cases it will not and should be judged on case by case basis - tenants should be given the right to choose their provider. The heart of stock transfer should be about allowing communities to have more ownership and involvement in the management of their accommodation.

There is no doubt that there is a growing demand for affordable homes, however, due to past under-investment there is a massive repairs backlog and a waiting list for social housing. The criteria of whether stock transfers should happen or not needs to go beyond any financial benefits.  Housing stock needs to be maintained to a sound standard, that is, suitable, secure and affordable. Therefore, the issue of who the landlord is should therefore be of secondary concern. The question of who should own and manage the houses should be judged by the quality of the service that tenants receive and its impact upon the wider community. To achieve this, housing stock transfer has to be complemented with improved delivery of appropriate services and support for tenants.

Source: RedWater News - Newsletter produced by and for Redfern and Waterloo tenants - Contact the Editorial Committee on 02 9698 9569 or email info@the-factory.org.au